# Who Should Pay for Search and Rescue in the BC?



## chadmckenzie26 (Jun 23, 2005)

This was a letter to the editor Jan 9th in the Rocky


Irresponsibility shouldn't be rewarded 

In an age in which many hospitals and public health establishments are being burdened by the people who cannot afford to pay for services provided, I can't believe that your editorial of Jan. 3 ("Don't bill those who need rescue"), would advocate not billing those who need rescue. 

There are people who need to be rescued from a situation they did not knowingly create, such as becoming disoriented in backcountry skiing, boarding or hiking. Those people may deserve a pass. But those people who knowingly create a situation unsafe for themselves and others, endangering the lives of people who have to search for and rescue them, deserve to be charged every penny the operation costs. 

Being young and unable to afford it is an out you will allow? Your advocating abandonment of personal responsibility is so irresponsible in the face of the unprecedented resources being used by those who don't have to be responsible, whether skiers or illegal immigrants. 

Most people are deterred by the prospect of facing a huge bill as the consequence of their actions. Those who are not certainly don't deserve to have it be forgiven merely because there is a fund to assist people who are rescued. That fund should be reserved for people who don't knowingly endanger their lives and the rescuers. It is high time to get back to expecting people to be accountable for their actions. If we don't, we will face the cost to society of seeing some of our emergency facilities close, as has happened in the states bordering Mexico.


Don't bill those who need rescue
Boost fines for boundary violators
STORY TOOLS
Email this story | Print January 3, 2006
The 1979 Ski Safety Act established a fine of up to $300 for boundary violators, which was serious money then. But it's not now and skiers who get lost beyond the boundaries of a resort often cost the local sheriff a lot of money to rescue. Maybe the threat of a serious fine might discourage those inclined to stray. 
Rep. Gary Lindstrom, the Breckenridge Democrat now running for governor, has said he'll sponsor a bill to increase the fine to $500 or even higher. It's a good idea and we hope his colleagues sign on. 

The wrong approach would be to bill those rescued for the often substantial cost of the search. For instance, Summit County Sheriff John Minor said the other day that he might send bills to two out-of-bounds boarders that his office had to rescue in separate overnight efforts recently. 

The practical problem with this approach is that young violators are unlikely to have the resources to cover rescue efforts that often call upon dozens of searchers and a helicopter or two. But there's a more serious objection, too: Rescuing lost citizens who might otherwise perish is one of government's basic responsibilities involving public safety. Start charging for it, and you might as well impose a surcharge on anyone dialing 911. 

There's no law prohibiting counties from charging for rescues; it's just a bad idea. 

Besides, Colorado already has in place a pretty good system to help sheriffs and volunteer organizations pay for the cost of rescuing lost hunters, fisherman, snowmobilers, hikers and the like. It's the Search and Rescue Fund administered by the Department of Local Affairs. 

The fund takes in about $400,000 a year from the 25-cent premium that hunters and fishermen pay for their annual licenses, plus the $3 fee that hikers are encouraged to spend on an annual search-and-rescue card. That card is available at sporting goods stores and through various outdoor groups. 

From the revenue, the fund pays out $100,000 or more each year to help counties with the costs of specific rescue missions. 

What's left over is used for pay for rescue training and equipment. 

Most of the money comes from fishermen, followed by hunters. But hikers are contributing a larger percentage each year, and that's a good sign. True, those who haven't bought the card get rescued too, but believe it or not, there's a growing sense of responsibility in Colorado's recreation community. More people recognize that rescue efforts might not burden local government nearly so much if the costs were spread widely among outdoor enthusiasts.


----------



## WhiteLightning (Apr 21, 2004)

Everyone should get a fishing or hunting license or a hiker card that is going to ever travel in the BC. 

If we started charging those rescued based on much stupidity was involved, it could cause all kinds of problems. I'm not sure what the answer is, but how can you judge if one person was doing something more stupid than another? For some people, snowshoeing alone is risky, for others it is the only way to go. And don't forget, people in the city might think that hiking, kayaking, or backcountry skiing is a stupid risk in the first place. At the other end of the spectrum, freeclimbers think of ropes and belays as "cheating". 

The big question is, is SAR a public service like police and fire, or is it a special privlege for rich idiots who can afford to screw up financially? God knows the police don't send you a bill if they respond when someone steals your car. Should they?

There has to be another solution. I think a good one might be that BC travelers are required to have a hiker card. Enforement might be tough, but then again, I've always had fishing licenses, and never been asked to show it.


----------



## skiweasle (Nov 23, 2005)

I think this is a great topic Chad. Im not sure of the answer to this or if there really is one but I think allot of it has to do with education about the environment that your in. The gentlemen that was rescued at Monarch this past couple days Im pretty sure had no intention of going out of bounds but none the less had to be rescued. Do we put him in the same category as the people that knowingly poach a rope and then realize a little to late why the rope was there to begin with? As a patroller I deal with people poaching ropes all the time. I dont yank their ticket but try to educate them on the dangers and why the ropes are there in the first place. On the other hand they are placing not just themselves in danger but the people that have to save their butts. Im not totally sure how Europe deals with this issue but I have heard that they post signs stating you are 100% on your own if you decide to go out of bounds. Im not sure thats the answer but it might get people thinking before they just wander off into the BC with no knowledge of what they are doing.


----------



## earthNRG (Oct 24, 2003)

I think everyone who uses the BC should buy a "Rescue Card." Same thing as a hiker card, just a different name so people realize what it's for. If you buy the card and end up needing rescue...no charge. If you need rescue and have an expired card...pay 50% of the rescue charge. Get rescued without a card...pay 100% of rescue charge. Pay stations for the cards can be set-up at every trailhead, Forest Service office, supermarkets, ski resorts, kayak (and other sport) shops, etc.


----------



## jeffro (Oct 13, 2003)

Great idea! Although not really at all. Sounds like most of the funds would be spent setting up the darn pay stations all across the country.

S&R is not something you can ethically to charge for in my mind.


----------



## Andy H. (Oct 13, 2003)

Anyone who ducks a rope or otherwise knowingly enters an area closed for whatever reason should be tagged with 100% Search & Rescue costs. All others should be treated like hunters or hikers that get lost. 

In Europe the ski patrol's meter starts ticking the minute they leave the trail (piste) to go get you, including areas that were BETWEEN marked trails (off-piste). In France they had "Carte Neige" (snow card) that was a ski insurance policy that included all S&R *and* medical expenses including repatriation. My roomate who blew her knee out got a free trip back to New Zealand compliments of the 50 Francs she put down for the policy.

You can also go to an outdoor-oriented retailer and drop $3 for one year or $12 for a 5-year Search and Rescue card. 

More info on Colo. Search and Rescue card:
http://www.dola.state.co.us/LGS/FA/SAR/SARcard.htm

Be careful out there,

--Andy


----------



## earthNRG (Oct 24, 2003)

Yeah Jeff, you're right. My idea would use up all the funds generated. Maybe just have retailers sell the card, and not set up booths at all the trailheads.

Are any of you now, or have you ever been, on a SAR team? I was on the Western State team for a year. It really chides us when stupid people do stupid things. These rescuers risk their lives to save others. For example, on one rescue we nearly lost two of our guys to hypothermea. They both got air-lifted to the Gunnison hospital (thanks to a couple of Blackhawks and crew "loaned" from the National Guard). To make matters worse, one the Blackhawks nearly went down. The guy we were looking for was found drunk in one of the local bars by a Sherriff's Deputy. Apparently he got out of the BC with some party other than his own, and didn't tell anyone.

It's times like that that I feel people should really be charged. But in the end, who can ethically decide who gets charged and who doesn't? SAR is a public service just like the police and fire departments. People shouldn't be charged for needing those services, but the teams do need a subsidy. We all pay taxes to cover the PD and FD. Why not have some means of collecting funds for SAR teams?


----------



## DanOrion (Jun 8, 2004)

What exactly does the SAR card (or a hunting/fishing license) actually cover besides time and materials for the county sheriff during search for your broken/lost/sorry ass?

Don't let this discourage anyone from purchasing a card, even if it's charity, it's one hell of a worthy one.

From the SAR website:


> The CORSAR Card Is Not Insurance
> 
> The card is not insurance and does not reimburse individuals nor does it pay for medical transport. Medical transport includes helicopter flights or ground ambulance. If aircraft are used as a search vehicle, those costs are reimbursed by the fund. If the aircraft becomes a medical transport due to a medical emergency, the medical portion of the transport is not covered.


----------



## Schizzle (Mar 26, 2004)

This is a great topic.

I think all rescues in the backcountry should be charged out to the perpetrators. Anything that encourages people to be accountable for their actions is a good thing.

I DO like the idea of optional accessible insurance because this is a product I would purchase; however, this should be a stand alone cost. I buy a fishing license every year so I can fish but mostly because it supports hatchery and habitat efforts (I suck at fishing anyway). I found out a year ago that this also includes the small fee that goes into the S&R fund mentioned in the first post. This is a great idea, but the delivery method bothers me. I could care less about the small pittance that it amounts to, but I don't like being forced to pay for something that I didn't buy. So many costs have gone up because people are comfortable paying a slight fee to fund something unrelated. It dissolves the voting power of my dollar. How much I am willing to pay to fish is not how much I am willing to pay to get rescued. It's ironic because I would gladly pay 10 times the amount they add as a fee to fishing licenses for a rescue card, $2.50.

I am also taking some classes at CU-Denver right now and my bill for two stupid classes was $2,800. Fees on top of the tuition were another $620... for a bunch of things that I don't need. In addition I pay: a bus fee, a bond fee, a cultural events fee, a renewable energy fee, IT fee, student activity fee, student health center fee, a student information fee, student newpaper fee, a student rec fee, a one-time matriculation fee, instructional program fee, and a student services fee. If someone wants something, they'll pay for it, don't just assume they want it and force them to pay for it. Services and products that people don't need should die from funding starvation.

Think about what you buy and where you buy it. Wal-Mart came up here a few weeks ago. I don't like their company practices so I don't shop there. I bought a Toyota Prius because it's effecient. I don't buy Mitsubishi because they clearcut the rainforest. I keep my thermostat low so that we don't have to drill another hole somewhere. A dollar bill is a ballot that everyone who works for a living can understand.


----------



## KSC (Oct 22, 2003)

> I am also taking some classes at CU-Denver right now and my bill for two stupid classes was $2,800. Fees on top of the tuition were another $620


Schizzle,

So are you then in favor of removing public funding for universities. I, along with many other people in Colorado who don't take classes at CU-Denver or any other public universities, but pay a lot of money to keep your bill down to $2800 for 2 stupid classes. Would you favor a private school cost of $15,000, minus the $620 in student fees?


----------



## Killclimbz (Nov 18, 2004)

DanOrion said:


> What exactly does the SAR card (or a hunting/fishing license) actually cover besides time and materials for the county sheriff during search for your broken/lost/sorry ass?
> 
> Don't let this discourage anyone from purchasing a card, even if it's charity, it's one hell of a worthy one.
> 
> ...


The SAR card makes sure that the Search and Rescue groups that are called out on a rescue are paid for their efforts. The card means that the S&R group will get paid from a state fund. It also means you are not liable for the charges in regards to a Search and Rescue effort. Which can be costly. Last year we had two hikers lost on 14'ers. One had paid for a SAR card, so no charge for the search effort. The other guy got a bill for $5k. 
It isn't insurance, but pays for a part of the S&R effort. Well worth having IMO. If you get flight for life'd, ambulance, whatever, that is up to you to take care of the bills associated with that. Hopefully you have a health insurance that covers it.
The nice about the SAR card is that you don't have to have it on you to be covered. They keep that info in a registry.


----------



## Schizzle (Mar 26, 2004)

KSC, you ask a good question, so here's my reply.

I work full time and pay taxes, too. So, I'm not riding for free either. You're asking a loaded question though. If I say yes, then you think why don't I go to a private school. If I say no, then you think I'm a hypocrite.

I understand your point and to some extent I agree with what you're saying. I did look at the latest figures on the DU website which is a comparable private university and they pay twice what I do, so 5,600, not 15,000, but that really doesn't matter. Furthermore, they have some fees, too, but they don't nickle and dime you like CU, but that doesn't matter either.

Here's my reply thought which is I realize another question: does it bother you that a University system builds its overhead costs way out past what they would be if they would stick to their core mission of education?


----------



## BastrdSonOfElvis (Mar 24, 2005)

Interesting aside about the high cost of education...you pay a pittance, btw, of what someone back east would...but the question is about a public service that saves lives and there is a fundamental difference. If you don't pay for and go to college, you are not going to die. You might be better off, actually, saving your money. If you find yourself it trouble far, far away from civilization, then you very well may die if someone doesn't come and get you. You don't need to be careless, unprepared or stupid to get into trouble in an inherently dangerous environment. So "taking responsibility" and footing the bill -- though that may be the right thing to do -- shouldn't be viewed as a consequence of being a dumbass. Very capable and very prepared people have found themselves in need of rescue. And for many bc users, personally fronting the expense of such a rescue may be a fiscal impossibility.


----------



## Schizzle (Mar 26, 2004)

BSE,

Totally agree with you about competent people requiring rescue.

I don't understand what you're saying though, are you saying that you think *everyone* should have to pay regardless of perceived negligence, or that *no one *should have to pay because it's a public service funded by our tax dollars?


----------



## BastrdSonOfElvis (Mar 24, 2005)

Essentially, it's a question of ethics and a contentious one at that. All the arguments put forth so far have made valid points, especially about other fire/rescue/police services being provided for by the government. What else are our tax dollars for? (bombs) Also, if some rescue-ees are to be charged and others not, who is to decide? A panel of experts?

The idea of purchasing some sort of "card" for a nominal fee with all the money going into the "rescue pot", if you will, is the only viable idea, really...if you have the card and you need a rescue you're off the hook. If not, you're out a few hundred to a few thousand bucks and it was dumb of you not to pick one up for a few dollars. It sounds as if this idea is already in practice, visa vi the CORSAR card, no? This kind of private subsidy would make rescue more affordable for the state...and if I'm not mistaken most SAR guys are volunteers with real jobs, right? My buddy the orthodontist does it because he enjoys it...maybe this isn't the norm but I don't think rescue operations need to be profitable. Dunno.

But I don't see how you can charge people for rescue across the board. You would have all sorts of contentions like "I was uncontious, well, I never really *asked* to be rescued" and "I could've made it out alright on my own" and then you'd need some sort of documents for people to sign while the SAR guy is dangling in the basket under a chopper and rediculous shit like that. Collections agencies, repo men...bad news all around.


----------



## KSC (Oct 22, 2003)

Schizzle,

Didn't intend to ask a loaded question. I thought you might be against public funding of higher education, and I don't think it's necessarily hypocritical to take that stand while still attending a public school.

I liked the connection you made to higher education, because especially in Colorado it's relevant and a good representative of a general category where public institutions provide a service that may not directly benefit every individual, but is crucial to the success and health of our communities. (for instance the opponents to light rail in the metro area argued that lines wouldn't run by everybody's house so it wasn't fair for everyone to pay taxes to fund it)

So in answer to your question about student fees, there may be a couple student fees that are questionable, but in general, I think the fees are ok. For example, even if you don't attend any of the cultural events that the fee pays for, funding for cultural events on campus is important, and you indirectly benefit from it.

As for the topic at hand, I think BSE probably nailed it. Rescuing people is probably something that should be considered a basic service, so I wouldn't mind seeing this be entirely public funded. I honestly think getting stuck out in the wilderness and risking death is enough of a disincentive, and having to pay your own rescue fees isn't going to help much. However, the COSAR card has a reasonable premise and probably isn't going to change anytime soon. It would be nice to increase education though. The program would get better funding and more people going into the backcountry would be protected. Given that the card is only a few bucks a year, I'll bet 99% of the people that go out into the backcountry would buy it if offered, but most people probably aren't aware of it or just forget to buy one.

As for ducking ropes at the resort, I have my doubts that increasing the fine from $300 to $500 is really going to change behavior. "Hey dude, check out that powder stash, let's hit it." - "No way man, I heard they just increased the fine from $300 to $500." I would maybe lean towards opening boundaries and increasing warnings and education ala Canada, etc.


----------



## brendodendo (Jul 18, 2004)

Just to put in my opinion... My snowmobile registration also includes a SAR fee just like Hunting and Fishing Licenses. I also pd $12 for a SAR hiking Cert. I pay medical ins every month and I pay dues to the local Snowmobile club. ( keep us in the BC). I also have friends in the volunteer Pitkin Country Search and Rescue Team. The cost is not to the team or the county, the real cost is put on the employers that allow their hard working employees time off to go rescue someone that needs help. There is also a difference between rescue teams. Some are certified (read trained) and some are not.


----------



## liquidchaos (Jul 11, 2005)

As a memeber of Vail mountain rescue ( and formely Western State), and a ski patroller I have varied views of this subject. As a patroller we sometimes go into backcountry situations as needed. As a resort I believe we can 'send bills' to recover the cost of manpower and equipment used in the search/ recovery of a victim. Although I have only heard of this once, and they didnt pay a dime. As a volunteer rescuer the only time I have heard of people being charged is when there is illegal activity involved. Examples: a young guy was drunk, high, tripping acid and decided to go hiking in the black canyon, obviously he fell, needed a 500' vertical rescue at night. he was spitting on the rangers on the way up and was combative the entire time ( partially due to a head injury) He was charged for the time and equipment that needed to be replaced FOR THE VOLUNTEER TEAMS, not for the park service personell becasue he was in a national park. #2 a hunter and his 12 y.o. son go hunting, the sun with a gun, gets lost, it was a short search ( 5 hours) but the father allowed his son to carry a gun when the law says they must be 14 to do so. Did the teams see a dime of this money? nope. Typically this money goes into the county funds and dispersed from there, never directly to the team. So... my opinion, I don't go looking for people who dont want to be found, I also feel that the majority of the work that we do are products of bad fortune, sometimes with some stupidity involved. If the victim is grossly negligent, or there is illegal activity involved they should be charged. keeping it real while keeping it safe, enjoy the snow!


----------

