Talk about whether search-and-rescue subjects should be bill by their rescuers is getting a lot of attention lately. On Friday, ABC TV's 20/20 program will raise that question.
The "bill" or "don't bill" question has been circulating on the Traveler for some time, with mixed opinions. If you watch 20/20's teaser of Friday night's show, you might get an inkling of their take on the matter.
Now, late last month Time magazine explored the issue in a lengthy story, and wrapped it up with a comment that "if people want to violate safety regulations blatantly, those are the people that we feel should be taught a lesson."
Friday night's 20/20 program should be entertaining if nothing else. One of the SAR subjects is a drunken climber who gets tangled upside down in his ropes.
Support Essential Coverage of Essential Places
Comments
This question forces Americans to ask themselves--are we a team or aren't we? How far should the team spirit go? Taxpayers spend trillions of dollars for public employees and have to pay legal and settlement costs when they make mistakes. Public buildings and public universities spend billions--just on landscaping, and most people in the general public will never see these places. Should we spend any less on ourselves? If we billed for search-and-rescue, where would the money go--landscaping? Some families are already being hurt by $400+ traffic citations. Do we really want to ruin families with search-and-rescue fees--take everything they have and put them out on the street? If that's the case, should public workers also pay for reckless behavior when on the job?
YES, I believe those that are rescued following deliberate acts of disobeying warning signs or verbal cautions should be held liable for all costs associated with their rescue, as well as being given fines and restrictions on future access to those and similar sites. If these costs cause a financial burden, perhaps they won't do it again? Why (and when?) did we stop holding persons responsible for their own actions? Why also do these people not think of the consequences of their actions on other people? Is this a symptom of a lack of respect for others, as well as for themselves?
It might be difficult, however, to distinguish between those that were simply unfortunate and caught in dangerous conditions accidentally and those that did things deliberately, so we will have to cater (once again!) to the rule-breaking minority and make costs apply to all. At least in this way, those of the country that don't indulge at all in outdoor activities are not having to pay for those that do through taxes...a small ray of sunshine, perhaps.
I have been an avid hiker for over 15 years and know there are dangerous places out there. I take caution and am fully aware and willing to take responsibility for my own actions. I have health insurance, which applies if I get hurt and I have been hurt while on my "adventures", even while taking precautions. I have a friend that once required rescue due to having had an accident resulting in a broken bone and the inability to walk. Accidents do happen. Should I ever get into a situation that requires formal rescue, I want that to be an option for me and I will gladly pay if I need to. Perhaps there could/should be a general cost for insurance required at places known to have a higher degree of danger than others, with the addition of fines for cases where it can be determined that those rescued have blatantly ignored the rules?
Double jeopardy in legal terms is the liability to be prosecuted twice for the same crime. We the taxpayers pay for the search and rescue equipment and employees and now you want us to pay again? Ridiculous! And who makes the determination that a person was careless?
Anyone in government or SAR who feel over utilized or underpaid should find another line of work instead of consistently going into the taxpayers pocket.