I was reading an article about how silly hikers are getting themselves into dangerous situations and increasingly relying on rescuers to get them out. Am I the only one who thinks these people, for the most part, ought to just crawl out on their own? Am I being too harsh?

Tired from a tough hike? Rescuers fear Yuppie 911

By TRACIE CONE

FRESNO, Calif. (AP) - Last month two men and their teenage sons tackled one of the world's most unforgiving summertime hikes: the Grand Canyon's parched and searing Royal Arch Loop. Along with bedrolls and freeze-dried food, the inexperienced backpackers carried a personal locator beacon - just in case.

In the span of three days, the group pushed the panic button three times, mobilizing helicopters for dangerous, lifesaving rescues inside the steep canyon walls.

What was that emergency? The water they had found to quench their thirst "tasted salty."

If they had not been toting the device that works like Onstar for hikers, "we would have never attempted this hike," one of them said after the third rescue crew forced them to board their chopper. It's a growing problem facing the men and women who risk their lives when they believe others are in danger of losing theirs.

Technology has made calling for help instantaneous even in the most remote places. Because would-be adventurers can send GPS coordinates to rescuers with the touch of a button, some are exploring terrain they do not have the experience, knowledge or endurance to tackle.

Rescue officials are deciding whether to start keeping statistics on the problem, but the incidents have become so frequent that the head of California's Search and Rescue operation has a name for the devices: Yuppie 911.

"Now you can go into the back country and take a risk you might not normally have taken," says Matt Scharper, who coordinates a rescue every day in a state with wilderness so rugged even crashed planes can take decades to find. "With the Yuppie 911, you send a message to a satellite and the government pulls your butt out of something you shouldn't have been in in the first place."

From the Sierra to the Cascades, Rockies and beyond, hikers are arming themselves with increasingly affordable technology intended to get them out of life-threatening situations.

While daring rescues are one result, very often the beacons go off unintentionally when the button is pushed in someone's backpack, or they are activated unnecessarily, as in the case of a woman who was frightened by a thunderstorm.

"There's controversy over these devices in the first place because it removes the self sufficiency that's required in the back country," Scharper says. "But we are a society of services, and every service you need you can get by calling."

The sheriff's office in San Bernardino County, the largest in the nation and home to part of the unforgiving Death Valley, hopes to reduce false alarms. So it is studying under what circumstances hikers activate the devices.

"In the past, people who got in trouble self-rescued; they got on their hands and knees and crawled out," says John Amrhein, the county's emergency coordinator. "We saw the increase in non-emergencies with cell phones: people called saying 'I'm cold and damp. Come get me out.' These take it to another level."

Personal locator beacons, which send distress signals to government satellites, became available in the early 1980s, but at a price exceeding $1,200. They have been legal for the public to use since 2003, and in the last year the price has fallen to less than $100 for devices that send alerts to a company, which then calls local law enforcement.

When rescue beacons tempt inexperienced hikers to attempt trails beyond their abilities, that can translate into unnecessary expense and a risk of lives.

Last year, the beacon for a hiker on the Pacific Crest Trail triggered accidentally in his backpack, sending helicopters scrambling. Recently, a couple from New Bruswick, British Columbia activated their beacon when they climbed a steep trail and could not get back down. A helicopter lowered them 200 feet to secure footing.

In September, a hiker from Placer County was panning for gold in New York Canyon when he became dehydrated and used his rescue beacon to call for help.

With darkness setting in on the same day, Mono County sheriff's deputies asked the National Guard for a high-altitude helicopter and a hoist for a treacherous rescue of two beacon-equipped hikers stranded at Convict Lake. The next day they hiked out on foot.

When eight climbers ran into trouble last winter during a summit attempt of Mt. Hood in Oregon, they called for help after becoming stranded on a glacier in a snowstorm.

"The question is, would they have decided to go on the trip knowing the weather was going bad if they had not been able to take the beacons," asks Rocky Henderson of Portland Mountain Rescue. "We are now entering the Twilight Zone of someone else's intentions."

The Grand Canyon's Royal Arch loop, the National Park Service warns, "has a million ways to get into serious trouble" for those lacking skill and good judgment. One evening the fathers-and-sons team activated their beacon when they ran out of water.

Rescuers, who did not know the nature of the call, could not launch the helicopter until morning. When the rescuers arrived, the group had found a stream and declined help.

That night, they activated the emergency beacon again. This time the Arizona Department of Public Safety helicopter, which has night vision capabilities, launched into emergency mode.

When rescuers found them, the hikers were worried they might become dehydrated because the water they found tasted salty. They declined an evacuation, and the crew left water.

The following morning the group called for help again. This time, according to a park service report, rescuers took them out and cited the leader for "creating a hazardous condition" for the rescue teams.

http://my.att.net/s/editorial.dll?pnum=1&bfromind=7406&eeid=6898221&_sitecat=1522&dcatid=0&eetype=article&render=y&ac=2&ck=&ch=ne&rg=blsadstrgt&_lid=332&_lnm=tg+ne+topnews&ck=

My opinion...and this is already happening around the country. Send them the bill for the entire operation. And, if after being warned that they are abusing the system, they continue to do so...arrest them. Same as making a fake 911 call.

Oh Darwin, where are you when we need you...

-Chris-

My opinion...and this is already happening around the country. Send them the bill for the entire operation. And, if after being warned that they are abusing the system, they continue to do so...arrest them. Same as making a fake 911 call.

Oh Darwin, where are you when we need you...

-Chris-

I agree.

I know quite a few people with the SPOT system, mostly motorcycle riders who go on extended rides/tours by themselves. It allows others to keep track of their location and if the SPOT doesn't move for awhile in an unusual location it allows someone to send help. I know someone who had a crash on a mountain road in Colorado and was out of sight from the road and couldn't get to the SPOT device to send the distress signal but some friends noticed online the location, correlated it to Google Earth and realized something was wrong when it didn't move for hours. So they sent a request to the service and help was dispatched and they were thankful for it.

Like most things, used properly those type things are great devices, used improperly they are an annoyance. We get people stuck in caves around here a few times a year and they have to send a rescue squad out to find them after the cell call to 911.

OR have them take out an insurance policy from the rescue companies before setting out. No policy, no rescue. :fighting2

OR have them take out an insurance policy from the rescue companies before setting out. No policy, no rescue. :fighting2

Unfortunately with public safety agencies, you cannot do this. If the rescue call is in an area that the agency has a duty to respond in, they cannot refuse based on insurance or ability to pay.

-Chris-

They can't refuse but they can bill you. A few $10,000 rescue bills (which will be negotiated down) might make a few of yahoos think twice before heading out and doing something they have no business attempting.

maybe we're just seeing more people who don't know how to pull themselves out of the situations going out, and they shouldn't be out there to begin with.

maybe we're just seeing more people who don't know how to pull themselves out of the situations going out, and they shouldn't be out there to begin with.


:congrats::congrats: Bingo!

I'm an avid backcountry hiker/backpacker. I would pray that I would be rescued in a life threatening situation. I've spent many nights in the backcountry of our national parks, forest service, and BLM lands. The past 2 years, my buddy and I have been traveling with the Spot locater beacon. It has several methods of sending signals. There is the "OK" option which sends text msgs and emails to a list of people to let them know everything is fine, and where you are. Then there is a "Help" option that sends texts to those same people in the event they can offer help. Then there is the "911" option which sends a rescue location for SAR teams. While we've never had to use the "911" button, I would expect a rescue if we had to use it. We make it a point to send an "OK" signal to our friends and familes who worrie about us while we're out. As far as a legitimate backcountry rescue, the thought of a bill for it is retarted. Should the fire department send a bill to put out a house fire?

There are insurance companies that offer insurance for adventures. It is very expensive and it is used by mountaineers and travelers who venture to hostile countries (they will pay a ransom if you're kidnapped or a high altitude rescue...) This is really unnecessary for the average backcountry camper. As stated, part of the duties of park rangers is Search and Rescue. I do think the citations for creating a hazzardous condition for rescuers is appropriate when necessary, but you can't have a call and just not respond.

A lot of this could be resolved through the permit system already in place. Any backcountry hike in a National Park and a lot of public lands starts with talking to a ranger about getting a backcountry permit. Some of these people could be filtered out by answering a handfull of questions from the rangers about various gear you will be taking. The Grand Canyon NP requires you to watch a DVD that they send you with the permit, which is actually pretty scary, that covers pretty much everything and states that you are doing it at your own risk.

I'm an avid backcountry hiker/backpacker. I would pray that I would be rescued in a life threatening situation. I've spent many nights in the backcountry of our national parks, forest service, and BLM lands. The past 2 years, my buddy and I have been traveling with the Spot locater beacon. It has several methods of sending signals. There is the "OK" option which sends text msgs and emails to a list of people to let them know everything is fine, and where you are. Then there is a "Help" option that sends texts to those same people in the event they can offer help. Then there is the "911" option which sends a rescue location for SAR teams. While we've never had to use the "911" button, I would expect a rescue if we had to use it. We make it a point to send an "OK" signal to our friends and familes who worrie about us while we're out. As far as a legitimate backcountry rescue, the thought of a bill for it is retarted. Should the fire department send a bill to put out a house fire?

There are insurance companies that offer insurance for adventures. It is very expensive and it is used by mountaineers and travelers who venture to hostile countries (they will pay a ransom if you're kidnapped or a high altitude rescue...) This is really unnecessary for the average backcountry camper. As stated, part of the duties of park rangers is Search and Rescue. I do think the citations for creating a hazzardous condition for rescuers is appropriate when necessary, but you can't have a call and just not respond.

A lot of this could be resolved through the permit system already in place. Any backcountry hike in a National Park and a lot of public lands starts with talking to a ranger about getting a backcountry permit. Some of these people could be filtered out by answering a handfull of questions from the rangers about various gear you will be taking. The Grand Canyon NP requires you to watch a DVD that they send you with the permit, which is actually pretty scary, that covers pretty much everything and states that you are doing it at your own risk.

I agree with that. I don't want to see people charged for emergency care, I want to see them have to know what they're doing before they go into the hostile environment, instead of jumping off their couches and deciding to go camping one day. If an experienced outdoorsman gets into trouble, you know it's far more likely that they weren't being idiots at the time.

If anyone should be charged with emergency care, it'd be people who stay behind after being told to evacuate and who have to get airlifted out anyways, like the people in the California wild-fires. Other than that, I don't want to see it.

This is one of those things that should require federal/state licensing and have established rules like hunting and fishing. If you get yourself lost or injured as a result of no licensing or training, you pay a fine. A person should be able to demonstrate they can navigate the area and have intermediate level survival skills.

Not to mention the person/persons should be required to carry gps tracking devices and communicate with a home base/person every so many hours.

I think the point is that people who used to avoid places where they couldn't handle themselves have a false sense of security with the new technology that inspires them to stretch further than as safe, resulting in more rescues. And of course, there is the huge annoyance of people who misuse the rescue system for less than true emergencies or for "emergenices" that are only emergencies because they are dumb sh*ts. I don't see having a problem with tracking someone on a mountain road - all the difference in the world than tracking them in backcountry.

And then, there is the whole mentality of "if I can be saved, even if I made a stupid decision, the rest of the world has to save me and don't dare bill me. It is my right to have fun and let others absorb the cost if it goes south." Frankly, I think that if I do something stupid and burn down my house, that is what insurance is for. Why should my neighbors pay for my stupidity? Send me a bill for asinine behavior.

maybe we're just seeing more people who don't know how to pull themselves out of the situations going out, and they shouldn't be out there to begin with.

No maybe about it, and that's not limited to backcountry by any means.
Think back on how many times in recent years you have seen footage of a rescue in-state due to someone not having enough common sense to take even basic precautions.

Volunteer firedepartments out in the rural areas WILL damn sure send you a bill if your farm catches on fire. Why would these be any different?

Bill the darwinistas and then have a huge exclaimer on the box the device comes in:

WARNING: IF YOUR DUMB ASS GETS STUCK AND YOU PRESS THE RED BUTTON FOR HELP, YOU WILL BE CHARGED FOR THE COST OF THE EMERGENCY RESCUE. USE SPARINGLY AND ONLY IN CASES OF DIRE EMERGENCY!

Rescuers, who did not know the nature of the call, could not launch the helicopter until morning. When the rescuers arrived, the group had found a stream and declined help.

This irks me to no end. I read about this a couple days ago on a National Parks blog. I am an active backpacker and hiker and these 4 had absolutely no business on that trail. And there should be no such thing as "refusing rescue". If you push that button, you're coming out of there. If they had not let them stay, it would have saved them from having to make two more trips out there for these morons.

There was another one recently (I think it's briefly mentioned in this article) where a woman pushed it around 3am because the group leader--the only one with experience--was making "weird respiratory sounds" and it was storming. The rangers found them the next morning all sleeping soundly in their tents. The woman had pushed the button and then gone back to sleep without waking up any of her companions. It's gotta stop.

The problem is, if high fees or criminal charges are threatened for misuse and false alarms with SPOT, you could have a reverse effect where people who really need help don't call for it out of fear of penalty.

Plus, who decides what's a legitimate use of the SPOT beacon?

Don't ambulance services charge huge fees? I'm not saying that's the answer, but it's a thought. I agree with jstanthrnme that backcountry permits could come with stricter requirements for proof of experience and knowledge of the risks.

I'm thinking if someone is really in an emergency, they'll pay a fat fee. If not, then maybe they aren't in all that bad a shape. And if they are too stupid to call for help when they really need it for fear of a fee, perhaps Darwin needs to step in.

How could any of you sugest that suffering and death is appropriate in a backcountry accident?? The National Park Service will never bill anyone for a SAR operation. The fathers of our nations wildlands would spin in their graves.

The reverse effect that jbrown84 speaks of is absolutely true. I would give up backpacking if it meant I would be charged to be saved. Would you keep skiing if you knew that you'd be charged several thousand dollars to be pulled out of an avalanche by the Ski Patrol? Or would you keep deep sea fishing if the Coast Guard could bill you for rescue in an emergency?

Now, back to the people who call for rescue when it's not really necessary.. As I've said this can be prevented with a more thorough permit system. When it does happen, the NPS or other agency should just take those people to court to recover the costs of that rescue when they can prove negligence. These agencies can't just not respond to a call, and when a legitimate rescue is nescessary, money should be the last thing on anyones mind. The National Search and Rescue Plan makes that pretty clear I think.

That seems to be the best solution to me as well. But I do think that there should NOT be an option to refuse rescue.

How could any of you sugest that suffering and death is appropriate in a backcountry accident?? The National Park Service will never bill anyone for a SAR operation. The fathers of our nations wildlands would spin in their graves.

The reverse effect that jbrown84 speaks of is absolutely true. I would give up backpacking if it meant I would be charged to be saved. Would you keep skiing if you knew that you'd be charged several thousand dollars to be pulled out of an avalanche by the Ski Patrol? Or would you keep deep sea fishing if the Coast Guard could bill you for rescue in an emergency?

Now, back to the people who call for rescue when it's not really necessary.. As I've said this can be prevented with a more thorough permit system. When it does happen, the NPS or other agency should just take those people to court to recover the costs of that rescue when they can prove negligence. These agencies can't just not respond to a call, and when a legitimate rescue is nescessary, money should be the last thing on anyones mind. The National Search and Rescue Plan makes that pretty clear I think.

Why should the rest of us have to pay for someone doing a dangerous recreational activity? Jeesh. The world is not one big amusement park. DARWIN. Thrill seekers aren't owed a good time but this post certainly gives that impression. Rescue work is dangerous work. How can someone be so self centered as to engage in dangerous recreational activities and puff up at the notion that they might be responsible for the costs of pulling their fat from the fire? As for the fathers spinning - I think that is total crap. When our park services were set up, they never dreamed that the rest of us would try to turn it into a disney experience. It is DANGEROUS. That is part of the thrill, for some. You bet, they should pay for it. If they can't pay, don't play. It is called being a responsible adult rather than a burden. No one is forced to go into the wild. And yes, I am not against rescue work but to not have to pay for it? When did the world become the deep pocketed grandpappy of the irresponsible and self centered?

PQ, no disrespect intended but why should the rest of us pay for wars or to torture suspects to keep your children safe in NYC? They can choose to move elsewhere.

I don't think you really understand what your talking about PQ. YOU are not paying for anything. Sure, these various agencies are helped by funding from your tax dollars, but a significant amount of their budget comes from user fees ($160 million) and concessions franchise fees ($60 million). The $5 million they're spending for SAR's is part of their ultimate mission. Protecting the parks from the people, and the people from the park.

I wouldn't call it a dangerous recreational activity PQ, I'd bet statistics would show that road cycling is probably more dangerous. It's really only a danger when you don't have the knowledge or ability to do it like that Grand Canyon Group.

Most rescuers are volunteers believe it or not. Off-duty rangers, dog-handlers, local hiking clubs... These people often see it as a call to duty. They want to help people. They would much rather save a life than find a body. Even when there is a death, the body still must be recovered. What happens then? Just take their wallet?

I don't think you really understand what your talking about PQ. YOU are not paying for anything. Sure, these various agencies are helped by funding from your tax dollars, but a significant amount of their budget comes from user fees ($160 million) and concessions franchise fees ($60 million). The $5 million they're spending for SAR's is part of their ultimate mission. Protecting the parks from the people, and the people from the park.

I wouldn't call it a dangerous recreational activity PQ, I'd bet statistics would show that road cycling is probably more dangerous. It's really only a danger when you don't have the knowledge or ability to do it like that Grand Canyon Group.

Most rescuers are volunteers believe it or not. Off-duty rangers, dog-handlers, local hiking clubs... These people often see it as a call to duty. They want to help people. They would much rather save a life than find a body. Even when there is a death, the body still must be recovered. What happens then? Just take their wallet?

As someone who regularly hiked the rockies for years, I thoroughly enjoy it and I do believe I understand the draw - and the dangers. I stand firmly on the position that when you head out to the wild, you need to be willing to pay the price. You apparently think you are entitled to a free ride if things go bad. Let's just leave it at that.

Rescue services are a subsidy to hiking -- an activity which produces a major economic impact in certain areas. It's not really unlike anything else that's subsidized -- from municipal trash collection to water services, to rescuing folks who get themselves into hot water hiking. The government subsidizes activities which have positive economic impact, thus benefiting the government in the long run.

Until we start charging people across the board per use for all other emergency services, we shouldn't charge to rescue people who really need help.

Instead, charge people to hike in these areas, a fee for a permit, to weed out those who are jumping out of the couch.

If they're caught hiking without a permit, stiffer penalty.

If they abuse the system like the Grand Canyon group above, stiffer penalty.

Put all the proceeds into an account to pay for rescue efforts. Those who are real outdoorsman would probably be fine with paying a one-time permit fee to hike at any national parks set aside for rescue efforts.

It's not that I expect a "free ride". I just feel that the fees that we pay to enjoy these places ought to cover a rescue situation.

And in addition to what Mid said, when a rescue is really dramatic, the positive press can make some agencies look really good.

The whole point of this thread has been the idiots who go out there and abuse the system. And the underlying point about that has been that with the advent of technology, people who have no business being out there are abusing the system.

I believe that those people who need rescuing by putting themselves in harm's way should pay just the way we would with an ambulance - probably more so since they don't have to go. I really don't want my taxes and/or my fees going out there to give a free ride to thrill seekers. Jstanthrnme obviously considers himself to be one of those people who likes to take advantage of the outdoors and expects that if things go way south, it shouldn't put him in the poor house. That is fine as far as it goes. I still don't want to pay for his fun and if that bothers him and others, so be it. As a tax payer and a hiker, I think I have the right to speak up and take a position. And agree with me or not, the fact is, when it goes south, my taxes are going to go to subsidize their fun and the risks they take. I resent it and am going on record about it. If you don't like it or think I owe you something, I hear you. You aren't any different than plenty of other people who want their fun at other's expense. And note I said "fun," not necessities.