And when summoned . . . . . . I’d concur with Scott - a resounding NO!
Alas, I fear most of the young’uns are fighting a losing battle here, just as most succumbed to paying for parking or trailhead passes to visit the outdoors, to pay for climbing Mt Adams, to accepting quotas to visit the Mt Jefferson wilderness, etc.. The federal government (along with its state and local accomplices) has deemed it appropriate to impose user charges/fees on anyone who “might”, in turn, have the wherewithal to judicially impose costs on such governments by virtue of the prospective user being stupid, incompetent, or alternatively ignorant/innocent in their interaction with the mountain.
I can see the need for the various governing agencies to cover their costs, and thus seem responsive to those taxpayers who despise expenditures such as providing possible rescues for alleged “frivolous” activities such as climbing, etc.. Of course, the costs are actually fairly miniscule in the cosmic scheme of things, especially as any such rescue provider needs to practice in real life scenarios and, in many cases, such services are provided by the volunteer community. Maybe (tongue in cheek), we’ll reach the point where we’ll try to charge folks for choosing to live in the “country” (rural areas writ large) where they’re more likely to be susceptible to forest fires. 😜
There are probably some good essays on the philosophy of how to best allocate costs and payments for providing what are emergency, life/property saving services. As an old fart, I have my (presumably subsidized) Golden Age/Access passport, and generally disregard other attempts to extort money to use the public outdoors. It’s easier to be forgiven than to get permission.
