to rescue or not to rescue?

I saw this topic from one of those Tele-magazine shows. 20/20 or dateline or something. I can't recall but it was very thought provoking and I decided to give my own point of view on it.

It is about the cost of rescuing somebody from the wild when they have been trapped or got lost. Evidently the cost is enormous. I could just imagine. So should the tax payers of the county/municipality where the rescue occurred be responsible to foot the bill for these costly rescues? Or should the one being rescued be billed for it. If it is the latter, how are you going to legally obligate the rescued person to pay the bill? Should they sign a contract first before they get rescued? That may sound inhumane and logistically impractical. HHmm... What to do?

My solution is simple. The person being rescued should be video taped first agreeing to foot the bill for the rescue. And if it was later found out that the circumstances of the accident was not courted but rather the result of pure bad luck, then the tax payer can cover the cost. If on the other hand, the circumstances of the rescue was because the rescued person is a risk taker or adrenaline junky, then he should foot the bill till he is bankrupt. Perhaps he will think twice/thrice before he decides to go skiing in a closed back country, bungee jump off a clearly "off limit zone" or kayak on a class V or VI rapids. And some of these risk takers/andrenaline junkies are repeat offenders too. They know they will be rescued somehow so they do these high risk extreme sports just for the pure pleasure of adrenaline rush or perhaps the desire for youtube infamy. Their motivations aside, these behavior are clearly moronic and borders to the suicidal. So I beg to ask another question. Should we even attempt to rescue these people who did not heed the warning signs? If it were up to me, it is a resounding NO. But of course that is just me. I can be heartless towards the idiots.