Bushwalk Australia

a recent post touched on a thought I'd had a while now.

That post related to a fee for entry to a track .

'it's a credit card swipe which is reversed when the key is returned.'

Now what if we were asked for a 'swipe of the card' to cover potential recovery costs if we become lost or call for assistance?
Why shouldn't that be a 'non option'? IE take it or leave it type.

If you think about lesss eventful things like staying in an accomodation place, many have a rider stating they reserve the right to take a fee for excessive cleaning etc.
Or a hire car if they deem something not right with the car once you return it (and possibly long gone to defend yourself).

If we break down on the road then we don't expect search and rescue to recover us.

I know it would take some implementation and obviously would be impossible to enforce in many places.
Overland track may be a good place to start.

And what is wrong with asking a fee (after the event) for rescue?

It may prevent some from taking the soft option and just dialling 000 when there are other self help ones available, and that may free up search and rescue to work on perhaps what could be called more important cases who may well miss out and could cost a life.

We just take so much for granted when it comes to wandering off into the unkown, living with the expectation or attitude 'they will collect us if things go pearshape'.

I received an email in response to a question I raised some time ago (more than a year). It was from a policeman, involved (high up) in search & rescue.
He emphasized that there will be NO plans to introduce a "user pays" system for rescue operations.

To do so would likely cost lives, people in dire need of assistance not calling for it for fear of the associated cost.

The fact remains, we are all human, things sometimes go wrong. People find themselves in need of help for reasons from a snakebite or broken leg, to events as a result of foolishness or under-preparedness. At the end of the day, people will call for assistance when they deem it necessary.

I agree that more education is needed in relation to when someone might use a PLB or dial 000, and I believe there should be some consequence for those who foolishly waste this resource - public shame through the media perhaps. And if I needed the service and was financially able, I would certainly make a contribution to its cost. But I am not in favour of a user pays system.

My 2 cents.

taswegian wrote:Now what if we were asked for a 'swipe of the card' to cover potential recovery costs if we become lost or call for assistance?
Why shouldn't that be a 'non option'? IE take it or leave it type.

...And what is wrong with asking a fee (after the event) for rescue?

Firstly, rescues cost a lot of money. Don't know about you, but I don't have room to put $100K on my credit card.

What is wrong with charging for rescue is that people will die. Hesitating to call for rescue, because it is going to cost us heaps to push that button, could result in people waiting too long. The larger the charge, the more likely people will hesitate. The longer they hesitate the more likely they will leave it too late. ....no, its just a bit of chest pain, I'll be right if I rest up. Don't call the *&%$#! helicopter, it'll cost me ....

If there is ever any thought of charging people for rescue, it should be part of an annual, upfront fee, or it should be part of an insurance scheme. There should never be a situation where people are forced to make a cost calculation before calling in rescue, because that would be dangerous. And if you take the attitude, "don't go if you can't afford to be rescued", that rules most of us out - certainly puts and end to bushwalking as a tourist attraction.

Edit: Oops, Adam just posted with a similar comment. So +1 from me.

And so those unable to fork out for recovery at the gate are excluded from visiting these places whether or not they are capable of avoiding mishap and managing self rescue?

I think we have to be very careful about deciding what Search and Rescue is for. It's a community service for all of us, whether we have a bunch of dollars in our back pocket or not.

For places like the OT, the ball should be fair and square in the Park Service's court. For instance, they could be setting minimum standards and making sure they are met at the entry to the walk.

Here you are, knew I read something about this recently... You might find this interesting:

"Aconcagua climbing season 2012 / 2013 - Entrance and permits: To enter Mt Aconcagua Provincial Park, it is necessary to obtain a personal Mt Aconcagua climbing permit....

Outside the season, Decree 50/2002 is in force, which sets rates, and Resolution 950/2000, which establishes admission rules. The main points are:

• Climbers must submit before the Administration an affidavit where they assume all responsibility for the risks of the expedition, releasing from responsibility the Administration of Renewable Resources, its authorities and the Goverment of Mendoza.
  
• They will be responsible for all the expenses incurred in the case of a rescue procedure and/or medical care that might arise during the expedition

Clearly aimed at discouraging all but the most experienced.

I was wondering where that was...

The highest peak in the Americas, where the day time temperature is never above 0°C. We should plan a walk there sometime.

you could charge a reasonable fixed part charge for rescue, at least apply the charge when the system is abused,to disuade the abusers.
in NZ police and rescue organisations can use their discretion to charge for wasted time, it's very rare that they do.
if people are paying something towards being rescued it makes them think about the cost involved and preparing properly to try and avoid rescue in the future if they were rescued due to ill preparedness.
making people pay for the full cost is turning the service into a service for the elite, no rescue service can call itself a true rescue service if it does that.
most people being rescued arent out for an easy ride out, you can't penalise the majority for the actions of a few misguided people.

The fact is that we are going to try to rescue people and we never expect those resuced to pay the expenses. Trying to get the costs out of them before or after the event will never work (except in some very remote areas like Aconcagua).

I can just imagine finding someone lying unconscious on the track and the first thing we do is check all their pockets and their pack to see if they have a pre-paid rescue card before we call for help. If we don't find one we do we just walk off and ignore the problem? We wouldn't want to call for help in case we get stuck with the callout fee.

Even if we assume the Park Fees help cover rescue costs we can't refuse to rescue someone who is just outside a park and hasn't a park pass. Nor can we refuse to rescue someone inside a park even if they haven't paid a Park Fee. We would just have the situations refereed to above where people get into worse trouble trying to avoid being rescued.

I sort of think of my ambulance insurance as my 'pre-pay.

walkinTas wrote:Outside the season, Decree 50/2002 is in force, which sets rates, and Resolution 950/2000, which establishes admission rules. The main points are:

• Climbers must submit before the Administration an affidavit where they assume all responsibility for the risks of the expedition, releasing from responsibility the Administration of Renewable Resources, its authorities and the Goverment of Mendoza.
• They will be responsible for all the expenses incurred in the case of a rescue procedure and/or medical care that might arise during the expedition

Clearly aimed at discouraging all but the most experienced.

Clearly a vastly different excursion than a stroll down the OT. I don't blame them for drawing a line under that, especially in the off season.

tasadam wrote:I received an email in response to a question I raised some time ago (more than a year). It was from a policeman, involved (high up) in search & rescue.
He emphasized that there will be NO plans to introduce a "user pays" system for rescue operations.

To do so would likely cost lives, people in dire need of assistance not calling for it for fear of the associated cost.

The fact remains, we are all human, things sometimes go wrong. People find themselves in need of help for reasons from a snakebite or broken leg, to events as a result of foolishness or under-preparedness. At the end of the day, people will call for assistance when they deem it necessary.

I agree that more education is needed in relation to when someone might use a PLB or dial 000, and I believe there should be some consequence for those who foolishly waste this resource - public shame through the media perhaps. And if I needed the service and was financially able, I would certainly make a contribution to its cost. But I am not in favour of a user pays system.

My 2 cents.

Amen to all that!


---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?3npmcx

Agree with the insurance suggestions. I wonder if any such cover is available?

Strider wrote:Agree with the insurance suggestions. I wonder if any such cover is available?

Best insurance is education, experience....oh and a PLB

Prevention is clearly important, but accidents can still happen. None of those things can assist with paying for the costs of a rescue.

I'd like to see any evidence or the decision basis that a fee would cost 'lives', what else do we expect the police to say? Just as arguably, not seeing a beacon as such an easy fix might prevent otherwise poor planning before some people head bush?

At the same time, as discussed, charging a fee on a case by case basis has other associated problems and charging a general fee or compulsory insurance would be little different to what we have now would it not..

As someone who used to occasionally fly aircraft on SAR, I've been very vocal about this in the past - and ended up getting involved in arguments on this site that went nowhere. It ended in a slanging match with an someone (an armchair expert IMHO) who had not done a day of SAR work in their life.

I ended up creating a new login to Bushwalk.com and abandoning my old one. This is a very touchy subject and I think we need to be very careful.

In essence, I agree with Tasadam's sentiments.

I don't agree with a user pay system, or a pre pay system.

South_Aussie_Hiker wrote:As someone who used to occasionally fly aircraft on SAR, I've been very vocal about this in the past - and ended up getting involved in arguments on this site that went nowhere. It ended in a slanging match with an someone (an armchair expert IMHO) who had not done a day of SAR work in their life.

I ended up creating a new login to Bushwalk.com and abandoning my old one. This is a very touchy subject and I think we need to be very careful.

In essence, I agree with Tasadam's sentiments.

I don't agree with a user pay system, or a pre pay system.

+1
i would go as far to say that swiping your credit card on entry to a national park so you have access to Search And Rescue services is un-australian.

we are not a poor country. we should not choose to rescue only those people who have a big bank account.

I think the government do waist a lot of money, search and rescue is not one of them.

I think there should not ever be a charge put on search and rescue.

I think the aim here is not to restrict access to only those that can pay, but to highlight the care and preparation that is needed to prevent 'avoidable' rescues. Limbs break despite the best preparation, undetected health problems emerge despite the most thorough medical checks etc, but stupidity can be reduced, if thoughtless people are prompted, by some means or other, to consider their actions first.

Education is only helpful to those that wish to be educated. Those that believe someone else will always get them out of difficulty or discomfort are not going to be educated by warnings or recommendations, or even by someone telling them they are taking a large risk.
Lack of personal responsibility again.

At times I would like to see the idiots pay, but then who defines the level of idiocy required before receiving a bill ????

This has obviously caused some debate, but I asked if 'you' were asked and didn't say how much.

I guess this probably doesn't reach those that need it and those eluding to education are right in my view.

There has been criticism on this forum for calling in rescue when perhaps they could have waited a bit.
What/ where is 'enough'? Its a hard call.

As one who's been 'rescued' in the past - from the middle of the Donaldson River, by a chopper I can only take my hat off to those that risk their lives to pluck others from situations we don't want to be in.
It makes one reflect on many things and not to take so much for granted.
(and yes my trip out was paid for by my employer)

We don't have an ambulance levy here in Tasmania as far as I know and so that too is a free service provided for at our expense.

What does get up my nose though, is those that profit from their rescue story, selling to media.
That has caused controversy in the past.

Gayet your post landed while I was typing and I endorse your comments.

photohiker wrote:For places like the OT, the ball should be fair and square in the Park Service's court. For instance, they could be setting minimum standards and making sure they are met at the entry to the walk.

There is something in this. I noticed that at Aconcagua there is a special permit required. The site suggests the permit is checked before you are allowed to do the walk. At the same time they check that you have the appropriate gear. I can see that Cradle Mt/Lake St Claire NP doesn't really bare comparison with Aconcagua NP for extremes and hazards, nor would it be as easy to stop people from entering, but I don't think there is an official requirement to have any particular level of equipment for any walk in Tasmania - OT or otherwise. Since the OT does have a permit, would it not be possible to place some conditions on entry.

The enormous $$$cost of rescuing Tony Bullimore, a foreigner sailing solo near Antarctica (within the Australian SAR zone) a few years back was extraordinary yet he pays nothing as Australia has an international obligation to save him and bear the costs. I have been involved in many maritime SAR missions in the past - including the infamous Rockin Robin one back in 1990 The scale of some of these maritime rescues was mind boggling with some 20 aircraft on task together (including 2x QANTAS B737s and RAAF C130 aircraft succonded for the SAR mission) in addition to twin turbine helicopters etc. searching sunrise-sunset for often up to a week!

Suggesting Australian taxpayers, many who already pay an annual Ambulance levy which includes HeliMed evacuation (but SAR???) is an interesting debate. Should they still pay if its a medical SAR/evacuation when they already pay a levy? There was a rescue from Eagle Peaks above the Howqua Valley in Dec. 2010 which, although the hiker was injured and knew where he was a SAR operation was still launched after a mobile phone call from the hiker's friend at 1:00am. The SAR Dornier departed Essendon at ~1:30am and commenced searching at ~25,000ft over the Howqua area to pinpoint the location of the injured hiker. At the same time the SAR HEMS3 AirAmbulance B412 rescue helicopter also departed Essendon for the Howqua area to also locate and winch the injured hiker aboard at night working together with the Dornier above in the search.

In the end they located the injured hiker from the Dornier SAR aircraft at about ~3:00am but due weather couldn't winch him aboard the helicopter until daylight after the Mansfield SES/Police SAR ground teams had arrived from 8 mile gap. Is this a SAR or a medical evacuation? Who should pay assuming the hiker had Ambulance/HeliMed cover?

http://www.heartattackfacts.org.au/its-ok-to-call/

I wonder if anyone has ever bothered to establish the costs of a free ride out for frightened whole people V the cost full blown search and rescue and then evac for someone critical.
Shame and blame is a post event stupidity.
Stew, Ive never understood why race organizers, who write their own rules re conditions of entry, cant have some sort of insurance (requirement) in place for rescues?

walkinTas wrote:Here you are, knew I read something about this recently... You might find this interesting:

"Aconcagua climbing season 2012 / 2013 - Entrance and permits: To enter Mt Aconcagua Provincial Park, it is necessary to obtain a personal Mt Aconcagua climbing permit....

Outside the season, Decree 50/2002 is in force, which sets rates, and Resolution 950/2000, which establishes admission rules. The main points are:

• Climbers must submit before the Administration an affidavit where they assume all responsibility for the risks of the expedition, releasing from responsibility the Administration of Renewable Resources, its authorities and the Goverment of Mendoza.
  
• They will be responsible for all the expenses incurred in the case of a rescue procedure and/or medical care that might arise during the expedition

Clearly aimed at discouraging all but the most experienced.

This is quite normally for any serious mountaineering in South America, or just about anywhere else in the world for that matter. Although Aconcagua is just a technical walk and its not that remote, - I actually was considering it a few years back but the wife wasn't so happy with the idea after the local news media rang and tried to convince my family that I'd met an untimely death mountaineering in NZ. Climbing permits in Argentina were generally free they just wanted to check you out first, before you did something stupid. e.g. set off to climb Cerro Torre.

Either way - the big difference is that here you've got a first class rescue service at the ready... e.g. in south america - don't expect anyone to come rushing in a helicopter... at least not right away. I certainly got the sense that while Chile and Argentina are quite well developed countries they certainly weren't talking up the available rescue services when I was out and about.

1st world problems.... when your biggest worry in life is grizzling about the cost of the free rescue helicopter on tax payers... A user pay systems is a slippery path to ending up more like the US, and only the wealthy being able to afford to go out and enjoy the environment.

You can go on about SAR and how much money is potentially wasted by unnecessary call outs... but consider how much money is also chewed up by idiots on the roads who probably account for a fair percentage of the helicopter rescues evacuating them to hospital.
So the little bit of money that gets chewed up to rescue people out there doing something a little more constructive with their lives doesn't bother me.
I do agree though there are some extreme cases every now and again and you think we'll they really should contribute something back to at least help cover the costs.

Rob, I think a lot of questions are asked after some of these massive maritime rescues but not much seems to change. The Tony Bullimore one was unusual in the extreme in that the SAR area was just SO remote on earth and extreme with regards to ocean and weather. It took the RAAF search aircraft (P3 Orions) many hours of flying just to reach the search area way south of Perth near Antarctica search for a couple of hours before returning all the way back to Pearce for refuelling! I think they had 3 Orions working concurrently to achieve this - one enroute to to the SAR area to relieve, one searching in the SAR area and one returning/refueling.

There is a good book devoted to the dramatic SAR event of the 1998 Sydney-Hobart yacht race. ALL those SAR Helocopter crews were just AMAZING, operating in the most severe conditions of gale force winds, wild stormy weather, massive sea/swells - and all done at night!

1/. A few years ago my wife collapsed at work and was taken by Ambulance to the Northern Hospital (~20km trip) we received an Ambulance bill for ~$650. Was covered by our ambulance membership.
2/. A work colleague came off a trail bike and got spinal injuries etc. deep in the forest near Matlock a few years ago and had to be evacuated by HeliMed to the Alfred Hospital in Melbourne. Bill for HeliMed ambulance alone was close to $10,000 (not sure the exact costs) Was covered by his ambulance membership.
3/. Wife of friend was injured skiing at Thredbo in '07 and was taken to Canberra Hospital by the SouthCare rescue helicopter. Her (VIctorian) ambulance membership covered the Helicopter cost.

If an injured hiker has to be evacuated by Helicopter why should he not get charged for the HeliMed ambulance services? I wouldn't be without family Ambulance membership for quids!

[rant]
It really scares me when we start talking about an ambulance levy or an ambulance insurance as the solutions. As far as I can work out the current Ambulance Cover / Ambulance Levy system across Australia is just a *&%$#! mess.

Across the States and Territories there are at least four different schemes with different rules and if you travel interstate you nearly need a law degree to work out when and where you are covered. AFAIK Tassie residents do not have cover outside their own state unless they have private insurance, and because the ambulance is free in Tassie, your health fund may not even have a clause for ambulance cover, let-alone provide it. (Again, AFAIK) when you ride in an ambulance, if charges apply, you are liable even if you didn't ask for or call for the ambulance. In most cases you are liable even if you don't get to ride - just being treated by a paramedic is sufficient. You get treated, you are liable for the 'call out' fee, even if you didn't make the call. In most states if you are not a resident, then you had better have insurance (or be a contributing member with a reciprocal arrangement - the lucky minority). And even Insurance isn't clear, because some insurance only covers "emergency transport" and the definitions of 'emergency' and 'transport' are narrow. You'll find a short state by state summary here. I won't post links to each state's policy, it's too depressing. Frankly, I can't think of a better example of what we DON'T want. A Federal Australian wide Emergency Services/Ambulance system based on the Victorian model might work, but I doubt that will happen while the decision is in the hands of the individual states. So probably best to stay a mile away from the whole idea.

Just because some states have introduced another tax in the form of a levy, it doesn't mean that the cost of the service is fully recovered, or better covered, or better paid for. The tax might be helpful for raising funds, the bureaucracy is not helpful and the same funds could have been raised through normal taxation. IMO, "user pay" it is just another excuse to charge a tax and get people to feel good about paying taxes. Its sounds equitable, but it rarely ever is.

[/rant]