« Duke's Strange New Family | Main | »
December 14, 2006
The High Cost of Rescues
When people do incredibly foolish things that result in search and rescue being called, should they be financially responsible?
In the summer of 2001 a local woman purchased a new SUV because she is moving to her new mountain home. That winter she found herself cut off from the home by a rising creek. A road sign warns "Do Not Cross When Water Present". But, she drives into the rain swollen creek anyway and becomes trapped as the water rises. Rescue was summoned by a neighbor, cost of the call out was about $6800. Insurance loss for one SUV... $31,000.
2004 a man with little or no climbing experience attempts to scale a cliff in upper park without safety gear. He falls, becomes injured and a helicopter plus 15 fire safety personal are required to get him out. Total cost to get him to a hospital around $9,000.
2005, an otherwise good skier deliberately skis out of bounds at Squaw Valley and becomes lost. A special rescue team finds him around 3 a.m. He has skied and walked almost 3.5 miles from where the out of bounds was clearly marked because he said he "liked the snow better over there". This rescue involved 25 professionals, 75 volunteers, tracking dogs, snow cats and more. The cost of this rescue was over $22,000!
What Price Glory? We have 3 mountain climbers on top of Mt. Hood in the middle of winter, not the best time for a climb is it? Days of rescue have stretched the limits of man and machine and the cost continue to rise exponentially and threatens to go well over 6 digits . I'm sure we all hope this will end well, but at the moment the prospects are not good. They are up around 10,000 feet and winds are gusting over 100 mph. See story.
There are literally hundreds of such highly preventable events that occur every year and the costs are becoming so large that sooner or later we are going to have to acknowledge them, because they are NOT done for free.
So my question now is, should we pass a financial responsibility law to hold people at least somewhat accountable when they do extremely unsafe stunts that turn into a costly and dangerous rescues? We're not talking about a hiker who twists his ankle and needs help, this is just life. We are talking about those times when somebody goes above and beyond and gets themselves in a real expensive fix that we wind up paying for!
If we had such a law, I admit it might not recover much compared to what was spent, but it sends the right message and it could give some people pause, because there are those of us who are less likely to risk our money than our safety, as strange as that sounds. And this could save some lives, not to mention contributing to the rescue budgets and that could be used to save lives too! We already do this when someone lets a camp fire get out of control and burns down neighboring houses. I don't see a big leap here, do you? It's all acountability for our own actions.
I have no problem with people taking big risks. I just have a problem when I am asked to pay for it when things go wrong. I say do whatever you want, but at your own financial peril.
Posted by Post Scripts at December 14, 2006 08:51 AM
Comments
So my question now is, should we pass a financial responsibility law to hold people at least somewhat accountable when they do extremely unsafe stunts that turn into a costly and dangerous rescues?,
I agree with you that people who purposely engage in activities that could result in the need for extreme or complicated rescue should be accountable. It seems to me that we could require a bonded license for instance. I don't know if that's even possible as an option but it might work better than trying to get the money from them after the fact.
Just a thought.
Posted by: Tina at December 14, 2006 07:46 PM
If you add some financial responsibility to their actions I do think you would call attention to what they are doing and alert them, this is no game. I agree it could save some lives. Good idea.
Posted by: OHalimi at December 15, 2006 08:59 AM
Yes, rescues like this should be unnecessary in December. I've been watching the major news networks' coverage of this attempted rescue & none of the comments or questions involve this issue. The networks probably believe it would be insensitive right now. But the rescuers are placing themselves & their families' in jeopardy, too. It's unfair for people who engage in risky behaviors to expect a free pass when their plans don't go as they rosily envisioned. I've been thinking, "WHAT could they have been thinking??? Forecasts for mountaintop areas are always changing, and in December, for the worse!"
I don't mean to be insensitive to families in grief, and it does sound as if the men had reason to believe in their abilities. But if I'd been married to one of them, I'd have been a shrew about this risky plan.
Posted by: Karma at December 18, 2006 12:39 PM