Replies

You said -- "May 1996, Deschutes County became the first search and rescue agency to use Oregon's reimbursement law. Go figure."

It's not something that even the agencies, themselves want to do. In fact, I doubt if you'll find it used at all, except in one or two instances, spread over hundreds of rescues.

See this --

"But in the vast majority of cases, the agencies do not send a bill.

The question of whether to send a bill to subjects of search and rescue missions when plain ignorance is displayed, when a lack of care is tossed out the window or when laws are broken is not as easy as it might seem.

Search and rescue officials maintain that regularly charging for their services would cause people to hesitate to call for help out of worry of being billed. Searchers fear such a delay would cause people to get themselves even deeper into life-threatening situations and make rescues more difficult and dangerous for crews."

And so -- there you go..., they figure rightly that they would have even more dangerous rescues to do -- as people refrain from getting help and it turns into a monumental disaster, then. That's definitely the way it would go.

Also --

"Georges Kleinbaum, state search and rescue coordinator with the Oregon State Police division of emergency management, says the reimbursement law was rushed into the Legislature in response to the 1995 search and rescue mission on Mount Hood and not supported by Oregon sheriffs."

And so it goes.

By the way, that rescue mission found the people *well-equipped* and knowing what they were doing and holed up in a snow-cave, just waiting out the storm. They were perfectly fine.

Regards,
Star Traveler

Amazing how these don't charge the climber, Freepers from Oregon aren't familiar with Oregons Rescue Reimbursement Law which came about in 1995 with a similiar event.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-12-14-search-debate_x.htm

Oregon passed its law in 1995 amid a public outcry over three college students who cost taxpayers $10,000 for a search on Mount Hood. The climbers turned up safe, warm and playing cards in their tent. They hadn't carried a cellphone or a radio locator beacon.

http://www.traditionalmountaineering.org/News_Rescue_Charges.htm

Read more:

Paying the Price for Rescue
PAYING THE PRICE FOR RESCUE
Agencies can charge reckless adventurers, but usually don't

By Jason Eck and Deanne Darr
The Bulletin

When a Redmond man became stranded while trying to rappel into the steep Crooked River Gorge in the middle of a cold winter night three years ago, rescuers spent about four hours lowering him to safety.

Not only was the man unprepared, inappropriately dressed and packing only 250 feet of rope to reach the bottom of the 365-foot cliff, but authorities suspected he had also been drinking. The man jammed the descent ring on his rappelling gear and was left hanging about 100 feet from the canyon floor for about seven hours until rescuers could lower him to safety.

Search and rescue crews from Jefferson and Deschutes counties eased the man from his precarious position and slapped him with a charge of disorderly conduct.

But should he also have footed a portion of the bill for the cost of the rescue for disregard for his own safety and the danger he created for rescuers?

This case and many like it are times agencies could consider charging rescue subjects for a small portion of their services. A 4-year-old Oregon law gives search agencies the authority to charge subjects of search and rescues up to $500 a piece when "reasonable care" was not used and when "applicable laws were violated."

But in the vast majority of cases, the agencies do not send a bill.

The question of whether to send a bill to subjects of search and rescue missions when plain ignorance is displayed, when a lack of care is tossed out the window or when laws are broken is not as easy as it might seem.

Search and rescue officials maintain that regularly charging for their services would cause people to hesitate to call for help out of worry of being billed. Searchers fear such a delay would cause people to get themselves even deeper into life-threatening situations and make rescues more difficult and dangerous for crews.

But officials say the .reimbursement law is a tool they will begin use in appropriate cases to recover lost taxpayer dollars and send a message to persons who place search and rescue personnel, themselves and others in danger.

While rescue units have a high sympathy threshold for the lost and unlucky, they are sometimes irked by the cases they encounter. A few examples:

• A search for three hikers caught in a snowstorm on Mount Hood cost taxpayers about $10,000 in March 1995. More than 100 people searched for the three college students, who in fact were well-equipped, warm and safe. The three waited the storm out in their tent playing cards. The hikers were not carrying a cellular-phone or radio locator unit. The incident prompted the 1995 reimbursement legislation.

• Local search crews responded to a call several years ago for a rockhound who was reported missing in the Horse Ridge area. Rescuers mobilized and a search was activated. Crews found out they were searching in vain - the man had not gone rock hunting, and in fact was not even in the state.

• In 1993 two adults drowned and three children were rescued after going over Dillon Falls on the Deschutes River near Bend. The inexperienced rafters went over the falls, rated as nearly impossible to navigate, despite a sign that warned of the danger ahead.

None of those cases resulted in a billing.

But in May 1996, Deschutes County became the first search and rescue agency to use Oregon's reimbursement law.

Rescuers spent two hours fishing two of five Portland-area men out of the rapids of Benham Falls on the Deschutes River. The party attempted to ride a class VI rapid despite warnings from bystanders and signs.

The men shared a $1,560 bill for the cost of the rescue.

Excerpted.