I live in the Northwest, and we have had 2 search and rescue missions up here in a week. I don't think the Kim family should ve held responsible for goimg dpwm a rpad tjat was supposed to be closed, because a vandal cut the lock open, but the three on Mt. Hood is another story. Who should be responsible to pick up the bill for the three lost climbers on Mt. Hood? Should the individuals who are lost be responsible? Or should all hikers pay a higher fee to hike to offset the costs of Search and Rescue? What about a system that required all hikers to wear a GPS locating device? Just curious to see what you think. Thanks!
2006-12-14 03:57:18 · 9 answers · asked by McBeth 3 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
We pay insurance to cover the cost of fire and theft? Shouldn't climbers have to carry insurance, then?
2006-12-14 04:32:14 · update #1
I totally agree with you. It costs you more to insure a Roles Royce than a pinto. you pay more taxes on a Roles Royce than a pinto. If you don't have insurance you loose if you have got insurance and you die use that money for the search and rescue.Rate it like the insurance companys do, you pay more if you drive 50,000 miles a year than you do for someone who drives 20,000 miles per year.If they find them alive they still should pay. After all they will probably write a book about their adventure and make money from it. If they haddent attempted to climb the mountain in the first place they wouldn't have gotten lost or trapped.
2006-12-14 05:53:36 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I really don't think you can hold the hikers responsible for the bill after the fact. I do think the gps thing is a great idea and charging them a higer fee to go into more dangerous areas is very smart as well. I do think though it is the governmen't obligation to pay for these recues (or to find a way to have the money supplimented by hikers/citizens). These people do not go out on these trips with the intention of getting in trouble, and making them pay for it after is like rubbing salt in the wound. Good question!
2006-12-14 04:05:46 · answer #2 · answered by Monique 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The climbers insurance companies should pick up the tab. Dangerous hobbies like mountain climbing should be noted by insurance companies. If you have seen the movie Along Came Polly, Ben Stillers job was to declare if a multi billionaire was fit to be insured due to his outlandish stunts and reckless lifestyle. Most insurance companies should ask these types of questions. If people want to live on the edge the bill should not be picked up by the American taxpayer.
2006-12-14 04:06:22 · answer #3 · answered by Chris D 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
If it became intentional, he would desire to be required to pay. As a parent i be attentive to that infants do issues that they'd desire to no longer. in basic terms because of the fact they are childrens and don't make person judgements does not propose that the mothers and fathers are no longer to blame. That being mentioned it does appear as if a unusual and wonderful relatives. If this became in any respect a exposure stunt or executed on the standards of the relatives they'd desire to pay. although, getting the money out of somebody is thoroughly different than acknowledging the undeniable fact that they'd desire to pay.
2016-12-11 09:02:41 · answer #4 · answered by unck 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think that requiring a GPS is a great idea. Aldo a fee that would go into a fund for S and R would help too. I don't think you can retroactively charge someone for a search and rescue when they didn't know up front that they could be.
2006-12-14 04:25:45 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The forests, mountains and other 'wild' areas are for everybodies enjoment. That we choose to use it is for us to decide.
When people get lost or injured then its not by choice. There are those however that are delinquent when it comes to prepardness.
Search and rescue is expensive. No one argues with that. But so is the fire service and the police. Should people pay the full cost when their house burns down? Should we pay the cost of the investigation when our house is burgled?
2006-12-14 04:12:20 · answer #6 · answered by philip_jones2003 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The cost of search and rescue should be covered by fees to use the national parks. Or by a special tax levied on camping gear.
2006-12-14 06:32:12 · answer #7 · answered by matmid2001 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
You have to be a dumb @ss to climb a frickin mountain in Oregon this time of year in the first place. So it shouldn't be tax payers.
The Kim family just got lost, they weren't out doing something stupid.
2006-12-14 04:31:45 · answer #8 · answered by boobhead 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
it should be the family. no one else cares if they die or not so why should the tax payers pay it.
2006-12-14 04:04:36 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋