02 Sep If You Require an Adventure Rescue, Who Should Pay for It?
Several states require climbers, hikers and other outdoor enthusiasts to pay for search-and-rescue services. Are they sending the message that risk-taking in the wilderness is only for those with big bank accounts? ©John T. Andrews
While hiking solo through New Hampshire’s White Mountains on a rainy day in in 2012, a 59-year-old man slipped while trying to jump onto a rocky ledge. He dislocated his artificial hip. He then did what you’re supposed to do when injured in the wilderness: he called for help. The New Hampshire Fish and Game Department quickly sent 50 people—most of them volunteers—to his aid. Although he endured a nighttime operation in bad weather, he recovered.
Shortly after his ordeal, however, he received a bill from the state for $9,300. New Hampshire said he owed that money to pay for the rescue mission.
New Hampshire is not the only state where climbers, hikers and other outdoor enthusiasts can be charged for search-and-rescue (SAR) services. At least six other states—including Hawaii, Maine and Oregon—have laws that enable officials to recover SAR costs.
But will such laws dissuade people who have mishaps in remote areas from asking for the emergency help they might desperately need?
Footing the bill
The government will foot the bill if you need to be rescued in any U.S. national park. ©John T. Andrews
In much of Europe, the aftermath of an incident such as the one in New Hampshire in 2012 wouldn’t happen. There, you are responsible for yourself. Many European adventurers travel with insurance they’ve purchased specifically to offset costs should they need to be rescued. But in the United States, whether you have to pay depends on where you are when you get into trouble.
In U.S. national parks, for example, the government will foot the bill for your rescue. The National Park Service (NPS) spends $3 to $5 million per year on search-and-rescue missions. Yet unless the person rescued violated a park rule, he or she isn’t responsible for the cost.
There are many who agree that what the National Park Service does is only right and ethical. They believe that public resources are meant to be used to ensure the safety of taxpayers and that the importance of a human life outweighs economic concerns. Ending up in a dangerous situation could happen to any of us. It’s redundant to ask for money from rescued people since taxpayers, some of whom are interested in outdoor adventures, have already paid the NPS and state and local governments in advance.
Further, say those in support of government rescues, without such a safety net, people would be reticent to call for help, even though they might be suffering from serious injuries. Cases in point include a climber who hobbled down a 3,000-foot mountain with a broken ankle and a lost and bewildered runner who hid from rescue crews. And, usually, in circumstances where a rescue is required, time is of the essence. Any delay in asking for assistance could extend the time it takes to complete what earlier would have been a far quicker and easier rescue, put search-and-rescue personnel in grave danger, and end up being the difference between life and death for the injured person.
Carrying the costs
On the other hand, we’ve all heard of stories like this: someone climbs a mountain, say, or rafts a wild river who had no business taking on the challenge because he or she lacked the required skills. Thousands of dollars later, the adventurer is back home, safe and sound, leaving a cash-strapped community or local rescue group to carry the costs. Shouldn’t those who take the risks also pay for them when things go wrong?
Throughout the country, there are places that draw tons of visitors but have very small tax bases. For instance, in Grand County, Utah—home to Arches National Park and Canyonlands National Park—the local SAR team claims to be the busiest in the state with about 100 cases a year at an annual cost of close to $200,000. For a county of approximately 9,500 taxpaying residents, that’s a huge financial burden. On top of that, most of the people who need rescuing are not locals.
Should you have to pay the bill for my rescue? ©John T. Andrews
Entering at your own peril
Today, with better outdoor technology and equipment and with the social media incentive to accomplish ever more daring feats, greater numbers of people are tackling riskier adventures. Without “free” SAR, we may be sending the message that risk-taking in the wilderness is only for those with big bank accounts—rather than promoting the idea that our public lands are places to seek adventure and push oneself to a new personal best. Cost recovery laws, such as the one in New Hampshire, might discourage young, inexperienced or people without a lot of financial resources from venturing out.
There have been some interesting ideas put forth as a solution to recouping SAR costs. One is from Leo McAvoy, professor emeritus of the Department of Recreation, Park and Leisure Studies at the University of Minnesota, who in 1984 proposed “rescue-free wildernesses.” In these designated remote areas, a person would enter at his or her own peril. McAvoy’s contention was that you can’t have a real wilderness experience without complete self-sufficiency, and you can’t have complete self-sufficiency if there is always someone standing by to bail you out if you get into trouble. Only those who understand the deal up front would be allowed into these areas, where they can then have a richer, more fulfilling nature and wildlife adventure.
It certainly would put the “dangerous” and “daring” back into deeds.
Do you think adventurers should pay for their own rescues? Or should we continue to subsidize them? If I put myself in danger, knowingly or through my own negligence, should you have to cover the bill for my rescue?
Here’s to your adventures, in whatever corner of the world you find them,
Candy
Latest posts by Candice Gaukel Andrews (see all)
- 10 Reasons Why a Dose of Fear Is Good for You - December 13, 2017
- Extinction Tourism: Seeing Wild Animals Before They’re Gone - November 8, 2017
- The Travel Cycle’s Four Stages—Plus One - October 18, 2017
No Comments