Should Climbers Have to Pay Their Own Rescue Costs?

Oregon is one of only three states with a law on the books requiring lost mountaineers to reimburse the government for search costs. But the cap is $500, and the fine can only be applied if the stranded climbers didn't exercise "reasonable care" to avoid the mishap.

That I can agree with that (although the fine should be based on the lack of care the climber/s took, not a fixed fee.)

However remember that climbers are tiny little dots and are ultimately controlled by the weather and snow/ice conditions. Most of the other stuff we get insurance over, like cars, can be more controlled by man. No one can stop a 400 tonne avalanche wiping you down the hill and off the face of the earth -- or whatever else. Also remember at altitude when the weather closes in, it is almost impossible to tell what direction you are going, whether you've stopped or are still moving and all that kind of stuff.

Since I'm not really making any sense (tired -- lets blame it on that ;)), I'll close by saying that they should only have to pay their own rescue costs if they are new to the scene or doing half-assed things to show off or whatever. :)

Although I would never do it today, back in my single days I exhibited some quite risky behaviour. That is, I would regularly go off on solo backpacking trips without telling anyone -- least of all parks officials -- where I was going. This was on purpose, since I wanted to know that I was required to be responsible for my own safety, well-being and any rescue would be self-rescue only.

It sounds crazy now, but at the time it made perfect sense (although in hindsight, I was probably suffering from one too many readings of Touching the Void).

I'm not sure I stand with some of you on this issue. But let me start by saying that I don't think voluntary insurance for those that pursue sports like climbing and mountaineering is a bad thing [and is out there, though I think they typically cover the medical side or gear side more then coests of searches]... think Travel Insurance and not Auto Insurance.

There's a lot of logistical issues with requiring insurance -- particularly for areas that don't require a permitting process.

There are also logistical issues with assessing costs of a search -- most of the time rescue teams are made up of volunteers, in many areas the funds used are from non-tax sources like fundraising via portions of the costs of fish&game permits, etc where the cost burden is spread across the entire outdoor community. Which is important, because although I don't have any statistics in front of me I am sure that the percentage of rescue calls on the more typical outdoors side [think lost or injured hiker] far surpasses the rate and cost incurred by these more newsworthy but rare events.

And lastly, I don't think one should underestimate or write off the security blanket effect of a formal infrastructure for contingencies that include things like insurance or mandatory tracking devices. Though you might have good reason not to care about the will of the experienced who just don't want these things that may 'tie' them down, you only have to look at the effect cellphones have had on the everyday person's outdoor machismo.

Oh I say yes with a capitol Y. It sickens me to see the trouble and lives lost to save one person who falls down on the I have something to prove job.

tree falls on me
they come putt me in an ambulance and a doctor fixes me up.
it wasnt anything i could control
i still have to pay for it all unless i cant

I think i have to agree with the rescue insurance

the only exception perhaps would be private property like a ski resort where you are have a level of expectation not to be avalanched on and then it would be the resorts responsibility.