12 hours ago
Should irresponsible hikers be forced to pay for their rescue? This sheriff says yes
The number of rescues in the wilderness areas around Mt. St. Helens keep going up — and the actions of some of those before they call for help have drawn criticism as reckless.
One man, 21, kayaked over a waterfall, suffering a spinal injury. A 54-year-old woman glissaded down Mt. St. Helens — sliding down a snow-covered slope — and suffered a head injury when she struck a rock.
Each of those rescues in May, in a remote, mountainous county, required six-hour efforts. And one West Coast sheriff is now pondering sending the most egregious victims a bill.
The idea would involve a new county ordinance where a person could be cited 'if they are found to be reckless or negligent in their actions where search and rescue is requested to respond,' according to the Sheriff's Office in Skamania County, the remote, sparsely populated county in Washington that is home to Mt. St. Helens.
'I need to find a creative way to deter the current behavior we are witnessing while attempting to recoup the financial burden placed on our county,' Sheriff Summer Scheyer said in a statement. 'This ordinance is still in the planning phase, but I believe it would be an added deterrent for those who take exceptional risks.'
The number of search-and-rescue missions soared in May in Skamania County compared to the same month last year, the Sheriff's Office said, with a number of missions taking four to nine hours to complete the rescue.
Skamania County isn't alone. In southern Utah, the Garfield County Sheriff's Office on Tuesday announced it was requiring permits for some of the most remote and challenging slot canyons, noting 'a significant increase in search and rescue operations.'
Nationwide, the number of national park search-and-rescue operations is in the thousands — 3,308 in 2023 — which can entail anything from a child who is separated from their parents to a hiker who is lost in the backcountry.
The idea of forcing irresponsible hikers to pay for their rescue has come up before.
In New Hampshire, the state says people may be required to pay back the costs to rescue them. One way to avoid such charges is buying 'Hike Safe Cards' — $25 per person and $35 per family — that supports the state's search-and-rescue efforts.
One recent rescue that gained attention involved a pair of hikers who had to be rescued after they hiked despite a forecast of rain, sleet and snow in the middle of January, went off a marked trail and feared they were hypothermic. Rescuers had to break a trail — for three-quarters of a mile in steep terrain — to get to the hikers. 'The pair were found to be inadequately prepared for the conditions that were forecasted,' the Fish and Game Department said in a news release, and neither had Hike Safe Cards.
In 2013 in California, a massive search-and-rescue operation was launched in Orange County for two hikers, Nicolas Cendoya, 19, and Kyndall Jack, 18. They called for help after going on an Easter Sunday hike in Trabuco Canyon and became lost. The cellphone they used to make the call stopped working before authorities could identify their location.
Cendoya was found three days later, shoeless and disoriented half a mile from their car, and Jack, the day after, in shoulder-high brush. After authorities found methamphetamine in the vehicle, which the pair had parked before the hike, some government officials called for the $160,000 rescue bill to be paid back.
Cendoya pleaded guilty to one felony count of drug possession but was eligible for a drug-diversion program, which if completed successfully would mean he could have the case against him dismissed. Court records indicated the case was dismissed in 2015.
A judge, however, denied the Orange County Fire Authority's request that the agency get back the $55,000 it spent on the search for the pair, saying the fire agency was not a victim of a crime and couldn't seek restitution.
In response, California lawmakers changed the law to allow government officials to seek reimbursement for future rescues, with certain conditions.
Signed into law in 2015, the law allows a county or city to seek reimbursement for the costs of a rescue if it required 'the use of extraordinary methods,' and 'was caused by an intentional act in knowing violation' of any law 'that resulted in a criminal conviction of that person for that act.'
But a county can't collect if the person rescued can't afford to pay. The county also can't collect more than $12,000 unless the person rescued was convicted of a felony.
Although Orange County did not recoup its costs, the hikers did face other legal action to hold them financially accountable.
Jack was sued by a volunteer rescuer who was injured during the search, falling more than 100 feet, according to the rescuer's attorneys. The volunteer, who accused Jack of negligently putting rescuers in danger, received $100,000 as part of a legal settlement, paid from a homeowner's insurance policy held by Jack's mother. The rescuer's attorney said Cendoya also settled with the rescuer for an undisclosed amount of money.
Some search-and-rescue organizations don't support the idea of charging people needing rescue. 'No one should ever be made to feel they must delay in notifying the proper authorities of a search or rescue incident out of fear of possible charges,' the Mountain Rescue Assn. says.
In a position paper in 2009, the association said that most services that rescue people in the mountains in the U.S. 'are provided by teams of unpaid professional rescue mountaineers who give up their own time to participate in search and rescue activities.'
'The typical search and rescue mission is over within a matter of a few hours, and with the vast majority of the work performed by unpaid professional volunteers, the costs are generally very low,' Charley Shimanski, then the president of the Mountain Rescue Assn., said in a statement.
'It's true that teams are sometimes over-taxed, and that newcomers to the backcountry call 911 in questionable circumstances,' the Colorado Search and Rescue Assn. said. 'Yet we still don't believe charging for services is the answer. We know from experience that when people think they're going to be charged, they often delay calling, or even intentionally evade, rescuers.'
Times staff writer Alex Wigglesworth contributed to this report.
