Personal responsibility seems missing among hunters stranded by storm
Our View: At the least, we'd hope they would make substantial donations to the Search and Rescue volunteer teams that got them out safely.
Friday, December 18, 2009
How do you prevent people from putting themselves in so much danger of death or injury that someone else has to come rescue them?
Should they be charged for the rescue? Should they be fined if it turns out they were breaking a rule or regulation?
Should they be barred from returning to, say, a national park where they were rescued?
Or should taxpayers just continue to foot the bill, whether the rescue is for hunters in Coconino County stranded by a blizzard or climbers on Mount Hood caught in a major storm?
The choices above are tough to apply on an across-the-board basis. And different states and jurisdictions have answered the questions in different ways.
On one end, the National Park Service and Coconino County Search and Rescue do not charge for rescues. The county's bill for the stranded hunter mission came to $22,215, with another $11,300 "saved" because the Search and Rescue volunteers put in their hours -- amazingly -- for free. It's anticipated another $10,000 in expenses will be tallied up by DPS, Gila County Sheriff's Office and Civil Air Patrol.
We realize that blizzards don't hit Coconino County very often and many of the hunters were from the Valley. But the forecast had been warning of severe winter weather at least 36 hours before the snow started falling and rangers were visiting campsites with the news, meaning hunters should have set up their camps much closer to paved roads. If that meant walking farther into the woods to get their elk, then walking farther to get it out, so be it.
Instead, some hunters appeared to not only ignore the risks but did not come prepared to ride out the storm. They relied on forest rangers on snowmobiles to get them to safety, with some having the gall to ask that their vehicles be towed out or plowed out, too.
On the other end of the rescue policy spectrum are several states like New Hampshire that not only charge for a rescue but assess a fine for "endangerment" and violating safety rules. The burden is then on the rescuees to show in court why their predicament could not have been anticipated or prevented.
Even in Arizona, there is precedent in the "Stupid Motorist" law that penalizes drivers who ignore barricades and attempt to cross flooded roads. The police in Phoenix and Tucson will rescue them and their vehicles from the middle of the rushing water, then send the driver the bill.
The situation on the Peaks in winter seems similar. Arizona Snowbowl posts its boundaries prominently with signs that warn skiers and snowboarders of the dangers they face if they venture beyond the ropes. The ski lift pass that the out-of-bounders purchase to reach the top of the slopes contains the same warning, and it can be revoked if the holder is found in violation.
Granted, not everyone who gets into trouble on the Peaks has deliberately skied past a sign. Some hikers are victims of bad judgment; in other cases, accidents happen. Public safety agencies are obligated to respond to calls of distress no matter who's at fault. Playing the blame game would burden them with time-consuming investigations and possibly court appearances.
But it does seem that some cases of risky behavior are no-brainers. If you drive around a washout barricade or an out-of-bounds sign, you should be responsible for the cost of getting out of the trouble you've put yourself in. The criteria for a rescue bill should be whether the rescuee had a specific and proximate warning that his behavior would be risky, and a sign or barricade would seem to be sufficient.
As for the concern that a lost but penniless snowboarder will wait to call until after dark and the situation is dire instead of in mid-afternoon, that might be addressed by setting up a range of rescue charges. The later into the night the search goes, the costlier it will be. A sliding scale might provide enough incentive for those who ignore signs to at least do so with plenty of time to be rescued during daylight hours.
Ideally, we would hope the rescued hunters would make large donations to the search and rescue teams -- the volunteers could always use a reserve fund to draw from for equipment and supplies. A note of public thanks would also go a long way toward assuaging local taxpayer irritation over the situation. If any hunter is so inclined, the instructions for sending a letter to the editor are listed below.
OUR VIEW: At the least, we'd hope they would make substantial donations to the Search and Rescue volunteer teams that got them out safely.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
»Subscribe to the Arizona Daily Sun |
