Sierra Blogging Post Archives

On the heels of last week's Mt. Hood tragedy, where three climbers were lost and rescue/recovery efforts eventually suspended, comes a debate about the cost of such rescues - and who should foot the bill.

Rescue operations are not cheap. Many cost thousands of dollars, often involving military helicopters and dozens of deputies, officers and search and rescue professionals. "Depending on conditions, it can cost a lot," says Gerry Gaumer, a spokesman for the National Park Service, which spent nearly $5 million on search and rescue in 2008. "A lot of it depends on things like how much equipment you use. You're endangering your own people too."


Traditionally, rescue operations have been publicly funded, like traditional police and fire services. More recently, some states have begun to charge rescuees if they're determined to be negligent. Charging people for search and rescue, however, makes rescuers a little uneasy. "There are documented cases where someone is afraid of the cost and they're put in this horrible position where they know they need help, but they'll delay calling for help," he says. "That should never figure into the equation."

Other solutions involve charging climbers and mountaineers fees up front that are then put into a search and rescue fund, or skimming money off hunting and fishing licenses, entrance fees and taxes for recreational activities to build state rescue funds. Both of those options make sense to me.

What do you think? Should taxpayers be responsible for search and rescue operations or should the individuals who need rescuing be? Should high-risk activities be taxed accordingly or should there be some sort of emergency rescue insurance?