Forum Index > Trail Talk > Injured hiker hoisted off of Sauk Mtn 8-3-2022
 Reply to topic
Previous :: Next Topic
Author Message
altasnob
Member
Member


Joined: 29 Aug 2007
Posts: 1382 | TRs | Pics
Location: Tacoma
altasnob
Member
PostFri Aug 12, 2022 7:21 pm 
Kim Brown wrote:
This entire thread is the perfect advocate against rescue contingent on some armchair schmo judging someone else's worthiness.
And no one here proposed that. Even if we switched from the current policy, where search and rescue is always free, to a system where the government tries to recoup a portion of the tax dollars they spend on search and rescue, that wouldn't affect the actual search and rescue system. If anything, it would allow more searches to take place (because the government would have more money to allocate to search and rescue). The recoupment efforts would occur AFTER the rescue, just like medical care is never denied based on inability to pay. I tried to find out how much King County spends on search and rescue compared to the rest of their budget but couldn't in my quick search. But I did see in previous years, the county was forced to trim the budget of the Air Support Services, which assists in search and rescue as well as other purposes. With the increased number of searches, and the increased strain on other county services, we could see additional budget cuts in the future.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Anne Elk
BrontosaurusTheorist



Joined: 07 Sep 2018
Posts: 2410 | TRs | Pics
Location: Seattle
Anne Elk
BrontosaurusTheorist
PostFri Aug 12, 2022 7:52 pm 
neek wrote:
Anne Elk wrote:
If memory serves I think it was a hike that Neek was on but he didn't do the TR...none of his in the last 2 years rings a bell. I'll have to check with him.
I haven't done Sauk (or read the rest of this thread); maybe you're thinking White Chuck?
Ding! Ding! Ding! That's exactly the one, Nick. Thanks. Some of those pics give a non-climber like me the heebeejeebees. eek.gif

"There are yahoos out there. It’s why we can’t have nice things." - Tom Mahood
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Secret Agent Man
Member
Member


Joined: 24 Dec 2015
Posts: 163 | TRs | Pics
Location: Seattle
Secret Agent Man
Member
PostSat Aug 13, 2022 12:07 am 
altasnob wrote:
And no one here proposed that. Even if we switched from the current policy, where search and rescue is always free, to a system where the government tries to recoup a portion of the tax dollars they spend on search and rescue, that wouldn't affect the actual search and rescue system. If anything, it would allow more searches to take place (because the government would have more money to allocate to search and rescue). The recoupment efforts would occur AFTER the rescue, just like medical care is never denied based on inability to pay. I tried to find out how much King County spends on search and rescue compared to the rest of their budget but couldn't in my quick search. But I did see in previous years, the county was forced to trim the budget of the Air Support Services, which assists in search and rescue as well as other purposes. With the increased number of searches, and the increased strain on other county services, we could see additional budget cuts in the future.
The reason King County has to cut funding for nearly everything every year that isn’t a special levy is because the property taxes they collect to fund most county services can only go up 1% a year, and inflation and population growth are a lot more than 1%. It’s not because there are too many rescues happening.

Cyclopath
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
altasnob
Member
Member


Joined: 29 Aug 2007
Posts: 1382 | TRs | Pics
Location: Tacoma
altasnob
Member
PostSat Aug 13, 2022 7:51 am 
Secret Agent Man wrote:
The reason King County has to cut funding for nearly everything every year that isn’t a special levy is because the property taxes they collect to fund most county services can only go up 1% a year, and inflation and population growth are a lot more than 1%. It’s not because there are too many rescues happening.
That's just one small component of the tax structure you are focusing on. When looking at the overall tax structure, the reason King County (and other counties in Washington) are always facing budget cuts is because despite being supposedly liberal, Washington state has the most regressive tax structure in the nation. That means the rich here don't pay many taxes relative to the poor. The main reason for this is no state income tax and a reliance on regressive taxes, such as property tax and sales tax. Having free rescues strikes me as just another regressive tax policy. I assume that hikers overall skew higher income than the average person in Washington. But those poor who never hike are forced to fund the rescues of the wealthy hikers, backcountry skiers, trail runners, mountaineers, ect.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Schroder
Member
Member


Joined: 26 Oct 2007
Posts: 6696 | TRs | Pics
Location: on the beach
Schroder
Member
PostSat Aug 13, 2022 8:15 am 
altasnob wrote:
Even if we switched from the current policy, where search and rescue is always free, to a system where the government tries to recoup a portion of the tax dollars they spend on search and rescue, that wouldn't affect the actual search and rescue system. If anything, it would allow more searches to take place (because the government would have more money to allocate to search and rescue). The recoupment efforts would occur AFTER the rescue, just like medical care is never denied based on inability to pay.
Today people often don't seek medical care when they need it because of the cost. They also don't call an aid car because they'll be billed for it. It happens in the mountains too. I don't believe I should be charged for an aid car coming to my house since I've already paid for it in tax levies but the legislature allowed them to bill for it with the presumption that "insurance will pay for it". Mine never did. Break a leg at Stevens Pass? It will cost you $3k for transport to Monroe hospital with a transfer to a second aid car when you cross the fire district boundary. SAR is a lot more complicated. You'd create an accounting nightmare.

Cyclopath
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
altasnob
Member
Member


Joined: 29 Aug 2007
Posts: 1382 | TRs | Pics
Location: Tacoma
altasnob
Member
PostSat Aug 13, 2022 8:40 am 
Schroder wrote:
SAR is a lot more complicated. You'd create an accounting nightmare.
You can make it as uncomplicated as you want. You could require a single, one time flat fee payment per rescue. $100 fee per rescue would raise approximately $30,000 a year for King County (assuming about 300 rescues per year in King County). $1,000 fee would raise $300,000. Doesn't sound like a lot of money but every dollar counts. In last years budget I see King County eliminated two full time deputy sheriff positions in the Air Support Services and saved $1.1 million a year by doing that. This kind of fee would make the entire search and rescue operation less regressive. It could also prompt people to be slightly more prepared when they venture into the wilds and only contact SAR when they absolutely have to.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Cyclopath
Faster than light



Joined: 20 Mar 2012
Posts: 7697 | TRs | Pics
Location: Seattle
Cyclopath
Faster than light
PostSat Aug 13, 2022 11:27 am 
I can't believe we have a thread on a hiking forum that got hijacked into how bad it is that hikers are getting help when they need it.

Opus, DadFly, hikerman
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Cyclopath
Faster than light



Joined: 20 Mar 2012
Posts: 7697 | TRs | Pics
Location: Seattle
Cyclopath
Faster than light
PostSat Aug 13, 2022 1:29 pm 
catsp wrote:
A common sense, fair system accounting for various pertinent factors might comprise two parts. The first is a $100 administrative fee paid by every rescuee. The second is a fee of 1 percent of the rescuee’s estimated future lifetime income (but only beyond an initial threshold of say $400,000).
Also don't allow their family to ever hike again for seven generations. Because why not? When was the last time you performed a search and rescue? That question goes for everyone who thinks SAR is doing it wrong by leaving money on the table.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
altasnob
Member
Member


Joined: 29 Aug 2007
Posts: 1382 | TRs | Pics
Location: Tacoma
altasnob
Member
PostSat Aug 13, 2022 1:49 pm 
I know this may be shocking for you cyclopath, but when some people look at issues they try to think what is the best solution for society as a whole, and not just for themselves and their friends. I find the fact that searches are completely free courtesy of tax dollars to be interesting and apparently so do others. There are no right or wrong answers, just discussions. And for the record, I was joking when I said the dehydrated person hiking up to Cascade Pass should be banned from hiking. I would love to see someone who does regularly participate in search and rescue to express their honest, candid opinion on the legitimacy of all of the search and rescues that are performed. I don't have experience in search and rescue, but I do have experience with 911 calls and can assure you that there are a good chunk of 911 calls made that frankly, do not need to be made. This costs everyone because the 911 system has to take every call seriously. Try to add something constructive to the conversation or refrain from posting.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Cyclopath
Faster than light



Joined: 20 Mar 2012
Posts: 7697 | TRs | Pics
Location: Seattle
Cyclopath
Faster than light
PostSat Aug 13, 2022 2:08 pm 
Cyclopath wrote:
When was the last time you performed a search and rescue? That question goes for everyone who thinks SAR is doing it wrong by leaving money on the table.
altasnob wrote:
I know this may be shocking for you cyclopath, but when some people look at issues they try to think what is the best solution for society as a whole, and not just for themselves and their friends.
You're trying to make the world a better place for everyone by second guessing the people who are actually doing something to make the world a better place for other people?? Did you type that with a straight face? Somebody needs to get you a cape like Superman!

hikerman
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
altasnob
Member
Member


Joined: 29 Aug 2007
Posts: 1382 | TRs | Pics
Location: Tacoma
altasnob
Member
PostSat Aug 13, 2022 2:21 pm 
I am not criticizing the search and rescue people in any way. They don't decide how much of King County's budget gets allocated to the prosecutors office, the sheriff, public housing, green space, public transit, ect. They don't decide what programs to cut, and which personnel to lay off when there are budget shortfalls. I am just pointing out that money doesn't grow on trees and discussing ways we can keep search and rescue fully funded in a time of rising search and rescues. There are numerous news articles discussing how "overwhelmed" King County Search and Rescue is, as well as other SAR organizations. How do we make them less overwhelmed without either a) raising taxes or b) making cuts to other government entities, or c) figure out a way to allow search and rescue to generate some of their own revenue, or d) somehow get less people to call in for SAR assistance.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
altasnob
Member
Member


Joined: 29 Aug 2007
Posts: 1382 | TRs | Pics
Location: Tacoma
altasnob
Member
PostSat Aug 13, 2022 2:29 pm 
Cyclopath wrote:
When was the last time you performed a search and rescue?
Everyone is entitled to an opinion on how tax dollars are spent, regardless of whether they are the president of search and rescue or someone who has never hiked in their life and never plans to.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Anne Elk
BrontosaurusTheorist



Joined: 07 Sep 2018
Posts: 2410 | TRs | Pics
Location: Seattle
Anne Elk
BrontosaurusTheorist
PostSat Aug 13, 2022 2:35 pm 
altasnob wrote:
I would love to see someone who does regularly participate in search and rescue to express their honest, candid opinion on the legitimacy of all of the search and rescues that are performed.
Maybe it's a good time to refer back to the post I made some time ago during a similar discussion where I put up the WSJ article by Montana SAR member Tom Vines re his view of "consumer" attitudes about rescue and the impact of tech connectivity on SAR resources. The article expresses his ambivalence when it comes to abuses of SAR, especially in areas where funding budgets are very limited. Vines seems to suggest that frivolous demands of the resources should involve some penalty/charge, but who'd be the arbiter of when to charge someone? We're lucky in the PNW that we have counties with budgets that can handle it, plus nearby military helicopters whose crews need practice.

"There are yahoos out there. It’s why we can’t have nice things." - Tom Mahood
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
altasnob
Member
Member


Joined: 29 Aug 2007
Posts: 1382 | TRs | Pics
Location: Tacoma
altasnob
Member
PostSat Aug 13, 2022 2:54 pm 
Anne Elk wrote:
Maybe it's a good time to refer back to the post I made some time ago during a similar discussion where I put up the WSJ article by Montana SAR member Tom Vines re his view of "consumer" attitudes about rescue and the impact of tech connectivity on SAR resources.
Interesting article and seems to make a lot of similar arguments I made above. Like I mentioned, we have the same "frivolous calls" problem with our 911 system and I don't have a solution for that. If a person lies on a 911 call, or a call for SAR, they can be criminally prosecuted for false statement to a public servant. But even if that does occur, those types of charges are almost never prosecuted (just seems overly harsh). And I imagine not many people are "lying" when they call for SAR frivolously. Maybe they don't actually need SAR but its not a lie that could be criminally prosecuted.
Anne Elk wrote:
We're lucky in the PNW that we have counties with budgets that can handle it, plus nearby military helicopters whose crews need practice.
County budgets in Washington are overly reliant on property tax and excise tax on real estate sales. What happens when we have a serious recession? I guess we always have the military, who really does have a blank check, to bail us out.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Anne Elk
BrontosaurusTheorist



Joined: 07 Sep 2018
Posts: 2410 | TRs | Pics
Location: Seattle
Anne Elk
BrontosaurusTheorist
PostSat Aug 13, 2022 3:18 pm 
altasnob wrote:
County budgets in Washington are overly reliant on property tax and excise tax on real estate sales. What happens when we have a serious recession? I guess we always have the military, who really does have a blank check, to bail us out.
In past discussions I questioned whether a helo flyout was necessary for certain non-critical injuries when it wasn't very far to the TH. At the time I'd just found out that a non-SAR friend helped stabilize a hiker with a broken ankle on the Mt. Pilchuck trail. It was either Kim or Nancy Ann who pointed out that certain injuries that appear non-critical can change quickly.

"There are yahoos out there. It’s why we can’t have nice things." - Tom Mahood
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
   All times are GMT - 8 Hours
 Reply to topic
Forum Index > Trail Talk > Injured hiker hoisted off of Sauk Mtn 8-3-2022
  Happy Birthday noahk!
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum