Who Should Pay for Search and Rescue in the BC?

[chadmckenzie26]

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.