“Adventurers” and “Thrill Seekers” Should Pay in Advance
I don’t want to sound cold, but I have issues with the search for Steve Fossett.
First, this guy’s rich. Second, he failed to submit a flight plan–apparently he couldn’t be bothered.
As a result, the search for him is extremely hard–and the public is picking up the tab for a lot of it, as much as $110,000 so far, probably more. The question is, why? If Fossett had filed a flight plan–this being one of the main reasons we do that sort of thing–I’d have a bit more sympathy. But when some rich old fart who thinks the rules don’t apply to him goes off and gets himself killed, I’m not so sure that the taxpayers should pick up that particular bill. If I were a Nevada taxpayer, I’d want the estate to pay for every cent spent on the search.
This also brings up how much public money should be used rescuing “adventurers” and “thrill seekers” when they get into trouble. Some rescue efforts there are no questions about–people who went camping and got lost in the forest, someone who got lost driving in the countryside and got caught in a blizzard–in other words, people in situations we would consider relatively ordinary and reasonable.
The threshold might come when you cross that “ordinary and reasonable” line. People climbing mountains in national parks under reasonable conditions would be on the safe side of that threshold, for example. But we don’t classify them as “thrill seekers.” No, it’s the people who do crazy sh*t under radical circumstances. Like these old-fart millionaires and billionaires who do stuff fly fly around the world in hot-air balloons, though they’re the extreme examples. People who throw themselves off of cliffs, climb high mountains, or try to kayak across the Pacific solo or whatever–these people are doing what they do solely for self-gratification, for the adrenaline rush or for personal vanity.
Mind you, I have no problem with them going off and killing themselves if that’s the risk they want to take; it’s their life, they should be able to do with it what they wish. What I object to is the idea that we’ve got to then go out of our way to care for them, and to pay for the inevitable search and rescue, and probably, in the cases of those without a lot of money, their hospital bills.
Like I said, I don’t want to sound cold, but if these people want to risk breaking their necks just so they can get an adrenaline rush, and come back saying “Am I a badass or what??” then they should pay for their own search-and-rescue, or else be satisfied with knowing that there won’t be one.
I disagree with your opinion about the costs of search and rescues. (And I happen to be a Nevada taxpayer). My biggest worry that if we charged victims for rescues that people who should be calling for help will put off seeking rescue until it is too late. This is a service typically provided by county governments and big searches like this one are quite rare. A lot of the manpower is volunteer work and these people are very eager to help any victim despite how stupid the victims are. Furthermore, all of these searches are excellent training for future missions. I’m glad to see the Nevada Air Guard doing some of this realistic training.
Also, where would you draw the line about charging or not charging? A highly trained mountaineer climbing a 14er in Colorado in the winter may be considered by a layperson to be nuts but it may be a routine climb for someone of that skill level. Likewise, a overweight diabetic who left their medication back at the hotel room and tries to do a 1 mile hike on a hot day may be considered to be a reckless daredevil (or fool) by a more seasoned hiker but to the public they may seem to be an average person.
I’ve worked with some of the Search and Rescue folks here in Southern Nevada and they are dedicated and professional folks willing to rescue anyone, anytime. Most of the people they rescue are idiots and the SAR folks work just as hard to rescue them as more “legitimate” rescues. The idiots just get laughed at behind their backs after the rescue is done.
David:
Hard to argue with you on these points. But whatever the reality is, in terms of responsibility and fairness, I still think that I make strong and salient points.
I would point out that there is a difference between stupid and daredevil. Daredevil is stupid, knows that he’s in great danger, and does it anyway for the thrills. The diabetic may be stupid and may even know that he’s in danger, but I doubt that he’s taking that hike for thrills.
Someone who climbs mountains in Colorado in winter may find such climbs “routine,” but (a) no matter how routine they get, the chance of something going wrong is still high, and (b) search and rescue in such situations is astronomically more expensive than it would be for a diabetic who went into hypoglycemic shock on a city street.
True, the daredevil may decide to hold off calling for rescue if it will be expensive, but this is where the concept of insurance kicks in. If they can’t afford to pay for rescue themselves, then why should they be allowed to make everyone else pay for their fun and thrills? Like I said, it may be cold, but if a person deliberately decides to take unreasonable risks in a way that would be hideously expensive for society to repair and then fails to prepare to pay for that themselves… that is putting an undue burden on society. You pay for what you get. When it comes to mountain climbers, for example, they could pool in together as insurance to pay for SAR, so if someone in the activity goes missing, that fund pays for it. If that’s too expensive, then maybe they shouldn’t be doing it in the first place. But today, they force everyone else to foot the bill.
If it comes down to it, I might even accept a system that judges for knowledge and stupidity–in the case of your diabetic, if he has meds, then he knows full well what a hike without them will do to him. Why should he also be allowed to let everyone else pay for it? In fact, must he not pay for such assistance now? Would not hospitals charge him for the ambulance ride and treatment, unless he has no money? Maybe his insurance would not even cover that, though that part is moot–if climbers had insurance, all would be paid for.
In the end, this argument I make is for argument’s sake only; working out such a system wouldn’t wash in the end. So in lieu of that, consider this post a matter of pointing out an unfairness that goes uncorrected because of the reasons you point out. We can’t change the system like I propose, but that does not mean that the points I make are not without merit. In effect, daredevils and idiots alike cost the rest of us.
The difference is, daredevils are not so stupid that they don’t know better.