Expending large resources to rescue people from optional recreation

[Anonymous]

Drives me insane and I wish it would be banned. This current post is triggered by all the avalanche rescues, but also applies to people who hike the Grand Canyon in July, or decide to “sail around the world” or climb Everest or whatever. These are expensive, ego/hobby driven, optional recreational activities. We should not spend any time or money or risk any lives rescuing these people.

Does anyone agree with me?

[Anonymous]

I agree, maybe not avalanche.

[Anonymous]

I agree.

I think someone should be in charge of cutting off access to slopes and err on the side of supreme caution when it comes to eliminating avalanche risks.

Ditto for mountain climbing.

[Anonymous]

They're also very expensive hobbies. Such hobbyists should be billed for the cost of their rescue operation. I think sometimes they are?

[Anonymous]

With this reasoning, we shouldn’t send in the EMTs when the driver is speeding.

[Anonymous]

Where we live there is a lot of recreational boating and I have wondered about that as well -- huge search and rescues, etc. Often because someone ignored the warnings and went out when they shouldn't have.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They're also very expensive hobbies. Such hobbyists should be billed for the cost of their rescue operation. I think sometimes they are?

I know a guy who had to be helicoptered out of the Grand Canyon, and he got a monster bill for it. So I think that in many cases people internalize the costs of their own rescues.

[Anonymous]

My BF does search & rescue (including in a very dangerous mountain range where many people have died), he'd disagree.

First, you'd have to set criteria for who gets rescued and who doesn't, and that's extremely difficult to do.

Let's say a parent takes their child hiking in the dangerous mountains. Most people would agree the child should not be left to die because of the parent.

You would have to set an absurd amount of criteria for deciding who gets rescued and who doesn't. What's the cut-off temperature for hiking the Grand Canyon? The altitude for Mount Everest? How do you verify that person exceeded it? What of the weather forecast called for a mild, sunny day, but the temperature randomly spikes or a storm blows in?

At that point, you'd have SO much criteria and it would be so intensive to go through it, that would take more time and resources than just rescuing the person.

Second, when you base rescue services on vibes-based moral judgement, everyone becomes fair game. At that point, everyone can be denied help because you "should have known better". You were driving 5 miles over the speed limit and crashed? Sorry, no help for you, you should have known better. You eat dessert once a week? Sorry you got heart disease, but no help for you, you should have eaten a 100% clean diet.

Third, most SAR teams are volunteers. They *want* to help. It's fun for them. My BF is paid, but he loves it. And even tho my BF is paid, SAR is a small part of his job, and he is able to use his skills for other productive jobs, like helping law enforcement (which is actually most of what he does, the search & rescue operations are few and far between, even with us living in a dangerous area with mountains and intense heat). So he would be paid whether or not he does SAR.

Fourth, denying help doesn't really deter people. People who do dumb things already underestimate the danger and overestimate their skills. Denying rescue just leads to higher fatality rates, it's not a deterrence.

Fifth, once you have high fatality rates, you now have to go recover the bodies anyway. Money will have to go to that. Yes, they leave bodies on Mount Everest. But if someone dies on a hiking trail, you can't leave the body there. So the money now goes towards recovering bodies. Better for it to be spent rescuing people while alive.

Sixth, not rescuing people usually leads to a bigger mess. Families and friends try to go help. Other hikers try to go help. Now you have a bigger, messier, more dangerous rescue situation, and more bodies to recover, which costs more money.

Better options are to fine people, require them to pay for at least part of their rescue, permit bans, and holding people like influencers accountable when people copy them.

[Anonymous]

Agree with PP, where could the line be drawn? Any activity by choice? Riding a bike, ice skating, basketball. The likelihood of injury is higher is some mild activities than extreme ones. Ability to help should not be withheld because one ornery busybody disagrees with saving others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They're also very expensive hobbies. Such hobbyists should be billed for the cost of their rescue operation. I think sometimes they are?

I grew up in Colorado near a ski resort and it was well known that if you had to be helicoptered out of back country areas, you would be billed for the helicopter. There is even signage to that effect when entering these areas, and the guides who specialize in stuff like Backcountry skiing have extensive waivers that detail what happens if you are injured and have to be rescued.

As the PP mentioned, most SAR teams are volunteers who like the work, so that part isn't expensive. But use of special equipment or involvement of authorities often comes with a price tag.

That's probably harder to do in situations like a rescue at sea though. It works in CO because people usually have warning that they are hiking/skiing/climbing in a specific area at their own risk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My BF does search & rescue (including in a very dangerous mountain range where many people have died), he'd disagree.

First, you'd have to set criteria for who gets rescued and who doesn't, and that's extremely difficult to do.

Let's say a parent takes their child hiking in the dangerous mountains. Most people would agree the child should not be left to die because of the parent.

You would have to set an absurd amount of criteria for deciding who gets rescued and who doesn't. What's the cut-off temperature for hiking the Grand Canyon? The altitude for Mount Everest? How do you verify that person exceeded it? What of the weather forecast called for a mild, sunny day, but the temperature randomly spikes or a storm blows in?

At that point, you'd have SO much criteria and it would be so intensive to go through it, that would take more time and resources than just rescuing the person.

Second, when you base rescue services on vibes-based moral judgement, everyone becomes fair game. At that point, everyone can be denied help because you "should have known better". You were driving 5 miles over the speed limit and crashed? Sorry, no help for you, you should have known better. You eat dessert once a week? Sorry you got heart disease, but no help for you, you should have eaten a 100% clean diet.

Third, most SAR teams are volunteers. They *want* to help. It's fun for them. My BF is paid, but he loves it. And even tho my BF is paid, SAR is a small part of his job, and he is able to use his skills for other productive jobs, like helping law enforcement (which is actually most of what he does, the search & rescue operations are few and far between, even with us living in a dangerous area with mountains and intense heat). So he would be paid whether or not he does SAR.

Fourth, denying help doesn't really deter people. People who do dumb things already underestimate the danger and overestimate their skills. Denying rescue just leads to higher fatality rates, it's not a deterrence.

Fifth, once you have high fatality rates, you now have to go recover the bodies anyway. Money will have to go to that. Yes, they leave bodies on Mount Everest. But if someone dies on a hiking trail, you can't leave the body there. So the money now goes towards recovering bodies. Better for it to be spent rescuing people while alive.

Sixth, not rescuing people usually leads to a bigger mess. Families and friends try to go help. Other hikers try to go help. Now you have a bigger, messier, more dangerous rescue situation, and more bodies to recover, which costs more money.

Better options are to fine people, require them to pay for at least part of their rescue, permit bans, and holding people like influencers accountable when people copy them.

Checking the political affiliation would probably satisfy most DCUM posters.

[Anonymous]

They are billed for the rescue or their insurance/expedition operator pays. No one is risking their lives to pull someone off Everest for free.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They're also very expensive hobbies. Such hobbyists should be billed for the cost of their rescue operation. I think sometimes they are?

I know a guy who had to be helicoptered out of the Grand Canyon, and he got a monster bill for it. So I think that in many cases people internalize the costs of their own rescues.

Correct -- Grand Canyon helicopter rescues aren't paid by the public.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Agree with PP, where could the line be drawn? Any activity by choice? Riding a bike, ice skating, basketball. The likelihood of injury is higher is some mild activities than extreme ones. Ability to help should not be withheld because one ornery busybody disagrees with saving others.

Skiing and snowmobiling "back country" trails seems like a pretty clear line. And yes, the Grand Canyon absolutely COULD put up signs in the summer saying hiking is closed for the day and anyone hiking anyway will NOT be rescued.

It doesn't have to be a slippery slope or moral judgement. State in advance what is NOT happening and why.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree with PP, where could the line be drawn? Any activity by choice? Riding a bike, ice skating, basketball. The likelihood of injury is higher is some mild activities than extreme ones. Ability to help should not be withheld because one ornery busybody disagrees with saving others.

Skiing and snowmobiling "back country" trails seems like a pretty clear line. And yes, the Grand Canyon absolutely COULD put up signs in the summer saying hiking is closed for the day and anyone hiking anyway will NOT be rescued.

It doesn't have to be a slippery slope or moral judgement. State in advance what is NOT happening and why.

Ok, but what about the day that is below the temperature threshold so the park is open but Bob is overweight and doesn't bring any water so Bob faints on the trail? You're acting like you can draw these lines in the sand and you can't.