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.
Thanks for your rational view and explanation.
There is clearly a place here for "risky business" insurance which would be used to reimburse and help protect the general public as well. We need to be careful of how we use public funds so that we actually have money available to help with natural disasters.
There are many precedents for reimbursement of rescue expenses. Mt McKinley requires "rescue insurance" before ascending in Denali Park Alaska. Climbers/hikers in the Swiss Alps are required to have rescue insurance. Others here have mentioned the Grand Canyon rescue reimbursements. Why shouldn't this become a standard procedure!! One real benefit would be that some of these "explorers" might be more careful in preparing and making sure they really are capable of their exploits!
Keep up the good work!