[pct-l] Cost of a SAR airlift

[Mark Liechty]

On Jun 22, 2012, at 1:51 PM, Brick Robbins wrote:
> And those that don't choose to purchase insurance should be left to
> die or rely solely on non governmental good Samaritans, as it was
> their choice by not purchasing insurance?
> 
> This is a real question there are forces pushing our government that
> direction, and we should really decide if that is the direction we
> want to go.
> ###########

This is a very serious question that affects us all. 

If we decide that the government should have to pay the bill for the rescue then are we also deciding that the government can save that money by closing all access to the wilderness?

After all if there are 5000* hikers and 10* rescues a year at a cost of $20,000* per rescue then there is a savings of $200,000 per year that can be better spent on traffic signs that affect a million city dwellers.  

Either that or the government can charge $4,000 per permit to cover the costs that they know they will incur as a result of the rescues.

Why a rescue occurs has nothing to do with the cost.  And that cost, to be accurate needs to factor in the equipment, training, and labor costs including the benefits payout when someone on the SAR team gets seriously hurt or dead.  

Me thinks this is not a road we want to head down.    


And if your argument is that other types of services should be cut first or someone else should pay or your money should go to trails and not tanks or or or ..... well that discussion is already taking place and we (hikers) are not going to get a seat at the table for the final budget cuts so we better not be stepping to hard on the feet of the beast.



*I am making up the numbers for simple math so that is not the point