It really is a tough call on if people should be charged or not. For a long time I thought if someone required rescue that was uninjured, they should pay. It would reimburse rescuers from the cases like the people who climbed little bear and then decided they were too scared to go down, or people who made terrible decisions to go hiking at noon in November in jeans without checking weather, or the guy who did chicago basin and brought no food. But on the flip side, would these people (who already proved their poor judgement) get themselves into real trouble, and now require the same rescue but with broken bones, hypothermia, etc. Making things harder and more expensive for the rescuers. Plus, once the word got out that all you needed was an injury to get out of paying $20,000... I bet suddenly they'd have back pain, or sprained ankles, etc.Herbert wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 7:07 amThat's a valid point. There are pros and cons. Here is an article that does a pretty good job of framing the debate.douglas wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 10:10 pm
As much as you’d like to see them pay, it sets a bad precedent. Maybe if they knew they had a big bill coming they might not have called and tried to get out on their own, ending in disaster. From what I have heard SAR is typically pretty adamant about not sending a bill for that very reason.
http://content.time.com/time/nation/art ... 21,00.html
From personal experience, I once helped an injured party on Snowmass. Took a fall, possibly broken ribs and foot. Someone had a SPOT and offered to send in rescue for him. His first question was, does it cost money? When we told him it might, if a private chopper showed up, he declined rescue and said his friends would get him out on foot.
I seriously HOPE that people who got rescued donate money to the rescuers organizations that covers their own personal rescue costs, but I bet you they find all sorts of reasons not to. I wonder if anyone on here who has been rescued, or anyone who works for SAR, would enlighten us on if that happens.