Re: Charging for rescues

Eagle Scout Off The Hook
New Hampshire decides to drop $25,000 bill for rescuing a scout on Mt. Washington

Scott Mason, the Mass. Eagle Scout who got rescued off of Mt. Washington only to get slapped with a $25K fee, just got really lucky. The state of New Hampshire has decided not to make him pay up, citing extenuating personal circumstances and the fact that the teen is clearly not in a position to pay.



Article and ensuing discussion:

http://www.backpacker.com/newhampshireboyscout/blogs/daily_dirt/1751?utm_source=newsletter01&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter01

I seem to recall that one of the reasons the costs were so high is that the state already had their own helicopters in use for other operations. I believe they had to bring in a helicopter from another state, including paying for the extra fuel, rental, and pilots.

If they're going to do this, why not simply charge a nominal cost (the $1000 seems reasonable) and chalk up the other stuff to bad luck.

This is always a controversial topic. I am slightly leaning toward some sort of charge to those that require rescue, especially when the rescue is the result of poor planning and sloppy judgment. There are always excuses to justify how or why an urgent need develops in the backcountry (weather, fire, illness, etc). However, it just seems unfair to the volunteers and paid governmental workers that get involved to risk their lives or health and sometimes their own wealth because someone screwed up on vacation. There is vacation and travel medical insurance, maybe there should be "rescue insurance". Even when in the context of a job, rescue is heroic. One of the most tragic stories was the death of rescue workers in that Utah mine several years ago.

---

The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan