Ryan Stuart, explore's gear editor

User pay

• Posted on April 29, 2008 at 4:26 PM
• Previous
• Next

As promised this blog entry I'm going to talk about the growing controversy surrounding search and rescue. For several years Mount Washington Alpine Resort has invoiced for ski patrol time spent searching for skiers and boarders who went out of bounds and got lost, stuck or hurt. Other ski hills have done the same. It's an understandable reaction: they have to pay those patrollers for the time spent searching and rescuing people who didn't head warning and boundary signs, plus they are asking their employees to put themselves at risk to perform the rescue.

Of course these are private companies, not public organizations like the Coast Guard, volunteer search and rescue crews, or park wardens doing a public service. These services use public; tax payer's money pays for their rescues. So the question is still out there - why shouldn't we have to pay if we make stupid decisions that get us in trouble? Shouldn't we take responsibility for our actions?

I think so. But does that mean everyone pays for every rescue, or only ones deemed reckless? Who would make that determination? What happens if someone can't afford to pay? And there's a whole other issue. Search and rescue folks will tell you rescuer pay systems only make rescues more dangerous. With the threat of a hefty rescue bill hanging over their head most people will struggle to find themselves for longer or attempt a self rescue before calling for help. This puts them, and eventual rescuers, in more danger. The longer they wait to call for help, the more extreme the conditions may become. The weaker the person may get. The faster nightfall will come. The worse the weather may get.

Maybe we should tie rescue insurance into our provincial health care premiums. Or treat the backcountry like traveling in a different country. I would never travel out of Canada without buying travel insurance. Maybe a backcountry insurance would work. In Europe you better buy insurance before you go exploring one of their huge ski resorts because you'll be paying out of pocket for any rescue. A similar system could work here. Just as you need insurance for your car if you want to drive, if you want to go into the backcountry you better have rescue insurance. I think I would pay it.

What do you think? Should we have to have insurance to play in the woods? Do we need to change our system?