So here's the thing with the whole reimbursement for SAR cases that makes me adamantly oppose it, even in cases of extreme stupidity. Here's a hypothetical:
21' boat breaks down while bottom fishing near rocks. By the time their anchor catches, they're within 50 yards of a lee shore - which isn't really 'shore' so much as 'jagged wash rocks scattered in front of rock cliffs with NO shoreside access or rescue possible'. Oh, and to make it special, right between and shoreward of two rocks, one wash, one exposed, with a wash rock just seaward of that one. Old man #1 tells old man #2, quite correctly, to get on the radio and fire off a distress cal, because when - not if, but when, that little anchor line parts or the anchor pops loose, they are on the rocks, and two old men don't stand a chance once that boat is smashing on the rocks on a lee shore. Two young men wouldn't stand a chance.
But old man #2 just read the article about the dude who got billed $250,000 because he had to be rescued somewhere offshore, admittedly due to his own stupidity, and wonders how many thousands of dollars his bill will be if he calls the professionals. His monthly medication tab already breaks his bank, plus food, plus the last few years of mortgage payments, plus trying to help out with all of his grandchildren's college bills, and spending those last couple dollars left over to go fishing every weekend. Old man #2 doesn't have a few thousand dollars to pay that bill, let alone the couple hundred thousand that crazy guy in the news got billed, so he's calling everyone he knows that's still allowed to drive themselves and might have access to a boat on his Jitterbug cell phone. Anchor line finally parts, and both old guys agree it's time to call the pros. Pros get on-scene to see the last bits of debris still bouncing in the shore wash, and spot what's left of the two bodies getting repeatedly smashed on the rocks, but it's too shallow for the Lifeboat to get in and recover the bodies.
It's a hypothetical (at least the parts relevant to this conversation - the first paragraph may or may not have some basis in a true story. Wish I had video, it was pretty slick), but it's no exaggeration. We all know human nature, and human nature is VERY prone to financial considerations when it comes to decision making - even when that decision making is in the interest of self preservation. It doesn't matter whether it's a 'pure accident' or gross negligence that leads to the present situation or the situation forming the frame of reference, humans WILL fail to call for help until it's clearly too late if the slightest concern of heavy financial burden exists. So now SAR assets are just getting used for cleanup and body collection - which will lead to rapid burnout, in turn high attrition, resulting in a very low experience level and morale. Now the people that ARE smart enough to call for help as soon as they know they may need it aren't getting the level of service they deserve. The mishap rate goes through the roof because the experienced guys burned out on running cleanup rather than SAR, so tighter restrictions are placed on response, and now you have a very minimal level of service with heavy bureaucratic restrictions on when and how that response will actually occur.
NO POSSIBLE GOOD comes of forcing reimbursement for SAR efforts. NONE. Excepting hoaxes (not false alarms, but hoaxes), there is no situation that warrants it in light of the precedent it sets, and the fallout that precedent causes.
