Thanks. This is as I suspected. To me, this exactly corresponds to the adoption of cell phones.
If you have the time, I would really love to hear your thoughts on frequency of the various equipment related rescue scenarios.
Thanks!
New grist for the SAR debate from Brown University study
- Thread starter sardog1
- Start date
Help Support vftt.org:
Thanks. This is as I suspected. To me, this exactly corresponds to the adoption of cell phones.
If you have the time, I would really love to hear your thoughts on frequency of the various equipment related rescue scenarios.
Thanks!
hikerbrian
Active member
Hey maddy, speaking ONLY for myself, it's not about being "entitled" to a service - I don't expect SAR to be free. In fact, the service NEVER HAS BEEN free. It seems like you're forgetting that fact. The problem I have currently is with who pays, and how that is assessed. I feel strongly that some kind of cost sharing is far more appropriate than sending Scott Mason's family a $25,000 bill.
To your second point, Yes, asking me to follow an arbitrary set of rules while hiking is, to me, unreasonable. Hiking means different things to different people. When I was little, one of the first tastes of freedom that my parents ever gave me was to allow me to walk or cross country ski out the back door of our house into the woods that surrounded us, and to allow my legs to take me where they would. I learned quickly how to take care of myself, and how to get myself back home for dinner, warm and in one piece. That freedom and the requisite learning are, to me, important to this very day. No one WANTS to be rescued. But personally, I think it should be ok for people to make mistakes once in a while without being saddled with an extended financial burden or, worse, choosing not to call for help when one should. I've said before on this board, I'm happy to chip in a few bucks every year so that even the dude who rolls into the Presi-range in jean shorts and a tee shirt gets out in one piece. Having lived in NH the majority of my years on this earth, in fact I've already chipped in quite a few dollars for the state's coffers. And don't even get me started on the I-95 toll heading to Maine. Finally, let's not forget that F&G is there because we pay them to be, and because that is the career they have chosen. Saying they're "at our beck and woof" strikes me as slightly disingenuous.
I don't have an extra $10k floating around in my bank account. If I get into trouble, I'm likely to call my friends for help first - they accept payment in beer and pizza. Perhaps one should just post on this forum from their cell phone if they need help. I think there are enough decent human beings among the members here that it might a more effective means for assistance without the political strife.
Tim Seaver
Well-known member
Crystal Meth, the 11th Essential
Similar rumblings in CA:
Seems to be a pattern: A high-profile rescue, followed by "taxpayer rage", which is then eagerly jumped on by local politicians eager to capitalize on the opportunity.
And the message from the SAR community, the people with their actual life on the line, is the same, over and over:
"We don't want to see people charged for a rescue because it will inevitably lead to somebody delaying the request to rescue a loved one and that's gonna cost some lives, without a doubt."
Why does the "No more free ride!" set continue to ignore what the SAR people are saying? That's what I really don't get - If you are so concerned about this issue, then LISTEN TO THEM.
Similar rumblings in CA:
Seems to be a pattern: A high-profile rescue, followed by "taxpayer rage", which is then eagerly jumped on by local politicians eager to capitalize on the opportunity.
And the message from the SAR community, the people with their actual life on the line, is the same, over and over:
"We don't want to see people charged for a rescue because it will inevitably lead to somebody delaying the request to rescue a loved one and that's gonna cost some lives, without a doubt."
Why does the "No more free ride!" set continue to ignore what the SAR people are saying? That's what I really don't get - If you are so concerned about this issue, then LISTEN TO THEM.
Red Oak
New member
Maddy,imho it may not be a question of "balking at paying a fee" for some,but more of a question of not having the funds to pay!I feel "entitled"to nothing from nobody in general.In particular if I get lost I expect nada.I would hope someone who knows me would help start trying to locate me alive or not by following my hike info.Also I do not believe "change" means paying for whatever is "expected" by the powers that be.
Moving right along....Not all in this world of ours have fancy smart phones or ten grand to spend at the vets.It my be a very dangerous idea to "suggest" that people not follow the hike safe protocols.For someone from the inner city for example the list could be a life saver....just some thoughts...peace.
Maddy
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2003
- Messages
- 1,801
- Reaction score
- 157
T
This was a thought I had when I was writing my post. Say you make a decision to hike our own hike, in every sense of the word, this might be a great option. It could be the best possible solution for both sides. Perhaps not for everyone but it certainly is something to consider.
Maddy
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2003
- Messages
- 1,801
- Reaction score
- 157
I don't suggest anyone do this but someone mentioned wanting to organize their own rescue and it seemed like a possible solution.
In that situation you would not have to be accountable to anyone.
Frankly I don't think we need to worry much about someone from the inner city not following Hike Safe. Frankly, I don't think most know they exist, and it 's not just "inner city." A possible reason why some manage to get themselves into a bit of trouble.
I agree that not everyone is wealthy. I'm still pinching the pennies to pay Molly's vet bill which is on my credit card. It was that or do the unthinkable. You know which option I decided on. She was after all a one year old. This means I don't go north nearly as often as I would like. It's the price you pay sometimes for "life". Call it a "rescue"!
I think that like it or not we do have to adapt to certain changes if it's what it takes to resolve a serious problem. Change is after all the only constant.
Last edited:
Maddy
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2003
- Messages
- 1,801
- Reaction score
- 157
I had written a reply but it didn't go thru. Will write an abbreviated version.
I know F&G gets reimbursed but if they cannot support the operation, it has to be dealt with. We might not agree with the resolution but it is what it is. I like the "insurance" plan but that might never come to fruition.
F&G gets a salary and it is their chosen profession. Many service folks do care deeply about others and go the extra mile, even placing their own lives on the line. We see this in all our "service" people. We do expect them to respond when we place a call, so in that sense they are at our "beck and woof". I think we would all be taken aback if we beckoned them and we got a message that said..." Out of service, no money."
Last edited:
Maddy
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2003
- Messages
- 1,801
- Reaction score
- 157
I for one am not ignoring anything. I listen to all the arguments, pros and cons, and try to see what might work. Working in human medicine for years there were drastic changes in how we billed patients. Same with my vets. There are no more "free rides". I was shocked when our FD put out their directive and solution to the problem. Some might hesitate to call the ambulance because they do not want to pay for whatever reason. On the other hand they cannot afford to stretch their budget to the point where others will be compromised because they can't sustain the operation. (Fires are covered by our taxes.)
I am concerned or I would not post. Lots of others are to. We are listening. We might not look at things exactly the same way, but when it's all said and done, it really isn't our decision to make. We can express our ideas to the powers that be but they will determine and implement what they believe to be the best course of action.
Whether you are dealing with a hospital, an ambulance, a rescue, we all have the power to make our own decisions. One can always call for help and deal with the finances later. This is why we have spaghetti suppers. (Had to throw that in.) For every problem there is a solution. If anyone wants to lie on a rock, in a sleet storm on MT W, and cry in their cotton shirt that they can't afford a rescue, it's their decision. The FD will not refuse to take you to a hospital. A hospital will not turn you away. Nor will F&G. You can dicker about the bill later. It might not be what we had in mind but life can deal us some cruel blows when we least expect it. Ever onward.
Last edited:
Tropes.
My sense in dealing with the press is that they tend to rely on formulaic cliches. In this case, there are 2 such tropes that are easily combined. That they play so well points out that our discussion here in the protected confines of this forum is happening in a larger context.
The first, as you note, is the trope of the entitlement freeloader trope and its close twin of the "fee for service is fair" trope. I agree with you and Doug and others that this is a lousy trope. Rescue should be free just like public libraries and public schools and nearly all public roads are. Worth noting that rescues are free, with the extraordinary exception of hikers who are found to be clearly negligent.
The other trope I think playing into this is irresponsible extreme sport risk taker. Shows that feature videos of people riding skateboards off the roof of their schools cause amazement that can be turned to anger if/when it is expected that the public pick up the tab.
A day hike into Tucks in the spring or anywhere on the Mt Washington cone in the summer is all that it takes to demonstrate that the trails are, in fact, full of people who are taking foolhardy risks. Generally this is out of ignorance. Often the reality is more like that WBZ radio host who got lost.
Where's the line? I don't know. I agree strongly that rescue should be free.
But I'm personally fine with penalties (not just cost recupment) for negligent behavior. I'm more than a bit surprised that some resist linking the standard 10 essentials to the definition of negligent.
Sardog, would really love it if you could reflect on which of the scenarios were common and which are more rare.
Tom_Murphy
Member
They have listened to them but do not agree with them.
I think the people pushing for reimbursement of the costs have heard the SAR people opinion but they do not agree that people truly in peril will delay calling OR they are ok with someone getting hurt because they delayed calling. There seems to be a lot of public opinion that people shouldn't be doing these activiities in the first place or should be using more common sense when doing them. So it is their own fault if they get hurt. Also there is an unwillingness to bear the costs for what is viewed as someone else's folly.
I do not agree with those opinions but I don't view it has the SAR people not being heard or understood.
Maddy
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2003
- Messages
- 1,801
- Reaction score
- 157
I listened to a gym full of people one Sunday morning a while back when the news was on and they were discussing the latest fiasco on Lafayette. The conversation revolved around money. They expressed very clearly that these hikers should be held liable financially for their mistake, folly, or whatever name we want to give it. I listened to all these comments with great interest. And the clincher is we all live in MA.
How many people have died or been seriously compromised in states where they do have to pay for their rescues? Do we have any studies that tell us what the percentages are? Does anyone have access to that data and if so, can they share it with us? Personally I would like see real numbers, something more that just word of mouth. That is not very scientific.
Also does this mean that F&G does not give two hoots if people die because they will not call if they are billed for a rescue? Do they stand apart from all the other SAR people on this topic? It seems that this is implied when we say that the other SAR folks care so deeply, but F&G is focused on cash flow.
Once again the bottom line...even if you are totally bankrupt, you can always ask for help. It is your decision whether you choose to do that or not. I don't think most decent human beings are OK with someone being "hurt" but we have no control over most decisions that others make. No one is turned away in an emergency room, or if they call for a rescue. If you don't have any money, they cannot get blood out of a stone.
End of break. Have to get back out to the fields.
How many people have died or been seriously compromised in states where they do have to pay for their rescues? Do we have any studies that tell us what the percentages are? Does anyone have access to that data and if so, can they share it with us? Personally I would like see real numbers, something more that just word of mouth. That is not very scientific.
Also does this mean that F&G does not give two hoots if people die because they will not call if they are billed for a rescue? Do they stand apart from all the other SAR people on this topic? It seems that this is implied when we say that the other SAR folks care so deeply, but F&G is focused on cash flow.
Once again the bottom line...even if you are totally bankrupt, you can always ask for help. It is your decision whether you choose to do that or not. I don't think most decent human beings are OK with someone being "hurt" but we have no control over most decisions that others make. No one is turned away in an emergency room, or if they call for a rescue. If you don't have any money, they cannot get blood out of a stone.
End of break. Have to get back out to the fields.
RoySwkr
New member
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2003
- Messages
- 4,467
- Reaction score
- 285
I think that is a definite issue - someone without a cell phone might sit for awhile then realize the pain is abating and they can actually walk out. Think about the poor woman on Jackson who got a rescue she didn't need but had to pay for.
And now everybody doesn't want a carryout but expects a helicopter ride, at the same time the US govt has decided these can't be called training missions but must be billed. Much of the "eagle scout" cost was bringing in a helicopter from out of state which proved to be of no value - his mother insisted on it but of course declined to pay.
If the FS would pick up the responsibility for rescues on the Forest, they already have a fee system to pay for it and that would mesh nicely with a responsibility to maintain trails so people don't lose them. F&G would then have enough funds for the rest of the state.
Maddy
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2003
- Messages
- 1,801
- Reaction score
- 157
Excellent points, Roy. I'm not a pro on this topic but what you say makes a lot of sense.
I'm not the oldest old timer here by a long shot. Started hiking in the Whites in the mid-80s, when neon tights were still cool. Now that artists like Wall of Voodoo are on the oldies stations, maybe I've become something of a Luddite. But up through the early 2000s, it was just inconceivable and practically impossible for a hiker to call out of the wilds for aid.
The prospect of getting injured and incapacitated on the trail generally meant that you hiked with a party of 3 (one to stay with the injured and one to go get help) and that you carried enough stuff with you to keep the injured alive until rescue could be retrieved. Barring this, you relied on loved ones to call the authorities only after you failed to show up where and when you planned.
Doug was certainly right in saying that fines or recouped costs may put hikers at risk if it discourages them to call for help when they need it. But not compared to 80s and 90s. Calling for help just wasn't a realistic option (sat phone and ham radio operators aside).
I really can't figure out the right answer to all this. I carry a cell phone and as the kids want to do more trips, am giving serious thought to a GPS enabled PEB. But something in my Luddite knee jerk recoils at the thought of solo hikers taking big risks without adequate gear on the assumption of a call out for rescue. That's not what Freedom of the Hills means to me. That's not what Harvey Manning advocated. Freedom of the Hills meant self reliance (as much as possible), responsibility and proper equipment.
Tim Seaver
Well-known member
Real Numbers - We Gots Em'
"...While hiking out with the stranded party, RMRG learned that the stuck climbers were college students who feared that they could not afford to pay for the costs of the rescue. The stuck climbers had assumed that rescuers would charge for services. The climbers said "we didn't know that the rescuers were volunteers and that they don't charge to rescue people."
It is likely that if the climbers had not delayed a call for help, the technical access to the stuck climbers would have been achieved in dry conditions which would have been a safer climb for rescuers and become a faster rescue. Temperatures that night fell to near freezing, luckily the underdressed climbers were still able to function and assist in their own rescue."
http://www.rockymountainrescue.org/3rd-Flatiron-1-16-13.php
Then there is a whole page full of examples here:
http://www.coloradosarboard.org/csrb-documents/Refusing SAR Help.pdf
When NH's SAR bills approach even a fraction of what the state spends on promoting tourism, I'll be concerned about these awful expenditures. Until then...
"...While hiking out with the stranded party, RMRG learned that the stuck climbers were college students who feared that they could not afford to pay for the costs of the rescue. The stuck climbers had assumed that rescuers would charge for services. The climbers said "we didn't know that the rescuers were volunteers and that they don't charge to rescue people."
It is likely that if the climbers had not delayed a call for help, the technical access to the stuck climbers would have been achieved in dry conditions which would have been a safer climb for rescuers and become a faster rescue. Temperatures that night fell to near freezing, luckily the underdressed climbers were still able to function and assist in their own rescue."
http://www.rockymountainrescue.org/3rd-Flatiron-1-16-13.php
Then there is a whole page full of examples here:
http://www.coloradosarboard.org/csrb-documents/Refusing SAR Help.pdf
When NH's SAR bills approach even a fraction of what the state spends on promoting tourism, I'll be concerned about these awful expenditures. Until then...
sardog1
New member
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2003
- Messages
- 2,579
- Reaction score
- 231
It would be a very bad idea for any group that wanted to be called again by the Department. Fish and Game has the statutory authority for all inland SAR missions in NH.
Sometimes families will organize searches after the official one is suspended. There are groups that will respond in such cases, but none that I know of that are regularly participating in official missions.
EDIT: An example from my own experience is instructive. I once received a phone call in Minnesota from the relative of a missing girl who wanted our Minnesota search dog unit to help. I explained that she needed to call the county sheriff, who had the statutory authority for SAR. When the sheriff called thirty minutes later, I was packed and ready to get on the plane for the two hour trip to the scene.
Last edited:
RoySwkr
New member
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2003
- Messages
- 4,467
- Reaction score
- 285
>> Are SAR teams allowed to operated without F&G getting involved?
> It would be a very bad idea for any group that wanted to be called again by the Department. Fish and Game has the statutory authority for all inland SAR missions in NH.
I have been a volunteer on 2 rescues in NH. On the first, the victim's friends called Fryeburg Rescue which handles Chatham NH and they evacuated the victim - the local CO showed up to watch but didn't interfere with an incident which was under control. In the second, volunteers hand-carried an injured person out Zealand Rd until Twin Mtn rescue showed up with a snowmobile and toboggan - F&G not involved. I think the answer is that F&G will accept appropriate help.
> It would be a very bad idea for any group that wanted to be called again by the Department. Fish and Game has the statutory authority for all inland SAR missions in NH.
I have been a volunteer on 2 rescues in NH. On the first, the victim's friends called Fryeburg Rescue which handles Chatham NH and they evacuated the victim - the local CO showed up to watch but didn't interfere with an incident which was under control. In the second, volunteers hand-carried an injured person out Zealand Rd until Twin Mtn rescue showed up with a snowmobile and toboggan - F&G not involved. I think the answer is that F&G will accept appropriate help.
sardog1
New member
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2003
- Messages
- 2,579
- Reaction score
- 231
Hmm. I'm mystified how Fish and Game "accepts" "appropriate help" without being involved. And I doubt that CO dropped by out of mere neighborliness. I'd be real surprised if there hadn't been some behind the scenes communication in each instance. I know there has been an occasionally twitchy history in certain parts of the state that will go unnamed here.
Similar threads
