Wow, what 3rd grade debate team did this supurb scribe escape from? The examples you used to show "same logic" are indeed examples of everyday duty already conducted by our excellent public safety employees. More often than not rescues require some specialized training and specialized equipment...both of which cost money. The rescue mentioned in this piece should not be billed, the girl and friends had the proper equipment and exercised thier due dilligence in mitigating any risk. Stuff happens. But when some idiot gets lost in the woods with only a pack of smokes a case of PBR, he needs to pay; payment must be made for the equipment (aircraft) and people who are taken away FROM NORMAL DUTIES to save him.

It is no surpise that this publication has a hard time applying a common sense standard to the issue.

Old argument but if any military organization undertakes war games or wants to bivouac for a weekend, it's automatically covered as training. Sad that search and rescue isn't and it points out the absurdity of finance of public endeavors in our humble country, the feds run deficits, local govt cannot.

Here in Public venue, I make this request. If I ever become sick, lost or injured in the woods, PLEASE don't help me.

Harry I have scratched your name off my "search and rescue" list per your request!!

While I understand the majority of the 'why's and 'why-not's, I am still not sure where I stand...

Excellent editorial. Thanks.

Admittedly I am not a resident of beautiful Maine, but as a 24-year veteran of search and rescue (SAR) I am compelled to point out some fallacies in demsuk64's argument:

1. SAR takes no more specialized training or equipment than other emergency services, each with its unique needs. Such training and equipment may seem "specialized" to the general public, but are the tools of the trade of each emergency service. For SAR it is ascending a rope, for firefighting it is calculating friction loss in a 250' lay of hose, for law enforcement it is understanding "probable cause" and use of restraint, and for EMS it is reading a 12-lead EKG.

2. When SAR units, or agencies to which SAR has been delegated, respond to a call they ARE completing their "NORMAL DUTY."

3. Equipping SAR personnel is extraordinarily LESS expansive that equipping a fire department.

4. Training SAR personnel is remarkably LESS expensive than training law enforcement officers.

The professionals in SAR have opposed billing for SAR for decades. Our reasoning is best explained here: http://www.nasar.org/nasar/downloads/No_Bill_for_SAR_Position_Statement_-_NASAR_4-2009.pdf

hmpaul,

I'm not sure where you're from, but around here we don't have designated SAR units...that is where the question of payment comes in. The Game Wardens and Forest Rangers do not have a crack team of highly trained specialists sitting at Bangor Airport waiting for distress calls to come in so they can hop on their Blackhawk and swoop in for the rescue.

The question of billing comes when the firefighter, police officer, or warden must act in a SAR capacity, which requires equipment and training above and beyond what they would normally need. You should not expect a small town volunteer fire department to have the same abilities as NYPD. To do so is to act as a typical know-it-all out of stater who "loves Maine" but wishes it were "more like back home". i personally believe that those who are lost should be left to die. Darwin at it's finest. The problem with that, of course, is that too many tourists would die...not good for our booming ecomony.

Surprise- frankly. This editorial makes sense. The states all want visitor's to participate in all activities available. Hence, rescue's are or should be the norm..That is what all taxpayers are managing such emergency folks for..good editorial for a change..Larry T. Doughty, South Brewer..larrytdoughty@yahoo.com. www.ourstory.com/larrytdoughty/

Good editorial on an issue that I've seen a lot in the news lately...across America. These are the type of services that should fall under our "taxes at work." Yes, it is frustrating to see the associated cost of rescuing an idiot but I'd rather see that and know that the service exists just in case I, too, am one of those idiots someday. The idea of my family looking down on me at a ledge and debating whether I am worth the expense they will incur if they call in to request rescue...now that's scary!

Maine is one state that I do not understand why they do not use search and rescue volunteer teams and there are currently 17 such teams registered on the Maine Association for Search and Rescue website located throughout the state. Instead, when the call comes in to law enforcement or whatever agency takes the call for someone that has gone missing or has fallen off the rocks on one of the many mountains here, the Maine Warden Service and Maine Forest Service Rangers get the call.

I will not go out into the Wilderness of Maine even though I have all of the SAR gear and survival equipment and the many years of training to utilize the equipment to sustain myself out their. It is not worth being out in nature here because you might get hurt, get rescued and then get a bill for several thousand dollars. Other states use volunteer teams all the time and no one gets a bill for the rescue. If other states can do it, so can't Maine.

Can someone explain to me why MWS and MFS gets the call for SAR instead of one of the 17 volunteer search and rescue teams who do this "So That Others Many Live". I have done volunteer SAR out in Kansas and Missouri for Civil Air Patrol and HAART and in those two states the volunteer SAR teams are the ones out doing the work not some state employee that is being taken away from their primary duties. We do not send the missing person a bill in the mail for the duties that we have volunteered to do.

Wake up Maine and catch up to the modern days and update your laws. May be Maine doesnt care, they are stuck back in the old days.