The subject of billing for rescue operations is a hot topic in
the media right now, in the wake of the Scott Mason case in New
Hampshire last year and the very recent search for missing climbers
on Mount Hood. Much has been written on the subject, but nothing so
clearly analyzes the issue as Howard Paul's recent paper
below.
If you haven't already, we invite you to become a fan of the No
Charge for Rescue page on Facebook.
Analysis of the issue: billing victims for search and rescue
operations
by Howard M. Paul
March, 2009
The United States Coast Guard spends $680 million a year for SAR,
13% of their budget (1). They perform 82 SAR missions a day,
assisting 114 people (2). When the USCG works in terrible
conditions to save lives, their personnel - who do their jobs very,
very well - are lauded as heroes. Yet when experienced,
well-equipped expert climbers, equestrians, boaters, skiers or
hikers organize as teams to perform the same tasks (on land) FOR
the government, many complain about "the cost."
SAR professionals everywhere are concerned that people will - and
have - worried about being billed for lifesaving SAR operations
they believe they cannot afford such that they delay calling, or
choose to not call, for help. This can put the missing or injured
person - and the rescuers - in danger.
There are several aspects of this topic that should be examined to
understand what appears to be, at the outset, a simple issue - but
is complex.
To effectively analyze this issue one must ask why a bill is
issued?
1. Is it to recover actual, perceived or theoretical
expenses?
2. Is it to discourage certain behavior?
3. Is it punitive?
4. Is it the result of a criminal conviction?
Is it to recover actual, perceived or "theoretical"
costs?
If it's to recover actual, perceived or "calculated" expenses, it
is critical to know if the reported costs of SAR missions paint the
whole picture - or are substantial portions of the painting missing
because the right questions have not been asked?
It has been estimated that 90% of all SAR missions in the United
States are conducted by unpaid professionals (volunteers) that
require no remuneration (3). Donated labor, therefore, is the
single largest portion of the "expense" of any SAR mission and
accounts for the greatest amount of theoretical costs.
Frequently an aspect of SAR criticized as an expense the public
should not bear is the use of military helicopters. What is not
understood is that flying time for military helicopters and crews
is required and funds budgeted. National Guard pilots are required
to fly every 60 days and log up to 48 hours of flight time in six
months (4).
With or without an actual rescue mission the helicopters will
fly.
When the cost of a given SAR mission is announced, it can only be
accurately understood when the breakdown of total costs is
analyzed: what are those expenses for? Are some costs assigned to
the mission only because they could be, but otherwise would have
been assigned to another cost center (e.g. sheriff's regular patrol
budget)? And is that an expense that would be incurred whether or
not an emergency had occurred? (the officers, rangers or deputies
are paid whether managing a SAR mission, investigating a crime,
testifying in court or on patrol).
Is the cost a flat rate, say per vehicle or per crew, not actual
cost?
Has the agency that sent the bill responded to a call that could be
handled by another agency that does not charge for the same
emergency response?
SAR is frequently perceived as extraordinarily expensive. Is it?
While no nationwide statistics exist, we can use National Park
Service figures for a snapshot across the nation, as the NPS
operates in areas prone to SAR missions. In one year, the average
NPS SAR mission cost $1,249 and only 216 had costs of more than
$500. That year the NPS spent $4,524,874.56 for SAR, amounting to
1.6¢ per visitor. (5)
Is it to discourage certain behavior?
If it is to discourage behavior, such as hiking or climbing (or
open water fishing or flying) - perfectly acceptable sports - is
the real risk equal to the public perception of risk? Some people
believe that climbing is aberrant recreation that only extreme
risk-takers enjoy. Colorado Dept. of Health mortality statistics
show climbing and hiking accounted for a mere .5% of traumatic
deaths in recent years (6): safer than driving, the cause of 28% of
traumatic deaths during the same period.
Is it punitive?
Is it punitive? One of my neighbors takes that approach, wishing to
punish those "daredevils" that have no business doing (whatever
they did) and "endangering" rescuers. But what of the SAR mission
to rescue the survivors of a plane crash? If the need to rescue
people in a dire emergency is the same, why should the activity in
which they participate dictate billing for saving their life?
If SAR is the one emergency service being singled out, why? When
the issue is examined, why are other emergency services not
examined in the same light, especially when SAR is predominantly
conducted by highly trained and experienced outdoors professionals
that receive, and ask for, no compensation? A search occurred in
the City of Denver, Colorado, years ago in which the police and
fire departments scoured an entire neighborhood for a missing small
child. With many very high-ranking officers added to the on-duty,
on-the-street personnel, the total salaries of the involved
personnel would have been in the thousands of dollars an hour. No
one suggested the city bill the family for the successful search;
however some would propose that the same search outside a city,
conducted by unpaid expert searchers, should be billed.
SAR is one of several emergency services. If you arrive home one
evening to find several sheriffs' cars with lights flashing in
front of your home, and your neighbor explains he thought he saw
someone break into your house but the deputies checked and found
all is secure - should you be billed for the sheriffs response
(which you did not request)?
If flames engulf a neighbor's garage after he dropped a frozen
turkey into a turkey fryer on the back porch, quickly overtaking
the entire house, should he receive a bill from the responding fire
department(s)? What if he has paid taxes to support the existence
and response of those emergency agencies?
Is it the result of a criminal conviction?
Fines as a result of a criminal conviction should be viewed
distinctly separately from billing for costs. A criminal charge can
be filed only if a statute, regulation or ordinance has been
violated. A fine can be ordered only after adjudication, requiring
the full judicial process. Granting non-judicial entities the
authority to determine negligence may block the right to due
process.
Source notes:
1. 2005 USCG budget, USCG web site
2. USCG web site
3. Kovacs, Mountain Rescue Association, 1998
4. Colorado National Guard HQ Tactical Operations
5. NPS 2006 SAR Summary
6. "Injury in Colorado," Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment, 1999