In Europe, rescue insurance is common for mountaineers. Probably what would be a good idea is to have a rescue insurance program that is part of the purchase of a SPOT or PLB. In other words, you pay an extra $20 or so when you buy it, and that signs you up for the insurance. Since the vast majority of units will likely never be used for an emergency, you have lots of people paying $20 each and just a few actually being rescued.
SPOT actually has a rescue insurance program available on their site as an option - $7.95 per year. Just make that a part of the deal instead of an option, and there you are. Especially simple with SPOT, since you have to have an annual subscription anyway.

It is not black and white. Once the county sheriff is involved they take over and nobody else has much to say about what is being done. I have seen some rescues over-done- a helicpoter sent in when a horse packer would have done just as well. They are just like doctors who do not want to be sued for a botched rescue. Thus, I do not think the rescued person should necessisarly pay all the costs. But I do think everyone should pay a share. I would say, at a minimum of a couple hundred dollars - kind of like use-fee. Also, if you "push the button" you should be required to go out regardless. None of this "oh, I am better now". On one hand you do not want false alarms but you also do not want people to hesitate to call when they really need help for fear of having to pay thousands of dollars. After all the SARs are volunteer organizations and the sheriff's guys are already being paid. It is their job. There will always be in most cases those who really needed a rescue and those who clearly did not and a hopefully smaller "gray area". If there is insurance - it should remain voluntary. I have no plans of either getting insurance or carrying a PLB.

I think you're omitting that some people who buy SPOT are using it as a personal tracker - small businesses with individual tracking needs for instance. Wouldn't really be fair to make them pay for rescuing the adventurers, would it?

That said, it would be foolish not to take some preventative action, because we're about to witness a lot more "Yuppie 911" calls. When Jill and Joe I-Am-Invincible think they can do anything now that they have help just a push-button away, THEY WILL. And when they get in over their heads, they will push that button. If they didn't have that button to push, they likely would have exercised more caution in their trip planning. So how do we provide the safety net without emboldening these risk-takers? Everyone has to pay for rescue. Push the button and pay. You incur fees just as if you called the ambulance.

This does not mean we won't rescue those who have no money any more than we refuse to treat indigent patients. Everyone gets rescued and everyone gets a bill. Those with health plans may be covered, and the rest could buy "Rescue Insurance" or take their chances.

I don't think that is true. Not at all. That's like the idea that allowing people to carry concealed weapons will result in gunfights all over the place - never happened. And "yuppie 911 calls" won't happen either.

SPOT/ACR/McMurdo have been around for a while. The SAR folks haven't been overwhelmed with "yuppie 911" calls.

SPOT/ACR/McMurdo do empower folks with a new level of responsibility and preparedness for backcountry travel. But very few thrill junkies can find a way to get in trouble and make "yuppie 911" calls. There are always going to be rescues of "stupid" people who set off uneducated and unprepared. But SPOT/ACR/McMurdo would really help in these situations - saves SAR a lot of time and money. Overall these devices are money-savers - people carrying them should get a reduced rate.

Yesterday, I watched a newly released, on DVD, movie called "Canyon". It was not a good movie, mostly inaccurate, including the addition of wolves in GC, but the storyline hits home. Two people, totally unprepared, uneducated, underequipped, getting themselves into trouble. Sadly, the book "Over the Edge; Death in Grand Canyon" is full of real stories like this.

No, but it DID result in the rate of robberies and assaults dropping, didn't it? Cause and effect. You are just choosing one possible effect and citing it to "prove" your point when other effects disprove it.

I put it to you this way. Since the cell phone has become so commonplace, non-emergency calls currently make up about 2/3 of the total number of calls to 911, with a significant part being "stupid" calls (asking directions, locked keys in car, want to know what's holding up traffic). What happened? Cell phones have been around for DECADES. Why the increase? Because they got CHEAP, just like PLBs and other emergency signaling devices are now getting cheap. Cheap means lots of devices floating around - and some inevitably get into the hands of "stupid" people.

Let's face it - there are some REALLY STUPID PEOPLE in this world. When those people have devices like PLBs and SPOTs, the same thing that happened with cheap cell phones will happen with those devices too. They will use them inappropriately. Except in this case, there is no two-way conversation, no way to determine if this is a "stupid" call or not. You have to treat every activation like a real emergency.

You see, I don't have to prove that abuse will happen, because it already does happen every day with 911 calls. Now can you imagine the chaos if, like PLBs, cellphones only had a "911" button on them? No way to get any more information other than "This is an emergency"? Officers would be rolling to calls for someones turkey that didn't cook right, or because somebody got the wrong order from Burger Thing. Translating this to PLBs - "I forgot my sleeping bag and thought that I could just tough it out", "A 'possum got in our food and now I think everything's contaminated", "We ran out of toilet paper, do you have some?"

Yeah, these calls from "stupid" people sure are gonna save SAR a lot of money. Right. Just remember to buy my new backpack stickers that say "Push the button and PAY!"