The Bangor Daily News’ recent editorial, “Searching for Funds,” correctly identified the problem of funding for search-and-rescue operations in Maine. Although Maine law clearly identifies the Maine Warden Service as the agency responsible for search-and-rescue services statewide, there is no provision for funding of this service. Moreover, other agencies that typically assist in backcountry rescues – municipal fire and rescue services, hospital-based ambulance services, county and municipal law-enforcement agencies – also have no specific revenue stream for recovering these costs. Without funding, limited resources become scarcer, while demand for such service continues to grow. It is time that Maine takes steps to address this problem before an inconvenience becomes a tragedy.

What do we mean by backcountry rescue? There are many definitions; such incidents can range from snowmobile accidents to lost or injured hikers. In any of these scenarios, it takes many resources – both human and mechanical – to effect a rescue. Note that such incidents are common, occur annually, and require limited search efforts: Even when we know where the injured party is, getting the victim out is a significant challenge.

In recent years, many state and regional studies, proposals and initiatives have been written to figure out how to bring more visitors to the backcountry. Despite this focus, there is no mention made in such reports (including the recent Brookings Institute report) on how to better aid these visitors if they get lost or hurt while visiting the woods and waters of rural Maine.

The recent decision by the Piscataquis County commissioners to no longer pay for rescue calls in the Unorganized Territories underscores the point that this service is an orphan no one will claim, but everyone will want when the need arises. Is it the responsibility of the county – through the allocation of property tax dollars collected from the unorganized territories – to pay for backcountry rescues? Most (but not all) persons requiring such rescue are visitors to the region, not residents or property owners. Moreover, the land in the unorganized territories is used primarily for productive forestry.

Should large timberland owners, whose ownership seldom contains any residential structures, be responsible for paying for these rescue costs? At the same time, the municipal property taxpayer should not be burdened with the cost of rescue services outside the given municipality’s borders, unless there is some form of reimbursement for that service.

Ambulance services are able to bill a victim’s health insurance for the cost of care rendered (IF the patient is transported), but only for medical care, not the added cost or burden of rescuing a person from the backcountry. The Maine Warden Service, the lead agency for search-and-rescue efforts, is funded solely from the proceeds of hunting and fishing license and related fees. Why should the holders of hunting and fishing licenses be expected to pay for the cost of search-and-rescue services for individuals who did not pay such fees?

Clearly, a different model for funding backcountry rescue needs to be created. How should this work? There are many models to consider: I suggest a combination of funding streams. A one-cent sales tax on outdoor gear, dedicated to search-and-rescue resources, would likely be found acceptable to most outdoorsmen and women if the proceeds were dedicated to this cause. A search-and-rescue “booster” program with a nominal annual fee would appeal to many outdoor enthusiasts, and allow us an avenue to voluntarily contribute to this service before we need it. Such a program might enlist the aid of outdoor-focused membership organizations to assist in dues collection. Finally, future development in the region, which would attract more backcountry recreation – such as resort development – might be charged an impact fee, which would also go to this fund.

If revenue streams such as these could be collected and then placed into a dedicated search-and-rescue fund, the funds could be used in many effective ways. This could become the means to pay the Maine Warden Service for their search-and-rescue operations.

These funds could at least partially reimburse county government for rescue service bills received from municipalities. The fund could also provide matching grants to these fire-rescue and ambulance services for necessary capital equipment and specialized training. With such benefits and reimbursements, those able to provide rescue services would be much more likely to be prepared and authorized to help those who are hurt or injured in the backcountry.

The Legislature should take action to resolve these issues. To assist the Legislature, a working group could easily be formed to gather professional recommendations.

The matter should be resolved now before tragedy occurs – before a call for help from the backcountry results in no one being available to come help.

John Simko is the town manager of Greenville, a firefighter and an EMT-I at the Charles A. Dean Memorial Hospital Ambulance Service in Greenville.