The helicopter should have dropped them at the county jail to spend some time thinking about their decisions.

But seriously, the only solution I see for this is stiffer penalties (either civil fines or criminal charges) for frivolous summoning of emergency aide. That's easy to say, but it begs the question of who decides what's frivolous and what isn't? And it also will inevitably lead to someone not using a summons during a real emergency for fear of retribution and perishing as a result.

Deciding what's frivolous and what's not could have been as easy as "you called for emergency due to lack of water and have declined rescue...clearly you are neither physically nor mentally equipped for a backcountry trip so we are evacuating you whether you like it or not".

As has been discussed here before, I really think that the NPS needs to consider 1) rules and regs for back country access and 2) availability of SPOT devices.

Heck, the next group that has one might end up using it because someone's 5 year old is afraid of the dark!
In any case, back country rescue should be a cost borne by those who use the service, just like AAA.

Rap

These idiots should be arressted for felony stupid.

I'm surprised this didn"t make the national news - "4 previously thought to be extict dodos were discovered in the Grand Canyon!"

And just think - they're teaching their offspring how to handle all these "emergencies". Look for more don't-need-rescuing rescues in the future.

I've heard of various backcountry hikers (with cell phones) who were otherwise in good shape with plenty of food, water,and shelter but didn't want to continue because they were tired. The most entertaining quote when the NPS decided to send out someone on foot to check the state of these hikers was "Where's the helicopter?" as if they expected to be airlifted out just because they were tired.

I've worked as a river guide in Grand Canyon for over twenty years, and this example serves as a perfect illustration of the softening and sense of entitlement that's rampant in America nowadays across the board. We've seen it on river trips, and I'm sure the Rim rangers are pretty tired of it too. A very small percentage of the population has any connection with what wilderness really means, and devices like the SPOT beacons foster this lack of responsibility manyfold. Not to be mean-spirited, but these jackasses
needlessly risked the lives of rescuers several times, and should be thrown in jail and fined heavily. Their conduct borders on the unbelievable, but sadly is all too common. Anything else is an insult to the rescue community.

rescue services, should not be free. most ambulance and some fire service have set fees for response.
Phoenix ,AZ police charge time and material for noise and loud party calls. These are service costs not fines.Why not do the same in the parks

bojay--

There have been a couple of threads on NPT about the pros and cons of charging for rescue services. The main argument against charging for emergency services is that the other type of idiots out there would get in trouble, not want to pay for the rescue, and therefore wait too long until the situation has escalated to be a more risky & difficult rescue, putting the emergency responders as well as the visitor at greater risk.

You can't legislate good judgment, but perhaps folks need mandatory instruction on what is and isn't appropriate use of SPOT or other calls for help.

I assume that these particular idiots will be fined an amount at least what the helicopter trips cost: over $1000 per trip even for simple trips. I'm glad the NPS folks had sense enough to not chance a high risk night landing: imagine if they were injured or killed.

I have no problem with stiff fines for abuse of emergency services. That's essentially what this was.

Calling for help because water "tasted salty" that far away from any substantial source of salt? That's just beyond ignorant.

Honestly though - it might have been better if they had been able to simply get access to regular non-emergency communications. The could have been informed where they could get a reliable water source rather than send expensive personnel to just give them water.

What ranger would approve a permit for this group on this hike anyway? The NPS bears some responsibility for its poor judgement as well.

Anonymous -

Your comment indicates you believe a ranger should have the authority to deny a group a backcountry permit based on his or her evaluation of their experience and/or qualifications for the trip.

I'd be interested to read the reactions of other readers to that idea, including what criteria should be used to make that decision.

I'd be real curious to know more about the third "emergency" and why they were evacuated.

I'm all for denying people backcountry permits due to lack of experience/qualifications but the logistics of it would make obtaining one extremely difficult because it would require the presence of the group leader at the park prior to issuance of the permit in order to evaluate him/her.

I haven't really heard of many specific requirements for non-technical hiking or overnight camping. The only thing I've seen is that the ranger (or sometimes even non-profit worker or volunteer) will have the permit holder read a short list of rules before signing for the permit.

In Yosemite there's no test. I though a few NPS units supposedly make people sit through orientation videos before issuing permits for some areas. Fiery Furnace at Arches requires watching an orientation video before they issue a day use permit.

I'd also note that many NPS units have people pick up permits in person even if they're reserved by phone or online. There are some places where you can self-issue if it's not the peak season or pick up a prepared copy if it's after hours.

I received this link from my sister who lives and works at the Grand Canyon, and has for over 20 years. The employees at the Canyon call some tourist "tourons" (a combination of tourist and morons). These four are a perfect example for the term. The Canyon is a dangerous place that suffers many injuries and deaths. They have gone to the trouble and expense for rescue precautions and these idiots treat it like a toy. They should be made to pay for the expense of the three trips into the canyon for the rescue crews.

As a volunteer S&R responder, the pluses and minuses of this technology are obvious. When used correctly, it is a godsend . . . when misused, it unduly taps limited volunteer resources who should remain "in the barn" ready and rested for the "real" rescue. S&R is not in business because of the well trained and experienced outdoors enthusiast, we consistently go looking for and rescuing the ill prepared, inexperienced, or unhealthy. Regrettably, there is no shortage of these individuals, and this technology will only increase their number. (The standing joke in S&R is "We return the dumb ones to the gene pool.")
For companies like the makers of Spot to promise the buyers of their product that people such as myself and my team will come and rescue them in the event of an emergency that they caused . . . it would seem only fitting that such a marketing promise would not come without a cost to either the guarantor or the customer. In my state, the County Sheriff is mandated with the responsibility of providing search and rescue services . . . it is well within the purview of his authority to charge an incompetent or reckless individual for recovery of costs of an operation. That is rare in our county, it is generally only done in the event a law was broken in the course of the emergency (or leading up to it). However, should the inappropriate use of such devices continue to rise, I would expect to see the "cost of recovery" option be more frequently pursued. The old axiom, "the few ruin it for the rest of us" will likely come into play at some point, particularly as department and agency budgets are further cut.

Send a medivac chopper at $10.000 plus, per call, to help them out. Evac once the button is pushed, should not be oprional. If they refuse to evac they must surender all PLB's and still pay the $10,000.

Or, jail them on the suspicion of stupidity. No, seriously, I am glad that there are such wonderful and lifesaving devices but people should be charged for the call. Period. You call, you pay.

It costs money to maintain a helicopter. A trained professional has to be paid to fly it. A bill (excuse me, three bills) should have been generated in this case.

Hey, Calif S&R has a good point - the makers of the SPOT devices make such a guarantee of safety and reap the profits but assume none of the risks of misuse. I don't think it's a simple question of caveat emptor, either. Too bad they don't sell it with a "misuse indemnity insurance" kind of thing, or have some kind of service like On-Star does, to ask "what's the nature of your emergency"? Seems to me it would minimize costs not to mention risks for rescuers. If it can be done for the folks who've "fallen and can't get up", why couldn't it be done for a SPOT device?

We have, and are grateful for, a SPOT device and it's services. Several times every year we are high in the Sierra's with NO cell phone service within miles. We have used our SPOT to notify our designated contacts we have safely arrived and send them our co-ordinates should we not arrive home as scheduled. We have never needed, and hope never to need, to use the device for any emergency call. We ALWAYS go out well prepared for any weather and any unforeseen difficulties, situations, and/or delays, and have much back-country experience. As we are getting older, we are careful not to exceed our abilities. That said, I must say that the SPOT has allowed us to feel not just safer, but ABLE to go up in the dead of winter, in many feet of snow. Smart thinking? Probably not, but we have safely made many such trips, and are looking forward to many wonderful more. From what I've read, I am certain we are not the only ones unable to resist pushing the boundaries just a bit, but we try to do it responsibly.
I do believe that devices like SPOT are very good things in the hands of responsible people. I do NOT believe they can or should replace experience and good judgment. I also believe people should be heavily fined for non-emergency calls, not just with SPOT, but any emergency signaling device! AND people should be educated well enough to know that an emergency is something seriously life-threatening, not something making you frightened or uncomfortable!

This didn't happen to be a church leader from Stow, OH., did it? A certain preacher took a group of parishoners to Alaska for a wilderness backpack trip,not once but twice. Had to be rescued both times. Amongst this knuckleheads' fantastic leadership skills were; He was the only one with reasonable gear. Many people in his group had cotton clothing. many wore tennis shoes. He refused to turn back when other adult chaperones voiced their concerns. Upon rescue (the 2nd trip),it was noted by the SAR teams, that there were puddles of orange urine, a sign of extreme dehydration. The rescue came because the adults (who had no mountaineering experience) mutineed and used a cell phone.

Kind of sounds like his handy-work.