CO SAR law

[usfgal]

I just read somewhere (Outside Magazine article, I believe, but I am not positive) that Colorado has a law allowing people to be charged for search and rescue fees. Briefly, the article mentioned that SAR volunteers are opposed to the policy, which didn't surprise me. That wasn't the focus of the article, and I was wondering if it was true and, if so, when did the law pass? I am trying to publish a manuscript in a journal on this very topic, and at the time I wrote it, I don't believe Colorado had such a law.

[killingcokes]

I don't know about the law but would assume that it exists otherwise there wouldn't be a SAR insurance aspect to the fishing and hunting licenses. PM Rontele over at TGR he's a lawyer.

[randalmartin]

This has been a well discussed topic on this site before. You can check this thread out here viewtopic.php?f=1&t=21541&hilit=sar+charge

[Jim Davies]

I don't know about the law but would assume that it exists otherwise there wouldn't be a SAR insurance aspect to the fishing and hunting licenses. PM Rontele over at TGR he's a lawyer.

The COSAR cards (and hunting and fishing license rescue fee) aren't insurance, they just allow SAR organizations to get reimbursed for their expenses (not yours). Even the people that sell the cards rarely understand this for some reason.

I expect the balloon-hoax guy to get charged for some "rescue" expenses, but that was a fraud situation. Hmm, wonder if he had a COSAR card?

[tenpins]

1 SECTION 1. 32-1-1002 (1) (e) (I), Colorado Revised Statutes, is
2 amended to read:
3 32-1-1002. Fire protection districts - additional powers and
4 duties. (1) In addition to the powers specified in section 32-1-1001, the
5 board of any fire protection district has the following powers for and on
6 behalf of such district:
7 (e) To fix and from time to time increase or decrease fees and
8 charges as follows, and the board may pledge such revenue for the
9 payment of any indebtedness of the district:
10 (I) For ambulance or emergency medical services AND
11 EXTRICATION, RESCUE, OR SAFETY SERVICES PROVIDED IN FURTHERANCE
12 OF AMBULANCE OR EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES. "EXTRICATION,
13 RESCUE, OR SAFETY SERVICES" INCLUDES BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO ANY:
14 (A) SERVICES PROVIDED PRIOR TO THE ARRIVAL OF AN
15 AMBULANCE;
16 (B) RESCUE OR EXTRICATION OF TRAPPED OR INJURED PARTIES;
17 AND
18 (C) LANE SAFETY OR BLOCKING PROVIDED BY DISTRICT
19 EQUIPMENT.


look up CO House Bill 09-104

[Jim Davies]

The new law allows fire departments to charge fees, but doesn't require them. I suspect most departments won't, but maybe Golden will.

[CO Native]

Tenpins- what you posted refers to fire departments not SAR.

I read the same article the OP mentioned. The article states that SAR may charge up to $300 for rescues (which is news to me), but in all the searcheS I participated in the only time anyone has been assessed a fee is a criminal fee. Colorado SAR teams are more than opposed to charging, we don't do it.

[tenpins]

right, I am/was assuming the article sees the word "rescue" in the bill and makes that jump.

They also said in another article "Rescuers almost always stick to trails. Leave one and your chances
of being found plummet." I mean, seriously?

lots of misinformation out there. I've always been dismayed the national and regions dont put more effort into getting the facts out there. This is a great forum, we have SAR professionals in this community, we could put together an FAQ or something on these topics.

[Bodacious]

Yeah, no word from Atalaya SAR in response to the article. I just skimmed it, but the search was outside Santa Fe, right?
I thought MRA would respond, but the proposition was shut down rather quickly.

[Bodacious]

The $300 charge was news to me, too.

[Spam]

For me the question for this forum is not whether they will charge or not, for me it is whether or not everyone has their COSAR card. I have mine! I think that we need to support training of and do our part because SAR in Colorado will NOT charge for a rescue. I think that I personally (my own feelings) have a responsibility to buy one to support these volunteers. We need to remember that the risk increases in rescues because people will stretch their usual limits in a rescue than if they were pleasure climbing.

A couple weeks ago at the mountaineering museum there was a panal discussion with Dave Hahn, Jake Norton, Peter Whitaker, seth Waterfall, Chad Peele and Dale ???? (from Colorado) about the increased risks people take now with technology. Locator beacons, cell phones etc have given some a false sense of security. They have actually heard people say they would not have gone as deep into the back country or as far out of bounds if they did not have a locator beacon or if 'I get in trouble, I will just call someone'. There is a sense from people who are not experienced that this is a means of being safe.

Support SAR and thanks for all the volunteers for the skills you share. I hope I never meet any SAR volunteers in the mountains (please understand what I mean here). Thanks!

[CO Native]

They also said in another article "Rescuers almost always stick to trails. Leave one and your chances
of being found plummet." I mean, seriously?

We don't just search trails but it is definitely where we start. You always play the odds on a search. Start with the most likely locations, then expand to the less likely locations as the search goes on. It doesn't make sense to go bushwacking in all directions before you've covered the trails. However, once the trails have been covered then off trail searching begins. The odds are not in our favor then though. Without a trail the odds of a searcher following the exact same path a lost person does are minimal unless the searcher has good sign to follow (tracks, waste left behind, impact on plants, campsites, etc). It takes a lot more searchers and a lot more time to search off trail. As the person strays farther from known routes the difficulty in finding them grows exponentially.

[tenpins]

Yeah, no word from Atalaya SAR in response to the article. I just skimmed it, but the search was outside Santa Fe, right?
I thought MRA would respond, but the proposition was shut down rather quickly.

I also saw that response on the lister. I thought it was inappropriate. For a national publication to say that we "rarely stray from trails" is negligent in my opinion. I can speak only for my team, and speculate on everyone else, but we do a lot of off trail, cross country training, and some folks pursue search theory like they are getting ready to defend their doctorate thesis.

[Doug Shaw]

For a national publication to say that we "rarely stray from trails" is negligent in my opinion.

Counterpoint: if their saying so serves to keep people on the established trails it makes SAR's work easier and increases the odds that the subjects will be found/rescued - and more quickly - than if they are off trail or out in BFE. While the accuracy of the statement may certainly be questioned, what of its consequences?

[Bodacious]

Yeah, no word from Atalaya SAR in response to the article. I just skimmed it, but the search was outside Santa Fe, right?
I thought MRA would respond, but the proposition was shut down rather quickly.

I also saw that response on the lister. I thought it was inappropriate. For a national publication to say that we "rarely stray from trails" is negligent in my opinion. I can speak only for my team, and speculate on everyone else, but we do a lot of off trail, cross country training, and some folks pursue search theory like they are getting ready to defend their doctorate thesis.

I thought the reply was inappropriate as well. If only the article stated SAR "initially" sticks to trails...
Doug does have a good point (as freakin' usual) ...but, I do wish the statement had been clarified. I'm gonna re-read the article to see if my feelings have changed...