OutdoorsRescue can sometimes incur substantial costs—so who should bear them? This is a highly debated issue, but the general societal response both in China and abroad is that the individuals involved or their families should pay. This social mindset is understandable, as most people do not engage inoutdooractivities,and they do not feel they should cover the costs forfellow hikers(or "outdoor enthusiasts").
Therefore, I believe that the outdoor community should proactively find ways to address this issue. Every outdoor enthusiast should possess good outdoor ethics (which can be summarized by the seven principles promoted by LNT), and beyond that, should have a spirit of mutual assistance. This assistance should include not only immediate help from teammates on-site or aid from civilian rescue teams, but should also extend to financial support for all fellow hikers (including oneself).
Every society has voluntary civilian rescue forces, and no one fails to admire their selfless dedication. The difference lies in the fact that domesticrescue teamsoften have subpar equipment and receive too little training. The reason is simple: lack of funding.
Specific suggestions
I am willing to pay an extra 10 or 20 yuan each time I join an outdoor activity, which the team leader can collect and hand over to Green Trail (绿野). Green Trail can deposit this money into an escrow account, hire a certified public accountant to audit the funds, and regularly publish the accounts. Additionally, a funding approval committee can be formed, consisting of leaders from various civilian rescue teams and respected figures in the outdoor community. When a rescue team requires financial support, Green Trail can handle the documentation (if the rescue team lacks the manpower to do so), submit it to the committee for approval, and once approved, Green Trail will notify the escrow account manager to release the funds. In this way, civilian rescue teams can apply to the committee for financial support when conducting training, purchasing equipment, or carrying out actual rescues.
It is said that team leaders posting“free-to-join”activities on Green Trail must pay a certain fee to the platform. If that’s the case, then Green Trail’s fee collection mechanism likely already exists, so adding this public welfare service shouldn’t increase costs significantly.
Trial implementation suggestion
Team leaders who are socially minded and agree with my idea can introduce these concepts and practices while collecting money on the bus, encouraging teammates to make voluntary contributions. The staff collecting the funds could call out names like “MRZ donates 20 yuan” (similar to how shop assistants loudly announce tips in old Beijing), creating a lively and fun atmosphere to encourage everyone to contribute a little in everyday situations.
Even team leaders organizing cost-sharing trips can similarly encourage teammates to make donations.
Future vision
If this concept gains widespread support and the account accumulates a significant amount of money, it may be possible to further target wealthy individuals for directed fundraising. A single donation from a wealthy person could easily equal the total annual contributions of ten thousand people. But they would act like venture fund managers—not handing out money casually. You would need to demonstrate through a period of operation that you have market support, a sound management system, and credibility before they might consider providing support.
Before concluding, let’s look at some figures and practices from abroad
Nationwide in the U.S., only 4% of search and rescue expenses are spent on mountain rescues, yet the media loves to report onmountainhiker mishaps, and hikers are often criticized for being irresponsible and neglecting safety.
The biggest expense in mountain rescue is personnel costs, but most search and rescue personnel are volunteers dedicated to public welfare, so the actual expenses are not as high as the public imagines.
The U.S. Coast Guard spends $680 million annually on search and rescue operations, making it themost expensive branch in national search and rescue efforts. Maritime incidents and rescue costs are clearly much higher than those in mountainous areas, yet there is little public complaint in this regard.
When the military is involved in rescue operations, it is considered routine training aimed at improving combat readiness and emergency response capabilities, with the costs treated as training expenses.
A few states in the northeastern United States have laws stipulating that rescued individuals may be held legally liable for rescue costs, but only New Hampshire actively enforces them. Hikers going to the U.S.hikingshould be aware of this.
Some scenic areas charge hikers a standardized rescue fee, such as $15.
Regions with laws holding rescued individuals financially responsible have seen some side effects. Those in distress may delay calling for help or refuse rescue (even after rescuers have arrived) out of fear they can’t afford the costs, which increases the difficulty of search and rescue and the danger to both the individual and the rescuers.
The U.S. National Association for Search and Rescue (which includes over ten thousand volunteers and paid search and rescue professionals) and the Mountain Rescue Association of the United States (a coalition of 90 mountain rescue teams) both explicitly advocate against charging the individuals in distress. Their reasoning is that saving lives takes precedence above all else—it is a moral duty of civilized society, above legal obligation. If those rescued were required to pay, it could lead to the unfair situation where the wealthy are saved while the poor dare not seek help. Society should seek mechanisms for collective funding, whether by the general public or specific groups.