There is, in this comparison of Catalonia and our own national park system, a parallel. It is that people in dangerous places get into trouble and need to be rescued. On October 2, 2009, Daniel Woolls of the Associated Press reported that the regional government of Catalonia has started to charge mountain climbers, skiers, and other outdoor adventurers who get into trouble for the privilege of a rescue. The price included $3,325 per hour for the use of a helicopter; $44 per hour for each rescuer; and $57 per hour for use of the rescue vehicle, whatever type might be needed. He did not state if that was in Euros or U.S. dollars. If Euros, then add about 20 to 25 percent to the price tag. In just the first nine months of 2009, the Catalonians were called upon for 365 rescues, mostly in the Pyrenees.

Cost of Search and Rescues

A few years ago, I wrote an editorial in the CPCU Claims Quarterly suggesting that hikers and mountain climbers in need of rescue — and thus those risking the lives of park rangers and other volunteers — ought to be required to pay restitution for the costs incurred. Of course, outdoor types who believe that the right to be imprudent and get lost is part of their Constitutional privilege highly criticized this stance. They asserted that those mountain-climbing volunteer rescuers just love performing rescues. So there sat the editorialist on his fat butt while those athletic mountain climbers were out exercising.

One wonders if the wives and families of the rangers and rescuers appreciate their breadwinners risking their lives for those who willingly put themselves at risk. This was mentioned in my March 2007 column, “Search and Rescue Ventures.” Since that was written, the nation's deficit has grown exponentially. As a result, budgets for things like national parks have been trimmed to the bone. What happens in the new administration is not clear; however, it is likely that every potential source of revenue that can be tapped, will be.

According to the Journal of Travel Medicine, from 2003 to 2006 there were 12,337 search-and-rescue operations involving 15,537 visitors to our national parks, at a cost to the government of $16.6 million. These included 522 fatalities, 4,800 injuries, and 2,855 saves. While this may represent an average cost of around $500 per rescue, those that require the use of a helicopter or other aircraft increase the cost by the hour. Further, the salaries of rangers involved in those rescues are neither counted, nor are their federal workers' compensation costs, if they are killed or injured during the search and rescue.

Almost half of the situations requiring rescues occurred on weekends, and nearly a quarter of those involved were between the ages of 20 and 29. Causes cited in the article by Dr. Travis W. Heggie and Tracey M. Heggie of the University of North Dakota were errors in judgment; fatigue and physical conditions; insufficient equipment or clothing; and inexperience. Over a 15-year period, Dr. Heggie and another University of North Dakota associate, Michael E. Amundson, pointed to 78,488 people involved in 65,439 incidents — at a cost of more than $58.5 million.

More than half of these search-and-rescue operations occurred in just five national parks, including 307 in the Grand Canyon and 293 in the Gateway National Recreation Area. Twenty-five percent of the costs were incurred in Yosemite National Park. Other parks with expensive search-and-rescue operations were located in Alaska, including both Denali and Wrangell-St. Elias. Hikers accounted for 48 percent of the rescues; swimming and boating more than 20 percent; and 12.1 percent were related to suicides.

Pay the Piper

In an article titled “Search and Rescue: A Privilege for the Saved or Burden for Society,” Jason Robertson of American Whitewater, citing a letter from Lloyd Athearn of the American Alpine Club, stated, “Federal, state, and other government agencies have a moral and legal responsibility to conduct and bear the cost of search-and-rescue efforts for anyone in need of their assistance. This is both a privilege and a right, and is protected by international treaties, which effectively ensure your rescue regardless of your ability to pay for the services.

“The issues surrounding equity, legal liability, and financial responsibility must be explored so that policymakers appreciate what actions are likely to help and harm the public's interests,” he continued.

Anyone who has ever visited a state or national park and met with the rangers knows that these are men and women dedicated to a variety of goals. The first among these goals is to ensure the safety of park visitors. However, when rangers are forced to place their own lives at risk to rescue visitors who have negligently placed themselves in danger, honest Americans must ask themselves if this is really fair. Considering what those rangers are paid, is this even equitable? As discussed in my March 2007 article, there are serious tort issues involved in rescues. Has the rescuer who is injured or killed “assumed the risk”? Is the person who negligently placed themselves in danger legally responsible if the rescuer is injured?

These are courtroom issues, the answers to which will differ between states and federal jurisdictions. It is unlikely that the estate of a forest or park ranger killed in a rescue action will be successful in a lawsuit against the person being rescued, but that misses the point. It's akin to arson; if someone deliberately or negligently starts a fire and a fireman is killed during the attempt to put it out, they may be held liable for the results.

Underwriting Opportunity

In the fuss about medical insurance, we heard little about casualty insurance, other than discussion of tort reform regarding medical malpractice claims. Casualty insurance is part of the overall insurance industry, and we all share in the costs as premium-paying policyholders, and, for the uninsured, in increased tax bills. Search-and-rescue operations by the park services (state and federal), the Coast Guard, the forest services, and others are a tax burden. I guess while Congress was busy giving tax cuts to the wealthy during the first eight years of the new century, they failed to consider the tax breaks they were awarding for stupidity, as well.

It is unlikely that the national parks will suddenly place the wilderness and mountain tops “off limits.” John Muir was climbing around the mountains in Yosemite long before it became a national park, and more than one person claimed to be the first to climb Mt. McKinley before it became Denali National Park. Let's think about how much money would be available for more useful projects in parks if funds weren't being wasted on search-and-rescue operations.

Two options are available, this writer suggests. One is to require that every hiker or boater wishing to climb mountains, trek in the wilderness, or race off on a Jet Ski posts a $10,000 bond per-person with the park or forest (state or federal) to cover the potential cost of rescue. The other is to charge all of the costs (including the salaried rangers' time and medical expenses) to the rescued party. That could be an expense far higher than $10,000, or it may be only a few hundred dollars.

If this option was selected, then such costs could be added to homeowners' forms — perhaps a “Cost of Search-and-Rescue Endorsement” — providing reimbursement of all expenses up to, let's say, $50,000 for land or water rescue. A new endorsement means a new premium source. Voila! Casualty insurers make more money, and adjusters have a new type of claim to service.

Given the thousands of jerks out there trying to climb some mountain without the proper guide, equipment, or experience, or a boater deciding that those dark clouds threatening a storm are simply going to blow over before the shoreline becomes invisible, there should be lots of purchasers of such an endorsement.

I've hiked in — or at least flown over — more than 35 of our national parks or monuments, and enjoyed every one of them. Every American should do this. But when they do, they should also keep a healthy supply of common sense on-hand and avoid the need for expensive search and rescue. Who knows? It may even save lives — their own and that of the rescuers'.