Editorial: Charging for rescues on Hawaii’s trails

What was once a rare sight on Oahu has become a common one: The Honolulu Fire Department’s bright yellow rescue helicopter, hovering over a hiker trapped on a rugged, hard-to-reach trail.

As more people flock to Hawaii’s hiking trails, lured by enticing and misleading social media posts, so have the number of rescues. Between 2006 and 2016, the number of HFD rescues in mountainous areas nearly tripled, according to a bill before the Legislature in 2019. HFD reported 187 such rescues in 2015, and 260 the following year.

Last year, HFD said, it conducted 229 “land rescues,” including 181 on steep terrain.

Too often, hikers get into trouble by trespassing on off-limits property, areas too dangerous or remote for safe public use. They stray from marked paths or blow past signs that clearly indicate a kapu. Their willful lack of prudence causes them to get stranded or injured, forcing rescue crews to risk their own lives responding to the emergency.

All this explains the annual appearance in the Legislature of bills that would force these scofflaws — or their estates, guardians or custodians — to pay for their salvation. This year, it’s Senate Bill 700, which would allow government entities to seek full or partial reimbursement for search-and-rescue operations.

There’s something satisfying about sticking these hikers with the bill — a fine sense of justice, perhaps. Some estimates of the costs reach $1,500 per hour, including the helicopter.

But like the trails themselves, the issues are more difficult than they appear.

Hikers in trouble may be reluctant to call for help if they’re facing an enormous bill, possibly making their situation worse — and their inevitable rescue (or, heaven forbid, recovery) even more dangerous.

And how do you determine fault, and how much to charge? Someone has to separate the merely unlucky hikers from those who knowingly broke the law, and calculate the bill accordingly. Chasing the money might cost more than collecting it.

Of course, if deterrence is the goal, the mere threat of such a bill might give some hikers pause, although it seems unlikely; reckless adventure-seekers don’t expect to get into trouble.

Perhaps a more effective answer would be stiffer criminal penalties, with stronger, well-publicized enforcement against the few who get caught. It’s not a perfect solution, but surely it’s better than nothing.