In reply to andyathome:
> If you really believe that volunteer rescue teams should not respond to people in trouble - no matter who they are or what the issue is - then it does beg the question of what the MR teams are really about?
The rescue teams exist to help those who find themselves in trouble in the mountains. Some would argue that the reason they are in trouble is immaterial. I would disagree; see my writing below.
> Are you actually suggesting that they are really just there for the 'unlucky competent' rather than the 'unfortunate incompetent'?
As far as I'm aware, that's now the policy of the rescue chopper system in Courmayeur. If, in the opinion of the crew, you didn't actually need rescuing, or only needed rescuing because you were ill-equipped or under-prepared, you'll be billed.
> Who makes that judgement?
MRT Team Leader, in conjunction with the Police.
> Who levies the charge?
If you have to be rescued and the MRT think your rescue was unreasonable, your details are taken. After a cold-light-of-day discussion with the Police, you are sent a bill - nothing astronomical, say £100-150 to cover diesel for MRT vehicles and W&T on team equipment. If you don't pay, small claims court. Think of it as a fixed penalty notice for being a tit.
> Should we just stop being so bloody judgemental?
There's a world of difference between the incidents that MRTs were set up to deal with decades ago (climbing accidents, accidental slips and trips, health problems showing up at a bad moment) and the type of thing above. They were founded on the idea that the hills are a place of independence and freedom (balanced with the corresponding responsibilities of self-reliance and preparation), but sometimes shit happens and you need help. It seems now that the freedom of the hills is being taken by some without respect for the responsibilities attached.
The MRTs exist to help, and will continue to do so no matter how many people get "lost" while actually on safe paths on mountains busier than motorways. Many members feel that, having the knowledge and experience to help, they have a moral obligation to help no matter what the circumstances (even if they have a moan in the pub later). However, I feel that the corollary of that is that those who seek help because they went out unprepared have a moral obligation to give something in return for the help that is so freely given. If I were ever rescued, I would be making a donation whatever the circumstances.
Should that obligation be enforced? Maybe not. It could be a short road from there to the compulsory rescue insurance that the DM comment threads yammer on about every time somebody slips off Stanage and has to be Seaking'd. But it might just make people stop and think before walking into 30ft-visibility hillfog in their trainers, carrying a Cumbria A-Z and a pack of Hobnobs.