I agree that misuse of PLBs is a real problem. Notice I said "misuse of PLBs" and not "PLBs" - as with most other things, it's putting good technology into the hands of idiots that's the problem, not the technology itself. (Proof: "Hi, I'm at the grocery now, in the canned goods aisle. Little Bobby just pulled a bunch of green beans down..." - cell phones are very good technology; unfortunately, there are idiots who think someone actually cares where they are every second.)

I definitely believe that triggering a rescue in non-emergency situations should either result in the individual paying the costs or (putting cost aside and recognizing there is significant risk to the rescuers) made a high-level misdemeanor or low-level felony - and prosecuted. Yes, there would need to be definitions of "non-emergency."

I would tentatively argue that, even in emergencies, the rescued party should bear the cost of the rescue. I'm not arguing that people should never go in harm's way, or be prohibited from venturing into the wilds. However, when we do so, we go accepting the risk that something could go wrong - why shouldn't we also be willing to accept the responsibility to pay for it? It then becomes just another risk management situation: we try to minimize the risk by training, planning, and experience, but it can never be taken to zero risk. With that model, the person heading out can also make the choice to obtain "rescue insurance" by paying a small premium (perhaps a way to finance SAR organizations?), or "go bare" and assume the responsibility for full payment in case of rescue. (This model also protects the right of the rugged individualist NOT to call in a rescue in an emergency, and get him/herself out the situation on his/her own.) In short, might this be a key that fits the backcountry door (to borrow a concept from Colin Fletcher)?

Thoughts?