Do they get charged?

[Alpo]

Some dumb tourist goes out in the desert or up in the mountains or back in the deep woods and gets himself lost.

 

Search and rescue goes out. Several people. Several land vehicles. Maybe a helicopter or two. Lots of money spent.

 

Hooray hooray, they find the tourist and he still alive and they fetch him back. Yay.

 

Do they give him a bill?

 

In the Heinlein book Job, they are on a cruise ship off the coast of Mexico when it rams an iceberg (it's science fiction, live with it). The naked couple (they were in bed) end up in the ocean, and they find a kapook sunbathing pad and lie on that for a day, when they are spotted by a seaplane, which lands and takes them back to Mexico.

 

Where they are presented with a bill. For the pilot's wage and the co-pilot's wage and the fuel involved and wear and tear on the airplane, and since they were naked they were given some clothing and that was on the bill along with the food they were given, since they had not eaten for a day.

 

Now that actually sort of makes sense - a lot of money was spent on rescuing those two people from the ocean. Why should my tax dollars pay for it? I don't know them people.

 

But do they do that? Here in the states I mean - I don't really care whether they do that in Mexico or not.

[Alpo]

In July of 96 a party of four Germans - a man, his young son, his girlfriend and her young son disappeared into Death valley. In October of 96 their van was found, and search and rescue is looking for them. It's been 3 months in the desert. They are obviously going to be dead. But they are still out looking for them.

 

https://www.otherhand.org/home-page/search-and-rescue/the-hunt-for-the-death-valley-germans/

 

This story is what caused my ponder.

 

 

"There were over 45 searchers in the field and two helicopters in the air at any given time and eight horses on the ground.  Costs for the search were approximately $80,000 in 1996 dollars.  It was estimated by a DVNP spokesperson that 250 people were involved in the search at one time or another."

[Doc Shapiro]

Yes, they get a bill.  It may not be the full cost, but they will.  Same as I get a bill for a ride to the hospital in an ambulance. 

 

IMO, they should get a bill.  Stuff like this should not be paid for by taxpayers.

[Eyesa Horg]

Up here they spend thousands rescuing hikers that weren't prepared. They always threaten to charge them, but don't seem to, or you'd damn sure hear from the snowflakes how horrible it was to charge them for their stupidity.

[Muleshoe Bill SASS #67022]

Again, this is one of those "depends on where you are and who is involved" cases. There is no one single answer fits all.

[Subdeacon Joe]

39 minutes ago, Muleshoe Bill SASS #67022 said:

Again, this is one of those "depends on where you are and who is involved" cases. There is no one single answer fits all.

 

Also why the rescue is being done - e.g. lost v. medical emergency.  

[Cypress Sun]

 

This brings to mind the Gabby Petito/Brian Laundrie case that unfolded a few miles south of me. Wyoming and Florida authorities searched for both of their bodies (at different times) for quite some time in different states. It is believed that Laundrie's parents knew that both parties were dead but lead investigators astray as to information about location of bodies and withheld other information. I'm sure that total costs were well into hundreds of thousands. It is also possible that they should have been criminally charged.

 

So far, I don't think that they have been sent a bill.

[Red Gauntlet , SASS 60619]

Does the fire department send you a bill for putting out a house fire? Do the police bill you for responding to a call that turns out to not be much?

 

Here, the fire department won't bill you for paramedic response. But they'll charge you for hospital transport.

 

Fire and police departments exist for a public safety purpose. They don't charge just because each response is an individual, even where individual stupidity might be involved.

 

Search and rescue in the woods is largely volunteer. They do it because they want to do it. Around here, we get a few rescues of climbers off of Mt. Rainier, involving JBLM military helicopters. They write it off to training.

 

It's a variation of the old "Fireman's Rule". A fireman injured in response can't sue a homeowner for negligently setting his house on fire because he didn't watch the stove-- because without house fires, firemen wouldn't have jobs. (Different for intentionally set fires.)

[Dusty Devil Dale]

Yes, they do get charged.

 

Many years ago, I was rescued by the Coast Guard off of the Central CA coast.  I was SCUBA diving in the big cove at Montana De Oro State Park and I got into a strong  offshore rip current.  With high surge and low visibility, I didn't realize it until I was swept out of the cove and into another passing current.  When surfaced, I was several miles offshore. 

 

My partner managed to make it to shore.  He drove up to the State Park HQ.  The Rangers there  had done the drill before, and immediately  notified the Coast Guard. 

 

A CG rescue boat came out of Morro Bay Harbor, 4 miles  north.  The crew knew the current patterns, and with help of a Civil Air Patrol fixed- wing spotter plane they quickly found me and pulled one very  scared 17-year-old out of the ocean.  I was given a quick ride back to Morro Bay. 

 

A week later, my dad got an invoice for $1970 (1966 dollars).  Worth every penny!

 

 

[watab kid]

my wife often speculates on this topic this time of year , we live about eight blocks from the dam on the mississippi , there are always ice fishing folks on the ice below the dam , often a chunk of ice about 1/3rd of the area with the rest wide open roiling water - there is a circular current under that ice , its often not safe , she thinks our taxes would be used for rescue , 

 

neither of us want them to post the area to no fishing , we dont believe in that kind of restriction , we really dont know who might have to pay to rescue that unfortunate who ends up in trouble here , she doesnt want it to be us through our taxes , thinks they should post a sign indicating the one that requires rescue will pay , 

dumb part of that is ive looked carefully at some of them - they have no money to pay , we will foot the bill [the city will pay] and never collect , 

[Red Gauntlet , SASS 60619]

Rescue services, public and private, fire, police, search and rescue teams, etc, exist to help and rescue people. They are paid for by taxes and volunteer services. The taxpayer 'foots the bill', and has for generations. That's one of the things taxes are  for, after all.

[Cypress Sun]

6 hours ago, Red Gauntlet , SASS 60619 said:

Rescue services, public and private, fire, police, search and rescue teams, etc, exist to help and rescue people. They are paid for by taxes and volunteer services. The taxpayer 'foots the bill', and has for generations. That's one of the things taxes are  for, after all.

 

There have been instances that the fire department came out to a residential house fire but did not engage the fire because they didn't pay the fire department taxes on the property tax bill. They did make sure that the fire didn't spread to the house next door that DID pay the tax. They watched the home burn down without helping. I don't remember the exact details, but I do remember this very instance being discussed here, in the Saloon, about 8 or 9 years ago.

[Rye Miles #13621]

33 minutes ago, Cypress Sun said:

 

There have been instances that the fire department came out to a residential house fire but did not engage the fire because they didn't pay the fire department taxes on the property tax bill. They did make sure that the fire didn't spread to the house next door that DID pay the tax. They watched the home burn down without helping. I don't remember the exact details, but I do remember this very instance being discussed here, in the Saloon, about 8 or 9 years ago.

That seems pretty severe. It almost seems criminal. Taxes paid or not they should have put out that fire, that's their job! Their job does not include seeing if taxes are paid or not. Seems to me whoever gave that order should be held accountable!

[Cypress Sun]

5 minutes ago, Rye Miles #13621 said:

That seems pretty severe. It almost seems criminal. Taxes paid or not they should have put out that fire, that's their job! Their job does not include seeing if taxes are paid or not. Seems to me whoever gave that order should be held accountable!

 

I agree entirely. If I were a fireman, there's no way I could watch someone's home burn down without trying to put it out. If I recall, a dog. or dogs, died in the fire.

[Alpo]

I have heard of fire departments sitting across the street from a fire. Example - our city limits is 23rd Street. If you are on the south side of 23rd Street, you are in the city. But if you are on the north side of 23rd Street you are not.

 

So there would be a fire at 23rd Street, and the fire department would be sitting there because the burning house was on the north side of the street and therefore not in the city and not in their jurisdiction.

[Rye Miles #13621]

24 minutes ago, Alpo said:

I have heard of fire departments sitting across the street from a fire. Example - our city limits is 23rd Street. If you are on the south side of 23rd Street, you are in the city. But if you are on the north side of 23rd Street you are not.

 

So there would be a fire at 23rd Street, and the fire department would be sitting there because the burning house was on the north side of the street and therefore not in the city and not in their jurisdiction.

Wow, I've never heard of that happening here. Neighboring cities will pitch and help if it's a big fire. Happens all the time.

[Alpo]

That has not happened in my town. At least as far as I know. I just used my town as an example. But I have heard of it happening.

 

I have also heard of what you said - fire departments from close-by towns coming to help.

 

I like the thought of not paying the fire fee, though. 3 years ago they slapped this fire fee on the property tax. From 4 to 5 hundred dollars. It hurt, but I paid it. I thought it was a one-time thing. Nope. Going to be every damn year now.

 

I own two properties. One has a house on it and I live there. The other is a vacant lot. Hurts to pay that $450 fire fee on a vacant lot. But if I paid the property tax but not the fire fee, so my lot catches on fire and they don't fight it? Who cares. It's weeds.

[Cypress Sun]

23 minutes ago, Alpo said:

That has not happened in my town. At least as far as I know. I just used my town as an example. But I have heard of it happening.

 

I have also heard of what you said - fire departments from close-by towns coming to help.

 

I like the thought of not paying the fire fee, though. 3 years ago they slapped this fire fee on the property tax. From 4 to 5 hundred dollars. It hurt, but I paid it. I thought it was a one-time thing. Nope. Going to be every damn year now.

 

I own two properties. One has a house on it and I live there. The other is a vacant lot. Hurts to pay that $450 fire fee on a vacant lot. But if I paid the property tax but not the fire fee, so my lot catches on fire and they don't fight it? Who cares. It's weeds.

 

WOW, $500 is a bunch.  That's well over triple what I pay.

 

I just looked at this years tax bill, Largo fire was assessed @ $142 and I thought that was high.

 

Is there a way to not pay the fire fee and pay everything else? I don't think that that is an option here.

[Alpo]

Probably not an option here either.

 

 

[Sedalia Dave]

Many rural fire departments require you to pay an annual fee for coverage. If you don't pay, they will not put out the fire. They will however do what's necessary to prevent the loss of life. Sounds harsh but insurance is no different. If you don't pay the premiums you're not covered.

 

I saw it happen a couple times when I was a kid. One family in our area lost their house, 2 barns, several out buildings and most of their farm machinery in a fire. Only thing the VFD would do was keep it from spreading to adjacent property. They sued the VFD and lost. 

[Cypress Sun]

4 minutes ago, Sedalia Dave said:

Many rural fire departments require you to pay an annual fee for coverage. If you don't pay, they will not put out the fire. They will however do what's necessary to prevent the loss of life. Sounds harsh but insurance is no different. If you don't pay the premiums you're not covered.

 

I saw it happen a couple times when I was a kid. One family in our area lost their house, 2 barns, several out buildings and most of their farm machinery in a fire. Only thing the VFD would do was keep it from spreading to adjacent property. They sued the VFD and lost. 

 

I couldn't, and wouldn't want to, just stand there and watch someone's life burn down when I have the means to try and stop it. I'd never be able to shed the guilt of not trying. 

[Sarge]

11 hours ago, Red Gauntlet , SASS 60619 said:

Rescue services, public and private, fire, police, search and rescue teams, etc, exist to help and rescue people. They are paid for by taxes and volunteer services. The taxpayer 'foots the bill', and has for generations. That's one of the things taxes are  for, after all.

Actually, yes, fire services are billed in many locations.  Usually homeowners insurance picks up the tab.  Ambulance service or hospital transport is often picked up by the health insurers.  Many police departments now charge for excessive or abusive uses of their services.  For example excessive false burglar alarms.