Reply #90: There are rescues and there are rescues. [View All]

Getting lost in the woods or saving someone from drowning seems to be typical and expected costs for society to fund. Mountain climbing is inherently high risk and high cost to society to support for the benefit of the few. Obviously, it would be unfair and unethical to consider such a thing for these climbers who are still lost tonight.

But that does not preclude us from changing the rules on cost sharing going forward. Why don't climbers get insurance to cover their sport? Perhaps things like handheld GPS units would be required by the insurance companies. Perhaps those who shouldn't be attempting the climbs might not make them in the 1st place. If they were to know that help would not be forthcoming in the future, would they accept the the financial or life risk that their sport might demand? Privatizing the service and paying those costs by the users seems like a legitimate expectation for the taxpayer.

Obviously, it is tough to take a cold-hearted approach to this question....but millions spent by the public searching for mountain climbers means millions not available to fund programs that would benefit millions in their daily lives. I certainly have no problems transferring these costs to the tiny portion of society that benefits from this service.