On the noon of October 5th, the police in Menyuan Hui Autonomous County, Qinghai Province, received a report that multiple hikers had illegally entered the Lenglong Ridge of Qilian Mountains and were trapped in the high-altitude area of Laohugou. After a coordinated search and rescue operation by two provinces, 251 people were safely transported, and 1 person unfortunately died due to hypothermia and altitude sickness. The official announcement stated that this activity was a violation of the rules of "privately organized and unauthorized entry into undeveloped areas" for hiking. It is worth noting that China's punitive damages mechanism for illegal outdoor activities is gradually improving. Judicial authorities and competent departments in various regions are strengthening law enforcement through civil public interest litigation, administrative recovery, and other means. On September 16th, Xi'an, Shaanxi Province publicly tried a civil public interest lawsuit involving an individual's illegal organization crossing the core protected area of Qinling Mountains, marking the province's first public interest lawsuit against such behavior. The court ordered the defendant to immediately stop organizing the crossing activities, bear the cost of ecological environment restoration of 10000 yuan, and publicly apologize in provincial media. According to statistics, since March 2025, seven outdoor companies and one individual in Shaanxi have been held civil liable for illegally organizing the crossing of the Qinling core protected area. Similar cases have also been seen in Jiangxi. On April 17th, the Emergency Management Department of Jiangxi Province announced that, in accordance with Article 82 (3) of the Tourism Law of the People's Republic of China, a rescue fee of 20000 yuan will be recovered from six hikers who went missing in the undeveloped area of Mount Lu before March 2nd, and 4000 yuan will be recovered from the organizer Deng. From local practice, the ecological damage and waste of public resources caused by illegal outdoor activities are gradually being incorporated into the judicial and administrative accountability system. The regulatory level is building a more deterrent legal framework for outdoor activities by clarifying the responsible parties and economic penalties. In June of this year, the Emergency Management Bureau of Changping District, Beijing drafted the "Management Measures for Outdoor Mountaineering and Rescue in Changping District (Draft for Comments)", which clearly stipulates that for those who use public resources for rescue due to risky mountaineering activities, relevant departments reserve the right to recover rescue fees in accordance with the law. On October 7th, the Kanas Scenic Area Management Committee in Xinjiang issued a notice suspending the opening of outdoor hiking routes and strictly prohibiting any organization or individual from engaging in activities such as hiking, crossing, camping, etc. without authorization. The announcement emphasizes that violators who need rescue should bear the corresponding rescue costs in accordance with the law; If personal or property damage is caused, the risk and responsibility shall be borne by oneself. In recent years, incidents of "wayward backpackers" illegally entering undeveloped areas and being trapped have occurred frequently. Rescue often requires a large amount of manpower and resources, often involving hundreds of people, and the rescue process is also accompanied by safety risks. So, should such trapped individuals bear part or even all of the rescue costs? Is it necessary to impose necessary penalties on it? The interviewed experts suggested in an interview with reporters that a modern rescue responsibility system should be established that "not only saves lives without hesitation, but also pays for being willful", imposing heavy penalties on intentional violators and showing tolerance towards those who accidentally encounter danger. Qi Xiaobo, chief engineer of the Tourism Research and Planning Design Center of the Institute of Geographic Science and Resources of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, told reporters that according to China's tourism law, tourists have the right to ask for help when they are in danger of personal and property safety, and the relevant institutions should rescue in a timely manner, but the law does not directly stipulate the problem of cost bearing. "From domestic and foreign experience, government led public rescue is usually free. However, if the rescue is caused by tourists' intentional violations, such as ignoring warnings to enter an unopened area that is strictly prohibited, the relevant costs can be recovered according to the principle of fairness.". Professor Lin Hongchao from the School of National Governance Engineering at Renmin University of China believes that whether rescue is "paid" should be classified. If rescue operations are organized by social rescue teams themselves, it is equivalent to a service for the rescued, which is contractual in nature. In this case, the rescue team's request for fees and the rescued person's payment are voluntary; If the rescued person seeks help from the government, the government's rescue action is a public emergency action, and in such cases, rescue services are provided free of charge. Some rescue operations may dispatch rescue teams that are neither official nor public welfare, some of which are established based on local forest areas or forest management and development enterprises. In this case, the funds provided by the government only support the training and equipment configuration of the team, and the expenses incurred by dispatching them for rescue can be required to be paid by the units and individuals being rescued. ”Lin Hongchao said. What is the effect of having adventurers bear the cost? Qi Xiaobo provided such a set of data that the number of illegal crossing cases in Mount Huangshan Scenic Area has dropped by about 40% since the implementation of paid rescue, "which shows that economic responsibility has a warning effect on some people". But he also stated that there are still "wealthy backpackers" who believe that "spending money on adventure" is worth it. This shows that paid rescue is not a "panacea", and precise measures need to be taken instead of simply charging. Heavy penalties should be imposed on "unruly" individuals, and tolerance should be shown towards "unexpected" ones. The paid rescue system needs to be accompanied by necessary administrative penalties, such as charging punitive fees (two to three times the normal fee) or being included in the tourism credit blacklist for fictitious dangerous situations and excessive requests for help. Guiding the public to treat risks rationally through institutional design, minimizing the demand for public rescue, and achieving the minimization of social costs. ”Qi Xiaobo said that the core purpose of paid rescue is not a single economic compensation or warning, but a dual goal of optimizing the allocation of public resources and redistributing risk responsibilities through economic leverage. Its essence is to achieve a balance between minimizing social costs and protecting tourists' right to life as much as possible, thereby making more people realize that "the best rescue is not needed". Lin Hongchao suggested that the current paid rescue mechanism should be further regulated at the legal level. "In terms of local legislation, paid rescue regulations can be formulated without conflicting with higher-level laws. In this regard, Qi Xiaobo also believes that a model combining "commercial paid rescue+public welfare rescue" can be implemented to balance efficiency and fairness, market and ethics, but its implementation depends on clear boundary delineation, resource coordination mechanisms, etc. The ultimate goal is to build a modern rescue system that requires both saving lives without hesitation and being willing to pay for it through collaborative rescue efforts. To solve the disputes and execution difficulties that may arise from paid rescue, it is necessary to establish a legal system that is' quantifiable, proportionate, and decidable in disputes', ensuring fairness and operability of the system, and balancing ethical conflicts between resource protection and the protection of the right to life. ”Qi Xiaobo summarized. (New Society)