13 American Fishermen Rescued. Should they pay?

[Steve McMahon]

Allthough I am generally of the opinion that recue should be free, I'm wavering on this one. In this case they were warned not to go, and they spent $4,000.00 on a helicopter to rescue their "toys". Perhaps they should kick in $2,500.00 or so to cover the volunteer's costs?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manito...cue-costs.html

[BrianW]

Most volunteer rescue types love this kind of mission. It's a perfectly good excuse to play with their toys, and help someone. If it's a hassle, they don't have to go.

I'm thinking it's the fact they were Americans that has some Canadians upset.

I've worked SAR. Without stupid people, there would be little to do.

[S.V. Airlie]

I think there have been several precidents to this and who pays comes down to whether they were stupid or their actions were.As in being told not to go in this case. Mountain climbers and skiers another case. Fires that are set accidently and people charged or threatened to be charged for the damage.It would be great if the coastguard can rescue them, but with the continuous tightening of funds, they can do so much. Same with the Forest Service.Certainly billing those recuers would make others think twice about heading into harms' way or not extingishing fires.

[Ian McColgin]

The fishermen really put it in the face of the volunteers when they paid so much to rescue their gear by helocopter. They really need to make a substantial donation to the volunteer rescue equipment and maintenance fund.

[Captain Intrepid]

Considering how they were warned not to go, I think it'd be appropriate for them to voluntarily cough up a bit of cash.

[S.V. Airlie]

The Trust has to raise between $400,000 to $500,000 per year to support the fixed costs of leasing the helicopter and maintaining pilots, paramedics and support crew, permanently ready to respond to emergency calls.
The Trust acknowledges the outstanding support of our sponsers and supporters.This is just one bird..nonprofit Trust.Prices/costs and maintanance may vary.

[CK 17]

I've worked SAR. Without stupid people, there would be little to do.

I think that tops "you have to go, you don't have to come back"

[S.V. Airlie]

New Hampshire is one of the only states in the U.S. that charges for rescues, and in early 2010, they did just that to a

young hiker who injured himself on Mt. Washington

. However, the young “climbers” that were recently

rescued in Connecticut

, were spared rescue costs, even after three people were injured during the rescue event.

[David W Pratt]

What about putting a $1-2 surcharge on hunting and fishing lic to fund stuff like this? It would go to paying the premium on an insurance policy to cover this type of stuff.

[Ron Williamson]

I think that tops "you have to go, you don't have to come back"

Same goes for the fishermen.
It might be nice if they make a fat donation to the volunteers.
R

[Gerarddm]

'Twould be the decent thing to do.

[S.V. Airlie]

Donations especially to compensate for a partial cost of a rescue should be automatic.Anyone with moral would pay without debate and should not have to be asked.Not only the vol department but something for each resuer who often in theory volunteers.This is how I treat anyone, locals HWY department folks even. Last year, I saw some road workers cutting trees on my road. I asked them to leave the wood and I'd pick it all up when they were done. Got an "Okay" in return and a wave. Eight hours later, I got back to my house. The wood was nicely stacked, some had even been split, in my yard.The next day, I went to the garage and gave them 250.00 bucks in a small way to thank them.Maybe not enough divided by 5 but.If nothing else, I know that if I ask them for something, they will do it if it's within their power to do so.

[B_B]

I'm thinking it's the fact they were Americans that has some Canadians upset.

Maybe, maybe it's the hiring of the helicopter to save their gear....and the seeming lack of humility or gratitude.

I've worked SAR. Without stupid people, there would be little to do.

Ain't that the truth.

[John Smith]

Rescue...health care....what's the difference?

ONe difference is the money. Wouldn't take much of a hospital stay to be far more expensive than the rescue.

I would think this is another area where those who go to see might want to consider paying a bit of "rescue" insurance. Oil companies might contribute to a world why clean up organization.

Even if people volunteer for this stuff, the equipment costs money to buy and maintain.

[John Smith]

What about putting a $1-2 surcharge on hunting and fishing lic to fund stuff like this? It would go to paying the premium on an insurance policy to cover this type of stuff.

I like the idea, but then we're forcing people to buy something they don't want to buy.

[S.V. Airlie]

I'm not sure that hunters are the real problem.I'm not sure what you mean by "stuff like that" either.

[David W Pratt]

J smith
Freshwater fishing lic, and hunting have been a huge success. The $ goes into a lock box, the fees are reasonable and since the money is spent on covservation, hunters, fishermen, hikers, birdwatchers, et al all benefit.

[PhaseLockedLoop]

I'm not sure that hunters are the real problem.

OK, barbers then.

[S.V. Airlie]

See, this is the response I expected. Make a joke out of it.All I was attempting to say that hunters overall, were not usually requiring rescue. The OP. And everyone should donate. The next fire might be there's.Hunters donating to conservation is a second idea with no relevance to people should be paid to be rescued.BUT make a joke..fine with me..

[BrianW]

If they hadn't recovered their 4 wheelers and gear, someone would be bitching about that too. There would be an environmental impact as well.

I think they did the right thing, paying for the helicopter and recovering their gear.

[Ian McColgin]

BrianW, of course they did the right thing in removing their cars. And they should carry on doing the right thing by at least in part making whole the agencies that spent resourses saving their stupid little lives.

I must admit to a culture gap here. I grew up in a family that enjoys some dangerous activities, some of which we make more dangerous by doing alone. So far among us four sibs, there's been one solo climbing death. That situation did not present much opportunity for my brother to cry for help - no one to hear for at least 20 miles of steep ground - or mount a rescue. The rest of us have training in and have worked at, variously, ocean, swiftwater and mountain rescue and we get two things: When you can rescue you should; and people should not believe themselves entitled to rescue. We have a huge cultural shift going on that's losing site of the latter while professionalizing the former, which leads more people to take dumber risks in the expectation that someone will save them. I am not sure what to do about that phenomenon but I'm against it.

[Steve McMahon]

If they hadn't recovered their 4 wheelers and gear, someone would be bitching about that too. There would be an environmental impact as well.

I think they did the right thing, paying for the helicopter and recovering their gear.

I agree they did the right thing to get their gear picked up. That being said, it will make the story end well if they make a little donation to cover the cost of consumables for the volunteers.

To clarify - there is usually no expectation for people to cover any of the costs of being rescued, have their fire put out, be cut out of a car or whatever else may be needed. This case is a bit differant because they were not in the predictament they were because of an accident, they were there because of stupidity and ignored local knowledge that was freely offered to them.

[Old Dryfoot]

What they should have done was call the helicopter from the get go and just bypassed the rescue altogether.

[Flying Orca]

They were reportedly pretty unpleasant with their rescuers. They had gone out several (three? Four?) days in a row despite being advised not to by the lodge owner; when the ice they were on moved away from shore, a bunch of different responders showed up.

The guys on the ice were thinking about waiting overnight to see if the ice moved back inshore (never mind being a few cans short of a six-pack, these guys didn't even have the little plastic thingy to hold it together) but the RCMP ordered the SAR guys to retrieve them via airboat.

BOFG if you ask me.

[BrianW]

What they should have done was call the helicopter from the get go and just bypassed the rescue altogether.

I agree, and that brings up a couple points...

#1. It may have been too dark, and the helo insured for day vfr only conditions.

#2. The rescuers never gave them that option before launching a rescue.

#3. If a "for-profit" helicopter operation can recover the ATV's and gear for just about the same price as the rescuers, the rescuers may want to reevaluate their methods. How do you spend "thousands" of dollars to run an airboat a couple times to pick up 13 dudes.

[Flying Orca]

They did say something about having to tow the boat three hours each way, but I suspect the real issue is the number of responders. Reports on local radio this morning indicated something like six different agencies or organizations, US and Canadian, responded. That could get expensive.

[Steve McMahon]

Responders do not consider costs, just risk and how to minimize it. One way to minimize risk is to call out whatever resourses you may need based on what is usually sketchy information at best. It's better to respond with too much than not enough. In other words - it's better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it when lives are percieved to be at risk.

A night time response on a huge lake that is a mix of ice and open water is not an easy operation, especially when there are 13 potential victims. If alcohol and arrogance was involved then the risks increase tenfold.

I have been to Lake of the Woods (though not in winter), and I have dealt with my share of "American Sportsmen" when I ran a fishing charter boat in Nova Scotia. I don't expect this was a piece of cake for the responders.

[Flying Orca]

I'm sure it wasn't. I heard one of the guys who was rescued on the radio and he sounded like a right tw@t.

[Chris Woodward]

The problem with requiring insurance or charging for rescue is the issue of liability becomes involved ($%&^#@NG lawyers!) As soon as you charge, the expectation of rescue is raised from "will we be rescued?" to "WHEN will we be rescued?" The mind set of the insured becomes one of complacency. "There is nothing to worry about, I have insurance;they have to come rescue me." And if there is a bad outcome to the rescue, the rescue crew is liable. Here in the Adirondacks we get a lot of fools that already think this way without being charged, because the state has provided a level of service with a rescue heliocopter so they feel that there is no risk.
["which leads more people to take dumber risks in the expectation that someone will save them. I am not sure what to do about that phenomenon but I'm against it"] Ian, you are right on with this. The only thing that can be done is to not provide this service as a function of the State DEC or local community fire and rescue( which around here is all volunteer) but to go to a private rescue service who then takes all the risk as a pay for service.

[Chris Woodward]

What about putting a $1-2 surcharge on hunting and fishing lic to fund stuff like this? It would go to paying the premium on an insurance policy to cover this type of stuff.

It's not usually the hunters and fishermen that need the majority of the rescues. (I know,I know in this case it was). Here anyways, it is mostly lost hikers that are totally unprepared for the mountains. The hunters and fishermen already buy a liciense, they are the only ones that are required to, and the only ones that fund these programs. The hikers, canoeists, kryackers, ice climbers, rock climbers, bird watchers, swimmers, campers, leaf peepers, cross country skiers, snow shoers, "outdoor enthuisiests"sp? do not contribute one cent to maintain the resourses that they consume. They should be required to purchase a "sportsman liciense" just like h+f do. Don't ask the h+f to fund it all when they are only a small portion of the users!

[S.V. Airlie]

I implied that earlier in a post. Was just met with a snarky comment.I agree with you, I hope you have better crowd responing to your post than I did.

[Steve McMahon]

I can't see taxing or licencing every user of an area in case they need rescue. In the case of hunting and fishing licences a portion goes towards conservation and research in most places as far as I know. I think the system works pretty good now, but in just this case it shows up a potential flaw. Easily fixed with a bit of integrity on the part of the fishermen.

[S.V. Airlie]

In some cases, obviously not all, it could be added to the park entrance fee I suppose or the fee for camping. I tend to agree with you, I'm just trying to see how it(fee) would work or how it would even be collected.Again, I do not think, in general, the majority or rescues are for hunters or fishermen..Not like in the OP.How many people are rescued from boats, sail or power. There are some examples about boaters on the forum. In fact, those threads turn up quite regularly.Driving a boat drunk..