[pct-l] To pay or not to pay

[rmoak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Ronald Moak)]

>> That's why I made my money. I took the risk. it is MINE! I will give it
away
if I choose, and I have, but I object to having it TAKEN from me.

So tell me why I shouldn't require all thru hikers to obtain rescue
insurance? Tell me why I shouldn't charge $3 per day access fee to the PCT?
Why should I be forced to pay --- for you to take a 6 month vacation from
society?. <<

The more things change, the more they stay the same. It seems like every
time someone goes out and gets lost and racks up a rescue bill, the issue of
"Pay vs. No Pay" gets debated once again.

So I'll say what I say knowing full well that we'll be right back here in a
few months.

First, my comments stem from having spent 7 years in Mountain Rescue some
time ago. While I'm sure things have changed somewhat in the years since I
gave up going out on rescues, I'm sure much of it hasn't.

Rescue Insurance - Personally I've no problem with rescue Insurance. Though
I expect like most other so called advances, it'll just create a new
bureaucracy that will in the end consume most of the funds taken in to keep
itself going. Much like the vaulted "Forest Pass".

The only experience I've got with rescue insurance, is that I purchased some
rescue insurance last summer for my hike in Colorado. It cost about $3.00
and was purchased at a Wal-Mart. I also know that some Mountaineering Groups
offer a combined Rescue/Medical insurance package for members who travel in
distance places. At least my PCT partner got some from a group in England
before his hike. How much it cost or what it covered, I haven't a clue.

One problem I do have when "Cost" are quoted for rescues, they are seldom
real cost and are generally heavily inflated. For example, most rescues in
Oregon and Washington are done by volunteer groups under the control of
county sheriffs. It is the sheriffs department that determines the nature of
the rescue and what resources need to be applied. This is true for all
rescues that take place in National Forest. I don't believe this applies to
National Parks unless the rescue overwhelms local resources.

Each county as multiple rescue groups depending upon the nature of the
rescue. If a county doesn't have sufficient resources it'll call upon
neighboring counties to fill its needs. I know I went on a couple of Mt.
Hood rescues even though our Rescue unit was based in Corvallis.

Other rescue groups include, Explorer scouts, for low level trail running,
Horse men, for hauling in supplies and hauling out bodies, Dog patrols, for
searching by sent, and Airplane volunteers for aerial searches.

The rescuers are volunteers and neither their time nor expenses for personal
gear is reimbursed. In our case all community gear ( radios, ropes, litters,
etc.) was paid for by fundraisers put on by the local rescue unit. Again at
no cost to the tax payers.

Rescue vehicles are often cast off military equipment. I know we had a
Korean War vintage ambulance (ala Mash) to drive around in. Cost to the
county was minimal though they did pickup the tab for maintenance and gas.

In the 7 plus years I was in Mountain Rescue, we went on monthly training
sessions all around the Cascades of Oregon and got called out on 1 or maybe
2 rescues a year. Far more real cost dollars were spend on training than on
the rescues themselves. I would expect that none of the money raise by
Rescue Insurance would be used to offset training cost.

I would expect that most of the "Cost" quoted for a rescue is for pay of
County personal to oversee the operation, cost of county vehicles, and
possible helicopter charges. In the past all helicopter support in Oregon
was supplied by the Air National Guard. In general it was considered
training time. These days with military cut backs, that maybe different.

I'm not saying that there aren't real cost, but the majority of them would
be spent anyway whether the personal was out writing tickets or sitting
around the office eating donuts. It's pretty unlikely that any of the money
would get back into the hands of the individuals who are actually doing the
actual work.

Most likely it'd be simply a tax subsidy that would get used for god knows
what else.

-Fallingwater