Thoughts
05-06-2015, 05:52 AM
#1
Fork Horn
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Colorado
Posts: 291
Thoughts
None of us plan a accident while traversing after mulies or elk. however, should one happen, ground transportation is being phased over air evacuation. Not wanting to leave a survivor with a $40K+bill,
just wondering what the thoughts on MedEvac insc were? While some of this is covered by S&R on Col license....not sure on air removal?
Thoughts
Dan
just wondering what the thoughts on MedEvac insc were? While some of this is covered by S&R on Col license....not sure on air removal?
Thoughts
Dan
05-06-2015, 06:50 AM
#2
Boone & Crockett
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: south eastern PA
Posts: 15,430
If I was going to hunt out of the country in an out of the way place, I would serriously consider the air extraction insurance. I doubt I would while hunting in the US Rockies as the areas in the US are pretty well prepared for that. You may want to look into what you will be covee for with your health insurance and look into buying a rider to cover air extraction while on the trip, if the insurance doesn't already cover it.
05-06-2015, 07:26 AM
#3
Fork Horn
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Colorado
Posts: 291
If I was going to hunt out of the country in an out of the way place, I would serriously consider the air extraction insurance. I doubt I would while hunting in the US Rockies as the areas in the US are pretty well prepared for that. You may want to look into what you will be covee for with your health insurance and look into buying a rider to cover air extraction while on the trip, if the insurance doesn't already cover it.
Dan
05-06-2015, 08:17 AM
#5
Spike
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 16
If you are interested, this probably the premiere travel rescue outfit in the world. I have seen lots of reports and testimonials on them: https://globalrescue.com/
05-06-2015, 07:36 PM
#6
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Illinois
Posts: 3,695
Wow, this is a topic I had never really thought of before. After reading it I did a little research on my insurance coverage (blue cross blue shield) and found that my "out of state" coverage severely lacking as far as emergency transportation and stuff. Since I do hunt Big Sky country often as well as Back country Alaska often I should look into this much deeper. I just assumed (and we all know what assumed breaks down to) that I was covered well considering what the hell I pay every month for this stuff!
05-07-2015, 12:39 AM
#7
Spike
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Australia
Posts: 9
Thanks for raising that point longknife12. I have always been worried when I hunt internationally too because insurance companies do not want to cover anything hunting/firearm related without a nice premium.
Just another something to keep in mind.
Just another something to keep in mind.
06-02-2015, 11:37 AM
#9
Boone & Crockett
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: south eastern PA
Posts: 15,430
some states charge for S&R
For some stranded U.S. adventurers, rescues come at a cost
Some states have laws authorizing local agencies to bill for rescue operations
February 18, 2013|By Laura Zuckerman | Reuters
(ANTHONY BOLANTE, REUTERS)
After an all-terrain vehicle accident in the Utah desert last spring, 53-year-old Mikki Babineau expected a long recuperation for collapsed lungs and 18 broken ribs.
What the Idaho woman didn't expect was a $750 bill from the local Utah sheriff's office for sending a volunteer search and rescue unit to her aid, a service for which the sheriff in that county regularly charges fees.
Just a handful of states, including Oregon, Maine and Babineau's home state of Idaho, have laws authorizing local agencies to bill for rescues when factors such as recklessness, illegal activity or false information led to the predicament.
Lawmakers from the Rockies to the Appalachians periodically question why adventurers who incur costs should not have to pay the price -- literally. That debate has heated up this year as legislators in at least two states have sought, so far unsuccessfully, to enact laws to allow fees for rescues.
"In the rare case where a person took unnecessary risks, that person should be sent a bill," said Wyoming Republican Representative Keith Gingery, who tried but failed to pass such a law in his state.
That few states currently allow such billing is chiefly due to objections by national search and rescue groups, who say the prospect of payment could prompt people to delay seeking needed aid, possibly making a dangerous situation worse.
But that has not stopped lawmakers from considering such laws. Legislators in New Hampshire, for example, are seeking to shore up search and rescue funds by establishing fees ranging from $350 to $1,000.
That legislation, designed to address deficits in a state rescue fund paid through licensing of hunters, snowmobilers and other outdoor recreationists, is pending before a New Hampshire House committee.
SURVIVAL SKILLS
A similar effort to impose payment in Wyoming came to naught this year after Gingery failed to persuade a state House panel last month to approve a provision to give county sheriffs - who in many Western states oversee search and rescue teams -- the right to recover rescue costs.
The issue came to the fore last winter in the state's Teton County, home to mountains as perilous as they are scenic, when a group of snowmobilers entered the back country near a steep pass northeast of Jackson Hole and required a helicopter rescue.
When the county later asked them to contribute to the $14,000 cost of the operation, an attorney for the snowmobilers wrote a letter contending local officials had no authority to ask for reimbursement.
Wyoming's Gingery and other backers of billing those saved say the issue is broader than money. Billing for rescues, they argue, would place ill-prepared hikers, skiers and snowmobilers, especially those engaged in extreme sports, on notice.
Some states have laws authorizing local agencies to bill for rescue operations
February 18, 2013|By Laura Zuckerman | Reuters
(ANTHONY BOLANTE, REUTERS)
After an all-terrain vehicle accident in the Utah desert last spring, 53-year-old Mikki Babineau expected a long recuperation for collapsed lungs and 18 broken ribs.
What the Idaho woman didn't expect was a $750 bill from the local Utah sheriff's office for sending a volunteer search and rescue unit to her aid, a service for which the sheriff in that county regularly charges fees.
Just a handful of states, including Oregon, Maine and Babineau's home state of Idaho, have laws authorizing local agencies to bill for rescues when factors such as recklessness, illegal activity or false information led to the predicament.
Lawmakers from the Rockies to the Appalachians periodically question why adventurers who incur costs should not have to pay the price -- literally. That debate has heated up this year as legislators in at least two states have sought, so far unsuccessfully, to enact laws to allow fees for rescues.
"In the rare case where a person took unnecessary risks, that person should be sent a bill," said Wyoming Republican Representative Keith Gingery, who tried but failed to pass such a law in his state.
That few states currently allow such billing is chiefly due to objections by national search and rescue groups, who say the prospect of payment could prompt people to delay seeking needed aid, possibly making a dangerous situation worse.
But that has not stopped lawmakers from considering such laws. Legislators in New Hampshire, for example, are seeking to shore up search and rescue funds by establishing fees ranging from $350 to $1,000.
That legislation, designed to address deficits in a state rescue fund paid through licensing of hunters, snowmobilers and other outdoor recreationists, is pending before a New Hampshire House committee.
SURVIVAL SKILLS
A similar effort to impose payment in Wyoming came to naught this year after Gingery failed to persuade a state House panel last month to approve a provision to give county sheriffs - who in many Western states oversee search and rescue teams -- the right to recover rescue costs.
The issue came to the fore last winter in the state's Teton County, home to mountains as perilous as they are scenic, when a group of snowmobilers entered the back country near a steep pass northeast of Jackson Hole and required a helicopter rescue.
When the county later asked them to contribute to the $14,000 cost of the operation, an attorney for the snowmobilers wrote a letter contending local officials had no authority to ask for reimbursement.
Wyoming's Gingery and other backers of billing those saved say the issue is broader than money. Billing for rescues, they argue, would place ill-prepared hikers, skiers and snowmobilers, especially those engaged in extreme sports, on notice.
06-02-2015, 12:22 PM
#10
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: IL
Posts: 6,575
honestly, charge hunters $0.50 per license, and we should be covered...
it's funny, but hunters pay the state to hunt...
hikers etc... who get stranded, don't have licenses etc..., not that I think you should need a licenses to go for a hike, but 1 group generates revenue for the state, while others, at least not directly usually pay to hike etc...
it's funny, but hunters pay the state to hunt...
hikers etc... who get stranded, don't have licenses etc..., not that I think you should need a licenses to go for a hike, but 1 group generates revenue for the state, while others, at least not directly usually pay to hike etc...