A two-week search for a missing hiker in Yosemite National Park. A search for a missing snowshoer on Mount Rainier. Recovery of bodies from falls in Grand Teton National Park. A week-long, and unsuccessful, search for a missing 8-year-old at Crater Lake National Park.
Each year, thousands of search-and-rescue (SAR) missions are launched across the National Park System. Some are to recover bodies, others respond to boating accidents, caving misadventures, climbing mishaps, fishing trips gone awry, swimming accidents, and, of course, lost hikers.
During 2007, the National Park Service reported 3,593 SAR incidents. Of those, 136 involved fatalities. Nineteen subjects remain unaccounted for. Another 2,566 individuals sustained no injuries. There were 887 helicopter rescues, six missions requiring divers, 694 that involved horses or mules.
The cost of those missions? $4,735,424.12. How much did the Park Service recover from those who were the focus of the missions?
Nothing.
At times those who are rescued do donate to the park in question, and the Park Service can go to court to seek renumeration if it believes gross negligence played a role. But as a general rule the agency does not bill for SARs.
Granted, accidents do happen, more often than not, in fact. But there are other incidents where common sense seemingly failed to kick in and no doubt others where backcountry travelers, armed either with cell phones or personal locater beacons bit off more than they could safely chew because help was just a call (or push of the button) away.
Should the Park Service draw the line on free rescues? At the very least, should it bill for those where obvious disregard for safety played a role? It's a question that's been debated more than once, and which, for now, is answered with a resounding "No."
But is it time to reopen the debate?
At Great Smoky Mountains National Park, which earlier this year dispatched a SAR team to Rainbow Falls Cave to rescue four would-be spelunkers who literally got in over their heads, Bob Miller sums up the Park Service's approach to billing folks for being rescued.
"We have never pursued reimbursement for SAR cost, although we often get reimbursed for resource damage or facilities damaged by a visitor," says Ranger Miller, who figures it cost the park about $2,000 to rescue the four. "It's very difficult to get anybody to pay for something that they have not agreed to pay for up front."
Mark Hnat, a Yellowstone ranger who earlier this year was detailed to the Park Service's Washington headquarters to fill in as the branch chief of emergency services, says federal agencies as a whole that are involved in SARs don't charge for their services.
"We're part of a compact with other federal search-and-rescue entities, which is part of the national search and rescue plan," Ranger Hnat explains. "That national search-and-rescue committee includes DOI, the Park Service; Department of Defense, the Air Force folks; Department of Homeland Security, the Coast Guard, and; a couple of other agencies. It's the policy of that organization not to charge for search-and-rescue."
While costs of these missions continue to increase, the question about billing for rescues is heavy with complexities involving liabilities, he added.
"Trying to figure out the difference between what's a SAR and what's not a SAR and whose fault is it and how much liability is there ... it gets to be a pretty drawn-out process," the ranger explained. "And then how much are we going to be placing blame?"
If the agency did place blame, said Ranger Hnat, "that becomes record and now somebody's looking at somebody's reputation and back and forth. All kinds of things really make it a pretty complex operation. No other agencies are doing that at this point that I'm aware of, so it'd be a hard precedent to start."
Butch Farabee, who during his 34-year Park Service career participated in more than 1,000 SARs in such parks as Yosemite, Death Valley, and Grand Canyon and details some of those in Off the Wall: Death in Yosemite and Over the Edge: Death in Grand Canyon, understands why the question of billing SAR targets arises from time to time.
"Of course, leaving their brains at home is the No. 1 problem for most SAR (not quite true for plane wrecks, suicides, and the such)," he notes. "Is it time to charge? This has been debated for many years. It also came to light when Alaska congressmen got into the picture over people who climb Mount McKinley and need to be rescued. I think in a perfect world -- ie., where I or some SAR guru could wave a magic wand -- I think some charging would take place. However, we do not live in a perfect world.
"It is easy to say that when people go caving or whatever without experience, training, letting someone know where they are going and all of that, then the outcry is to 'Bill Them!' That example is at the polarized edge of the controversy. Where it gets stickier is when you have a plane wreck, car wreck, suicide, little kid wanders away from a campground, a worried father of a 21-year-old calls to say his son has not returned only to find out that the 21-year-old had not intended to be back at a certain time and was in fact perfectly fine," adds Mr. Farabee. "This is where it always gets stickier, those incidents where it is not perfectly black and white."
Too, he points out, "getting reimbursed also supposes we are putting a price on people's lives. It will also possibly influence an Incident Commander on making decisions that are not appropriate for the incident."
Rick Smith, who also performed more than a few SAR missions during his three decades with the Park Service, thinks it'd be wrong to begin charging for rescues.
"It's just one more way to exclude people of lesser means from the parks," says Mr. Smith. "I'm not a big fan of the idea, although I see some merit in asking people who do really high risk things --climbing Denali-- to buy some kind of insurance. But I am very reluctant to put a price tag on adventure."
He also would give a pass to those who wind up over their heads.
"A person who has lived in L.A. all his/her life and goes to Yosemite for the first time does not really understand the power of running water, or the fact that it's easier to climb up rocks than it is to descend," says Mr. Smith. "What seems exceptionally stupid may be nothing more than lack of experience. How do we price gathering experience?"
Now, at Denali National Park and Preserve, which like Grand Teton sees a lot of climbing SARs, rescued climbers are not billed for the missions. But those attempting either Mount McKinley or Mount Foraker are charged $200 per person "to provide educational materials to them ahead of time and to support the resource protection (Clean Mountain Can) and other operations we have on the mountain," says Denali spokeswoman Kris Fister. "Climbers do have to pay for the air or land ambulance service from Talkeetna to Anchorage. But we get them off the mountain."
Almost a decade ago, in the wake of the well-publicized 1996 climbing accident on Mount Everest that inspired Jon Krakauer's book, Into Thin Air, and ensuing accidents and rescues on Mount Rainier and Mount McKinley, the then-executive director of the American Alpine Club produced a study on Rescue Cost Recovery (attached below) in Denali.
Many involved in the debate, including the rescue community itself, feel that any rescue cost recovery alternatives must be very carefully considered, Charley Shimanski wrote. Rescuers are concerned that a charge for rescue will lead to delays in the call for help, thus causing more complicated rescues and putting both rescuers and victims in greater risk. Land managers are concerned that charging for rescue will result in administrative hassles associated with trying to collect from the uninsured. Military aviation units see no reason to recover costs, since they use civilian SAR missions as valuable training exercises. National Park Service officials realize that mandating a charge for rescue will likely create a legal "duty to rescue."
In Europe, a slightly different approach is taken, as insurance is available to backcountry skiers to cover rescue costs.
Should the Park Service require insurance coverage for backcountry travelers? It's a good question, one that could help offset the agency's costs, but one that possibly could generate more problems by lending backcountry travelers a measure of reckless bravado as they might figure someone's waiting to pull them out of trouble.
Comments
First, I believe that I have received good information at/from all the national parks I have visited on the subject of safety and preparation for the areas I travel. Perhaps this is why the vast majority of the people in the story sustained no injuries.
Next, I'm not convinced that an additional usage fee or insurance is the best answer. people may add additional risk with the feeling of be insured. also with fees wouldn't this open up liability for the effectiveness of the SAR.
My last comment is about the money, $4.7 million. I question is this an actual amount of out of pocket by the NPS, or is a portion donated in non paid time and expenses. I used to be with a mounted search group in the Northwest.
i do not think people should have to pay for search and rescue, unless it is obviously grossly negligent. first of all, i think it would discourage use of the parks, which would reduce their income from permits etc. secondly, it would most likely tend to make people put off calling help when they really do need it, which could actually make the situation worse. nature is unpredictable, and there will always be a part of it that is dangerous, but the parks are right in my opinion to do their best to encourage responsibility and try to keep lawyers off the hiking trail. otherwise we will have hiking trails with disclaimers a mile long.
i would suggest that if someone really is found to be negligent and requires rescue, they be required to donate time to a local beach/park with cleanup/ trail help as a community service to help parks recoup costs. any nature lover, i think, would consider that a fair trade-off that both helps the park and is a reasonable fine for leaving their brain at home.
finally, for the taxophobes, are many situations where people are rescued at taxpayer expense that do not involve the wilderness that the people here ignore. for instance, in a car accident, even if it is your fault, you may pay for an ambulance, but not necessarily for the police that come to the scene to keep you from being hurt and who then direct traffic. these people seem to be those who do not want to pay a cent of tax for anyone ...unless it works in their favor. i dont drive a car, but i pay taxes for police and emergency personnel. your risky behavior..ie moving at a speed faster than walking is covered, because most drivers are not trying to be unsafe, just as most people hiking/climbing do not WANT to fall off a cliff/ freeze.
great point.
it would probably cost that much to print warning signs that have been proofread by a lawyer.**
(**no offense to lawyers. please see disclaimer for details and exceptions)
Just a few thoughts to add (though this is almost a year old, it stays relevant):
Lone Hiker, you seem to be very vocal about billing the victims. That stance assumes that the rescue is their fault in the first place. Having just finished reading a list of Mount Ranier SAR reports (I'm currently doing research for a paper), there are numerous circumstances where even extremely experienced, well-prepared hikers/climbers have bad luck- a rock fell in the wrong place at the wrong time, an avalanche, they just happened to SLIP. To charge a fee for any of these would be ridiculous.
So there are a couple of options that do not involve hundred-thousand dollar debts for unlucky joes. The first, obvious in our capitalist society, is insurance. Let those who want to get insurance coverage and those who don't have insurance are gambling with their lives and finances. This could be a reasonable stance, but for the fact that the uninsured would know that requesting a rescue could leave them with a hefty debt. Also, even the insured would think twice before calling for rescue, since their premiums would skyrocket. There's also the question of whether or not this insurance would be profitable enough to be offered by a private lender: how much could they reasonably charge to be able to afford the bill of two or three expensive accidents?
Then you have the flat rate on park entrance, or a fee placed on the more dangerous routes. This may be the best charge-the-users option. First of all, those who need SAR will know that they will not be charged; this may lead to abuse of the SAR system, but you have the same situation with all 911 calls. If someone makes a prank call, they're fined. The same system that covers those emergency departments should be considered for extension to SAR. Second, if you charged every entrant to the park, the amount would likely be insignificant since so many are paying it. Kath's second post above is very well said.
First, Mt St Helens is unique in that it is so much of a tourist haven. Its popularity comes not from it being an easiy mountain to climb, but from the fact it blew 1500ft of its top in May 1980. Permits were set up to manage the total number of people accessing the mountain, and paying to cleanup after them. Its not about the climbers....but rather those who hike 1mile into a sensitive post-eruption zone to "ooo" and "aahh" before trampling the recovering vegetation and leave a candywrapper in its place. Permit fees go to the Mt St Helens National Monument, as part of the National Park Service. * The Volcano Rescue Team (local SAR team) is not paid, nor do they receive funding from the NPS. They are a local volunteer county-dispatched SAR team.
People flock to that mountain much like rubber-neckers look at a car-accident on the freeway. They want an up-close view of the carnage, but no responsibility to take care of the injured (i.e. learn about how to properly climb that mountain and the risks involved).
In many areas, Sat-tracking devices (MLUs, PLBs, SPOTs) do not work. I am on a SAR team in NW Oregon and have used SPOT Satellite devices myself in training. The devices identified my location as being either in the middle of the Columbia River, or in an area no where close to where I was actually hiking. I don't even trust GPS devices....they are helpful, and a nice short-cut....but a map and compass (and knowing how to use both) is the only consistent reliable navigation system I've used.
Technology looks great in a catalog, but there's no substitute for sound judgement and training.
[* Mount St. Helens National Volcanic Monument is a US Forest Service-managed property, not a unit of the National Park System. Ed.]
i agree with the comment about the cost of ambulances when one needs medical attention from home. The cost of an ambulance in an urban setting is undoubtedly less costly (in terms of resources, time, and danger to rescue party) than a search and rescue in the wilderness. Why would anyone ever expect SAR to be free? One enters the wilderness to have solitude and independence. This involves an obvious risk that one voluntarily chooses to partake in. Let people decide for themselves whether or not they forge on in the face of danger because of the cost of SAR.
We cannot expect that risk taking will not have negative consequences once in a while. We should be more tolerant of such happenings and realize it's part of the game. Mourn or mend these unfortunate travelers and move on; whatever you do, don't sue the parks for offering the opportunities we wanted.
By God.....PAY FOR IT...with cold hard cash or your life and limb.
Thanks for your sensible comments Random Walker ! It is good to see that there are at least some people in this nation capable of forming a balanced perspective based upon values far deeper than a fixation upon financial issues. Sadly, money has become for many Americans,just as much of a limiter of freedom, as any invading military could ever hope to be ! It is absolutely wrong to bar people from the enjoyment of the things nature has provided freely,based upon a lack of money ! It is even more asnine to suggest that those who need to be rescued by,''cival servants,whom are paid by taxpayers anyway''should foot the bill ! More than often the people in need of help are in fact tax payers themselves !
We should not overlook the fact that the government is also charging people for meerly the enjoyment of nature in many cases.In fact, if you wish to climb Denali you will be charged a whooping 200.00 dollars,''as if nature alone did not put that mountain in place'' ! The very fact that the government is charging fees for the use of natural areas by everyone,''whether or not they need assistance''means that indeed,the government should in fact foot the bill for all SAR operations. There realy is nothing to debate here !
Mike,forcing someone to pay for something twice is in fact extream and foolish ! When we pay taxes our tax dollars are supposed to be used for SAR services and similar activities which are best provided in a collective manner. Also visitors to our national parks are usualy charged fees,permits ect,which provide funds for SAR and other needed services.
I hope and pray that hiker certficates are not essentialy permits,''beyond entrance or parking fees'' which must be purchased simply to walk in the damend woods ! Next thing you know there will be fees to be paid just to watch the damed sunset and or sunrise !