Good news or bad?

[Feral Bill]

http://news.yahoo.com/drug-means-hik...171332585.html

Well, which is it?

[Sarcasm the elf]

Very interesting twist. This is really one for the courts to decide. Can one go on a hike without being a hiker?

[Luddite]

"We certainly want to save them but, by golly, you were saved and you owe your society a debt of gratitude," he said, "and you need to pay the bill."

I agree with that, except the word "golly". I really don't see how a couple of moronic meth heads are going to have the money to pay for that bill though.

[Old Hiker]

Can we dose them up again and put them back in the wilderness to see what happens?

[rocketsocks]

Need more info, but my guess is they will not have to foot that bill.

[finish9]

Would they have to pay up if the car had a broken tail light or headlight instead? Or out standing traffic ticket? Where is the line drawn and who draws it?

[FarmerChef]

Just curious. Does anyone have citable statistics on the amount of rescues each year of well-prepared/trained, experienced hikers versus people who were not adequately prepared/trained or had little to no experience doing what they were doing (might also be a part of not adequately prepared)?

[Teacher & Snacktime]

Can one go on a hike without being a hiker?

Absolutely...I do it all the time. I can't in any honesty claim to be a "hiker" yet...at best, a tenderfoot.

[Another Kevin]

Very interesting twist. This is really one for the courts to decide. Can one go on a hike without being a hiker?

Of course. I'm not a real hiker, just a clueless weekender!

This one is indeed a tough case. And it's a proverb, "hard cases make bad law." Even though these idiots probably deserve whatever comes, I hope they get off, so that the outcome doesn't scare off more people from calling for help. It's similar to the informal rule in many places that drug charges are not pressed against people who are bringing OD victims to the ER (and usually against the patient as well). The idea is that it's better to have people, even illegal drug users, rescued, than it is to have people die because they're afraid to call for rescue for fear of charges.

[Another Kevin]

Just curious. Does anyone have citable statistics on the amount of rescues each year of well-prepared/trained, experienced hikers versus people who were not adequately prepared/trained or had little to no experience doing what they were doing (might also be a part of not adequately prepared)?

By far the lion's share of S&R callouts are from injuries suffered in falls, which we all know can happen to anyone. And the next tier down is medical emergencies from unrelated causes (heart attacks, strokes, kidney stones, ...) that strike people who happen to be hiking when stricken. If I recall correctly, next down is people (children, the mentally infirm, old people suffering from dementia) who are cognitively impaired and have wandered. The stupid things that we read about in the media are a vanishingly small minority of the actual cases. But they are the ones that make people think charging for SAR is a good idea. (There is also a subset of the population nowadays that think all government services should recover their costs,)

Hindsight is always 20/20; you can always say that the fact someone suffered an accident indicates, ipso facto, that they were inadequately prepared or reckless.

[jj2044]

By far the lion's share of S&R callouts are from injuries suffered in falls, which we all know can happen to anyone. And the next tier down is medical emergencies from unrelated causes (heart attacks, strokes, kidney stones, ...) that strike people who happen to be hiking when stricken. If I recall correctly, next down is people (children, the mentally infirm, old people suffering from dementia) who are cognitively impaired and have wandered. The stupid things that we read about in the media are a vanishingly small minority of the actual cases. But they are the ones that make people think charging for SAR is a good idea. (There is also a subset of the population nowadays that think all government services should recover their costs,) .

I don't think anyone thinks that ALL search and rescue should be paid for by the people being rescued, but for example, if you're so High or drunk you think you can fly and jump off the top of a mountain then yea you should pay for the S&R when they come get you. As far as I know, and please someone correct me if im wrong, but most of these S&R's have a set budget.... in the article it said it cost 160K, well that's 160K that cant go to help in the next search, for someone that really did just have an accident.... maybe that means they call off the search a day earlier or maybe they can only keep one helicopter in the air and not 2 ??, all because some kids did meth and got lost ?? if you are on or doing something that alters your mental state you should pay up if you do something stupid and need rescued.

That's just what I think im sure a lot with disagree.

[MuddyWaters]

I think, SAR charges are often inflated, including cost accounting of expenses that would actually be incurred regardless.

Then, there is the issue of what are reasonable expected charges for SAR. If a person was lost 1 mile south of point X, but the SAR team did not do their job efficiently, and focused on the wrong area because they missed clues, is that the lost persons fault? No its not. You simply cannot charge someone whatever you spent, because you probably wasted a lot of it, and thats not their fault, even if it was for their benefit.

True extraction and treatment charges, etc would be easy to back up though, and charge for I think.

[prain4u]

IF it can be shown that being high on meth contributed to their becoming lost and disoriented--then give them the bill for the Search and Rescue.

[MuddyWaters]

I dont oppose billing someone, anyone, for any rescue.

But you simply cannot charge someone what you want to , just because you say you spent it.
Especially if a victim didnt request you to do so.

I think things begin to get complicated quickly, from a legal standpoint.

Regardless of the fact that no one has the ability to pay, and the charges would be written off in a year or two due to that anyway.
Reality is, why incur additional real legal expenses, on top of a bill you cannot ever collect in the first place?

[bear bag hanger]

I guess the courts have to decide this. If you tried to charge everyone who gets rescued you would find most people can't afford to pay especially when the rescuers tend to bill to the tune of $160,000 plus the added court cost. The result is it winds up costing more to collect such fees than you would collect from the people being rescued. When I was taking an accounting class back in college, we were taught it doesn't make sense to try and collect fees the users can't afford. I don't know of a successful rescue operation fully paid for by the people being rescued. The whole thing gets a little murky when drug users are in the mix. Maybe the best guess is, do a credit check and if that shows an inability to pay, don't incur additional cost by taking them to court. Of course, then you get into the GOP argument of should rich people have to pay for things poor people do not?

[importman77]

Forgive me in advance for taking this slightly off topic. It seems to me that if we can pay millions, if not billions of dollars every year so worthless, lazy people, many of them totally capable of working, can have a home, food, free medical care, and even a &^%$* cell phone, then 160k to save a couple of young peoples' lives shouldn't be a problem. A man I know personally was fired from a govt job because they found his desk filled with prescription drugs for which he had no prescription. He was arrested and went to court of course. I assume he was found guilty because he was forced to wear an anklet and stay under house arrest for a while. But here's the kicker..... He and his college age daughter are now both receiving checks from the government every month!! To summarize this, a man fries his brains on drugs and we pay him and his daughter for it. I know this doesn't directly have anything to do with this thread, but the point I was hoping to make was, we give away millions, hand over fist to totally undeserving people every day, yet they're concerned about $160k that DIRECTLY led to saving two lives. My mama used to refer to situations like this as gagging on a gnat and swallowing a camel.

[TNhiker]

who doesn't go out in the woods to get high?


and not just by chemical means....

anyone ever hear of the term "runner's high"?

same thing happens with hiking for some people......

it's just a state of mind....

also, it is interesting, based on an article i read about this rescue, that the guy offered to pay back the rescue fee.........i'm sure he said that outta haste and not after seeing the bill......

[TNhiker]

also.......i'm guessing that a very good lawyer could get the search of the car tossed.....

[Dogwood]

http://news.yahoo.com/drug-means-hik...171332585.html

Anyone hear about these folks who decided to go on a hike while possibly on a meth binge?

From the article: "They didn't go out there to hike, they went out there to get high. And they got disoriented," Orange County board supervisor Todd Spitzer told the Los Angeles Times (http://lat.ms/155wvlt ).

That can quite possibly be the situation. If this can be proven I say - "make em pay for their rescue!"

[RED-DOG]

You will see all sorts of different people on the trails.