In 2007, when the plane of millionaire adventurer Steve Fossett went missing over the Nevada range, questions arose regarding who should bear the costs of the search and rescue operation. Prior to this incident, Fossett had already been involved in two emergency rescue operations in different parts of the world, raising concerns about whether the public should continue to subsidize the high-risk endeavors of wealthy individuals.
This dilemma highlights the need to consider the financial implications of rescue operations for individuals who choose to engage in perilous activities, and the ethical responsibility of allocating resources to such efforts.
The recent search for a lost submersible vehicle that was exploring the wreckage of the Titanic in the North Atlantic has reignited the debate over who should assume the cost of rescue operations for high-risk ventures.
As rescuers and the public focused primarily on saving and then mourning the passengers and crew aboard the submersible, concerns were raised about the financial burden of such rescue operations. This has led to uneasy conversations around the ethical implications of allocating resources towards risky endeavors and who should be responsible for the associated costs of emergency rescue missions.
The recent tragedy involving the loss of five lives during the submersible vehicle dive to explore the wreckage of the Titanic has sparked a debate around who should bear the cost of rescue operations for high-risk ventures.
Arun Upneja, a researcher on tourism and the dean of Boston University’s School of Hospitality Administration, acknowledges that discussions around insurance and rescue efforts may seem heartless in the wake of such tragedies. However, he emphasizes that costs do exist and must ultimately be borne by someone.
This conversation highlights the need for a more nuanced approach to determining who should bear the financial responsibility and the extent to which governments, private entities, and individuals should be involved in high-risk ventures.
The recent tragic loss of five lives during the submersible vehicle dive to explore the wreckage of the Titanic has brought to light the debate surrounding the financial responsibilities of rescue operations for high-risk ventures.
Arun Upneja, a researcher on tourism and the dean of Boston University’s School of Hospitality Administration, recognizes the sensitivity of discussing insurance and rescue efforts in such difficult times. However, he stresses the importance of considering the costs involved in these kinds of ventures and the fact that they must ultimately be borne by someone.
This highlights the need for a more nuanced approach when assessing who should shoulder the financial responsibility for high-risk endeavors. It is important to consider the role of governments, private entities, and individuals when deciding who should be involved in high-risk ventures and how to allocate the associated costs.
The U.S. Coast Guard has stated that it does not associate a monetary value with saving lives and therefore cannot attribute a cost to Search and Rescue cases. While the recent search and rescue mission for the submersible vehicle lost during a descent to explore the wreckage of the Titanic is expected to cost the Coast Guard millions of dollars, federal law typically prohibits the agency from collecting reimbursement for any search or rescue operation. Stephen Koerting, a U.S.
attorney in Maine who specializes in maritime law, confirmed this legal restriction on the Coast Guard’s ability to collect reimbursement. This highlights the complex legal and ethical considerations that are involved in the allocation of resources for search and rescue operations for high-risk ventures.
However, this larger issue of responsibility towards the public and governments for exposing themselves to risks still remains unresolved. Pete Sepp, president of the National Taxpayers Union, acknowledged the difficulty in finding an answer to this question, which has been a subject of scrutiny since the 1990s, when British billionaire Richard Branson’s hot air balloon exploits were funded by the government.
Sepp emphasized that while the issue should not solely revolve around government spending, the limited resources of rescuers cannot be ignored.
The demand for such rescue resources was brought to the forefront in 1998 when Steve Fossett’s attempt to circle the globe in a hot air balloon ended with him plunging into the ocean 500 miles off the coast of Australia.
The Australian Air Force sent a transport aircraft to locate him, while a French military plane dropped a life raft before a passing yacht picked him up. Critics suggested Fossett should bear the bill for the rescue, but he refused.
Later that same year, the US Coast Guard spent over $130,000 to rescue Fossett and Richard Branson after their hot air balloon crashed into the ocean off Hawaii. Branson said he would pay if the Coast Guard requested it, but they did not ask.
Nine years later, when Fossett’s plane disappeared over Nevada during a short flight, the state National Guard launched an extended search, which ultimately found the wreckage of several other decades-old crashes but not Fossett himself.
The state of Nevada claimed that the search for Fossett had cost taxpayers $685,998, with a private donation covering $200,000. However, when Governor Jim Gibbons’ administration announced plans to seek reimbursement for the remaining amount, Fossett’s widow resisted, citing her own independent expenditure of $1 million towards the search.
A lawyer on behalf of the Fossett estate stated that they believed the search was a government expense incurred through government action. However, risky adventurism is not exclusive to wealthy individuals.
Indeed, many adventure seekers, including those with limited financial means, put themselves and others at risk. For example, hikers or mountaineers who venture into dangerous areas without proper preparation or equipment may require expensive rescues.
This raises the question of how to balance the desire for adventure and exploration with the responsibility to bear the cost of any associated risks and rescue efforts. It is a difficult issue that governments, taxpayers, and individuals will continue to grapple with for the foreseeable future.
Some places have implemented laws commonly referred to as “stupid motorist laws,” which make drivers responsible for paying for emergency response when they ignore barricades on flooded roads.
Arizona has such a law, and Volusia County in Florida, home to Daytona, recently passed similar legislation. There is also regular debate in Arizona about implementing a similar “stupid hiker law,” given the number of unprepared hikers who require rescue from the sweltering triple-digit heat.
The idea behind these laws is to discourage risky behavior and shift the financial responsibility away from taxpayers and onto those who engage in such behavior. However, such laws raise questions about who decides what constitutes “stupid” behavior and whether it is fair to punish individuals who may be unaware of the risks they are taking.
Regardless, it is clear that such issues will continue to be debated as people balance the desire for adventure with their responsibility to take reasonable precautions.
According to Butch Farabee, a former ranger who has participated in countless rescue operations in national parks and authored several books on the subject, most officials and volunteers who organize search efforts are against charging for help.
Such a policy would create a potential dilemma where people in need of assistance may delay or avoid calling for help, leading to even greater danger and potentially higher rescue costs.
Farabee also noted that while some may criticize those who put themselves in harm’s way, it is essential to remember that many of these individuals are simply trying to enjoy the beauty of nature or push themselves to their limits. Thus, it is critical to find a balanced approach that promotes safety and awareness while still allowing people to pursue outdoor adventures.
As Farabee highlighted, search and rescue officials worry that implementing a charging practice could create a situation where people in distress might hesitate to call for help, fearing they cannot afford it, which could result in fatalities or higher rescue costs.
However, there are still cases where some individuals might take rescue services for granted, such as in the case of the lawyer who approached Farabee in the 1980s.
Farabee recalled that the lawyer, who was incapable of hiking out of the Grand Canyon, requested a helicopter rescue so that he could attend an important meeting the following day. The park ranger ultimately denied the request.
Such experiences highlight the challenges that search and rescue teams face when balancing their commitment to saving lives with the responsibility of promoting safe behavior and avoiding unnecessary risks.
In cases where wealthy adventurers place themselves in extreme danger, the option of denying rescue services is not always practical. For instance, at Mount Everest, climbers may incur expenses of tens of thousands of dollars in permit and expedition fees to attempt the climb. Given that a few people go missing or die every year while hiking the mountain, there is a need for emergency response from local officials.
While the government of Nepal mandates that climbers have rescue insurance, the range of services provided in rescue efforts can vary widely. As Upneja notes, some rescues could cost “multiple dozens of thousands of dollars,” making it challenging to determine who bears the financial responsibility for such situations.
This raises complex issues of fairness, responsibility, and public safety that require careful consideration. While wealthy adventurers who place themselves in harm’s way have a responsibility to take precautions and consider the impact of their actions on others, there is still a need to provide emergency services to those who need them.
The Nepalese Ministry of Foreign Affairs did not respond to requests for comment about rescue and recovery costs in the country’s mountainous regions.
Similar issues have arisen in the case of wealthy yachtsmen attempting to set speed or distance records on the high seas and who have often required rescue when their voyages go awry.
In 1997, Tony Bullimore, a British millionaire, was on a round-the-world journey when his yacht capsized 1,400 miles off the coast of Australia. With no access to fresh water and almost out of air, he clung to the inside of the hull for dear life. When a rescue ship arrived, he swam desperately towards the surface, narrowly avoiding death.
As these examples illustrate, there are no easy solutions to the complex questions surrounding rescue services and the costs involved. However, it is clear that governments, taxpayers, adventurers, and other stakeholders must work together to develop a framework that strikes a balance between promoting safety and adventure while bearing the financial impact of unavoidable risks and necessary rescue efforts.
While Tony Bullimore was incredibly grateful to be rescued, and saw it as an absolute miracle, Australian officials who had also rescued a French yachtsman that same week were more pragmatic in their response. Ian McLachlan, the defense minister, noted that they had an international and moral obligation to conduct rescues, regardless of the circumstances.
However, there was little discussion about the Australian government’s request to restrict the routes of yacht races, an attempt to limit the number of sailors who might require rescuing and divert the cost and resources towards other priorities.
Such proposals raise complex questions about the balance between promoting adventure and freedom while also ensuring the safety and well-being of participants.
In summary, while rescue operations are often viewed as necessary humanitarian efforts, they also raise disputes about responsibility, fairness, and the appropriate use of public resources.
The discussions and debates around rescue operations and costs are likely to continue as people seek to balance the desire for adventure with the need for safety and accountability.