[colorado tanker]

The survivors should have to pay in full for all rescue expenses, and should have civil liability for the safety of any rescuers who may be injured or killed in the process. Let's face it, this situation was brought on by their collective stupidity and nothing else.

The way this thing seems to be going, it looks like they're going to pay a steeper price than that. Lighten up.

The problem with a reimbursement scheme is that people won't call when they need help, or wait until the problem is even worse. We don't charge for police and fire service, even when the problem is brought on by the people themselves.

[Kenton]

First of all, in the case of these individuals, I don't want you to think I'm being totally cold-blooded about this. They are in my prayers and I hope they are found and brought home safe. But that wasn't my point.

The problem with a reimbursement scheme is that people won't call when they need help, or wait until the problem is even worse.

You're entitled to your opinion, but I don't believe that for a second. If you are stuck in such a situation and have any way of communicating with the outside to get help, you will do it, and concerns about the cost will be something you deal with when you are safe back at home.

These individuals seem to be fairly prosperous and able to afford help, but if you think that inability to pay will stop someone from seeking public help, just go on down to your local emergency room and see how many uninsured moms are sitting around waiting to get treatment for a kid with a cold.

We don't charge for police and fire service, even when the problem is brought on by the people themselves.

As someone pointed out to me a few postings back, hikers who venture down into the Grand Canyon and can't get out pay thousands of dollars to be rescued, either by being carried or helicoptered out. And even though they have park rangers at the rim giving people explicit instructions not to hike on foot more than 100 yards down into the canyon, many people still are foolish enough to require emergency evacuation.

And the principle of being charged for public assistance doesn't just extend to extreme rescues. If your local fire department has to send out an emergency vehicle to act as an ambulance to take you to the hospital, you will be billed for it.

So I don't think it's unreasonable to apply the same principle to people who voluntarily take extremely foolish risks where there is a very real possibility of death or injury, accompanied by a need for others unrelated to your venture to risk their own lives trying to rescue you.

[rayama]

Kenton said: We don't charge for police and fire service, even when the problem is brought on by the people themselves.

That's not entirely true. In some poorer areas of Alabama, there simply isn't enough tax money for fire service. Locals pay a yearly "subscription" of about $200. If there is a fire, then the fire department comes out and deals with it, free of charge. However, if you do NOT pay this subscription and you have a fire, you are then billed for the entire cost of the operation, which can run into thousands of dollars.

I believe the Runaway Bride in Florida is being required to reimburse local authorities for the $40,000 or so spent looking for her.

It does seem like people deliberately engaging in a risky activity should absorb the cost. If they don't, one day there may not BE funds available to put forth an intensive search and rescue effort.