SAR Fees?

[Aldaron]

The moral to the story, I guess: don't need rescuing in Grand County.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/54909102-78/county-rescue-grand-search.html.csp

 

[IntrepidXJ]

I don't have a problem with them charging for SAR.

 

[gnwatts]

It seems a little hypocritical to market yourself as an outdoor recreation mecca (Moab) collect all of those tourist dollars (taxes) encourage people to go out and explore and take risks, then say you are on your own when you get in trouble. Maybe they should work on their tax code and use some of that $ to subsidize search and rescue.

 

[Nick]

I have mixed feelings on this. If an ambulance ride costs a couple grand, it seems reasonable that a SAR should not be free either. I'd also like to think it might make people more responsible but I highly doubt it. But on the same token, I think you're spot on with you're analysis gnwatts. If an area is going to market themselves so heavily for outdoor recreation like Moab does, they should be heavily subsidizing Search & Rescue, IMHO.

 

[Bill]

I don't have a problem with them charging for SAR.

I think the issue can be pretty opened ended. What about unwanted rescue expenses? Would someone be able to pick and choose from SAR menu of sorts?

 

[John Fowler]

I totally don't understand why anybody would expect to be rescued without paying the cost, regardless of who was at fault. Somebody has to pay, and putting it on the shoulders of local taxpayers or even visitors doesn't sit well with me. Why should anybody else have to pay for your rescue?

 

[Dave]

To me, the most compelling argument against charging for SAR is that it will keep people who are in potentially life-threatening danger from seeking rescue if they need it. However, living along the Wasatch Front I am bombarded by stories of hikers who venture into the mountains completely unprepared, with not even basic supplies, terrain knowledge or sense enough to effect self-rescue. The counter-argument that SAR becomes an expected safety net for the ill-prepared is irksome.

So really, I can see both sides of the coin.

 

[John Fowler]

In Colorado they have (or used to have) hiker's insurance. It was called a hiker's certificate or something like that. You could buy them in most backcountry suppliers' stores. For $5.00 you would get free rescue for a full year. The money went to the local SAR outfits. I don't know if they still do this, but to me it is an appealing solution to the SAR problem. The problem with this is the cost of making it well-known to folks who are going into the backcountry.

 

[IntrepidXJ]

They still have that in Colorado.

 

[John Fowler]

They still have that in Colorado.

And, shame on me, last week when I was in Colorado, it didn't occur to me to renew mine. That's the problem.

 

[IntrepidXJ]

It's actually $3 for 1 year now, or $12 for 5 years. More info:

http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/DOLA-Main/CBON/1251592090523

Anyone with a current hunting/fishing license, or boat, snowmobile, ATV registration is already covered by the fund.

Also, if you have a SPOT you can get the private SAR insurance, too.

 

[gnwatts]

We are talking about Utah I think. The reason that I think local governments should be liable for the cost is that they benefit the most from all of the tourism dollars. If they set aside a certain amount for SAR then it is covered. It doesn't look like they are enforcing the fees for rescue (if you refuse to pay), so it is an unfunded cost the local governments have to pick up. There will always be people who venture out unprepared, some on purpose but others because they don't know any better.

 

[Aldaron]

I totally don't understand why anybody would expect to be rescued without paying the cost, regardless of who was at fault. Somebody has to pay, and putting it on the shoulders of local taxpayers or even visitors doesn't sit well with me. Why should anybody else have to pay for your rescue?

Can't the same argument be made for the fire department that comes and saves your house, or the detective who investigates the burglary from your car, or the policeman who pulls you from a burning car? Why should the other taxpayers foot the bill for those expenses? Why are those expenses "different" than the SAR expenses?

 

[Aldaron]

And I totally do not mean that to be argumentative! I love this forum, and I don't ever want a discussion to turn into a fight! I'm just asking to try to understand both sides of the issue.

 

[Nick]

Excellent point, Aldaron . I hadn't thought of it quite like that...

 

[Dave]

And I totally do not mean that to be argumentative! I love this forum, and I don't ever want a discussion to turn into a fight! I'm just asking to try to understand both sides of the issue.

I don't see it as an argument at all. It's a debate I know SAR workers have themselves. To complicate matters, it's worth pointing out that in rural counties, many of the SAR services are provided by volunteers. They have their own jobs and deserve to be compensated for their time. Urban police and fire agencies are subsidized to have officers and firefighters at the ready 24/7. But volunteers might be called out from their homes in the middle of the night without the luxury of talking the next day off work.

 

[John Fowler]

Can't the same argument be made for the fire department that comes and saves your house, or the detective who investigates the burglary from your car, or the policeman who pulls you from a burning car? Why should the other taxpayers foot the bill for those expenses? Why are those expenses "different" than the SAR expenses?

To me the difference is that the fire department, for example, exists because of a shared need in the community, which we all to some extent agree to subsidize because we want its benefits. This is different from using money raised from taxes or levies on people who will never stand to benefit from the service (rescue) because they never venture out into the wilderness (taxation without representation). But I admit that it quickly becomes a philosophical issue with perhaps no right or wrong answer.

 

[Aldaron]

Yeah, I think it is philosophical. And I think you're right: my examples are shared needs that we as a community agree to help each other with. But I think the shared community agreement is more general than just fire and law enforcement: I think it's a shared commitment to helping out our fellow community members. And I think we have a tendency to only define our community as that which *we* think we belong to. In other words, I own a house and I may need a fireman to put out a fire, so I'm willing to pay taxes for him to put out your fire in exchange for the possibility that he made need to put out my fire. But I think the community is more general than that; I think it's all fellow human beings. I think we're all in this together. And I think we have a shared commitment to help each other...within reason.

And while many people may never go into the wilderness, they certainly could if they wanted to. And while they may not be adventurers, I can think of many episodes of "I Shouldn't Be Alive" that include searches for people who did not intend to be in the "wilderness", but they certainly found themselves there, such as after a car got stuck in unexpected snow, or a plane crashed.

Now, I actually agree with how Wayne County is handling the charges. If I'm out being ridiculously stupid and something bad happens, by all means, charge me. But if I get caught in a freak accident, please help me. Just because my neighbor isn't out there doing the same activity, doesn't make it any less of an unfortunate accident than an electrical fire in his house.

So, to me, I guess, the issue is that we help out our fellow humans when things mostly beyond their control conspire against them. And that's my definition of the shared commitment to the community.

And ashergrey, interestingly enough, the counties with volunteers are not the ones that are charging for each rescue. I believe Grand County said it pays its SAR members, and it's the one that charges for all rescues. Why do they pay their SAR members when everyone else does it on a volunteer basis? I know that I have long thought about volunteering for the SAR team in Davis County, and I would never expect to be paid. No more than I would expect to be paid for volunteering as a Big Brother or helping at a retirement home. I get paid at work...not when I volunteer. That's why I don't understand why Grand County pays their members...do they not have any volunteers? From the story, it sounded like they pay them because at least some of the members don't have other jobs, so this is just a way to give them gainful employment. That seems a little gratuitous to me.

Good discussion! I hope I didn't offend anyone!

 

[Dave]

Not so much gratuitous, as practical. Counties with a great number of SAR callouts are more likely to have a paid team. Salt Lake, Summit, Utah, Weber, Cache and many other counties in Utah integrate SAR as a unit within the sheriff's office. The team members are sworn deputies, professional officers of the law who are also trained for SAR.

But diverting those officers to SAR means they're unavailable to respond to other calls for assistance.

The question of cost goes beyond time devoted by ground-pounders. Helicopter search and rescue is not cheap. Aviation fuel doesn't volunteer. The Utah DPS, along withe Air Med, Life Flight and Classic all incur significant costs flying in support of rescue efforts. Divers and swift-water rescuers have significant investments in boats and equipment, scone one has to pay for it. Whether that's taxpayers or the individual really depends on each jurisdiction.

 

[Aldaron]

I know that when I saw the SAR helicopter in the Uintas, it was a UHP chopper. And the article says that Wayne County calls out a State chopper. Based on that information, I would guess that the State often provides the helicopter, so the money for that doesn't come from the County.

And when they are using officers, those people are already being paid...so it's not really a paid team, the same way it is in Grand County. The article says, "Grand County employs people on a part-time basis to respond to calls". That doesn't sound like officers. So that's why I think it's gratuitous: why do they specifically pay for a SAR team when no one else does? It feels like the Canyonlands backcountry fees that are "used to recover the costs associated with providing the permits..." You know, charging to cover the cost of charging.

Of course, the article says that Grand County consistently has the highest number of SARs. I wonder why that is...I looked at the county map, and I'm far more likely to get into problems in Wayne County than I am in Grand County. Grand just seems too touristy to me. Is that the difference? Is it overloaded with inexperienced tourists? If so, I really think it would be safer to have a SAR tax on hotel rooms. Let that pay for the team members while spreading the costs among all of the tourists. We can all pay $1 extra for a hotel room in Moab more easily than any one of us can pay for a big SAR bill. And I say "safer" because, like the professional organization states, I'm afraid people will refrain from asking for help until it's too late for fear of the expense.

But as I began this thread, my answer to the problem is simple: forget Grand County. That's easy for me to do. I completely understand their needs and their concerns, so I don't fault them for their solution to that. But philosophically I feel like it's picking on outdoors-people, while they continue to expect everyone to pay taxes for other people's kids to go to school, and to pay taxes to fight a fire at someone else's house. So I just won't risk my life in Grand County...philosophical problem solved. I won't have to risk paying them for a rescue, and they don't get to collect my tourist money.

Thanks for the thoughts, ashergrey!