View Full Version : Teen fined $25,000 for rescue
Blissful
07-17-2009, 21:23
Just saw this on Yahoo about the Eagle Scout rescued off Mt Washington.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_hiker_fined (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_hiker_fined)
Lone Wolf
07-17-2009, 21:26
no tax on booze in NH but they'll get it back in gung-ho "rescues"
ShelterLeopard
07-17-2009, 21:35
I'm not sure I disagree with his continuing up the mountain- if he was already fairly near the summit, then it would be easier to find help there. Especially if he was lost- the visitor center is right on the summit, isn't it? So wouldn't it be easier to find help by going to the top than the bottom?
(I admit, I have never been to Mount Washington, so I don't really know the "situation" there.)
MintakaCat
07-17-2009, 21:36
Man, I bring up the link and find out that Walter Cronkite died. :(
As for the kid and the 25K fine, I can see this going to court. For that kind of money a good lawyer could reduce that in court.
Sky.King
07-17-2009, 21:41
Considering the fact that the government was involved, I'm surprised the bill didn't come out to $250,000 instead of just $25,000 lol
no tax on booze in NH
Yeah there is, atleast for beer..
http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/23983.html#beertax_map_july2008-20090219
Lone Wolf
07-17-2009, 22:07
beer ain't booze
ShoelessWanderer
07-17-2009, 22:08
Yet cities will pay millions because of micheal jackson's funeral? Makes no sense what so ever.
beer ain't booze
debatable. ;)
wrongway_08
07-17-2009, 22:46
kids an idiot:
- hurt his ankle
- not only did he not turn around, he was stupid enough to try a shortcut
- he kept going up the mountain
- Damn $25,000 is a big bill to pay off in a months notice but stupid cost money these days.
kids an idiot:
- hurt his ankle
- not only did he not turn around, he was stupid enough to try a shortcut
- he kept going up the mountain
- Damn $25,000 is a big bill to pay off in a months notice but stupid cost money these days.They should publicize the fines more. RIght now the only ones who hear about them are hiking groups like ours, VFFT, ADK forums, etc. But we ain't the problem.
News of $25,000 fines need to hit the TV news in Boston, make people think twice about hiking w/o proper gear, and using common sense when situations develop.
There will always be the ultra-macho, I-said-I-was-going-to-summit-today-and-bygod-I-will, never-turn-around kind of guy, but most people (I would hope) will think twice if they think about how much money it might cost them.
It would save lives, too. Brenda Cox might be alive if she and her husband had listened to the three separate descending groups that warned of deteriorating conditions on Lafayette and turned back. Thoughts of paying $25,000 might have been enough to make them turn back when common sense failed.
Skidsteer
07-17-2009, 23:06
It would save lives, too. Brenda Cox might be alive if she and her husband had listened to the three separate descending groups that warned of deteriorating conditions on Lafayette and turned back. Thoughts of paying $25,000 might have been enough to make them turn back when common sense failed.
I'd like to think so too but in my short time on earth I haven't noticed that financial penalties mean much to people with no common sense.
I'm not sure I disagree with his continuing up the mountain- if he was already fairly near the summit, then it would be easier to find help there. Especially if he was lost- the visitor center is right on the summit, isn't it? So wouldn't it be easier to find help by going to the top than the bottom?
(I admit, I have never been to Mount Washington, so I don't really know the "situation" there.)The Visitor Center isn't open in April, but he didn't go to the summit anyway. He left the marked trail and tried to cut cross country. Had he turned back and stayed on the trail, I doubt he would have been fined even though the hike he tried was doomed from the start. The mountain is a totally different place after rains soak the drifts. When it is cold, you can walk on packed snow as easily as on rock. When you sink up to your thighs in wet snow every other step it is hard to make even one mph. The loop he attempted was incredible.
He is lucky he is such a strong hiker and has such vitality, or he wouldn't have survived.
When I was a scoutmaster, I had a terrible time with Eagle Scouts. They were so sure of their strength and ability, and their pride was so strong they never wanted to turn back. When they did, they said it was for the sake of the younger hikers. God bless them, strong young men. It's a wonder any of us guys live long enough for our brains to catch up with our testosterone :D
While I think the teen was negligent and should be fined something, I think $25K is too much for a 17 year old. His age should be taken into consideration. If you add interest to that, it will take him years to pay it off, if he ever pays it off.
Panzer
Snowleopard
07-18-2009, 00:08
My recollection of this incident:
He had proper gear and knew how to use it.
He hurt his ankle.
He tried to go down a bad route instead of back up over Mt. Wash. (this was his mistake and was based on lack of knowledge of conditions that he was descending into).
The route he tried to take down had lots of rotten snow with streams going under it -- very dangerous.
He was most of the way back up to the ridge and could have easily made his way out on his own from there.
I don't think he should be fined.
skinewmexico
07-18-2009, 00:25
You all must have been some genius M-Fs at 17. I miss the days when we went up the mountain and helped the helpless, even when they weren't genius' at a keyboard.
The Old Fhart
07-18-2009, 00:44
Snowleopard:
My recollection of this incident:
He had proper gear and knew how to use it.
He hurt his ankle.
He tried to go down a bad route instead of back up over Mt. Wash. (this was his mistake and was based on lack of knowledge of conditions that he was descending into).
The route he tried to take down had lots of rotten snow with streams going under it -- very dangerous.
He was most of the way back up to the ridge and could have easily made his way out on his own from there.
I don't think he should be fined.
What I posted in the thread about this incident just after it happened still holds true. You may debate the amount of the fine but all things considered, it isn't that out of line.
Pokey2006-“This is why I disagree so strongly with NH's law. Who's to say what is negligence and what is just someone at home panicking? It's too subjective.”
It stops being subjective when someone goes out alone on a 17 mile day hike ill prepared, doesn’t return, and his parents call for a S&R. The S&R personnel in the Whites are some of the best to be found and several have Everest experience as well as knowing the Whites from decades of hiking. They make the decision based on experience and I’d hardly call that “too subjective”. The fact that Scott Mason was missing for 3 days also takes subjective out of this equation. Also for others to say:"...but it seems he laid his plans out and people let him go.... call it negligent on everyones part", isn't correct at all. There are no hiking police to prevent people from doing something dumb and I'm sure hikers would scream to high heaven if someone tried to stop them.
The weather and summit conditions are posted every morning at Pinkham before 7AM so when Scott Mason left there at 8:30AM he knew exactly what to expect, including the avalanche danger. Also leaving that late for a long strenuous hike shows poor judgment on Scott’s part. In the Whites this would still be considered a winter type hike and if you have a recommended group size of 4 to take turns breaking trail where there is deep unpacked snow you might be making far less than a mile per hour, alone it might be impossible. Many long winter trips start before 6AM.
Anyone familiar with the area knows the Great Gulf isn’t the place to be when there is lots of snowmelt. Being on the east side of the mountains it has a tendency to fill with snow and the sun doesn’t have a chance to melt it as fast as that on the westerly slopes. When we get several days of unusually high temperatures the snow starts to melt fast, causing problems for ill informed hikers. It isn’t unheard of for hikers to be trapped in the Great Gulf by high water and having to wait a day or so for it to drop so they could get out. I worked for the USFS years ago and spent 2 weeks working in the Great Gulf plus I have 4 winters working on for the Observatory on the summit and 45 years of hiking the area in all seasons so I consider my experience gives me some insight to comment on this incident. The fact that he walked out is great but it doesn’t change the fact that this was an extremely foolish plan for a hike. It is unfair to compare Scott to Alexander Supertramp because he had some mental issues where Scott is what most people would consider “just a dumb kid.” If you read the following I clipped from the news article you can see how many people his poor judgment put in harms way and the number of resources involved in this S&R. Whether he (or his parents) get charged for the S&R effort remains to be seen.
“Mason was found on the Sphinx Trail in the Great Gulf Wilderness, headed west back toward the summits of the Presidential Range. The search team will hike with Mason back to the summit of Mt. Washington, where he will then ride a Sno-Cat down the auto road. Because of where Mason was located and conditions on the ground, this is the only prudent exit from the mountain.
Conditions in the White Mountains became increasingly treacherous over the course of the search, because rain and rapid snowmelt made many small streams impassable. Search teams needed to use rope traverses to cross raging waters. Yesterday's search crews were exhausted, and additional personnel were sent out this morning.
The NH Fish and Game Department coordinated the search. Trained staff and volunteers from Mountain Rescue Service, Androscoggin Valley Search and Rescue, Pemigewasset Valley Search and Rescue and the Appalachian Mountain Club participated in the search. A Maine Forest Service helicopter conducted an aerial search on Monday afternoon, and a Vermont National Guard helicopter did an aerial search this morning.
Mason was missing for three days, having left the Appalachian Mountain Club's Pinkham Notch Visitor Center at about 8:30 on Saturday morning, intending to complete a 17-mile hike in one day. Mason was hiking alone. His plans included hiking to the summits of Mount Washington and Mount Madison, then returning to the Pinkham Notch Visitor Center.”
Jim Adams
07-18-2009, 00:54
They should publicize the fines more. RIght now the only ones who hear about them are hiking groups like ours, VFFT, ADK forums, etc. But we ain't the problem.
News of $25,000 fines need to hit the TV news in Boston, make people think twice about hiking w/o proper gear, and using common sense when situations develop.
There will always be the ultra-macho, I-said-I-was-going-to-summit-today-and-bygod-I-will, never-turn-around kind of guy, but most people (I would hope) will think twice if they think about how much money it might cost them.
It would save lives, too. Brenda Cox might be alive if she and her husband had listened to the three separate descending groups that warned of deteriorating conditions on Lafayette and turned back. Thoughts of paying $25,000 might have been enough to make them turn back when common sense failed.
I work in EMS, rescue and as a white water guide. My experience with the public has shown that if you publish and advertise the high cost of rescues, the public outcry would be so loud due to restricting the "poor" that the fines would be dropped and "use charges" initiated to pay for rescues. I know that alot of you out there wouldn't mind paying "use charges" but do you really want to pay for others stupidity?:-?
geek
High Life
07-18-2009, 00:54
I'm with the old fart .. even though it smells
He's 100% right on about the Great Gulf Wilderness.
It can be extremely dangerous anytime of the year.
oh and i worked at pinkham and went on a S & R once
it's not easy on the best of days ,
my particular experience was on the glen boulder trail .
SassyWindsor
07-18-2009, 01:12
Considering the fact that the government was involved, I'm surprised the bill didn't come out to $250,000 instead of just $25,000 lol
$25,000 was the Fine. The actual cost had to be much more than this.
skinewmexico
07-18-2009, 02:35
Just another way to scare people away from using the wilderness. Cost of SAR will end up as justification to closing backcountry to citizens some day.
I can see this resulting in people being VERY hesitant in calling for help, and it might result in death.
My brother-in-law as a 17-year-old went winter climbing on Mt. Washington. Broke his ankle. Tightened up boot and hiked himself back down.
If you're going to be stupid, it helps to be tough.
Homer&Marje
07-18-2009, 07:45
I'm sorry... wasn't the kid prepared and about 45 minutes from rescuing himself??
Thought they were only going to charge idiots who go out un prepared....notable he tried way to long of a day hike...but if he had told people he was going for a 3 day...no S + R would have been conducted.
BS
Lone Wolf
07-18-2009, 07:47
did he even call or ask for help?
Homer&Marje
07-18-2009, 07:48
They should publicize the fines more. RIght now the only ones who hear about them are hiking groups like ours, VFFT, ADK forums, etc. But we ain't the problem.
News of $25,000 fines need to hit the TV news in Boston, make people think twice about hiking w/o proper gear, and using common sense when situations develop.
It was on the news. And he had proper gear.
Homer&Marje
07-18-2009, 07:49
did he even call or ask for help?
I called 911 for a kid from Franconia Ridge...barely got a signal. Tried to use my phone down in the valley at 13 Falls, got no signal.
Lone Wolf
07-18-2009, 07:54
I called 911 for a kid from Franconia Ridge...barely got a signal. Tried to use my phone down in the valley at 13 Falls, got no signal.
but did this kid in question ask to be rescued?
Lone Wolf
07-18-2009, 07:58
but did this kid in question ask to be rescued?
nowhere in the article does it say he asked to be rescued
Homer&Marje
07-18-2009, 08:02
He didn't ask to be rescued!!! He found the rescuers when he was 45 minutes from the top of Washington, where I assume he would have called to let his family know he was ok and to find a way down.
Like I said, this is total BS that he got charged....I was JUST explaining to my 14 year old brother in law while we were in the Whites just what they were now charging for S + R, and we discussed this case specifically. EVEN a 14 year old said he did everything right, after his mistake in planning.
Send an extra bill to the mother of 4 in a polo shirt and high heels trying to go up Washington with no water and a stroller.
Like someone posted before this is just going to stop people from getting rescued that need it and it will detract from the desire to go into the wilderness.
but did this kid in question ask to be rescued?
Parents waved the flag.
Ladytrekker
07-18-2009, 10:22
I could not pay it, so what then. I own nothing and the term getting blood out of a turnip would prevail here.
The Scribe
07-18-2009, 10:30
Yeah there is, atleast for beer..
http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/23983.html#beertax_map_july2008-20090219
That tax is not paid by the consumer like a sales tax. It is paid for higher up the chain and is included in the price.
New Hampshire has no sales tax on anything. No income tax. They do have a room and meals tax.
Live Free or Die
or if it is winter time:
Live, Freeze, and Die.
I'm a native so I can say it. :D
wrongway_08
07-18-2009, 10:37
While I think the teen was negligent and should be fined something, I think $25K is too much for a 17 year old. His age should be taken into consideration. If you add interest to that, it will take him years to pay it off, if he ever pays it off.
Panzer
If the rescue people/groups has to pay for this kids stupidity - he should have to pay it back, age doesnt matter.
It is a lot but if he would have prepared, in this case it was all about having a few brain cells working (not taking a shortcut, turn around instead of keep going up) he would have been fine.
If he would have been thinking for a few seconds, no one would have had to even been bothered with this kid,, he would have turned around, limped down and went home.
Sucks for such a big fine but..... stupidity cost.
john gault
07-18-2009, 10:38
There seems to be a momentum developing in charging hikers for rescue. I think this is a very slippery slope and we will see worse cases in the future. What the hell is our taxes for; bailing out wall street?
I understand the sentiment against the stupid unprepared person in the woods, but this will start affecting all of us when we give the government the go ahead to charge people for rescues.
I'm not anti-govenment, but as with everything in life, you need to strike a blance. We're giving the government too much power, they will weigh us down.
The Scribe
07-18-2009, 10:43
I'm sorry... wasn't the kid prepared and about 45 minutes from rescuing himself??
Thought they were only going to charge idiots who go out un prepared....notable he tried way to long of a day hike...but if he had told people he was going for a 3 day...no S + R would have been conducted.
BS
He wasn't going for a 3-day. His plan was for a day hike. I hope someone would stand up for me and start looking if I said I was going out for the day and didn't come back.
wrongway_08
07-18-2009, 10:44
I dont think the fine will stop people from going into the wilds, it may make them think that "hey, I wont be bailed out by someone else (tax payers) if I screw up due to not thinking and will have to be responsible ($$$) for my actions"
This should make people understand what they are getting into first and get prepared for it. The ones like the lady in high heels - hopefully those people will fall off a cliff so they cant breed anymore.
wrongway_08
07-18-2009, 10:48
John Gault, the Govt has had these laws in effect for a long time, some states more then others.
The fine is not applied to everyone, only the ones who cause the problems by not being ready for what they are doing out in the woods.
If you knew what you are doing out there and things went bad because of items out of your control - they wouldnt charge you, even if the price tag hit $50,000.00. This is the difference, the kid did things that made the rescue needed.
Tipi Walter
07-18-2009, 10:48
This story reminds me a few pertinent quotes, one from Doug Peacock, grizzly expert and Nam vet, et-Green Beret:
"My route across these basins and ranges follows no jeep trails but crosses valleys and passes on faint game trails no human has set foot on for centuries. Each year, I strike out on a different course. If I break a leg, I will be stuck. I have a signal mirror with which I might flash a passing aircraft, though it could be weeks before one flew by close enough to signal. I seldom tell anyone about my indended routes because I do not care to be rescued." GRIZZLY YEARS
And this interesting quote from Reinhold Messner in his PASSION FOR LIMITS essay:
"And I will never carry a telephone or have a handset with me in the wilderness. To do so would mean destroying the sense of isolation and exposure that I seek. If I can call out, I am no longer on the edge. These are my self-imposed rules. Now, getting older, I simply dream of climbing lower mountains and skiing across smaller ice caps or deserts. I try to do so with less and less support. After my political life as a nomad, I will spend half a year or more in the wilderness with only a rucksack--and nobody will know where I am going."
superman
07-18-2009, 10:49
They should publicize the fines more. RIght now the only ones who hear about them are hiking groups like ours, VFFT, ADK forums, etc. But we ain't the problem.
News of $25,000 fines need to hit the TV news in Boston, make people think twice about hiking w/o proper gear, and using common sense when situations develop.
There will always be the ultra-macho, I-said-I-was-going-to-summit-today-and-bygod-I-will, never-turn-around kind of guy, but most people (I would hope) will think twice if they think about how much money it might cost them.
It would save lives, too. Brenda Cox might be alive if she and her husband had listened to the three separate descending groups that warned of deteriorating conditions on Lafayette and turned back. Thoughts of paying $25,000 might have been enough to make them turn back when common sense failed.
One of my pet peeves (which doesn't apply in this case) is that too many people rely on their cell phones to call up a rescue as if it were a valet service. I guess it will be better when they make all the trails wheel chair accessible.:rolleyes:
Homer&Marje
07-18-2009, 10:53
He didn't ask to be rescued!!! He found the rescuers when he was 45 minutes from the top of Washington, where I assume he would have called to let his family know he was ok and to find a way down.
Like I said, this is total BS that he got charged....I was JUST explaining to my 14 year old brother in law while we were in the Whites just what they were now charging for S + R, and we discussed this case specifically. EVEN a 14 year old said he did everything right, after his mistake in planning.
Send an extra bill to the mother of 4 in a polo shirt and high heels trying to go up Washington with no water and a stroller.
Like someone posted before this is just going to stop people from getting rescued that need it and it will detract from the desire to go into the wilderness.
I'm sorry... wasn't the kid prepared and about 45 minutes from rescuing himself??
Thought they were only going to charge idiots who go out un prepared....notable he tried way to long of a day hike...but if he had told people he was going for a 3 day...no S + R would have been conducted.
BS
He wasn't going for a 3-day. His plan was for a day hike. I hope someone would stand up for me and start looking if I said I was going out for the day and didn't come back.
I think I'm well informed on the case. Please read all before responding. The kid WAS prepared, had a bivvy, emergency blankets, fire starting tools and extra food.
HOW WAS HE NOT PREPARED BESIDES HIS ERROR IN PLANNING!!!????
john gault
07-18-2009, 10:54
John Gault, the Govt has had these laws in effect for a long time, some states more then others.
The fine is not applied to everyone, only the ones who cause the problems by not being ready for what they are doing out in the woods.
If you knew what you are doing out there and things went bad because of items out of your control - they wouldnt charge you, even if the price tag hit $50,000.00. This is the difference, the kid did things that made the rescue needed.
I remember reading some incredible stories of people being charged, much worse than this, I'll see if I can't find them.
As for my scenario, I admit it's a wait-and-see thing, but I do know when the govt (regardless if it's the feds, state or local) gets involved they muck everything up.
jersey joe
07-18-2009, 10:55
nowhere in the article does it say he asked to be rescued
This is an excellent point. The kid never asked to be rescued so why should he pay a fine because they came and got him?!?
neighbor dave
07-18-2009, 11:18
beer ain't booze
no state income tax either.
they make it up in all kinds of other taxes though
live free or die mofo!!
Snowleopard
07-18-2009, 11:29
Everyone should reread The_old_Fhart's post, lots of good info, the voice of substantial experience: http://http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/showpost.php?p=869260&postcount=17
We do disagree about the fine.
superman
07-18-2009, 11:32
Oh the jealousy. Come on up so we can do a make believe rescue and charge you a huge amount for it. Before you leave the state, don’t forget to stock up on our cheap booze and cigarettes. LFOD!:)
The Old Fhart
07-18-2009, 11:53
Whether he (his parents) should be charged, and how much, was covered quite nicely in this song from the Mikado (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dy-P51KeaNk).;)
The Scribe
07-18-2009, 12:06
Quote:
Originally Posted by Homer&Marje http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/wb_style/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/showthread.php?p=869295#post869295)
I'm sorry... wasn't the kid prepared and about 45 minutes from rescuing himself??
Thought they were only going to charge idiots who go out un prepared....notable he tried way to long of a day hike...but if he had told people he was going for a 3 day...no S + R would have been conducted.
BS
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Scribe http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/wb_style/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/showthread.php?p=869340#post869340)
He wasn't going for a 3-day. His plan was for a day hike. I hope someone would stand up for me and start looking if I said I was going out for the day and didn't come back.
I think I'm well informed on the case. Please read all before responding. The kid WAS prepared, had a bivvy, emergency blankets, fire starting tools and extra food.
Homer, Never meant to imply you were informed on the case. You are correct that if he told people he was on a 3-day, no S&R would have been conducted. But he wasn't and he didn't. Sorry if it's my reading comprehension that doesn't get it.
buckwheat
07-18-2009, 13:40
Everyone should reread The_old_Fhart's post, lots of good info ...
Yes, lots of info, but lots of opinion also. He claims the kid was "ill prepared."
That is debateable, and I disagree with that opinion.
The fact of the matter is that this family will not be required to pay for this rescue for several reasons, the first of which is that the law enabling such a fine is unconstitutional (it is unconstitutionally vague and not equally applied to all citizens). It is laughably unconstitutional. Whether or not you think it's a good idea to discourage unprepared hikers, the law is improperly implemented such as to be not in keeping with American philosophies of equal justice under the law).
So, anyone who pays such a fine would be an idiot to start with.
Lastly ... the authorities were unprepared to conduct the rescue, which is what led to the massive costs. They had to bring a helicopter from Maine because their air fleet is being mismanaged.
I hardly think that the kid should be required to pay for the ineptitude of the government of the state of New Hampshire as it relates to proper maintenance of its aircraft fleet.
Here's hoping the kid got a Boy Scout patch in Legal Defense.
I say: Don't pay.
john gault
07-18-2009, 13:46
Has anyone ever heard of being charged for services rendered by a fire department responding to a house fire, in which the fire was the caused of extreme negligence.
To me this seems like a good analogy, am I wrong?
I'd like to think so too but in my short time on earth I haven't noticed that financial penalties mean much to people with no common sense.
Ain't that the truth, and that's the problem for which there's no simple solution.
Has anyone ever heard of being charged for services rendered by a fire department responding to a house fire, in which the fire was the caused of extreme negligence.
To me this seems like a good analogy, am I wrong?
Someone whose home is damaged by fire already has contributed in many cases toward the fire being extinguished as did neighbors who might have been impacted by the fire had it spread to their homes. The insurance company should refuse to pay for repairs or replacement if the home owner's policy allows it.
Negligents should be billed whenever possible rather than have taxpayers providing insurance for something that doesn't benefit the majority of those paying for it. Maybe this should be paid by homeowners' insurance policies, but I think I know who wins were this to occur and it's neither local municipalities, their citizens or the fire service providers which often in rural areas are volunteers.
The Scribe
07-18-2009, 13:59
Has anyone ever heard of being charged for services rendered by a fire department responding to a house fire, in which the fire was the caused of extreme negligence.
To me this seems like a good analogy, am I wrong?
Or how about being charged for false alarms? It happens all the time.
The Scribe
07-18-2009, 14:21
Yes, lots of info, but lots of opinion also. He claims the kid was "ill prepared."
That is debateable, and I disagree with that opinion.
The fact of the matter is that this family will not be required to pay for this rescue for several reasons, the first of which is that the law enabling such a fine is unconstitutional (it is unconstitutionally vague and not equally applied to all citizens). It is laughably unconstitutional. Whether or not you think it's a good idea to discourage unprepared hikers, the law is improperly implemented such as to be not in keeping with American philosophies of equal justice under the law).
So, anyone who pays such a fine would be an idiot to start with.
Lastly ... the authorities were unprepared to conduct the rescue, which is what led to the massive costs. They had to bring a helicopter from Maine because their air fleet is being mismanaged.
I hardly think that the kid should be required to pay for the ineptitude of the government of the state of New Hampshire as it relates to proper maintenance of its aircraft fleet.
Here's hoping the kid got a Boy Scout patch in Legal Defense.
I say: Don't pay.
Sigh
We over legislate to protect us from ourselves, then fight the over legislation producing a quagmire that only the lawyers benefit from.
If the NH law IS unconstitutional, then how and why has it been in effect for I think eight years? Is it truly unconstitutional or is that just your take on it? Cause it if was, and I don't play a lawyer in life or on WB, I would think there would be no bill to the family. And no law.
So, if it is still in effect and not proven to be unconstitutional, then it has to be challenged. Are you hoping this family spends $100,000 to win that fight to get out of paying a $25,000 fine?
New Hampshire has a lot of issues. One of which is how it collects the money it needs to operate. The State gets you 100 ways from Sunday (while proclaiming no income or sales tax) but the towns have only one real way - local property taxes. So, when Conway, Jefferson, Glen, Twin Mountain, Bretton Woods, and every other town that has to provide S&R services because they happen to have a natural tourist attraction on their property, they don't have big bags of money to reach into to pay for it. And with the exception of Conway, just about all are small, rural, and don't have a large tax base to begin with. And as in just about everywhere, 70-75% of the money they raise through property taxes goes to run their schools.
Don't read this as being 100% FOR this law. I have my issues with where the line is as to who gets billed and who doesn't. But when the FD department does its job, it is saving the lives and property (hopefully) of those that paid for the service through their property taxes. When S&R are call in, whether it is local or state, they are saving the lives and property (hopefully) of someone who stands a GREAT chance of not being local. And it costs money. Money that the rescued person probably did not contribute to through their taxes.
If the towns and the state BUDGETED to have S&R people in the woods at all times, then it would be different. Kind of like a State Trooper patrolling the Interstate. They see an accident and deal with it. Regardless if it is a local or someone from away. It is part of the expected service already budgeted for.
And you KNOW that their air fleet is being mis-managed?
Or how about being charged for false alarms? It happens all the time.
Students get charged for false bomb threats maybe every day.
Homer&Marje
07-18-2009, 14:37
I'm not really debating the law...because in many circumstances, ill prepared folk should be charged for the SAR.
In this case, I full well believed from the beginning that he would not be charged because he WAS prepared and basically rescued himself. No one found him shivering under a tree branch in a t-shirt, dehydrated and malnourished.
Are they going to charge the 70 year old man's sister (his only living relative) that died on Mt. Washington a few weeks ago?
He WAS NOT prepared and died of exposure in the middle of the summer, the fact that the kid survived 3 days in rough spring weather is a testament to how well prepared he was, regardless of ill planning.
If I planned on a 1 day hike that turned into THREE DAYS I would consider my plan a total and complete disaster. I would consider that I was unprepared for the hike that I had attempted... because if I was prepared to that hike of hike (physically, experience-wise and gear wise) than the hike would have truly taken one day.
This kid was prepared from a gear situation. He clearly had the necessary items and survival skills to survive several days.
He was unprepared in experience and possible physically for that kind of hike. So it depends on what angle you look at it from.
Personally, I think that it sucks he is getting stuck with the bill, but I understand it. He decided to embark on a hike that was ill-advised given the conditions - conditions he could have known about if he had simply asked about at the Visitor Center. This is to me the crux of the States argument, that attempting this hike at this time of year was reckless. NH might have realized this was going to get a lot of press, and charged him to highlight how much these rescues can cost.
As for the law being unconstitutional - until I hear from a lawyer versed in Supreme Court cases, I strongly disagree. To me its no different that charging someone for reckless driving when they are falling asleep at the wheel.
buckwheat
07-18-2009, 15:36
If the NH law IS unconstitutional, then how and why has it been in effect for I think eight years?
It has been in effect because, up to this point, it has always been cheaper to just pay the fine than to fight the case in court.
For the law to be declared unconstitutional by a court, someone has to pay a lawyer to challenge the law in court. That's the key. Up to now, the state of New Hampshire has been intelligent in understanding that the usefulness of this law is in whom it discourages and how it changes behavior.
The usefulness of the law is not in whom it actually extracts money from. Stupidly, New Hampshire officials have all but guaranteed, with this moronic fine, that the law will be challenged.
It is so blatantly unconstitutional that I cannot fathom any judge not ruling in the family's favor provided they retain a slightly competent attorney.
In my view, the idea of punishing irresponsible people who require rescue is probably a good one. The reality however is that this law is vague; it is unevenly enforced; it is arbitrary and capricious in who it fines, and how much it fines people.
It behooves the legislature to write a constitutional law; to apply it evenly and to fine everyone equally. That's justice in America, however inconvenient.
The $25,000 fine levied here will only result in the law being overturned, since the fine imposed is high enough to justify fighting the law.
If you're right, maybe a better law can be substituted. If you're wrong, then it may be even more expensive than paying the fine to contest it.
wrongway_08
07-18-2009, 18:37
Why the hel# do people think its unconstitutional for someone to pay for what it cost for them being stupid?
If your out and something goes wrong, beyound your control, then I dont mind our tax money going to pay to help that person.
If its someone like this idiot, then our tax money shouldnt be spent on him cause he is stupid. His fault it happened - he has the constitutional responsibility to pay. (no, there is no law for this, but there should be, lets call it the Idiotic - head up your own Dumb Ass Law.)
john gault
07-18-2009, 19:03
I don't know if the law is constitutional or not, but I do know that defining negligence can be a slippery slope. Some cases are very simple to determine, but others are not and when non-hikers are charged with determining negligence we run the risk of the govt. impinging on our hobby/way-of-life as hikers.
Some might say that hiking into mahoosuc notch is negligent, regardless of experience, that could lead the a requirement to have the AT relocated out of there, do we want that? The govt is already starting to require certain things to be wheelchair friendly.
This is a pretty good article about the New Hampshire law, check it out
(about 1/2 way down the page) http://alpineinstitute.blogspot.com/2009/01/search-and-rescue-costs.html
Homer&Marje
07-18-2009, 19:22
I might be wrong but in the original story I believe I remember that he checked in at the ranger station and checked in before his hike?
I also would consider a 1 day hike that turned into 3 a disaster...but it happens...and he WOULD have got out of it himself had his parents NOT called the SAR and they had not found him 45 minutes from the summit of Washington. Yes it was a disaster of a hike....but he was prepared and eventually, for not the SAR luckily running into him on the trail, he would have been fine.
I think stupid people should have to pay for the SAR....but where are they drawing the line? Break it down simply, how many times have you forgotten something you needed, screwed up in planning, or had things change on you in the woods in which the initial plan, and the initial well being of yourself is jeopardized.
You can pick apart ANYONES hike and find something they didn't do perfect up to the standards of NH SAR apparently.
My packs gonna be heavy next time I go to the Whites. Going to bring the Kitchen Sink so I always have a reliable water source. Don't want SAR to find me dehydrated and charge me 30 grand.
If I planned on a 1 day hike that turned into THREE DAYS I would consider my plan a total and complete disaster. I would consider that I was unprepared for the hike that I had attempted... because if I was prepared to that hike of hike (physically, experience-wise and gear wise) than the hike would have truly taken one day.
This kid was prepared from a gear situation. He clearly had the necessary items and survival skills to survive several days.
He was unprepared in experience and possible physically for that kind of hike. So it depends on what angle you look at it from.
Personally, I think that it sucks he is getting stuck with the bill, but I understand it. He decided to embark on a hike that was ill-advised given the conditions - conditions he could have known about if he had simply asked about at the Visitor Center. This is to me the crux of the States argument, that attempting this hike at this time of year was reckless. NH might have realized this was going to get a lot of press, and charged him to highlight how much these rescues can cost.
As for the law being unconstitutional - until I hear from a lawyer versed in Supreme Court cases, I strongly disagree. To me its no different that charging someone for reckless driving when they are falling asleep at the wheel.
ShoelessWanderer
07-18-2009, 19:44
And I assure you, that EVERYONE on this website at one time or another has done something "stupid" or been "unprepared" on a hike. It goes with the territory. Fortunatly, most of us never have issues, but last time I checked I paid taxes to make sure, that if something does go wrong that someone will be there to help me.
Homer&Marje
07-18-2009, 20:08
And I assure you, that EVERYONE on this website at one time or another has done something "stupid" or been "unprepared" on a hike. It goes with the territory. Fortunatly, most of us never have issues, but last time I checked I paid taxes to make sure, that if something does go wrong that someone will be there to help me.
Exactly. Consider my contribution to the local NH economy EVERY time I go up there...and thankfully never had an incident...in the 15 years that I have been going there to hike.....Payment. Enough.
SassyWindsor
07-18-2009, 20:18
I'd Rather be Lost in the Woods
than Found in the City.
gollwoods
07-18-2009, 20:24
probably some insurance company lobbied for the law so they can sell insurance to cover the costs. Is that cynical???
buckwheat
07-18-2009, 21:12
Why the hel# do people think its unconstitutional for someone to pay for what it cost for them being stupid?
If your out and something goes wrong, beyound your control, then I dont mind our tax money going to pay to help that person.
If its someone like this idiot, then our tax money shouldnt be spent on him cause he is stupid. His fault it happened - he has the constitutional responsibility to pay. (no, there is no law for this, but there should be, lets call it the Idiotic - head up your own Dumb Ass Law.)
Nobody is arguing that it is unconstitutional for someone to pay for what it costs for them being stupid.
This hiker wasn't stupid. He was hiking, and was injured unexpectedly ... and never required, nor himself asked to be rescued, especially by a helicopter flown in from Maine because New Hampshire helicopters are not properly maintained ready for flight by the officials charged with their care.
How is this hiker an "idiot" because he twisted his ankle, and then hiked himself to relative safety using skills he learned as an Eagle Scout without requiring assistance from anyone?
The law is unconstitutional because in America our laws must be equally applied to everyone, regardless of how smart they are or where the helicopter comes from.
New Hampshire rescue officials whom we pay to be on duty should someone need to be rescued are trained, equipped and paid to perform those duties for all whom require it, regardless of that person's circumstances.
It is why we hire them and pay them with our tax dollars.
The Scribe
07-18-2009, 21:27
It has been in effect because, up to this point, it has always been cheaper to just pay the fine than to fight the case in court.
For the law to be declared unconstitutional by a court, someone has to pay a lawyer to challenge the law in court. That's the key. Up to now, the state of New Hampshire has been intelligent in understanding that the usefulness of this law is in whom it discourages and how it changes behavior.
The usefulness of the law is not in whom it actually extracts money from. Stupidly, New Hampshire officials have all but guaranteed, with this moronic fine, that the law will be challenged.
It is so blatantly unconstitutional that I cannot fathom any judge not ruling in the family's favor provided they retain a slightly competent attorney.
In my view, the idea of punishing irresponsible people who require rescue is probably a good one. The reality however is that this law is vague; it is unevenly enforced; it is arbitrary and capricious in who it fines, and how much it fines people.
It behooves the legislature to write a constitutional law; to apply it evenly and to fine everyone equally. That's justice in America, however inconvenient.
The $25,000 fine levied here will only result in the law being overturned, since the fine imposed is high enough to justify fighting the law.
I don't know Buckwheat. I am under the impression that something isn't unconstitutional until a court says it is so. Until then, it is enforced. I do admire your passion about this tho. Maybe you can lead up their defense fund. Personally, I think if I still lived in NH and in one of the towns that has to contribute to S&R (I used to) then find a way to make it up at Town Meeting and budget time, I would probably welcome any money the fines bring in.
Homer&Marje
07-18-2009, 21:30
Nobody is arguing that it is unconstitutional for someone to pay for what it costs for them being stupid.
This hiker wasn't stupid. He was hiking, and was injured unexpectedly ... and never required, nor himself asked to be rescued, especially by a helicopter flown in from Maine because New Hampshire helicopters are not properly maintained ready for flight by the officials charged with their care.
How is this hiker an "idiot" because he twisted his ankle, and then hiked himself to relative safety using skills he learned as an Eagle Scout without requiring assistance from anyone?
The law is unconstitutional because in America our laws must be equally applied to everyone, regardless of how smart they are or where the helicopter comes from.
New Hampshire rescue officials whom we pay to be on duty should someone need to be rescued are trained, equipped and paid to perform those duties for all whom require it, regardless of that person's circumstances.
It is why we hire them and pay them with our tax dollars.
And also note that volunteers are....volunteers
NH needs to start a program like they have in CO where hikers pay a few dollars a year. It probably would have covered this rescue.
And I assure you, that EVERYONE on this website at one time or another has done something "stupid" or been "unprepared" on a hike. It goes with the territory. Fortunatly, most of us never have issues, but last time I checked I paid taxes to make sure, that if something does go wrong that someone will be there to help me.
Better check again, I'm afraid paying taxes does not cover anything you may encounter.
Skidsteer
07-18-2009, 22:29
Why the hel# do people think its unconstitutional for someone to pay for what it cost for them being stupid?
If your out and something goes wrong, beyound your control, then I dont mind our tax money going to pay to help that person.
If its someone like this idiot, then our tax money shouldnt be spent on him cause he is stupid. His fault it happened - he has the constitutional responsibility to pay. (no, there is no law for this, but there should be, lets call it the Idiotic - head up your own Dumb Ass Law.)
In this case it appears he was willing to pay for being stupid if he didn't call for help.
Perhaps his parents should pay since they made the call.
Homer&Marje
07-18-2009, 23:21
Why the hel# do people think its unconstitutional for someone to pay for what it cost for them being stupid?
If your out and something goes wrong, beyound your control, then I dont mind our tax money going to pay to help that person.
If its someone like this idiot, then our tax money shouldnt be spent on him cause he is stupid. His fault it happened - he has the constitutional responsibility to pay. (no, there is no law for this, but there should be, lets call it the Idiotic - head up your own Dumb Ass Law.)
How is he an idiot? He had a bivvy, emergency blankets, fire starting devices, warm clothing, extra food and experience. He started a fired every night, boiled water and...Why is he an idiot?
Not to mention he basically got himself out. You should be a spokesman for that law you mentioned though.:rolleyes:
buckwheat
07-19-2009, 00:42
I don't know Buckwheat. I am under the impression that something isn't unconstitutional until a court says it is so. Until then, it is enforced. I do admire your passion about this tho. Maybe you can lead up their defense fund. Personally, I think if I still lived in NH and in one of the towns that has to contribute to S&R (I used to) then find a way to make it up at Town Meeting and budget time, I would probably welcome any money the fines bring in.
You're very right ... something isn't unconstitutional until it's constituionality is argued in court. That's why this fine is really dumb; it guarantees a court fight that will result in the invalidation of this law.
And let me set the record straight: no town in New Hampshire is required to rescue anyone off of any of their mountains.
If, however, that town hires people ... spends money to train them in mountain rescue ... and equips them with helicopters and baskets and so forth ... I think it is reasonable to expect that they do their jobs without regard to the IQ of the individual who might require their services.
Unless, of course, that standard is going to apply evenly to everyone.
The State of New Hampshire created many of these trails. It entices people to use them. It created parks near them. It charges people to camp near the trails. It encourages people to hike these trails through advertising. Much of its economy is dependent on the tourist dollars these trails bring in. For the state of New Hampshire to then deny any responsibility for encouraging people to take risks climbing their mountains is the height of hypocrisy, don't you think?
The law is unconstitutional. This family, having been given the incentive to fight the law, will.
And they'll win.
skinewmexico
07-19-2009, 00:54
The State of New Hampshire created many of these trails. It entices people to use them. It created parks near them. It charges people to camp near the trails. It encourages people to hike these trails through advertising. Much of its economy is dependent on the tourist dollars these trails bring in. For the state of New Hampshire to then deny any responsibility for encouraging people to take risks climbing their mountains is the height of hypocrisy, don't you think?
Amen brother. This certainly doesn't encourage me to hike in NH, knowing that some beauracrat is going to decide that I was prepared enough, and had an approved accident, and was in proper physical condition. Sounds like the safety guy at a major corporation. And quite frankly, I'm shocked by the number of people who seem to have never required anyone else's help, in any situration, in their lives. And never did anything stupid as a teenager. Oh yeah, you just didn't get caught.
Homer&Marje
07-19-2009, 01:04
You're very right ... something isn't unconstitutional until it's constituionality is argued in court. That's why this fine is really dumb; it guarantees a court fight that will result in the invalidation of this law.
And let me set the record straight: no town in New Hampshire is required to rescue anyone off of any of their mountains.
If, however, that town hires people ... spends money to train them in mountain rescue ... and equips them with helicopters and baskets and so forth ... I think it is reasonable to expect that they do their jobs without regard to the IQ of the individual who might require their services.
Unless, of course, that standard is going to apply evenly to everyone.
The State of New Hampshire created many of these trails. It entices people to use them. It created parks near them. It charges people to camp near the trails. It encourages people to hike these trails through advertising. Much of its economy is dependent on the tourist dollars these trails bring in. For the state of New Hampshire to then deny any responsibility for encouraging people to take risks climbing their mountains is the height of hypocrisy, don't you think?
The law is unconstitutional. This family, having been given the incentive to fight the law, will.
And they'll win.
Very well stated
River Runner
07-19-2009, 02:48
If hikers who make mistakes are going to be charged for SAR, then it's only fair people who are in auto accidents where they are at fault pay for the cost of police, ambulance, and other emergency personnel who respond and people whose houses burn down because of a mistake they made pay for the fire department call. The fact that they pay taxes doesn't make them any more deserving than a hiker who also pays taxes.
Then, we could take it even further - people who get mugged because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time should have to pay the cost of the police investigation, people whose homes are broken into should have to do the same because they weren't prepared with adequate home protection plans, etc.
Homer&Marje
07-19-2009, 07:17
If there was even a "standard" fine for this type of thing it would be a little less of a heated topic.
How many hikers you know with 25 grand laying around? The magnitude of the fine says a lot about how the state of NH is going to handle these cases.
Find negligence in any way possible, and charge an astronomical fee for the SAR. Whether it be the true cost of the SAR or not, the fine is too large for how prepared he was for the situation that he got himself into, and out of.
This ridiculous fine will encourage others to hike without leaving an itinerary, or to leave a greatly inflated itinerary with others so that they won't be subject to this BS if they happen to go a day or two beyond their plan. If something unfortunate happens, SAR will still be called out eventually, but it will be for a body recovery instead of a rescue, and there will be no one left to fine.
Very stupid implementation and application of the law. This kid was not rescued, the rescuers just joined his hike for about 45 minutes.
john gault
07-19-2009, 09:34
This ridiculous fine will encourages others to hike without leaving an itinerary, or to leave a greatly inflated itinerary with others so that they won't be subject to this BS if they happen to go a day or two beyond their plan. If something unfortunate happens, SAR will still be called out eventually, but it will be for a body recovery instead of a rescue, and there will be no one left to fine.
Very stupid implementation of the law. This kid was not rescued, the rescuers just joined his hike for about 45 minutes.
Yeah, I was thinking the same thing.
superman
07-19-2009, 09:42
The fines are just a trick we are using to keep undesirable out of staters out of state. Then we're going to put a big tax on the booze and cigarettes. Then we'll get a state income tax so yall aren't tempted to move here to get away from your own onerous taxes.;)
If hikers who make mistakes are going to be charged for SAR, then it's only fair people who are in auto accidents where they are at fault pay for the cost of police, ambulance, and other emergency personnel who respond and people whose houses burn down because of a mistake they made pay for the fire department call. The fact that they pay taxes doesn't make them any more deserving than a hiker who also pays taxes.
Then, we could take it even further - people who get mugged because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time should have to pay the cost of the police investigation, people whose homes are broken into should have to do the same because they weren't prepared with adequate home protection plans, etc.
Great post...I was wondering what the difference was as well.
The Scribe
07-19-2009, 09:55
The State of New Hampshire created many of these trails. It entices people to use them. It created parks near them. It charges people to camp near the trails. It encourages people to hike these trails through advertising. Much of its economy is dependent on the tourist dollars these trails bring in. For the state of New Hampshire to then deny any responsibility for encouraging people to take risks climbing their mountains is the height of hypocrisy, don't you think?
No argument there. There is a lot of hypocrisy in NH. In every state for that matter. For a state that likes its rugged, wholesome image, they make a lot of their money off of lottery, booze, and cigs. And tourists.
NH, on general principle, will always prefer to have the local community pay for something if they can get away with it.
We camped one weekend in early-mid June at a NH State Park a few years ago. We paid regular price for the campsite. Might have only been the second week the place was open. Not that many people there. In the middle of the night we were freaked out by a LARGE teen party going on all around us. We were told later upwards of 100 kids.
I drove around the park looking for help. Found none. Went to the Park Manager's house. Dark. Note on the door. "If you need help, call xxx-xxxx.
It was the number to the local police. Who had to come with with backup from the SP to break up the party.
The Director of the state agency that runs NH State Parks saw absolutely nothing wrong with taking my full priced money but providing little or no service in return. I was told the Manager doesn't move in for the summer, nor does the night watchman start until the last weekend in June. I got very frustrated with his failure to understand the concept that if you invite someone in, take their money (especially full fare), then you are obligated to take care of those people. I guess the bathrooms being open were enough for him. I mean if they discounted the price (as some Maine SP campgrounds at least used to do before they were in full swing for the summer) then you are at least getting what you pay for.
Again, not 100% for this law. But I do feel, I guess, if your negligence causes others to risk their lives or for the government to spend money they shouldn't have to, then in principal I don't have a problem with it.
Peace.
Anyone that runs across updates to this issue, please keep us all informed. Buckwheat sounds so sure of himself I can't help wonder if he isn't planning to file the lawsuit himself (and already knows there will be one).
Homer&Marje
07-19-2009, 11:58
This ridiculous fine will encourage others to hike without leaving an itinerary, or to leave a greatly inflated itinerary with others so that they won't be subject to this BS if they happen to go a day or two beyond their plan. If something unfortunate happens, SAR will still be called out eventually, but it will be for a body recovery instead of a rescue, and there will be no one left to fine.
Very stupid implementation and application of the law. This kid was not rescued, the rescuers just joined his hike for about 45 minutes.
Spot on...I like how you put that. Kid saved himself, he should be teaching other scouts how to survive in a bad situation...not going through court battles. Really sad...hope he still enjoys hiking after this.
Sleepy the Arab
07-19-2009, 11:59
Fine him.
I see several points of negligence:
1. He started at 8:30 for a 17 mile day hike over the northern presi's, which in the best of conditions would have been a struggle for a fit person. At some point - probably near the summit of Washington - he should have realized how impractical this was and turned back.
2. He twisted his ankle, and kept hiking.
3. Not only was it an ill-thought short-cut, but...
4. ...it appears he didn't leave these contingency plans with anyone.
The prudent hiker would have turned around and gone back the way he came well before point 3 and 4. The fact that he was well equipped just means he didn't die out there after making some very bad mistakes.
superman
07-19-2009, 12:06
I say flog the kid and fine the parents.:)
Homer&Marje
07-19-2009, 12:17
Fine him.
I see several points of negligence:
1. He started at 8:30 for a 17 mile day hike over the northern presi's, which in the best of conditions would have been a struggle for a fit person. At some point - probably near the summit of Washington - he should have realized how impractical this was and turned back.
2. He twisted his ankle, and kept hiking.
3. Not only was it an ill-thought short-cut, but...
4. ...it appears he didn't leave these contingency plans with anyone.
The prudent hiker would have turned around and gone back the way he came well before point 3 and 4. The fact that he was well equipped just means he didn't die out there after making some very bad mistakes.
Because I'm sure you've never left late for a hike, wanted to do more miles than you could, suffered a minor injury, believed you could keep going and then made it out fine.
The fact that he didn't die is a huge point, the fact that he was prepared for something to go wrong is a huge point. How do you know he didn't tell his parents his contingency plans?
Do you know that he didn't inform them of the difficulty and his preparedness? After missing for a day the SAR was called by his parents to find him....you don't wait 3 days on someones contingency plans to pan out. You search for your child and expect that since he was prepared, well and alive that you and the child won't be charged as negligent.
Ladytrekker
07-19-2009, 13:03
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,533862,00.html
Check this out the Australian missing hiker got $200,000 for his interview makes getting lost a little more attractive.
Sleepy the Arab
07-19-2009, 15:42
Because I'm sure you've never left late for a hike, wanted to do more miles than you could, suffered a minor injury, believed you could keep going and then made it out fine.
If I have left late, I've had the prudence to know when things were not proceeding as planned and turn back. The times I have been injured, I take the shortest, and quickest way back to civilization. When necessary, I use a map and guidebook to avoid wandering in the more remote and inaccessible parts of the state. Seriously, why did this kid wander into the Great Gulf?
The fact that he didn't die is a huge point, the fact that he was prepared for something to go wrong is a huge point. How do you know he didn't tell his parents his contingency plans?
If he told his parents, they would have known where to look for him. From his planned itinerary, we can infer escape routes from Marshfield to Appalachia Trailhead on just one side of the mountains. That's a hell of a lot of area to start searching. The "huge point" you keep jumping up and down and waving your hands about is the reason they found him alive, and didn't have to truck a body out of there.
Do you know that he didn't inform them of the difficulty and his preparedness? After missing for a day the SAR was called by his parents to find him....you don't wait 3 days on someones contingency plans to pan out. You search for your child and expect that since he was prepared, well and alive that you and the child won't be charged as negligent.
"Prepared, well and alive" are the standards we're setting to exonerate from negligence? He made some terrible and downright stupid decisions. I am fully for these fines, and I maintain the dull hope, not that they keep people out of the woods, but that they cause people to think a little bit harder about about what they set out to do and perhaps prod them to use better judgment.
Homer&Marje
07-19-2009, 15:59
Okay so tell me, If you get into a situation, and you need SAR crews to find you. Why should they not fine YOU.
What are your standards every time for not being considered negligent. I'm trying to make the point that life is about perspective. In his view, which I will adopt for argument, he was found not starving, injured or unable to function completely under his own power.
Still not saying that he did not make a mistake in planning, but on a bad day 1 mile could be too much to deal with, 2 miles could...3....it all depends on how bad your day gets. Bad idea to into great gulf as well, but as was posted before...the kid was joined by the SAR crew for the last 45 minutes of his 3 day hike that was supposed to be 1. If he was truly negligent he would have been dead in 3 days in the Whites or at least very worse for wear.
Are they going to charge the guy that fell backwards and almost died because he didn't use the correct hand and foot holds on the known "steepest mile of the AT"?
Call it an error in planning they will:rolleyes:
neighbor dave
07-19-2009, 16:41
trailhead stoning is due:rolleyes:
Plodderman
07-19-2009, 17:17
Someone has to pay for it.
The Old Fhart
07-19-2009, 19:13
skinewmexico-"Just another way to scare people away from using the wilderness. Cost of SAR will end up as justification to closing backcountry to citizens some day." Sorry, this is WhiteBlaze, not worldwideconspiracy dot com :rolleyes:
Homer&Marje: "I'm sorry... wasn't the kid prepared and about 45 minutes from rescuing himself?? … He didn't ask to be rescued!!! He found the rescuers when he was 45 minutes from the top of Washington, where I assume he would have called to let his family know he was ok and to find a way down."
Wrong. He was marginally equipped for a summer day hike at lower elevations. April is still winter in the Whites as the following references state. Also, being rescued would be roadside at the base, not at the top of a snow covered mountain.. The only way down was to ride in a snocat about 8 miles to the main road because there were still winter conditions on the mountain.
As the news story says: “…authorities say he wasn't prepared for the conditions he encountered and shouldn't have set out on such an ambitious hike.” ... “The search team will hike with Mason back to the summit of Mt. Washington, where he will then ride a Sno-Cat down the auto road. Because of where Mason was located and conditions on the ground, this is the only prudent exit from the mountain.”
The conditions on the mountain this time of year are common knowledge and are posted at the AMC visitor center at the start of the trail. Here are some other references to conditions to be found in the Whites in early spring.
AMC White Mountain Guide 27th edition: "The descriptions in this book are intended to apply in the conditions that are usually encountered during the normal hiking season, which runs approximately from Memorial Day to Columbus Day. In some years ice or snowdrifts may remain at higher elevations until the early part of June-or even longer-and possibly much later in some of the major ravines, on north facing slopes, and in other sheltered places like Mahoosuc Notch. …. When snow or ice are present, trails are often far more difficult to follow, and usually far more arduous, or even dangerous, to hike on. ….. Spring and fall are particularly difficult seasons in the mountains, since the weather can be pleasant in the valleys, and brutal on the summits and ridges. A great number of the serious incidents in the mountains occur in spring and fall, when hikers deceived by mild conditions at home or even at trailhead may find themselves facing unanticipated severe, perhaps life-threatening , hazards."
From the news story-“And people have been out there in winter in hard-packed snow. But with these spring conditions, it was soft snow, it was deep snow," said Fish and Game Maj. Tim Acerno.”
Classic Hikes of The World, Peter Potterfield, Chapter 8, White Mountain Traverse (I edited the chapter of this book), “April and May often produce difficult conditions, with deep, wet snow.”
A number of posters familiar with the area and conditions have made some good observations:
Chomp-"If I planned on a 1 day hike that turned into THREE DAYS I would consider my plan a total and complete disaster. I would consider that I was unprepared for the hike that I had attempted... because if I was prepared to that hike of hike (physically, experience-wise and gear wise) than the hike would have truly taken one day."
Sleepy The Arab-"If I have left late, I've had the prudence to know when things were not proceeding as planned and turn back. The times I have been injured, I take the shortest, and quickest way back to civilization. When necessary, I use a map and guidebook to avoid wandering in the more remote and inaccessible parts of the state. Seriously, why did this kid wander into the Great Gulf?"
As I posted previously: “Anyone familiar with the area knows the Great Gulf isn’t the place to be when there is lots of snowmelt. Being on the east side of the mountains it has a tendency to fill with snow and the sun doesn’t have a chance to melt it as fast as that on the westerly slopes. When we get several days of unusually high temperatures the snow starts to melt fast, causing problems for ill informed hikers. It isn’t unheard of for hikers to be trapped in the Great Gulf by high water and having to wait a day or so for it to drop so they could get out.”
There are also some statements that are so laughable that they deserve comment as well.
Buckwheat-"Lastly ... the authorities were unprepared to conduct the rescue, which is what led to the massive costs." Pure B.S.. The SAR units in the Mount Washington area are among the world’s best and include some world class Everest climbers.
Buckwheat-" They had to bring a helicopter from Maine because their air fleet is being mismanaged. …I hardly think that the kid should be required to pay for the ineptitude of the government of the state of New Hampshire as it relates to proper maintenance of its aircraft fleet.."
You’ve got NH mixed up with the USA which actually has an “air fleet”. Your statements are ridiculous. NH does use the ANG helicopter, if available and where conditions permit its use.
Buckwheat-"New Hampshire rescue officials whom we pay to be on duty should someone need to be rescued are trained, equipped and paid to perform those duties for all whom require it, regardless of that person's circumstances…. It is why we hire them and pay them with our tax dollars."
Totally false. Try to actually find out how SAR works in NH (http://www.nhoutdoorcouncil.org/search_rescue.php) before making such wild statements.
buckwheat-"The State of New Hampshire created many of these trails." False. The trails this hiker was on are on WMNF land and were not 'created' or maintained by the State of NH. The state does own about 59 acres on the summit of Mount Washington which is a state park. By contrast, the Great Gulf (WMNF Wilderness Area) is 5500 acres. Please name one trail the state of NH created. (hint-There are some elsewhere in the state.)
Homer&Marje
07-19-2009, 19:46
Sorry, this is WhiteBlaze, not worldwideconspiracy dot com :rolleyes:
Wrong. He was marginally equipped for a summer day hike at lower elevations. April is still winter in the Whites as the following references state. Also, being rescued would be roadside at the base, not at the top of a snow covered mountain.. The only way down was to ride in a snocat about 8 miles to the main road because there were still winter conditions on the mountain.
As the news story says: “…authorities say he wasn't prepared for the conditions he encountered and shouldn't have set out on such an ambitious hike.” ... “The search team will hike with Mason back to the summit of Mt. Washington, where he will then ride a Sno-Cat down the auto road. Because of where Mason was located and conditions on the ground, this is the only prudent exit from the mountain.”
The conditions on the mountain this time of year are common knowledge and are posted at the AMC visitor center at the start of the trail. Here are some other references to conditions to be found in the Whites in early spring.
A number of posters familiar with the area and conditions have made some good observations:
There are also some statements that are so laughable that they deserve comment as well.
Pure B.S.. The SAR units in the Mount Washington area are among the world’s best and include some world class Everest climbers.
You’ve got NH mixed up with the USA which actually has an “air fleet”. Your statements are ridiculous. NH does use the ANG helicopter, if available and where conditions permit its use.
Totally false. Try to actually find out how SAR works in NH (http://www.nhoutdoorcouncil.org/search_rescue.php) before making such wild statements.
False. The trails this hiker was on are on WMNF land and were not 'created' or maintained by the State of NH. The state does own about 59 acres on the summit of Mount Washington which is a state park. By contrast, the Great Gulf (WMNF Wilderness Area) is 5500 acres. Please name one trail the state of NH created. (hint-There are some elsewhere in the state.)
Many very good points from you and we all know your level of experience in the Whites, so Thank you first and foremost, but....Yes he did ride a snocat down the auto road....what I meant by being able to rescue himself was getting to the top of the mountain and being able to find someone at the observatory or lodge at the top to help him in his situation.
From there, if no help was available, the fastest and safest route would be the auto road by foot correct?
Marginally prepared as they say was enough to keep him warm, dry, and alive. In my book after all his error in planning, which I have said was WAY too big of a hike that time of year...
Same time of year I was up at Moosilauke and made it on snow shoes to the first stream crossing...and turned around. Was just going to do a mile or two out and back but we immediately saw that the conditions were not in our favor...So I do know something about staying safe in the Whites.
I might not be a local there, but I've been hiking there for a long time.
Sleepy the Arab
07-19-2009, 22:21
Okay so tell me, If you get into a situation, and you need SAR crews to find you. Why should they not fine YOU.
What are your standards every time for not being considered negligent. I'm trying to make the point that life is about perspective. In his view, which I will adopt for argument, he was found not starving, injured or unable to function completely under his own power.
Are you serious? Oookay. If I make a profoundly stupid and irresponsible decision during a hike, one that keeps me 24 hours overdue, and causes the SAR folks to be released, fine me. I welcome it. Hopefully a lifetime of hiking experience will keep me from having such a situation.
If I suddenly can't move because I happen to need an appendectomy, well, I can't help that. Get me out of there; please don't fine me.
Still not saying that he did not make a mistake in planning, but on a bad day 1 mile could be too much to deal with, 2 miles could...3....it all depends on how bad your day gets. Bad idea to into great gulf as well, but as was posted before...the kid was joined by the SAR crew for the last 45 minutes of his 3 day hike that was supposed to be 1. If he was truly negligent he would have been dead in 3 days in the Whites or at least very worse for wear.
You continually equate "negligence" with "death." The fact that he didn't die doesn't mean he wasn't negligent. Perhaps you should consult a dictionary.
Are they going to charge the guy that fell backwards and almost died because he didn't use the correct hand and foot holds on the known "steepest mile of the AT"?
Call it an error in planning they will:rolleyes:
Not negligent, no fine.
Homer&Marje
07-19-2009, 22:36
Are you serious? Oookay. If I make a profoundly stupid and irresponsible decision during a hike, one that keeps me 24 hours overdue, and causes the SAR folks to be released, fine me. I welcome it. Hopefully a lifetime of hiking experience will keep me from having such a situation.
If I suddenly can't move because I happen to need an appendectomy, well, I can't help that. Get me out of there; please don't fine me.
You continually equate "negligence" with "death." The fact that he didn't die doesn't mean he wasn't negligent. Perhaps you should consult a dictionary.
Not negligent, no fine.
I hope that my experience as well keeps me well away from an SAR situation. I NEVER want to go through that if I don't have to. I carefully plan and let people know what I am doing and am vigilant about it.
With that, I also think you are misconstruing my definition of negligence equating to death. I'm saying that the kid was found no worse for wear...was not starving, dehydrated, hypothermic, delusional, snow blind, or so many other things that could happen to a lost hiker. I'm saying that in a perfect world, had SAR not been called, he could have made it out alive.
I know TOF you said that the authorities said he was minimally prepared...If so it was just on the cusp of bare minimum and just enough...I have continually said I believe his error in planning was the most significant cause of negligence...but he was prepared for a bad outcome...either way.
Not negligent. No fine.
Wise Old Owl
07-19-2009, 23:55
no tax on booze in NH but they'll get it back in gung-ho "rescues"
Ha Ha! Very Watered Down damn debatable.
Edit:
Folks when someone makes a human mistake it is something that we all hope is not non - life threatening. When we talk about mistakes of others it makes our success so much better when we learn from our mistakes.
It's Human and down right ok.
ShoelessWanderer
07-20-2009, 10:19
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,533862,00.html
Check this out the Australian missing hiker got $200,000 for his interview makes getting lost a little more attractive.
Okay, so the kid just needs to do a good interview and he'll have plenty of money to repay the state. :-?
Just one more point:
Elsewhere on this site is a thread about a 14 year old who shot and killed a hiker. He got 30 days in juvenile hall for his negligence due to his young age and no intent. His debt to society will be over in 30 days.
This thread talks about another juvenile who misjudged his capabilities, but did no harm to himself or others except for some time and unneeded costs. He will be paying his "debt to society" for years to come. $25,000 is a many year debt for a 17 year old.
Something is very wrong here.
Homer&Marje
07-20-2009, 11:51
Punishments rarely fit the situations involved, unfortunate.
Homer&Marje
07-20-2009, 12:23
Cane him...
Sounds appropriate:D That American kid spray painting stuff in Singapore got 10 lashes right?
And Singapore is a FINE place to live:rolleyes:
Jack Tarlin
07-20-2009, 17:03
Just read this whole thread.
One immediate point: What I find remarkable is that this kid is an Eagle Scout and was presumably trained and led in scouting and hiking in New England.
Did nobody, at any level, ever tell him about the dangers of bushwhacking and leaving established Trails in the Presidentials? Did nobody ever tell him how reckless and foolhardy it is to do this in winter?
Sure seems to me that some Scout leader dropped the ball somewhere. I hope this episode proves instructive for Massachusetts Scout leaders.
And as to the folks who are jumping all over the State officials and rescuers for taking too hard a line on this: Search and Rescue can be a very dangerous thing. In the White Mountains, in wintertime, it can be extraordinarily dangerous. Resucuers put their own lives on the line all the time and in fact, at least one of Mt. Washington's many fatalities was a rescuer.
The law that permits the State of New Hampshire to fine people in certain cases is, in my opinion, long overdue, and I'm not sure that everyone who has posted here is actually familiar with the law. When choosing whether or not to fine people, the decision to do so is limited to those situations where it is deemed that the rescue is needless, and is caused by ignorance, recklessness, carelessness, and irresponsibility on the part of the party that ends up being rescued.
Or to put it simply, if the rescuse becomes necessary because of questionable or careless behavior on the part of the guy getting the rescue, then the State reserves the right to charge him for it.
And it seems to me that in this case, the application of the law was entirely justified.
Homer&Marje
07-20-2009, 17:38
Just read this whole thread.
One immediate point: What I find remarkable is that this kid is an Eagle Scout and was presumably trained and led in scouting and hiking in New England.
Did nobody, at any level, ever tell him about the dangers of bushwhacking and leaving established Trails in the Presidentials? Did nobody ever tell him how reckless and foolhardy it is to do this in winter?
Sure seems to me that some Scout leader dropped the ball somewhere. I hope this episode proves instructive for Massachusetts Scout leaders.
And as to the folks who are jumping all over the State officials and rescuers for taking too hard a line on this: Search and Rescue can be a very dangerous thing. In the White Mountains, in wintertime, it can be extraordinarily dangerous. Resucuers put their own lives on the line all the time and in fact, at least one of Mt. Washington's many fatalities was a rescuer.
The law that permits the State of New Hampshire to fine people in certain cases is, in my opinion, long overdue, and I'm not sure that everyone who has posted here is actually familiar with the law. When choosing whether or not to fine people, the decision to do so is limited to those situations where it is deemed that the rescue is needless, and is caused by ignorance, recklessness, carelessness, and irresponsibility on the part of the party that ends up being rescued.
Or to put it simply, if the rescuse becomes necessary because of questionable or careless behavior on the part of the guy getting the rescue, then the State reserves the right to charge him for it.
And it seems to me that in this case, the application of the law was entirely justified.
Not trying to battle with you Jack on your experience, knowledge and proximity to the situation.
Tell me though, strictly as a comparative. Does NH charge, financially, for ignorance in ALL situations regardless of activity?
Lets say someone falls asleep with a cigarette...burns the house down, neighbors house down and a local store.
Lots of firefighters came to the blaze to put it out, no one got hurt because they were trained to do the job asked of them. Later on, arson investigators found the cause of the fire to be human negligence, smoking a cigarette and falling asleep with it.
Person got out fine, no one was injured but someone was negligent in their planning.
Pretty broad comparative so I'm opening the other side of this debate wide for you. But as volunteers, rescuers, and all other people and resources involved...have all agreed to do the task that is set forth of them REGARDLESS of safety, causation, or eventual result.
I would assume and hope that ALL of these people are trained and very well prepared for the situation they have put themselves in ( not the rescue itself but the inherent knowledge that they will have to participate in a rescue at one time or another) otherwise they have chosen an ill fated profession.
Just my thoughts....negligence laws, if implied should not be limited to hikers or any other singled out group, if they are to be adopted. It's the system of irregularities and niche results with so many variables that is hard to cope with.
Basic point I'm trying to make is if your going to single out a group to charge for negligence you should be finding much greater sources of negligence to charge for as well and come up with a standard of how it will be dealt with. I'm NOT disagreeing in any way shape or form that the rescue wasn't 25k worth of work, I bet it was.
Charge everyone for negligence in every group or following or charge no one.
Jim Adams
07-20-2009, 17:47
I know TOF you said that the authorities said he was minimally prepared...If so it was just on the cusp of bare minimum and just enough...I have continually said I believe his error in planning was the most significant cause of negligence...but he was prepared for a bad outcome...either way.
Not negligent. No fine.
You can not judge "minimally prepared" as described by SAR. Obviously the kid was "minimally prepared" to keep himself alive under adverse conditions for 3 days. SAR will argue in some locations and instances that unless you carry in your pack what they do then you are not prepared. USUALLY ALL of the SAR teams that I've dealt with are way over packed and too heavy. Should all of the ultra light thru hikers starting on Springer be charged with negligence because they are being irresponsible and placing themselves in danger because they don't carry what SAR does?
The parents freaked, the kid did what he had been taught...he didn't save himself, he simply used his knowledge and equipment to keep himself alive. THAT'S NOT NEGLIGENCE, THAT'S INTELLIGENCE!
geek
If NH fixed their tax code, we wouldn't be having this discussion. But they want their cake (tourists), and they want to eat it too (charge for SAR).
Lone Wolf
07-20-2009, 17:57
the kid didn't asked to be rescued. why is HE being fined?
Homer&Marje
07-20-2009, 18:01
And the voices of reason proclaimed.......
Lot of experience on both sides of this argument that's all I have to say
Jack Tarlin
07-20-2009, 18:02
Geez, MOWGLI, lots of folks are perfectly happy with NH's tax code, especially the millions of folks who visit here every year and spend money, including lots of hikers.
I've been living here quite awhile and have yet to see anyone from Massachusetts or Tennessee or wherever ever complain about not having to pay sales tax when they buy something, go grocery shopping, etc.
But if these folks are truly that unhappy with the code and wanna send a donation to the State coffers in Concord cuz they weren't taxed correctly, well they can sure be my guest.
And since it was MOWGLI who brought up the subject, he can go first. :D
I'll be content to spend my money in NH as I see fit. For instance, like when I went up to Londonderry to watch the Patriots lose to my NY Giants. :D
It is a tax code issue. A little political courage might be in order. You'd sooner find a $100 bill on the streets of downtown Concord. :p
If our society is willing to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to underwrite the health care cost of those engaging in unprotected sex, smoking and eating fried clams (both citizens and non citizens alike), I say we can pony up a few more bucks to support a stupid hiker.
If we don't want to fund search and rescue missions, that's OK too. I think we should, but I am just one voice.
A lot of activities most on this list think are pretty cool-- riding a motorcycle (with or without a helmet) to name one-- are really rather irresponsible when it comes down to it.
The hiker had skin in the game (his life) and that's enough for me.
Lets spend a few bucks. The kid might cure cancer some day, and besides, we get to feel smug and superior given that it wasn't us who had such a bad day.
That's way too sensible Rick.
john gault
07-20-2009, 19:24
Cane him...
Well since many consider waterboarding torture:rolleyes: I could imagine the outcry...However, I bet the kid would rather be cained than fined $25,000 -- now that's torture:D
Homer&Marje
07-20-2009, 20:13
Geez, MOWGLI, lots of folks are perfectly happy with NH's tax code, especially the millions of folks who visit here every year and spend money, including lots of hikers.
I've been living here quite awhile and have yet to see anyone from Massachusetts or Tennessee or wherever ever complain about not having to pay sales tax when they buy something, go grocery shopping, etc.
But if these folks are truly that unhappy with the code and wanna send a donation to the State coffers in Concord cuz they weren't taxed correctly, well they can sure be my guest.
And since it was MOWGLI who brought up the subject, he can go first. :D
No one pays tax on groceries. It's considered a must have provision that's untaxable, thought that was federal law I could be wrong.
I have never traveled to New Hampshire to buy anything but booze on Sundays...we fixed that problem. Gave it to Maryland in form:D
If our society is willing to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to underwrite the health care cost of those engaging in unprotected sex, smoking and eating fried clams (both citizens and non citizens alike), I say we can pony up a few more bucks to support a stupid hiker.
If we don't want to fund search and rescue missions, that's OK too. I think we should, but I am just one voice.
A lot of activities most on this list think are pretty cool-- riding a motorcycle (with or without a helmet) to name one-- are really rather irresponsible when it comes down to it.
The hiker had skin in the game (his life) and that's enough for me.
Lets spend a few bucks. The kid might cure cancer some day, and besides, we get to feel smug and superior given that it wasn't us who had such a bad day.
I want to point out your not one voice. I stated in another thread about this I think that I think SAR should be done, If it's not in your states budget, don't do it. Just let me know, So I can prepare...oh wait...I should always go prepared for the worst.....wait, am I forgetting something, Does anyone have a New Hampshire Pack List Requirement form that I can fill out and photograph my gear for a day hike so that I don't get charged and everyone can know what I brought, where I'm going and when I stop to pee on my day hike?
Or should I just have the confidence in my fellow humans to help if something happens.
Sleepy the Arab
07-20-2009, 20:19
With that, I also think you are misconstruing my definition of negligence equating to death. I'm saying that the kid was found no worse for wear...was not starving, dehydrated, hypothermic, delusional, snow blind, or so many other things that could happen to a lost hiker. I'm saying that in a perfect world, had SAR not been called, he could have made it out alive.
So because the kid wandered out of the woods a-ok, two days overdue, and clearly didn't need rescuing (in spite of his bad judgment), he should not be fined. I guess then, next time someone is a few days late, we should keep the SAR home and not waste the time and money. At least until we receive definite proof that someone needs rescuing. A couple of panicked parents isn't going to be enough: "Call us when it's a tragedy!"
Great idea. Great precedent.
You seem to be so gung-ho about about the plucky kid surviving, that you just don't see that the dumazz cause the very expensive rescue by utilizing some very poor judgment that got him into trouble. That made him late. That panicked his parents, who then called for a rescue.
The big idea here, that I am going to bold so you don't miss it again, is that bad decisions that cause a search and rescue should rightly be subject to fines.
You should also note, that not every SAR situation is caused by negligence. So please, stop bringing comparisons into the thread that were not caused by negligence. And come to think of it, stop asking for blanket definitions of negligence being applied to every situation no matter how unrelated. That's a bad idea.
Homer&Marje
07-20-2009, 21:14
Please pay attention to the little red ball Sleepy.
I'm sorry... wasn't the kid prepared and about 45 minutes from rescuing himself??
Thought they were only going to charge idiots who go out un prepared....notable he tried way to long of a day hike...but if he had told people he was going for a 3 day...no S + R would have been conducted.
BS
He didn't ask to be rescued!!! He found the rescuers when he was 45 minutes from the top of Washington, where I assume he would have called to let his family know he was ok and to find a way down.
Like I said, this is total BS that he got charged....I was JUST explaining to my 14 year old brother in law while we were in the Whites just what they were now charging for S + R, and we discussed this case specifically. EVEN a 14 year old said he did everything right, after his mistake in planning.
Send an extra bill to the mother of 4 in a polo shirt and high heels trying to go up Washington with no water and a stroller.
Like someone posted before this is just going to stop people from getting rescued that need it and it will detract from the desire to go into the wilderness.
I think I'm well informed on the case. Please read all before responding. The kid WAS prepared, had a bivvy, emergency blankets, fire starting tools and extra food.
HOW WAS HE NOT PREPARED BESIDES HIS ERROR IN PLANNING!!!????
I'm not really debating the law...because in many circumstances, ill prepared folk should be charged for the SAR.
In this case, I full well believed from the beginning that he would not be charged because he WAS prepared and basically rescued himself. No one found him shivering under a tree branch in a t-shirt, dehydrated and malnourished.
Are they going to charge the 70 year old man's sister (his only living relative) that died on Mt. Washington a few weeks ago?
He WAS NOT prepared and died of exposure in the middle of the summer, the fact that the kid survived 3 days in rough spring weather is a testament to how well prepared he was, regardless of ill planning.
I might be wrong but in the original story I believe I remember that he checked in at the ranger station and checked in before his hike?
I also would consider a 1 day hike that turned into 3 a disaster...but it happens...and he WOULD have got out of it himself had his parents NOT called the SAR and they had not found him 45 minutes from the summit of Washington. Yes it was a disaster of a hike....but he was prepared and eventually, for not the SAR luckily running into him on the trail, he would have been fine.
I think stupid people should have to pay for the SAR....but where are they drawing the line? Break it down simply, how many times have you forgotten something you needed, screwed up in planning, or had things change on you in the woods in which the initial plan, and the initial well being of yourself is jeopardized.
You can pick apart ANYONES hike and find something they didn't do perfect up to the standards of NH SAR apparently.
My packs gonna be heavy next time I go to the Whites. Going to bring the Kitchen Sink so I always have a reliable water source. Don't want SAR to find me dehydrated and charge me 30 grand.
Because I'm sure you've never left late for a hike, wanted to do more miles than you could, suffered a minor injury, believed you could keep going and then made it out fine.
The fact that he didn't die is a huge point, the fact that he was prepared for something to go wrong is a huge point. How do you know he didn't tell his parents his contingency plans?
Do you know that he didn't inform them of the difficulty and his preparedness? After missing for a day the SAR was called by his parents to find him....you don't wait 3 days on someones contingency plans to pan out. You search for your child and expect that since he was prepared, well and alive that you and the child won't be charged as negligent.
Please pay attention to my posts if your going to discuss the topic with me. I have clearly stated many times what you are apparently trying to retort....hopefully everything is bold enough for you.
Homer&Marje
07-20-2009, 21:17
Don't want anyone to fall behind.
I might be wrong but in the original story I believe I remember that he checked in at the ranger station and checked in before his hike?
I also would consider a 1 day hike that turned into 3 a disaster...but it happens...and he WOULD have got out of it himself had his parents NOT called the SAR and they had not found him 45 minutes from the summit of Washington. Yes it was a disaster of a hike....but he was prepared and eventually, for not the SAR luckily running into him on the trail, he would have been fine.
I think stupid people should have to pay for the SAR....but where are they drawing the line? Break it down simply, how many times have you forgotten something you needed, screwed up in planning, or had things change on you in the woods in which the initial plan, and the initial well being of yourself is jeopardized.
You can pick apart ANYONES hike and find something they didn't do perfect up to the standards of NH SAR apparently.
My packs gonna be heavy next time I go to the Whites. Going to bring the Kitchen Sink so I always have a reliable water source. Don't want SAR to find me dehydrated and charge me 30 grand.
WILLIAM HAYES
07-20-2009, 21:57
poor judgement has a cost
The Scribe
07-20-2009, 22:52
<quote>"He didn't ask to be rescued!!! He found the rescuers when he was 45 minutes from the top of Washington, where I assume he would have called to let his family know he was ok and to find a way down."</quote>
Old Phfart or Jack can answer this better than I, but what would our dear boy have found when he reached the summit on that date in April? Is the Adams Visitor Center even open yet on that date? Is there access to a phone? It is stated very clearly that out of season there is NO shelter on the summit of Mount Washington.
So say he never found (or the rescuers never found him) 45 minutes from the summit. If he had made it to the top he would have been faced with an 8 plus mile hike down the auto road. Not sure it sounds like he had in the bag after all.
Peace.
Homer&Marje
07-20-2009, 22:55
Many very good points from you and we all know your level of experience in the Whites, so Thank you first and foremost, but....Yes he did ride a snocat down the auto road....what I meant by being able to rescue himself was getting to the top of the mountain and being able to find someone at the observatory or lodge at the top to help him in his situation.
From there, if no help was available, the fastest and safest route would be the auto road by foot correct?
Marginally prepared as they say was enough to keep him warm, dry, and alive. In my book after all his error in planning, which I have said was WAY too big of a hike that time of year...
Same time of year I was up at Moosilauke and made it on snow shoes to the first stream crossing...and turned around. Was just going to do a mile or two out and back but we immediately saw that the conditions were not in our favor...So I do know something about staying safe in the Whites.
I might not be a local there, but I've been hiking there for a long time.
Thanks I mentioned that.
buckwheat
07-21-2009, 00:45
Pure B.S.. The SAR units in the Mount Washington area are among the world’s best and include some world class Everest climbers.
The authorities in NH were unprepared to mount a proper rescue; as evidenced by the fact that they had to bring a helicopter in from Maine.
You are debating citing authority; not fact. That reveals a lot about the strength you place in your own arguments (which is none).
The state of New Hampshire has a moral duty to protect its citizens and those it invites into its borders to hike its mountains. If it cannot or will not do that, then we need to elect and hire people who are willing and able to do that.
If the best NH has to offer is a helicopter from Maine, perhaps we should look to Maine for leadership in outdoor rescue.
Jim Adams
07-21-2009, 00:58
The authorities in NH were unprepared to mount a proper rescue; as evidenced by the fact that they had to bring a helicopter in from Maine.
You are debating citing authority; not fact. That reveals a lot about the strength you place in your own arguments (which is none).
The state of New Hampshire has a moral duty to protect its citizens and those it invites into its borders to hike its mountains. If it cannot or will not do that, then we need to elect and hire people who are willing and able to do that.
If the best NH has to offer is a helicopter from Maine, perhaps we should look to Maine for leadership in outdoor rescue.
OR they could just put a fence around the entire mountain chain with signs for no trespassing and tell all the tourists to just view from the valley...sounds like the safest answer to me!
Get real and accept some risk!
geek
The Old Fhart
07-21-2009, 01:13
buckwheat-"You are debating citing authority; not fact. That reveals a lot about the strength you place in your own arguments (which is none)."I personally know and have worked with some of the SAR people and know firsthand of their dedication and experience. In all your posts you have yet to say one single thing that makes sense or can be supported by facts.
Your laughable comments about New Hampshire's "air Fleet" and state "created" trails shows an appalling and total ignorance of all the facts.
The state of New Hampshire has a moral duty to protect its citizens and those it invites into its borders to hike its mountains.
Probably 90% of the people who need rescuing in NH are from Mass. :rolleyes::D
Homer&Marje
07-21-2009, 07:58
Probably 90% of the people who need rescuing in NH are from Mass. :rolleyes::D
Been hiking in NH for almost 15 years...I must just have good luck.
Must have got REAL lucky on my trips out west...considering the base elevation for all of my hikes was higher than Mt. Washington:D
...I must just have good luck.
:D
Better quit while you're ahead:D
woodsy: Probably 90% of the people who need rescuing in NH are from Mass. :rolleyes::D
A Massachusetts teenager says he will fight the $25,000 fine by New Hampshire for the cost of his mountain rescue.
Homer&Marje
07-21-2009, 08:23
Apparently the NH economy can't live without me:D Don't you remember from previous posts that all us Massatuseters do is come up there and buy yer cheap stuff.:rolleyes:
Mind you.... I was second on scene to a NH native pitching backwards and cracking his head open on Franconia Ridge.
Actually...I don't KNOW that he was from NH, the kid that was hiking/ climbing with was.
Rockhound
07-21-2009, 09:28
Simple solution. No rescues. The wilderness is enter at your own risk. If this were the case that kid would have made it out without being fined and those that don't make it out alive would just be speeding along natural selection. You can't bubble wrap the whole world. I wish they would stop trying to.
The New Hampshire tax code isn't broken. Its the bleeding-heart liberals from other states that come here to hike because the mountains are awesome but don't like the level of service that the state provides.
We have fire departments, but most of them are 100% volunteer. Up here, outside of the cities, its understood that the fire departments are here to save the cellar hole. We have police up here, but not in every town. Good ole Troop F in Coos county is responsible for most of the local roads as well as the state routes.
Providing free rescue to anyone that calls for SAR is NOT a service that New Hampshire provides. If you are from out of state and do not like it then please do not come and hike here. If you are from NH and do not like it, please lobby your state rep to change it.
Oh, and last time I checked, there wasn't a tourism campagn that said "New Hampshire, come hike here and call for SAR anytime... FREE OF CHARGE!"
As for if the law is fair or constitutional.. quite simply it is until it isn't.
Homer&Marje
07-21-2009, 09:37
The New Hampshire tax code isn't broken. Its the bleeding-heart liberals from other states that come here to hike because the mountains are awesome but don't like the level of service that the state provides.
We have fire departments, but most of them are 100% volunteer. Up here, outside of the cities, its understood that the fire departments are here to save the cellar hole. We have police up here, but not in every town. Good ole Troop F in Coos county is responsible for most of the local roads as well as the state routes.
Providing free rescue to anyone that calls for SAR is NOT a service that New Hampshire provides. If you are from out of state and do not like it then please do not come and hike here. If you are from NH and do not like it, please lobby your state rep to change it.
Oh, and last time I checked, there wasn't a tourism campagn that said "New Hampshire, come hike here and call for SAR anytime... FREE OF CHARGE!"
As for if the law is fair or constitutional.. quite simply it is until it isn't.
Actually our legal system works on a basis of it isn't until it is. The kid didn't call for SAR his parents did.
Don't provide the service, as I and others have mentioned before, I could care less. Just let people know when your going to stop doing SAR
Is the highway department going to fine me if I spin out on the Kancamangus Highway and mangle a guardrail that's there for my protection...no matter where I'm from?
The Old Fhart
07-21-2009, 09:47
Homer&Marje-"...The kid didn't call for SAR his parents did."So the reasoning is that because the kid didn't call SAR he is not responsible for the cost? In that case, the parents DID call for SAR so they are the ones responsible for the costs. Not much difference either way.
Homer&Marje-"Is the highway department going to fine me if I spin out on the Kancamangus Highway and mangle a guardrail that's there for my protection...no matter where I'm from?Years ago I remember a friend of mine having an accident where he took out a utility pole. He got a bill for the pole and replacement costs which he did have to pay.
Actually our legal system works on a basis of it isn't until it is. The kid didn't call for SAR his parents did.
Don't provide the service, as I and others have mentioned before, I could care less. Just let people know when your going to stop doing SAR
Is the highway department going to fine me if I spin out on the Kancamangus Highway and mangle a guardrail that's there for my protection...no matter where I'm from?
Actually - out legal system only works that way for innocence versus guilt. For the legislature, a law is a law until its deemed by the Supreme Court to not be a law.
And, we do in fact ADVERTISE that you could be held responsible for the cost of your rescue. We set up a website with that information:
http://www.hikesafe.com/index.php/rescue/anatomy_of_a_rescue/liability_statutes
As for your question about guardrails, there is no law currently on the books regarding the reimbursement for damaging a guardrail.
Homer&Marje
07-21-2009, 09:54
Actually - out legal system only works that way for innocence versus guilt. For the legislature, a law is a law until its deemed by the Supreme Court to not be a law.
And, we do in fact ADVERTISE that you could be held responsible for the cost of your rescue. We set up a website with that information:
http://www.hikesafe.com/index.php/rescue/anatomy_of_a_rescue/liability_statutes
As for your question about guardrails, there is no law currently on the books regarding the reimbursement for damaging a guardrail.
There shouldn't be a law regarding the reimbursement for ANY safety precaution and or service. That's my point. Or their should be a clearly defined negligence law regarding ALL negligent activities that result in the State having to pay money to make up for those said "negligent" activities.
There shouldn't be a law regarding the reimbursement for ANY safety precaution and or service. That's my point. Or their should be a clearly defined negligence law regarding ALL negligent activities that result in the State having to pay money to make up for those said "negligent" activities.
That is your opinion that this law shouldn't exist. We in New Hampshire disagree.
I don't understand your point that if there is a law about hiking negligent activities, therefore ALL negligent activities should have the same law. Its not a logical argument.
Homer&Marje
07-21-2009, 10:06
That is your opinion that this law shouldn't exist. We in New Hampshire disagree.
I don't understand your point that if there is a law about hiking negligent activities, therefore ALL negligent activities should have the same law. Its not a logical argument.
Yes it is because there are many more negligent activities/ thought processes that can lead to more widespread "damage" and could potentially cost the state much more in revenue
Yes it is because there are many more negligent activities/ thought processes that can lead to more widespread "damage" and could potentially cost the state much more in revenue
Thanks for your opinion, but I think we are doing just fine here in New Hampshire. How's that 6.5% sales tax treating you?
Homer&Marje
07-21-2009, 10:17
Thanks for your opinion, but I think we are doing just fine here in New Hampshire. How's that 6.5% sales tax treating you?
Just fine at least our state collects revenue like we should versus charging people for SAR.
I'm not saying our state is perfect....in no way, shape or form.
Just fine at least our state collects revenue like we should versus charging people for SAR.
I'm not saying our state is perfect....in no way, shape or form.
THANK YOU!! This is the heart of the matter. Like most people from Massachusetts, you are OK with paying more taxes to get more services. In New Hampshire, we want less taxes and less services.
New Hampshire isn't Massachusetts. I am sorry if you do not like the level of service that we provide, but if you want to hike in the Whites, then you ahve to deal with the service - or lack of - that we have to offer.
Please stop saying that New Hampshire should be more like Massachusetts, however.
Jim Adams
07-21-2009, 11:26
In Pennsylvania you will be charged cost for materials and labor for EACH guard rail that you damage, EACH foot of armco barrier and EACH phone / electric pole needing replacement. State law.
geek
Two Speed
07-21-2009, 11:33
Damn, dude, how fast were you hiking to damage guard rails, armco barriers and phone / electric poles? Hell, I'm kinda surprised anyone had the heuvos to hand you the bill if you were moving that fast.
Homer&Marje
07-21-2009, 11:34
THANK YOU!! This is the heart of the matter. Like most people from Massachusetts, you are OK with paying more taxes to get more services. In New Hampshire, we want less taxes and less services.
New Hampshire isn't Massachusetts. I am sorry if you do not like the level of service that we provide, but if you want to hike in the Whites, then you ahve to deal with the service - or lack of - that we have to offer.
Please stop saying that New Hampshire should be more like Massachusetts, however.
When did I ever say I didn't like the level of service? I hike in the Whites all the time and will continue to do so, all 4 seasons. I would hope that I would be considered not negligent if I ever have to use the SAR system of New Hampshire, but in no way am I bashing anyone's efforts, nor saying NH should be like MA. I have adamantly tried to keep this topic away from tax collecting policies and such..
Original argument that I had was about this kid being negligent or not. Simple as that...Never said I wanted to change ANYTHING about the wonderful state of New Hampshire, just a sense of civility towards those that visit you.
Jim Adams
07-21-2009, 11:35
Damn, dude, how fast were you hiking to damage guard rails, armco barriers and phone / electric poles? Hell, I'm kinda surprised anyone had the heuvos to hand you the bill if you were moving that fast.
You should have seen the bruises!!!!!!:banana
geek
Homer&Marje
07-21-2009, 11:35
Damn, dude, how fast were you hiking to damage guard rails, armco barriers and phone / electric poles? Hell, I'm kinda surprised anyone had the heuvos to hand you the bill if you were moving that fast.
Got to be faster than 3 mph I'd think...should try the speed record next year:D
Two Speed
07-21-2009, 11:36
Didn't know that guard rails, armco barriers and phone / electric poles bruised. Learn something new every day, I guess. :-?
Jim Adams
07-21-2009, 11:50
Didn't know that guard rails, armco barriers and phone / electric poles bruised. Learn something new every day, I guess. :-?
That's why you have to pay for them....discoloring!!!!!!!:D
geek
I don't understand your point that if there is a law about hiking negligent activities, therefore ALL negligent activities should have the same law. Its not a logical argument.
Hikers are a small enough group that the State can get away with exorbitant fines to recover costs from them. Drivers outnumber hikers, so have more political clout, and won't stand for it. Besides, drivers have insurance companies that will ultimately foot the bill, and they have even more clout.
In our society, everything revolves around money, and what you can get away with. Money begets power.
That said, I have no problem fining blatantly negligent hikers when unecessary SAR is called in. This case in no way qualifies as blatant negligence. Hope he fights this and wins. It will be a win for all of us. Can I get on the jury?
Original argument that I had was about this kid being negligent or not.
I had thought that NH was changing the standard fron negligent to reckless. Not sure if that went through though.
Legally the distinction matters.
Two Speed
07-21-2009, 13:17
That's why you have to pay for them....discoloring!!!!!!!:D
geekOh, man, that's total bureaucratic BS. Everyone knows those kinda bruises heal in a coupla days. "The Man" is always trying to screw us.
Sleepy the Arab
07-21-2009, 19:44
Please pay attention to my posts if your going to discuss the topic with me.
Not until you state something intelligent.
I'd like to draw your attention back to my initial post on the subject, the point of which has flown right over your head. This was not one error in judgment leading to SAR. This was a series of bad decisions leading to his rescue.
I'll forgive you if you haven't read it. It must be hard with your head so firmly lodged in your posterior.
Blue Jay
07-21-2009, 20:04
The state of New Hampshire has a moral duty to protect its citizens and those it invites into its borders to hike its mountains. If it cannot or will not do that, then we need to elect and hire people who are willing and able to do that.
Is that one of the 10 commandments? States do not have morals although some have laws that they sometimes follow. For someone from Mass. (or even worse from my state of NY) to complain about any other state is insane. By the way since we do not live in NH, "we" can't vote there. I'm not surprised you did not know that. Oh, also I've been to NH many times but never got the invite.
The Scribe
07-21-2009, 20:14
please Stop Saying That New Hampshire Should Be More Like Massachusetts, However.
Amen!!!!!!!!!!
Homer&Marje
07-21-2009, 20:36
Not until you state something intelligent.
I'd like to draw your attention back to my initial post on the subject, the point of which has flown right over your head. This was not one error in judgment leading to SAR. This was a series of bad decisions leading to his rescue.
I'll forgive you if you haven't read it. It must be hard with your head so firmly lodged in your posterior.
Yes it was a series of bad decisions that led him to finding SAR looking for him, 45 minutes from the top of Mt. Washington.
Not negligence.
Yes it was a series of bad decisions that led him to finding SAR looking for him, 45 minutes from the top of Mt. Washington.
Not negligence.
Actually, more like 2 days and 45 minutes late, but who's counting.
Homer&Marje
07-22-2009, 07:41
Actually, more like 2 days and 45 minutes late, but who's counting.
Thanks I know what I said....I said 45 minutes from the top of Mt. Washington he found the SAR crew that was looking for him.
In this situation....had there been so SAR, 99% likely the kid would have been fine and saved himself.
Doesn't sound like it's worth it to run a NH SAR program if it's going to cost this much to operate. Especially since no one in their right mind will pay that kind of fine for..."Making a series of mistakes" That's for you sleepy.
Don't want anyone to think I haven't been paying attention:rolleyes:
Here is an article with some interesting follow up info from the Boston Herald.
Negligent’ hiker gets $25,000 bill
By Katy Jordan
Saturday, July 18, 2009 - Updated 3d 19h ago
A plucky Eagle Scout who probably should get his own episode on the Discovery Channel’s “Survivorman” instead has been hit with a $25,234 rescue bill - after he lasted three days in wintry conditions with an injured ankle on Mount Washington.
Halifax Scout Scott Mason, 17, built a rock shelter, waded across icy rivers and started a fire with hand-sanitizer gel. Some might think he deserves a merit badge for coming through his ordeal alive in April.
Instead, he’s being stuck with what is reportedly the highest New Hampshire rescue bill to date - 25 large - for a two-day search by dozens of rescue workers and a helicopter. The New Hampshire Fish and Game Department has given him 30 days to cough up the cash.
As impressive as his survival skills may sound, Fish and Game officials said Mason acted with negligence and, in accordance with New Hampshire law, is liable for the cost of his own rescue. Prior to 2008, reimbursement was required only in cases of recklessness.
Maj. Tim Acerno, who oversees law enforcement for Fish and Game in the Granite State and headed Mason’s rescue in April, said Mason “was negligent” in attempting to hike an “aggressive” trail in wintry conditions, and then taking a “difficult route even after spraining his ankle.”.
The official response appears to contradict Acerno’s own earlier statements to the Patriot Ledger that Mason’s solo hike was“ambitious,” but “once he was lost, he did everything right.”
Mason’s mother declined comment yesterday under the advice of legal counsel.
Halifax Boy Scout Troop 39 at the time called him their “most experienced hiker” in a statement, saying that “he put all of his training and skills in order to come through the ordeal.”
New Hampshire Fish and Game performed at least 131 rescues from July 1, 2008, to June 30, 2009. Of those, Acerno said, the state has sought 40 reimbursements for incidents deemed “reckless” or “negligent.”
“When people are negligent, they will be billed, and the word is out there,” Acerno said. He added that Mason’s bill was the highest he’d ever seen. They usually range from a couple of hundred to several thousand dollars. Acerno also said that the reimbursement law doesn’t appear to have dissuaded hikers.
Massachusetts law does not require parties to pay for any search and rescues, according to the Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, which performed 65 search-and-rescue operations in 2008.
I was up on the ridge that day with WB's Ryan207 doing hut-checks at Lakes of the Clouds and Madison. We left at least an hour later than the kid did, did essentially the same hike, and got out of there well before dark. Don't really remember the hike up, the ridge was pretty laid-back with a lot of day use (skiers and hikers), and we slid down Madison on the way out. It was a gorgeous hike and felt like a summer day on the ridge. I usually avoid hiking in snow and hadn't done much in the way of physical activity through the winter, and at the end of the day I was tired but fine. Now, if I had needed a SAR, I would have been fined for sure and couldn't complain. I had a fleece, a hat, some food and water, and crampons, but little overnight/emergency gear, and I can't get a fire going to save my life (literally). What can I say- I guess I'm just your average M***hole.
Like the article said, it was an aggressive hike, and he did start a bit late. But that's not negligence- that's taking a calculated risk. They're not the same thing. He clearly knew the risk he was taking, or he wouldn't have had the gear or mental preparation he ended up needing to come out of it ok. He took a risk and he was well-prepared to deal with the situation he got himself into. I don't see how they can fine him based on negligence. I was negligent that day. He was prepared.
What ever happened to personal responsibility? Ask the parents if they consider $25K for the rescue extreme when considering the alternative.
"Maj. Tim Acerno, who oversees law enforcement for Fish and Game in the Granite State and headed Mason’s rescue in April, said Mason “was negligent” in attempting to hike an “aggressive” trail in wintry conditions, and then taking a “difficult route even after spraining his ankle.”.
The official response appears to contradict Acerno’s own earlier statements to the Patriot Ledger that Mason’s solo hike was“ambitious,” but “once he was lost, he did everything right.”
Sounds like the State has changed their opinion after talking to the financial folks.
I think I'll stay away from New Hampshire until they come to their senses. Plenty of other beautiful areas to hike, too many to ever see them all in a lifetime anyway, no sense risking these arbitrary decisions.
What ever happened to personal responsibility? Ask the parents if they consider $25K for the rescue extreme when considering the alternative.
Or parental. I shudder to think if the old man had to come after me up there, if he hadn't put the "I don't think so," on it first.
Jim Adams
07-22-2009, 17:29
The kid should charge SAR $25K for interfering with his wilderness experience...interference is irresponsible!
geek
Homer&Marje
07-22-2009, 18:57
:p:p:p:p:p:p:p
Wise Old Owl
07-27-2009, 22:31
And the voices of reason proclaimed.......
Lot of experience on both sides of this argument that's all I have to say
So you hear voices? :eek: If you are wearing hearing aid's it time to take the batteries out!
Come on review the above posts -
This is a 20 something child. Who screwed up. it happens. Lets all just learn from the mistake and move on.
Example
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25786381-2702,00.html
Homer&Marje
07-28-2009, 08:24
So you hear voices? :eek: If you are wearing hearing aid's it time to take the batteries out!
Come on review the above posts -
This is a 20 something child. Who screwed up. it happens. Lets all just learn from the mistake and move on.
Example
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25786381-2702,00.html
The voices told me to stay home and sharpen the knives....:D I've been learning from a 20 year olds mistakes since...I was 20:rolleyes:
This is a 20 something child. Who screwed up. it happens. Lets all just learn from the mistake and move on.
There are consequences for your actions. I feel bad for this kid, but the government isn't an insurance company. Hopefully other 17 year olds will learn from his mistake and not cost themselves and their families 25K.
beakerman
07-28-2009, 12:19
Just read this whole thread.
One immediate point: What I find remarkable is that this kid is an Eagle Scout and was presumably trained and led in scouting and hiking in New England.
Did nobody, at any level, ever tell him about the dangers of bushwhacking and leaving established Trails in the Presidentials? Did nobody ever tell him how reckless and foolhardy it is to do this in winter?
Sure seems to me that some Scout leader dropped the ball somewhere. I hope this episode proves instructive for Massachusetts Scout leaders.
And as to the folks who are jumping all over the State officials and rescuers for taking too hard a line on this: Search and Rescue can be a very dangerous thing. In the White Mountains, in wintertime, it can be extraordinarily dangerous. Resucuers put their own lives on the line all the time and in fact, at least one of Mt. Washington's many fatalities was a rescuer.
The law that permits the State of New Hampshire to fine people in certain cases is, in my opinion, long overdue, and I'm not sure that everyone who has posted here is actually familiar with the law. When choosing whether or not to fine people, the decision to do so is limited to those situations where it is deemed that the rescue is needless, and is caused by ignorance, recklessness, carelessness, and irresponsibility on the part of the party that ends up being rescued.
Or to put it simply, if the rescuse becomes necessary because of questionable or careless behavior on the part of the guy getting the rescue, then the State reserves the right to charge him for it.
And it seems to me that in this case, the application of the law was entirely justified.
I'm somwhat with Jack on this. As a scout master Ican tell you that you are supposed to make a plan, inform someone of said plan, know the conditions as best as possible, prepare for said conditions and do your best to stick to the plan. Sure things change--storms move in and such but there comes a time when judgement must come into play.
At some point this young man made a mistake in judgement. It could have been the decision to attempt a 17 mile hike in one day or continue on a twisted ankle or to take an unknown, unfamiliar route downas a short cut. I can't comment on which one was the crittical one because I have planned and failed at big days, I've hiked on a twisted ankle and I've taken an unplanned shortcut when times indicated it was the better course of action. However I know my llimits of endurance, pain and my familiarity with the conditions and I try my best not to take on too much at one time--a goal too far I stop or turn around, an injury if bad enough I will stop and turn around depending on where I am on the trail--If I'm near my goal I'll make it and then start back but I won't combine things. Compound problems are just that problems heaped on problems and lead to serious issues. I make it a point never to take on double failures. NASA plans for double and triple failures on many systems hikers don't have that luxury--we have but one set of legs and if they are not working properly then it's time to abort.
I don't really think the fine is fair. I say his local council should make him redo his backpacking merit bagde (failure to comply with his trek plan) but let him keep his wilderness survival badge because he did fairly well for himself on that front. He is guilty of lack of planning. Give him a slap on the wrist and send him on his way.
Give him a slap on the wrist and send him on his way.
I disagree. But then, I am not from NH.
Jack Tarlin
07-28-2009, 13:29
When a Rescue team goes out in the White Mountains in wintertime, it is not only an expensive thing to do, but very often, a dangerous one.
This kid's recklessness cost a lot of money and put lives at risk.
I do not think a mere "slap on the wrist" is either an appropriate or a wise way to resolve this.
beakerman
07-28-2009, 14:35
When a Rescue team goes out in the White Mountains in wintertime, it is not only an expensive thing to do, but very often, a dangerous one.
This kid's recklessness cost a lot of money and put lives at risk.
I do not think a mere "slap on the wrist" is either an appropriate or a wise way to resolve this.
Does NH have a law that allows for fines like this when someone drives inteh winter and gets into an accident? Driving in NH during the winter is a very dangerous thing and when an accident happens, and they do wuite frequently, an emergency response team goes out into those conditions which is expensive and dangeerous too. Why not have excesive fines, applied unequally to motorists too? Does every rescue get charged this fine or just the ones that someone feels was preventable? All accidents are preventable to some extent.
I agree though that some scout master needs to take a hard look at what they are putting out.
By the ridiculously broad scope of this law, and decisions based on the opinion of very interested parties who stand to profit from this decision, any solo thru-hiker who "misjudges", becomes injured, or looses the trail for whatever reason in NH could (and I believe will) be deemed irresponsible and subject to a fine of 10's of thousands of dollars. Read any guide or publication on hiking and you will find that it's irresponsible to hike alone.
A very slippery slope, and for this reason, I will avoid NH until the courts force them to come to their senses, as I stated earlier - plenty of other beautiful places to visit.
Who are the "...interested parties who stand to profit.."?
"Maj. Tim Acerno, who oversees law enforcement for Fish and Game in the Granite State and headed Mason’s rescue in April, said Mason “was negligent” in attempting to hike an “aggressive” trail in wintry conditions, and then taking a “difficult route even after spraining his ankle.”.
The official response appears to contradict Acerno’s own earlier statements to the Patriot Ledger that Mason’s solo hike was“ambitious,” but “once he was lost, he did everything right.”
____________________________
New Hampshire Fish and Game performed at least 131 rescues from July 1, 2008, to June 30, 2009. Of those, Acerno said, the state has sought 40 reimbursements for incidents deemed “reckless” or “negligent.”
“When people are negligent, they will be billed, and the word is out there,” Acerno said. He added that Mason’s bill was the highest he’d ever seen. They usually range from a couple of hundred to several thousand dollars.
_______________________________
Sounds to me like Fish and Game gets to decide who is negligent, and Fish and Game gets to collect the reimbursement. Not hardly an impartial decision.
Well, it must really suck to be part of SAR'S on regular basis, risk your life under often brutal conditions, make all kinds of sacrifices to go out and save lives and then get accused of being part of some kind of grand conspiracy to profiteer.
I'm quite often part of that SAR here in Michigan, as a volunteer for MANY years.
I've not said that the idea of the law is flawed, but, apparently, the way it is written it is open to such arbitrary interpretation and application that it is inherently unfair and subject to abuse. Especially when the people who determine if it applies, and to what extent, are the same people who will benefit from any fines. If you think that an emergency service is not capable of and won't, in fact, interpret the law to their favor, then you have not been around very long. They most certainly will.
I'm quite often part of that SAR here in Michigan, as a volunteer for MANY years.
I've not said that the idea of the law is flawed, but, apparently, the way it is written it is open to such arbitrary interpretation and application that it is inherently unfair and subject to abuse. Especially when the people who determine if it applies, and to what extent, are the same people who will benefit from any fines. If you think that an emergency service is not capable of and won't, in fact, interpret the law to their favor, then you have not been around very long. They most certainly will.
OK, I get your point. Not sure an independent panel of some sort would make a difference in a little state like NH (note: I live in a little state) with the politics and such, but I get your point.
Jim Adams
07-28-2009, 18:37
Well, it must really suck to be part of SAR'S on regular basis, risk your life under often brutal conditions, make all kinds of sacrifices to go out and save lives and then get accused of being part of some kind of grand conspiracy to profiteer.
Doesn't suck at all...some systems utilize common sense in their decisions and sometimes other systems lack it!:-?
geek
I don't have any problem with the idea of fining the kid, but 25G's is just way to much for a 18 year old to pay.
way to much.
Panzer
Lone Wolf
07-28-2009, 21:12
I don't have any problem with the idea of fining the kid, but 25G's is just way to much for a 18 year old to pay.
way to much.
Panzer
he didn't ask to be rescued. he should pay nada
I don't have any problem with the idea of fining the kid, but 25G's is just way to much for a 18 year old to pay.
way to much.
Panzer
Someday we may see fines for doing such irresponsible things as:
1) Hiking alone
2) Leaving the Cell phone home
3) Not wearing proper footwear
We may also see our fellow couch potatoes unwilling to pay for any rescues precipitated by backcountry skiing, walking and venturing off into the forest (where most anything can happen).
We may also see a day where unelected government officials can levy fines without due process. Wait, we already have that one.
There are consequences for your actions. I feel bad for this kid, but the government isn't an insurance company.
They wern't supposed to be, but this 20 year old kid is going to be paying a large chunk of his earnings into social programs his whole life to cover people's poor decisions, failure to plan for life, etc, after being kicked hard in the nuts for a hiking trip at 20.
The kid should charge SAR $25K for interfering with his wilderness experience...interference is irresponsible!
geek
We're the government, and we're here to help! :D
Jim Adams
07-28-2009, 22:13
We're the government, and we're here to help! :D
He should have stayed home, dropped out of school, quit his job and knocked up a 16 y/o chick....the government would have PAID him!:D
geek
Homer&Marje
07-28-2009, 22:51
On a different topic, I have another thread going about it as well....I called 911 for this kid on top of Franconia Ridge on 7/12/09....This was just sent to me as an update from one of the SAR folks via PM.
Hi- Two EMTs were dispatched immediately (one from NH Fish and Game and one from Pemi Valley Search and Rescue), followed by a SAR litter team of 18 people. I carried the litter up reaching Kyle on the Falling Waters Trail about 1.7 miles from the bottom. We carried him to his car, and his brothers drove him to the hospital. He was in relatively good shape by the time we got down to the Lafayette parking area, all things considered! I don't know any more than that.
Being the first person on the scene and asked to call 911 by his brothers, I did so while other hikers applied an ace bandage to stop the bleeding from his head wound. In this case...it was stupidity and negligence that caused his fall. By the way, the rock he fell off is easily accessible by the trail.
Feel free to comment...I watched as he fell and cracked his head open
This is what happened.
http://lh5.ggpht.com/_ldP-jp9aBzY/SmD0s8H1j8I/AAAAAAAACcA/DauBlIW_sj0/s512/SDC11631.JPG
Note to self: When going to NH, don't tell anybody and don't sign into any logs.
dessertrat
07-29-2009, 17:37
They should publicize the fines more. RIght now the only ones who hear about them are hiking groups like ours, VFFT, ADK forums, etc. But we ain't the problem.
News of $25,000 fines need to hit the TV news in Boston, make people think twice about hiking w/o proper gear, and using common sense when situations develop.
There will always be the ultra-macho, I-said-I-was-going-to-summit-today-and-bygod-I-will, never-turn-around kind of guy, but most people (I would hope) will think twice if they think about how much money it might cost them.
It would save lives, too. Brenda Cox might be alive if she and her husband had listened to the three separate descending groups that warned of deteriorating conditions on Lafayette and turned back. Thoughts of paying $25,000 might have been enough to make them turn back when common sense failed.
I have to disagree.
First, thoughts of a fine might keep some people from going out at all, and that would lessen support for the trails and parks.
Second, thoughts of a fine might cost lives, in that someone in a situation might not call for help, even when they can, because they rationalize that it is not so serious, due to fear of paying a fine.
This whole line of thought is akin to saying that people might be more careful with fire if the fire department were to send a bill to anyone whose house caught on fire. It might be true, but even if it is true, it might still be bad public policy, not to mention just wrong.
Jack Tarlin
07-29-2009, 17:46
If someone makes the willfull decision not to call for help, well that's pretty much THEIR decision.
And if worries about a possible fine keeps people at home, well so much the better. Areas such as the White Mountains are crowded enough already, and in truth, anyone that fearful about their trail smarts and preparedness level should probably forego their trip until they ARE better informed and more confident. The only folks who might re-act to legislation such as New Hampshire's by electing to stay at home are probably folks better off at home in the first place.
Jim Adams
07-29-2009, 20:13
I have to disagree.
First, thoughts of a fine might keep some people from going out at all, and that would lessen support for the trails and parks.
Second, thoughts of a fine might cost lives, in that someone in a situation might not call for help, even when they can, because they rationalize that it is not so serious, due to fear of paying a fine.
This whole line of thought is akin to saying that people might be more careful with fire if the fire department were to send a bill to anyone whose house caught on fire. It might be true, but even if it is true, it might still be bad public policy, not to mention just wrong.
Fire departments are beginning to charge for their fire fighting services.:eek:
geek
dessertrat
07-29-2009, 20:56
Fire departments are beginning to charge for their fire fighting services.:eek:
geek
The police should start to do so also, then.
Jim Adams
07-29-2009, 21:02
Police are already paid. Most fire departments are volunteer....sounds stupid but alot of them here in Pa. are having trouble meetings costs since smoking was outlawed at bingo...starting to charge for firefighting to stay in the black.
geek
he didn't ask to be rescued. he should pay nada
Kid is 17 - still a "child" according to the law. Parents called, they are legally responsible for him.
The Old Fhart
07-29-2009, 22:01
New Hampshire isn't the only state that recoups SAR costs and it isn't new. Here is a long quote from 2002 concerning Oregon.
When a Redmond man became stranded while trying to rappel into the steep Crooked River Gorge in the middle of a cold winter night three years ago, rescuers spent about four hours lowering him to safety.
Not only was the man unprepared, inappropriately dressed and packing only 250 feet of rope to reach the bottom of the 365-foot cliff, but authorities suspected he had also been drinking. The man jammed the descent ring on his rappelling gear and was left hanging about 100 feet from the canyon floor for about seven hours until rescuers could lower him to safety.
Search and rescue crews from Jefferson and Deschutes counties eased the man from his precarious position and slapped him with a charge of disorderly conduct.
But should he also have footed a portion of the bill for the cost of the rescue for disregard for his own safety and the danger he created for rescuers?
This case and many like it are times agencies could consider charging rescue subjects for a small portion of their services. A 4-year-old Oregon law gives search agencies the authority to charge subjects of search and rescues up to $500 a piece when "reasonable care" was not used and when "applicable laws were violated."
But in the vast majority of cases, the agencies do not send a bill.
The question of whether to send a bill to subjects of search and rescue missions when plain ignorance is displayed, when a lack of care is tossed out the window or when laws are broken is not as easy as it might seem.
Search and rescue officials maintain that regularly charging for their services would cause people to hesitate to call for help out of worry of being billed. Searchers fear such a delay would cause people to get themselves even deeper into life-threatening situations and make rescues more difficult and dangerous for crews.
But officials say the reimbursement law is a tool they will begin use in appropriate cases to recover lost taxpayer dollars and send a message to persons who place search and rescue personnel, themselves and others in danger.
While rescue units have a high sympathy threshold for the lost and unlucky, they are sometimes irked by the cases they encounter. A few examples:
• A search for three hikers caught in a snowstorm on Mount Hood cost taxpayers about $10,000 in March 1995. More than 100 people searched for the three college students, who in fact were well-equipped, warm and safe. The three waited the storm out in their tent playing cards. The hikers were not carrying a cellular-phone or radio locator unit. The incident prompted the 1995 reimbursement legislation.
• Local search crews responded to a call several years ago for a rockhound who was reported missing in the Horse Ridge area. Rescuers mobilized and a search was activated. Crews found out they were searching in vain - the man had not gone rock hunting, and in fact was not even in the state.
• In 1993 two adults drowned and three children were rescued after going over Dillon Falls on the Deschutes River near Bend. The inexperienced rafters went over the falls, rated as nearly impossible to navigate, despite a sign that warned of the danger ahead.
None of those cases resulted in a billing.
But in May 1996, Deschutes County became the first search and rescue agency to use Oregon's reimbursement law.
Rescuers spent two hours fishing two of five Portland-area men out of the rapids of Benham Falls on the Deschutes River. The party attempted to ride a class VI rapid despite warnings from bystanders and signs.
The men shared a $1,560 bill for the cost of the rescue.
Some experts agree with Oregon's law in principle, but say it is impractical to administer.
Georges Kleinbaum, state search and rescue coordinator with the Oregon State Police division of emergency management, says the reimbursement law was rushed into the Legislature in response to the 1995 search and rescue mission on Mount Hood and not supported by Oregon sheriffs.
"They were on the right track with wanting to be able to charge people, but I think the whole thing needed a little more work before they chiseled it in stone," said Terry Silbaugh, former coordinator of Deschutes County's unit.
Policies vary among public agencies routinely involved in search and rescue missions.
J.D. Swed, a representative of the National Association for Search and Rescue, said most states have some type of mechanism in place to seek recovery of .funds for missions where negligence or lack of care is shown.
For instance, in California agencies can seek up to $10,000 in a civil lawsuit for costs associated with search and, rescue. However, in such a case the search and rescue agency must prove "gross negligence," which is hard to do and has not been tested in court, according to Bill Fertig, a corporal with. the San Bernardino County Sheriffs Department volunteer. services unit.
Swed, who is in charge of all search and rescue operations in Denali National Park in. Alaska, said National Park Service search and rescues all are funded by tax dollars. There is no provision to charge people,. although park service authorities do occasionally cite persons for disorderly conduct.
Other agencies' policies:
The U.S. Coast Guard goes after search and rescue costs when it receives "hoax calls" that result in a full-scale response, said Shelly Freier, a U.S. Coast Guard public relations spokeswoman. Such cases' could include a phony Mayday call or when flairs are launched for no emergency purpose.
• The U.S. Forest Service can only charge for damage done to government property, and not for any costs associated with rescue.
• Fire departments can, by state statute, recover costs other than patient care, such as personnel time and equipment, in cases of blatant disregard.
• Ski areas, such as Mount Bachelor, don't mess around when it comes to skiers and snowboarders who explore ungroomed snow. Kathy Degree, vice president of marketing at Mount Bachelor, said they charge a minimum of $1,000 an hour for each search, whether that search lasts an hour or 24 hours.
One non-governmental agency, Air Life of Oregon, bills non members for rescue services. The nonprofit organization, which provides air ambulance service to a 70,000 square mile area in Central and Eastern Oregon, is expensive if patients are not enrolled members.
Patients are only charged if they are actually transported..
The typical Air Life mission costs in excess of $5,000. Two airplanes and a helicopter are available to respond to the "worst of the worst," said Vern Bartley, Air Life of Oregon director.
Annual memberships at $45. for a family can ensure that Air Life and insurance providers will pick up the, bulk of the bill. About 20 percent of the calls Air Life responds involve enrolled members.
Search and rescue missions are not cheap, often stretching into the thousands of dollars. The major costs are calculated in staff time and equipment. those are actual costs that Oregon search and rescue agencies can seek.
While rescue units have a high sympathy threshold for the lost and unlucky, they are sometimes irked by the cases they encounter. A few examples:
• A search for three hikers caught in a snowstorm on Mount Hood cost taxpayers about $10,000 in March 1995. More than 100 people searched for the three college students, who in fact were well-equipped, warm and safe. The three waited the storm out in their tent playing cards. The hikers were not carrying a cellular-phone or radio locator unit. The incident prompted the 1995 reimbursement legislation.
Undoubtedly there could be more to this tale than encapsulated above.
Even so, this summary supports the idea that we should be careful what we wish for.
Homer&Marje
07-29-2009, 22:35
Kid is 17 - still a "child" according to the law. Parents called, they are legally responsible for him.
According to the court system a 17 year old is an adult.
As I recall, somewhere south of Concord there's a toll booth on the interstate where the State of New Hampshire collects a toll of $0.75 or $1.00, it's been a while since I've driven through that area. Increase the toll by $0.10 and dedicate the extra revenue to SAR, volunteer rescue and medivac helecopter funding.
Almost everyone (resident and tourist) pays an additional nominal fee, and everyone (resident and tourist) potentially benefits from the additional services.
Seems like a better idea than randomly issuing massive fines to kids who can't pay and their parents who likely won't pay. It appears to me that the only people who'll make any money from this mess are the lawyers.
people who are fined for sexual assault are typically fined far less then $25,000.
Drunk Driving is PA fines only $300 for first offense. No one seems to get fined $25,000.
1st Offense
Probation no longer than 6 months;
$300 fine;
Attend Alcohol Highway Safety School; and
Comply with the Drug and Alcohol treatment requirements
2nd Offense
Mandatory 5 days in jail, but may be up to 60 days;
Fine between $300 and $2,500;
Attend Alcohol Highway Safety School;
Loss of License for 1 year;
Ignition Interlock system in car for 1 year;
Full Drug and Alcohol assessment
3rd Offense
Mandatory 10 days in jail, but may be up to 2 years;
Fine between $500 and $5,000;
Loss of License for 1 year;
Ignition Interlock system in car for 1 year;
Full Drug and Alcohol assessment
Panzer
Fine a kid $25000.00 with full knowledge that there's no way he could possibly pay, then when he doesn't, have the the State attorney file for a judgement. Now the kid can't get a loan for college has trouble getting a car loan, can't get a mortgage, and has his pay garnished for the next 15 years. WELL DONE! We taught that Eagle Scout scumbag a lesson, let's see if he comes back for more.
Why not take a reasonable course: Fine the kid $500.00 (an amount he might reasonable be expected to afford). Require the kid to successfully complete an EMT or similar class at his expense. Require the kid to serve 200 hours of community service in NH related to SAR or public safety.
He's paid a price, learned a lesson and will probably be a better citizen. Isn't that the idea?
Jim Adams
07-30-2009, 00:13
I'm having a bad week so sorry for being so harsh and I hope I don't offend but why not make everybody on welfare get a job and use that money for parks, recreation and SAR?
geek
The Old Fhart
07-30-2009, 00:16
Panzer1-"people who are fined for sexual assault are typically fined far less then $25,000....This $25,000 is a bill to recover actual costs of the rescue, not a fine in the usual sense of the word. People who cause personal harm or property damage may be found criminally not guilty but lose huge civil suits. The standard from the revised SAR law is the difference between "beyond a shadow of a doubt" and just negligent. The example you used is a criminal act and doesn't apply here.
If someone makes the willfull decision not to call for help, well that's pretty much THEIR decision.
And if worries about a possible fine keeps people at home, well so much the better. Areas such as the White Mountains are crowded enough already, and in truth, anyone that fearful about their trail smarts and preparedness level should probably forego their trip until they ARE better informed and more confident. The only folks who might re-act to legislation such as New Hampshire's by electing to stay at home are probably folks better off at home in the first place.
I will stay away - it has absolutely NOTHING to do with my skills, everything to do with NH unfair and arbitrary law. That means I will not be buying any meals, gasoline, shuttles, hotels, etc. Drive tourism away and the state will loose.
Homer&Marje
07-30-2009, 08:14
As I recall, somewhere south of Concord there's a toll booth on the interstate where the State of New Hampshire collects a toll of $0.75 or $1.00, it's been a while since I've driven through that area. Increase the toll by $0.10 and dedicate the extra revenue to SAR, volunteer rescue and medivac helecopter funding.
Almost everyone (resident and tourist) pays an additional nominal fee, and everyone (resident and tourist) potentially benefits from the additional services.
Seems like a better idea than randomly issuing massive fines to kids who can't pay and their parents who likely won't pay. It appears to me that the only people who'll make any money from this mess are the lawyers.
Not a bad plan, although you'd have to really crunch the numbers...I assume the $1 toll would go up about 25% At least for that to work...I would still pay it, would not care about a quarter extra knowing, even though I am plenty experienced, that a SAR won't cost me 5 figures.
This $25,000 is a bill to recover actual costs of the rescue, not a fine in the usual sense of the word. People who cause personal harm or property damage may be found criminally not guilty but lose huge civil suits. The standard from the revised SAR law is the difference between "beyond a shadow of a doubt" and just negligent. The example you used is a criminal act and doesn't apply here.
I honestly don't know...but are these cases even being deliberated by a jury or a conglomeration of ones peers of any kind? Or is it the director or SAR who is in charge of the budget sitting there with a stamp that says negligent on so far 1/3 of the cases put up for review?
I will stay away - it has absolutely NOTHING to do with my skills, everything to do with NH unfair and arbitrary law. That means I will not be buying any meals, gasoline, shuttles, hotels, etc. Drive tourism away and the state will loose.
I spent aprox. $3,000 this year in NH. Pretty average for me going up there for most of my short vacations, weekend hikes, and other things. As a whole, let's say I spend $3000 a year in NH over the next 15 years going to NH whenever I can, not to go shopping or avoid the Mass Sales tax...but just as an enthusiast of visiting the state.
If I stop going to NH because of this law, $45,000 in state revenue over the next 15 years is lost for sure because I can't risk getting charged some exorbinant amount for an SAR if I, or a family member needs it.
I've already decided to take the brother in law somewhere else next summer because even a 14 year old said... "That's a stupid law and it doesn't even make sense how much they are fining people"
Kid's can figure this **** out....
The Old Fhart
07-30-2009, 09:24
Homer&Marje-"I honestly don't know...but are these cases even being deliberated by a jury or a conglomeration of ones peers of any kind? Or is it the director or SAR who is in charge of the budget sitting there with a stamp that says negligent on so far 1/3 of the cases put up for review?"
When one has a jury trial, the jury of one's peers is instructed on the law by the judge and the facts in the case by experts on both sides. If SAR recovery costs were figured that way the court would get the actual cost of the rescue from the agencies involved, which in this case is $25,238, and if the jury found the person guilty as the law is written, the court would order the person to pay the bill.
As I understand the way it is now, the N.H. Attorney General’s Office is ultimately responsible for determining whether to push for reimbursement following a mission. After last year a bill altered the language from “recklessly” to “negligently,” which makes it easier to seek reimbursement for rescues. This is why we haven’t seen cases like this in the past. I suspect we will see more in the future and a lot may depend on what happens legally in this case. Whether the decisions were made by juries or as it is now by the State’s AG, I suspect the outcome would be the same in most cases.
While I think everyone is in agreement in $25,238 is a lot of money, if you went to a hospital and needed a liver transplant (or whatever), they wouldn’t say: “because you didn’t do anything to cause this damage to your liver we aren’t going to charge you for this operation.” That isn’t the way it works.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Oh, and for those who have claimed N.H. wants to drive away outsiders, N.H. doesn't play favorites when it comes to who they feel is to blame. Here is a quote about 2 SAR events from a year ago.
"The fact that the two Virginia hikers were able to escape unscathed while the earlier incident involving the two New Hampshire hikers had such a tragic outcome can be attributed to a few main factors, according to Bogardus. For one thing, Obert and McCay had more mountaineering experience than Fredrickson and Osborne. For another, the Virginia men were much better equipped to deal with adverse conditions. They had extra clothing, crampons, snowshoes and a cooking stove, along with navigational aids like GPS units, maps and a compass. Although they had only planned on a day hike, they were prepared to deal with overnight emergencies. Fredrickson and Osborne, by contrast, had little in the way of equipment and provisions. "
Homer&Marje
07-30-2009, 09:43
Thank you for pointing that out TOF. It explains my point in this case perfectly.....
"For another, the Virginia men were much better equipped to deal with adverse conditions. They had extra clothing, crampons, snowshoes and a cooking stove, along with navigational aids like GPS units, maps and a compass. Although they had only planned on a day hike, they were prepared to deal with overnight emergencies."
The kid planned on a day hike but he was prepared for adverse conditions...hence why he should never have been considered negligent, reckless or anything but a kid that screwed up, survived and would have saved himself had there been no SAR.
I'm sorry...I really just think this is an obvious case where the kid was prepared. Had a Bivvy, emergency blankets, fire starting tools and enough food that he didn't starve...and still had enough energy to climb up Mt Washington..and back to the point before. Could have gone down the Auto Road and stayed himself a night in the resort:rolleyes:
Seriously I don't even know why this has been such a debate.
Thank you for pointing that out TOF. It explains my point in this case perfectly.....
"For another, the Virginia men were much better equipped to deal with adverse conditions. They had extra clothing, crampons, snowshoes and a cooking stove, along with navigational aids like GPS units, maps and a compass. Although they had only planned on a day hike, they were prepared to deal with overnight emergencies."
The kid planned on a day hike but he was prepared for adverse conditions...hence why he should never have been considered negligent, reckless or anything but a kid that screwed up, survived and would have saved himself had there been no SAR.
I'm sorry...I really just think this is an obvious case where the kid was prepared. Had a Bivvy, emergency blankets, fire starting tools and enough food that he didn't starve...and still had enough energy to climb up Mt Washington..and back to the point before. Could have gone down the Auto Road and stayed himself a night in the resort:rolleyes:
Seriously I don't even know why this has been such a debate.
This all just points out how arbitrary this law is. It can be applied any way the officials want, depending on how they choose to "spin" the facts. I'm quite sure this is a "test" case, to try to establish the limits of what the public and courts, will accept. Like I said earlier, I hope the young man's family fights this. Every case like it that is allowed to stand will strengthen and embolden the officials to expand the circumstances where these fines are levied.
If you don't think they will eventually decide that hiking with what many consider a lightweight pack, or solo hiking is negligent, then you are kidding yourself. In this society money talks, and the NH legislature has opened a huge source of revenue for the state - they will take full advantage at all our expense.
If i were paying a quarter million dollars per year to rescue not only injured hikers, but also negligent hikers(those who are not properly prepared and have no business being out there) I would be looking to recoup some expenses too.
If you don't like the way NH is handling the continued onslaught of unprepared hikers, and the shoe fits, just better stay away!
Jack Tarlin
07-30-2009, 13:09
Woodsy gets it, and gets it perfectly.
Homer&Marje
07-30-2009, 14:09
Ya...we all get it Jack...we all understand why the law was in place.
I'm not arguing the law, some are, but the majority believes that this case was not a case of NEGLIGENCE.
I'll draw you a picture.
Homer&Marje
07-30-2009, 14:31
Maybe this will help:D
http://lh5.ggpht.com/_ldP-jp9aBzY/SnHXrziwN9I/AAAAAAAACxM/p8YzaYxCofg/s720/SDC11871.JPG
http://lh3.ggpht.com/_ldP-jp9aBzY/SnHXr2Beo-I/AAAAAAAACxQ/ve3B8F68ZAc/s720/SDC11872.JPG
http://lh6.ggpht.com/_ldP-jp9aBzY/SnHXsLQI6DI/AAAAAAAACxU/l7od5ySHTDU/s720/SDC11874.JPG
Sleepy the Arab
07-30-2009, 14:43
There you go again: conveniently forgetting the part that counts.
"I hurt myself. But instead of going back, I'll keep going into the most remote section of the state."
I only wish I had the patience to explain using only one syllable words. But keep banging that tired old drum and "forgetting" the negligence you crazy diamond.
Homer, You also forgot this part: From the original article.
Mason says he sent $1,000 to rescuers and is disappointed New Hampshire officials didn't talk to him before fining him.
Homer&Marje
07-30-2009, 15:01
There you go again: conveniently forgetting the part that counts.
"I hurt myself. But instead of going back, I'll keep going into the most remote section of the state."
I only wish I had the patience to explain using only one syllable words. But keep banging that tired old drum and "forgetting" the negligence you crazy diamond.
People make mistakes in stressful situations. The fact that he survived in bad conditions in the most remote section of the state is testament to his PREPAREDNESS.
Negligence has to do with more than making an error in judgment... Error in planning, compounded by error in judgment, and finalized by error in lack of proper equipment.
Someone else posted that they completed the same hike he was trying to accomplish and was NOT prepared if anything went wrong. So his error in planning can be debated, yes he compounded his problems by going into Great Gulf, but he made no errors in his preparedness for that situation, survived and could have walked himself out had there been no SAR.
Go ahead and keep beating your same drum and pray you never need an SAR under the new definition of the law.
I am under the impression that 17 is still a minor. They are minors at 17, according to child support authorities.
The Weasel
07-30-2009, 17:15
This whole thing troubles me on two levels.
First, it's totally contrary to the long-time policy of our society that government protects everyone's public safety without introducing "fault" into protection or reimbursement being required if someone is - after the fact - found to be partly or wholly responsible for the situation. That's why fire departments put out fires now, without charge, although in the past, they would not appear at your house if you hadn't paid in advance for protection. (Ben Franklin started the Philadelphia FD as a "pay in advance" department."
Second, and sort of similar, is that this justifies after-the-fact decisions and "20-20 hindsight." If the fishing trawler should have seen the storm on its radar, should the Coast Guard charge for saving their lives? If a hiker knows there are sometimes blizzards on the AT in February, should she be charged for the search? It's awful easy to say, "They could have prevented it." But that basically means we all have two choices, if we don't want to be faced with the risk of such a charge: the first is bad: Don't go anywhere. The second is worse: If you're facing a serious problem, don't call for help; try to hike out despite the greater risks that are posed. I guess they won't charge if you die.
This is a foolish policy.
TW
Homer&Marje
07-30-2009, 17:33
I am under the impression that 17 is still a minor. They are minors at 17, according to child support authorities.
Welcome to the quandaries of a system bogged down by too much BS rhetoric.
In the eyes of the judicial system in charging with civil and criminal offenses a child is an adult at the age of 17.
For child support it is 18 because of normal age of graduation from high school. (For health insurance 22)
The kid got fined, not his parents....in the eyes...of no, not the court, or a jury... in the eyes of the New Hampshire Attorney General who reviewed the case this bright young man was found negligent and fined $25,000.
BS
The kid got fined, not his parents....in the eyes...of no, not the court, or a jury... in the eyes of the New Hampshire Attorney General who reviewed the case this bright young man was found negligent and fined $25,000.
BS
He was not bright, he was extremely lucky to have some very nice weather. Given the poor decisions he made, he was very very lucky to make it out with just frost bite. If there was one stormy night, I doubt anyone would be praising his survival skills right now.
Jack Tarlin
07-30-2009, 18:18
It should also be stressed that this young man was an Eagle Scout, and presumably was experienced, educated, and well-advised.
I was under the impression that to reach this level of Scouting, one presumably had achieved a certain level of experience; one had received merit badges or awards that certified that one had achieved these levels or had learned these lessons, etc.
So we're left with one of two conclusions: Either whoever instructed this kid or led his trips into Northern New England really dropped the ball on properly educating him; or more likely, he took the appropriate lessons, passed the various tests, and earned his little patches.....but still elected to make really poor decisions.
In any case, the mistakes made were his own, and so should be the responsibility for them.
The Old Fhart
07-30-2009, 18:39
NEGLIGENCE - The failure to use reasonable care. The doing of something which a reasonably prudent person would not do, or the failure to do something which a reasonably prudent person would do under like circumstances. A departure from what an ordinary reasonable member of the community would do in the same community.In this case the 'community' would be hikers who hike in the White Mountains under similar condition, not in Massachusetts, or Florida .
Negligence may be a legal cause of damage even though it operates in combination with the act of another, a natural cause, or some other cause if the other cause occurs at the same time as the negligence and if the negligence contributes substantially to producing such damage.
In general, a party who has caused an injury or loss to another in consequence of his negligence is responsible for all the consequences.Translation: you can't blame the weather and the conditions in the mountains for your poor judgment or use that for an excuse for not paying for SAR costs.
Special Skills: If a person engages in an activity requiring special skills, education, training, or experience....the standard by which his conduct is measured is the conduct of a reasonably skilled, competent, and experienced person who is a qualified member of the group authorized to engage in that activity. In other words, the hypothetical reasonable person is a skilled, competent, and experienced person who engages in the same activity. ...Thus, an unlicensed driver who takes his friends for a joyride is held to the standard of conduct of an experienced, licensed driver.
The law does not make a special allowance for beginners with regard to special skills. The learner, beginner, or trainee in a special skill is held to the standard of conduct of persons who are reasonably skilled and experienced in the activity. Sometimes the beginner is held to a standard he cannot meet. For example, a first-time driver clearly does not possess the experience and skill of an experienced driver. Although it may seem unfair to hold the beginner to the standards of the more experienced person, this standard protects the general public from the risk of a beginner's lack of competence, because the community is usually defenseless to guard against such risks.
...
One major exception to the rules of negligence exists with regard to children. If a child is engaging in what is considered an "adult activity," such as driving an automobile or flying an airplane, the child will be held to an adult standard of care. The higher standard of care imposed for these types of activities is justified by the special skills required to engage in them and the danger they pose to the public.
Bottom line is that hikers experienced in hiking in the conditions you could expect to find in the White Mountains in April have given their input to the State's AG who has determined that there was negligence on Scott's part and he is libel for the damages, i.e., the cost of the search and rescue. His being 45 minutes from the summit of Mount Washington means he was about 8 miles from literally being out of the woods. Whether he could have walked out or not is immaterial. While his conduct probably doesn't rise to the level of reckless, he was negligent. The fact that someone else could do a similar trip and not have any problems is also immaterial. If that person had got into trouble the same rules would apply. The fact that many excuse his actions saying he's a 'dumb kid' is also immaterial.
The Weasel-"This is a foolish policy." Not policy, it's the law. TITLE XVIII FISH AND GAME Section 206:26-bb
This $25,000 is a bill to recover actual costs of the rescue, not a fine in the usual sense of the word. People who cause personal harm or property damage may be found criminally not guilty but lose huge civil suits. The standard from the revised SAR law is the difference between "beyond a shadow of a doubt" and just negligent. The example you used is a criminal act and doesn't apply here.
I may comment more later. But the OF is abolutely correct. This was not a "fine", but an alleged fee for services.
Weary
sheepdog
07-30-2009, 21:27
It sounds just like another tax to me. Like taxing sugar soda 10 cents a bottle. This country is getting very good at hiding taxes. Lots more of them comming. The best way to do it is find unpopular things and hit them with it. Smokers, drinkers, guns, you name it , it will be taxed.
Jim Adams
07-30-2009, 22:21
I don't understand how you all can keep saying that he made stupid decisions when his decisions worked fine and his intelligence and training kept him alive.
I just read in another thread about the boy dying in the Grand Canyon " at least he died doing something he liked". Seems this group of internet posters use that saying alot....problem solved! Just don't ever file an itinerary with ANYONE including family. If you are too stupid to keep yourself alive then everyone can say "at least he died doing something he liked!"
OTOH, when you do come out alive no one will know that you may have been late and will praise your survival skills. I work with SAR but in this instance I would tell them to bite my a$$.
geek
Matbe NH and other places that seem to have alot of rescues need to look into a small/light weight signaling device. Kinda like a spot but smaller and much lighter. Have it only work for a 100 mile radius or so. Then offer them for rent to hikers and tourist at the entrances to the parks. If you need rescued, push the button. If you don't...well you know...
It should also be stressed that this young man was an Eagle Scout, and presumably was experienced, educated, and well-advised.
I was under the impression that to reach this level of Scouting, one presumably had achieved a certain level of experience; one had received merit badges or awards that certified that one had achieved these levels or had learned these lessons, etc.
So we're left with one of two conclusions: Either whoever instructed this kid or led his trips into Northern New England really dropped the ball on properly educating him; or more likely, he took the appropriate lessons, passed the various tests, and earned his little patches.....but still elected to make really poor decisions.
In any case, the mistakes made were his own, and so should be the responsibility for them.
Without knowing the individuals involved, I would not pass any judgement on scouting lessons learned or not or his adult leaders. It would seem he was not prepared for the worst, but perhaps his scout training and experience gave him the confidence that he could overcome any obstacles and, it would seem, he did.
The Weasel
07-31-2009, 00:16
Welcome to the quandaries of a system bogged down by too much BS rhetoric.
In the eyes of the judicial system in charging with civil and criminal offenses a child is an adult at the age of 17.
For child support it is 18 because of normal age of graduation from high school. (For health insurance 22)
The kid got fined, not his parents....in the eyes...of no, not the court, or a jury... in the eyes of the New Hampshire Attorney General who reviewed the case this bright young man was found negligent and fined $25,000.
BS
It should also be stressed that this young man was an Eagle Scout, and presumably was experienced, educated, and well-advised.
I was under the impression that to reach this level of Scouting, one presumably had achieved a certain level of experience; one had received merit badges or awards that certified that one had achieved these levels or had learned these lessons, etc.
***
In any case, the mistakes made were his own, and so should be the responsibility for them.
Well, maybe. Maybe not. As to all of it.
The law considers people to be 'adults' at different ages, for different purposes, and is sometimes wrong to do so, but, well, reasonable in doing so. Some youth can be considered an 'adult' for criminal purposes as young as 13; anyone under 21 is still a 'minor' for other purposes. 16 year olds, in some states, can be 'emancipated' which means their parents are not responsible for them, and they need not honor their parents wishes. Different ages for different purposes. It makes sense except to people who think "one size fits all."
No, Jack, becoming an Eagle Scout isn't a backcountry certification, or even proof of good judgment. I know; I helped over 100 young men become Eagles. Becoming an Eagle Scout requires no more than 20 days/nights of camping, no backpacking, or even cooking. It requires some training in Emergency Preparedness, which involves much different skills than 'wilderness survival.' And good Eagles can have little experience that way.
Nor have I seen anything indicating the total want of preparation or knowledge here that justifis this charge, any more than the Hanover Fire Department charges everyone who has a chimney fire or some other cause of their house burning down. Sorry. This is a mistaken policy, and counterproductive, to boot.
But I have no problem with the NH Atty General making decisions, even wrong ones. She/he is elected to do that, and if enough people think the decisions are wrong, they have an easy remedy to change that. It's called "voting."
And that's not BS.
TW
This whole thing troubles me on two levels.
First, it's totally contrary to the long-time policy of our society that government protects everyone's public safety without introducing "fault" into protection or reimbursement being required if someone is - after the fact - found to be partly or wholly responsible for the situation. That's why fire departments put out fires now, without charge, although in the past, they would not appear at your house if you hadn't paid in advance for protection. (Ben Franklin started the Philadelphia FD as a "pay in advance" department."
Second, and sort of similar, is that this justifies after-the-fact decisions and "20-20 hindsight." If the fishing trawler should have seen the storm on its radar, should the Coast Guard charge for saving their lives? If a hiker knows there are sometimes blizzards on the AT in February, should she be charged for the search? It's awful easy to say, "They could have prevented it." But that basically means we all have two choices, if we don't want to be faced with the risk of such a charge: the first is bad: Don't go anywhere. The second is worse: If you're facing a serious problem, don't call for help; try to hike out despite the greater risks that are posed. I guess they won't charge if you die.
This is a foolish policy.
TW
Actually, the Coast Guard can impose fines for negligence.
Matbe NH and other places that seem to have alot of rescues need to look into a small/light weight signaling device. Kinda like a spot but smaller and much lighter. Have it only work for a 100 mile radius or so. Then offer them for rent to hikers and tourist at the entrances to the parks. If you need rescued, push the button. If you don't...well you know...
Already used to excess. Called a cellphone. Like when they call from the summit of Washington and ask for a rescue ride down.
For child support it is 18 because of normal age of graduation from high school. (For health insurance 22)
for health insurance its not age 22 in every state. it varies from state to state. Also taken into consideration is wheather the child is still in school as full time student than it is usually until age 25, or if the child is handicaped then there is usually no age limit as long as the parent is still alive.
Panzer
Jack Tarlin
07-31-2009, 12:39
Tin Man:
In post #221 above, you mentioned that the young man's Scout training gave him the confidence to overcome obstacles.
Let's suppose that this episode had ended differently. Let's suppose that it had ended tragically, as it very well could have done.
Had that been the case, would you be so quick to applaud his "Scout training?"
And while I appreciate Weasel's well-informed remarks on Eagle Scouts, I still have to wonder: This kid presumably had hiked in new Hampshire before, and presumably had done so with Scout groups. Was he NEVER told about such things as bringing proper equipment; leaving a detailed itinerary; and never deviating from a marked trail, especially in wintertime?
Sorry, but somebody dropped the ball here. Either he never received some badly needed advice, or he DID receive it but chose to ignore it.
Either way, that's negligence.
Tin Man:
In post #221 above, you mentioned that the young man's Scout training gave him the confidence to overcome obstacles.
Let's suppose that this episode had ended differently. Let's suppose that it had ended tragically, as it very well could have done.
Had that been the case, would you be so quick to applaud his "Scout training?"
And while I appreciate Weasel's well-informed remarks on Eagle Scouts, I still have to wonder: This kid presumably had hiked in new Hampshire before, and presumably had done so with Scout groups. Was he NEVER told about such things as bringing proper equipment; leaving a detailed itinerary; and never deviating from a marked trail, especially in wintertime?
Sorry, but somebody dropped the ball here. Either he never received some badly needed advice, or he DID receive it but chose to ignore it.
Either way, that's negligence.
Perhaps over-confidence would have been a better choice of words on my part. I was not justifying his decision or training. I merely meant to express that he probably thought he was prepared and could achieve what he set out to do. He did have a bivy, extra food and such and apparently would have been fine if left to his own devices. Fortunately for him and the search party, MT. Wash. weather was not at its worst or things could easily have turned out much worse.
My guess, and it is only a guess, is that he is a gungho youth who wanted to challenge himself and his abilities by setting a stretch goal. Many young people do that. He just stretched things a bit too far. Fortunately, this lesson only cost him money. A young man of 22, former Eagle Scout in my town, stretched his abilities too far, broke the law (excessive speeding) and paid for it with his life just 2 years ago right down the road. Of course Scouts do not teach driving, but I was disappointed his Scout training did not help him with becoming a more responsible adult. It happens and Scouting is not to blame. Young people just often think they are invincible - obviously, they are not.
And if the NH authorities, who were the ones to assess the situation want to call this young man negligent, well then unless we have all the details that they have, we really shouldn't argue against that. Certainly, I will not. But I will also not fault his Scout training as training is simply a vehicle. Whether people fully embrace their training and experiences is another story. Certainly their are ample examples in all professions and walks of life where training and experiences are left by the wayside momentarily, or simply ignored, and bad things happen to otherwise good people.
Homer&Marje
07-31-2009, 14:21
Tin Man:
In post #221 above, you mentioned that the young man's Scout training gave him the confidence to overcome obstacles.
Let's suppose that this episode had ended differently. Let's suppose that it had ended tragically, as it very well could have done.
Had that been the case, would you be so quick to applaud his "Scout training?"
And while I appreciate Weasel's well-informed remarks on Eagle Scouts, I still have to wonder: This kid presumably had hiked in new Hampshire before, and presumably had done so with Scout groups. Was he NEVER told about such things as bringing proper equipment; leaving a detailed itinerary; and never deviating from a marked trail, especially in wintertime?
Sorry, but somebody dropped the ball here. Either he never received some badly needed advice, or he DID receive it but chose to ignore it.
Either way, that's negligence.
Tell me, if he had died, would New Hampshire have been so quick handing over the bill for carrying out his body to the parents?
Jack Tarlin
07-31-2009, 14:23
Nope. If you actually knew more about the law, you'd know they don't bill for corpse recovery.
But since you mention it, which would the parents prefer?
Most folks would simply be happy to have their kid back safe and sound.......regardless of the cost.
Homer&Marje
07-31-2009, 15:37
Jack...you don't get it....I understand the law...albeit I disagree with the way NH approaches the law and it's loose definition of negligence.
I strongly believe in this case that he was not negligent enough to be charged...leave it at that....Personally if he HAD died I would believe the opposite oddly enough. Don't try and win a point and attempt to make me look ignorant I just have a different opinion on the negligence
There are PLENTY of cases where I would completely agree with charging for. not this one
He had shelter, food, fire starting material and warm clothing. For a long day hike he was prepared if something went wrong...which did.
sweetpeastu
07-31-2009, 16:02
kids an idiot:
- hurt his ankle
- not only did he not turn around, he was stupid enough to try a shortcut
- he kept going up the mountain
- Damn $25,000 is a big bill to pay off in a months notice but stupid cost money these days.
so says the man holding a snake...
Jim Adams
07-31-2009, 17:39
Nope. If you actually knew more about the law, you'd know they don't bill for corpse recovery.
Maybe because they are afraid of being accused of negligence for lack of signage, markings, warnings, etc.?:eek:
geek
Jim Adams
07-31-2009, 17:41
Jack...you don't get it....I understand the law...albeit I disagree with the way NH approaches the law and it's loose definition of negligence.
I strongly believe in this case that he was not negligent enough to be charged...leave it at that....Personally if he HAD died I would believe the opposite oddly enough. Don't try and win a point and attempt to make me look ignorant I just have a different opinion on the negligence
There are PLENTY of cases where I would completely agree with charging for. not this one
He had shelter, food, fire starting material and warm clothing. For a long day hike he was prepared if something went wrong...which did.
Seems that alot of you never will get it!
This is possibly the best response in the entire thread.:cool:
geek
The Old Fhart
07-31-2009, 18:54
Jim Adams-"Seems that alot of you never will get it!"
Seems that a lot of very well informed people do get it. A lot of hikers who are familiar with the White Mountains that time of year in those conditions believe Scott was not only negligent but ill prepared for those conditions. More importantly, the people who had first hand information of those conditions, i.e., the SAR folks who went to look for him, many with Everest experience, believe he was negligent, and those are the people who count in this case. Having hiked to the summit of Mount Washington countless times (actually I have counted) in every month of the year for over 50 years, under some pretty severe conditions, I believe he was negligent. While his conduct may possibly fall short of reckless, there isn’t much doubt that he was negligent. A lot of the people posting here claiming otherwise have neither the knowledge or the experience under those conditions.
I get it.
Jim Adams-"Maybe because they are afraid of being accused of negligence for lack of signage, markings, warnings, etc.?:eek:"Ignorance of the law is no excuse. However there are signs and all the guidebooks have warnings about the possible conditions you can find there any month of the year. Just because you're not observant, or fail to ignore warnings, is a pretty lame way to try to shift blame.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse. However there are signs and all the guidebooks have warnings about the possible conditions you can find there any month of the year. Just because you're not observant, or fail to ignore warnings, is a pretty lame way to try to shift blame.
Hear!! hear!!
Jim Adams
07-31-2009, 19:40
Seems that a lot of very well informed people do get it.
My response:
Excuse me but although I don't live near the Whites, I have done 2 thrus through them and for the past 20 years about 85% of my backpacking / camping has been between October and March...most of it at below freezing temps with snow and high wind. I also work with the local SARs units and the local K-9 SARs units so I do understand the situations that they deal with and are called out for. Hiking the Whites is one thing. Hiking in cold weather is another side of that situation however until you actually work on rescues and with the SAR teams YOU won't understand. Most of them are waaaaayyyyyy to gung-ho and would charge any thru hiker with a pack weight less than 50 lbs. with negligence due to not having enough equipment. Lets follow alot of the thinking in this thread and follow SARs standards and recommentations: How would you feel showing up at Springer and run into a government "official" that deems you to be negligent because your pack doesn't contain all of the the gear that SARs teams carry? He fines you $500 and tells you that you can't hike any further until you run to Wal-Mart and buy an 8'x8' blue poly tarp. Sounds pretty stupid doesn't it? Well if you go by current SAR standards and the government steps in to regulate negligence then these are the standards that you face. I turned a close friend of mine who is a leader in the local K-9 SARs unit onto "light weight" gear. He was amazed at the outcome. His pack with everything in it recomended by SARs dropped from 78 lbs. to 50 lbs....SARs response? "That stuff is too light and will never hold up." (example?...replacing the blue poly tarp with a urethane coated nylon tarp)
I'm sorry sir, you have to turn around and go back. Your pack only weighs 30 pounds so there is no way that you are carrying the minimum equipment to not be negligent.
SAR has GREAT ideas, plans and methods to find and save peoples lives and I DO admire the work that they do but MOST of the Units that I've dealt with don't have a clue as to proper equipment!:eek:
is a pretty lame way to try to shift blame.
...you mean like the state of New Hampshire did when they realized that they put on this super rescue and found that they weren't needed?:-?
geek
Shutterbug
07-31-2009, 19:49
... However there are signs and all the guidebooks have warnings about the possible conditions you can find there any month of the year. ...
I am not taking up for the young man in this case, but I would hope that disregarding warning signs wouldn't be the test for negligence.
If warning signs were always heeded, no one would ever hike the 100 Mile Wildernesss. I don't remember the exact warning of the sign at the trailhead, but I remember that it basically says "Don't do it."
Many of the trails I hike have warning signs that sound pretty dire. In fact, just yesterday the trail I hiked in the Hoh Rain Forest had a sign that warned about being attacked by elk.
Here is a sign I saw recently. Am I really negligent if I don't freeze my boots?
Homer&Marje
07-31-2009, 20:03
Don't claim to have as much experience as some posters here. Never will claim that. But I have hiked in the White Mountains since I was a kid and have continued to over the last 15 years. In all seasons.
I don't claim to be perfect, I just know I've survived every time "I" have been out there. Good luck to all in the future, prepared or not it could be a costly venture.
My pack is always too heavy...aint no way some SAR guy is gonna say I am not prepared..." Yep...guy had 3 alcohol stoves and 4 days of extra fuel:D" "Ya I know...he's been out there 3 days and he just gave me a snickers, said he thought I looked hungry:rolleyes:"
Don't claim to have as much experience as some posters here. Never will claim that. But I have hiked in the White Mountains since I was a kid and have continued to over the last 15 years. In all seasons.
I don't claim to be perfect, I just know I've survived every time "I" have been out there. Good luck to all in the future, prepared or not it could be a costly venture.
My pack is always too heavy...aint no way some SAR guy is gonna say I am not prepared..." Yep...guy had 3 alcohol stoves and 4 days of extra fuel:D" "Ya I know...he's been out there 3 days and he just gave me a snickers, said he thought I looked hungry:rolleyes:"
You are right, Homer.
Plenty of experts are certain that the following are irresponsible:
* Hiking Alone
* Hiking as a Woman alone, especially
* Hiking without a phone
* Day Hiking without a sleeping bag in the Whites, even in September
* Hiking without leaving a detailed itinerary behind
* Hiking in sneakers
Are those experts wrong? Yup.
If NH wants to charge for rescues, they should charge everyone who gets one. It costs as much to rescue a responsible hiker as it does one that made a few mistakes.
Why should a person with sense enough to stay home on the couch be forced to help pay for any of this?
(The answer is, of course, because its the right thing to do.)
Negligence in some cases is a hard thing to define. I don't buy either sides arguments here on WB. Instead I defer to those involved in the case, SAR. THAT is the right thing to do. Anything else is Monday morning quarterbacking, something that never produces a winner.
The Weasel
07-31-2009, 21:46
Jack:
At 17, I strongly suspect you had not yet changed water into wine, and, like many 17 year olds who lacked that talent, made some realllllly boneheaded mistakes. If we'd been able to get reimbursement for those (and, yeah, mine at that age, too), much of the national debt would be gone. More from you, than me, but between the two of us, there'd be a real dent.
Calm down a bit. Eagle Scouts sometimes aren't perfect, as Charles Whitman demonstrated. And yeah, even really good ones like Jerry Ford made some mistakes.
The Weasel Scout
Lone Wolf
07-31-2009, 22:04
being an eagle scout, or a Marine, or an SAR person means jack sch itt when the poo hits the fan. they all die equally. so tired or reading these stupid articles and they preface it with he/she was a such and such and that's why they lived. BS
The Old Fhart
07-31-2009, 22:07
Jim Adams-“Excuse me but although I don't live near the Whites, I have done 2 thrus through them and for the past 20 years about 85% of my backpacking / camping has been between October and March...most of it at below freezing temps with snow and high wind.”
As I posted before: “In this case the 'community' would be hikers who hike in the White Mountains under similar condition, not in Massachusetts, or Florida .” While I’m sure you have weather where you live, it ain’t the Whites and you admit you’ve only been thru the Whites in summer. For a number of years, I lead an AMC January 1st hike to the summit of Washington. I claim superior knowledge of the area under the conditions Scott actually saw. He was not equipped or prepared for those conditions. That is negligence.
Jim Adams-“ however until you actually work on rescues and with the SAR teams YOU won't understand. Most of them are waaaaayyyyyy to gung-ho and would charge any thru hiker with a pack weight less than 50 lbs. with negligence due to not having enough equipment.
Sorry you have seem to have worked with such incompetent people (or you just think you're more knowledeable) but that isn’t the case in NH. I HAVE been on SARs over the last few decades and the people I’ve met are highly competent and interested in helping whoever is in need of rescue.
Here’s some info on a couple of the SAR folks in the area. The list goes on and on...
"You would think being president of International Mountain Equipment, president and a team leader for the Mountain Rescue Service of New Hampshire (a technical team that has performed some 250 mountain rescues) and the vice president of the International Mountain Climbing School would pretty much eliminate a mountaineer's own climbing time. That isn't the case with Rick Wilcox. ... In May of 1991 Rick led an American expedition up the South-East Ridge to the summit. It was the first American expedition organized in the Eastern United States, making Rick one of the first four Americans from East of the Mississippi to summit Everest. He has also climbed Himalayan peaks in Pakistan, Nepal and the sixth tallest mountain in the world, 8,201 meter Cho Oyu."
Mike Pelchat is the founder of the Androscoggin Valley Search and Rescue Team and is very active in EMS as a member of the Randolph Mountain Club and Cannon Mountain Ski Patrol.
Mike is also a very active NH State Instructor and was recognized in 1997 as Squad Member of the Year. In 2004 Mike was awarded the presitgious "EMS Achievement Award" from the NH Bureau of EMS.
Jim Adams-“ How would you feel showing up at Springer and run into a government "official" that deems you to be negligent because your pack doesn't contain all of the the gear that SARs teams carry? He fines you $500 and tells you that you can't hike any further until you run to Wal-Mart and buy an 8'x8' blue poly tarp. Sounds pretty stupid doesn't it?
In a word, yes, your scenario sounds pretty stupid. You can’t be found negligent until you do something negligent-understand the concept? However there are places where you have to prove competence and show you have proper experience and equipment for the conditions you will be likely to experience and one is peak-bagging in Baxter State Park in winter. I have lead a successful trip there in March and had no problem complying with their regulations. If, in your silly scenario, if hikers were required to have certain gear, and they knowingly didn’t bring it, I could see why they would be turned away.
Negligence in some cases is a hard thing to define. I don't buy either sides arguments here on WB. Instead I defer to those involved in the case, SAR. THAT is the right thing to do. Anything else is Monday morning quarterbacking, something that never produces a winner.
Begs the question of who the individuals were (by name and title) who made the decision that this incident merited a $25,000 fine.
Was there a hearing? If so, who was present? Sounds like the hiker or his representative wasn't.
Be careful about trusting the authorities. Especially when there is no due process.
Lone Wolf
07-31-2009, 22:16
Begs the question of who the individuals were (by name and title) who made the decision that this incident merited a $25,000 fine.
Was there a hearing? If so, who was present? Sounds like the hiker or his representative wasn't.
Be careful about trusting the authorities. Especially when there is no due process.
first thing i would do is demand an itemized bill accounting for every dime used in the so-called "rescue"
first thing i would do is demand an itemized bill accounting for every dime used in the so-called "rescue"
Very good point.
According to Rick Wilcox, founder and head of New Hampshire's Mountain Rescue Service for 24 years, "the actual cost to the taxpayer for a rescue is practically zero." In New Hampshire, says Wilcox, volunteers are supplemented by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and USDA Forest Service employees and National Guard members who consider rescues just another part of the job. Of course, those salaries are paid by taxpayers, so there is always an accounting if only you look deeply enough.
Begs the question of who the individuals were (by name and title) who made the decision that this incident merited a $25,000 fine.
Was there a hearing? If so, who was present? Sounds like the hiker or his representative wasn't.
Be careful about trusting the authorities. Especially when there is no due process.
all accounting and demands aside... were you there? i will always trust in the authorities before someone in some exhaulted position who calls those who acted, 'stupid'. that don't mean the authorities are always right, but we DO have due process and it don't include wb.
Hikerhead
08-01-2009, 02:07
Just cause I don't have nothing to do...did they tell the kid that his helicopter ride was going to cost him around 25 thousand dollars before it arrived? What if he refused to get in and just said no thanks I'll walk out. It like they invited him to a beer party and then locked the bathroom door.
Fine the kid 5,000.00. 25 thousand? Geez!
beakerman
08-01-2009, 02:34
...
In a word, yes, your scenario sounds pretty stupid. You can’t be found negligent until you do something negligent-understand the concept?...
Well then I guess most states are way out of line then when they ticket you for coming out of a bar, realizing you are drunk and deciding to sleep it off in the front seat of the car...they will bust you for that in most states and call it DUI even though you have done nothing and intended to do nothing. You made a mistake and had too much but realized your mistake before there were any consequences and took actions to remedy your mistake yet it is still a crime.
I happen to think that getting ticketed for trying to do the right thing is stupid. My understanding is this kid had gear with him in case something happened and the crap hit the fan. Didn't he have fire starting equipment and some cold weather gear of somesort? That is being prepared. Not being prepared would have been heading up the hill in a t-shirt, sandals and shorts carrying nothing more than a bottle of water and a camera like a tourist. He made some poor choices along the way but he was prepared therefore not negligent at the trail head.
beakerman
08-01-2009, 02:51
being an eagle scout, or a Marine, or an SAR person means jack sch itt when the poo hits the fan. they all die equally. so tired or reading these stupid articles and they preface it with he/she was a such and such and that's why they lived. BS
Yep they all die equally when the crap really hits the fan. The key is not letting the crap hit the fan. That is where being an eagle scout, jar head or SAR person can come into play...provided you use some decent judgement and not be over confident in your ability.
I've seen it sometimes in some of my eagle scouts...they can get a little bit of a big head on their shoulders and bit off more than they can chew. I really think it's more the teenage/immortal thing than being "trained" in any sense--that just gives them a little push. Think about how you were when you were young and finished up boot camp. You were full of pi$$ and vinegar and did things that looking back you probably would not even think about now--not because you are older and getting up takes a little longer but because they were not smart things to do and could have ended very badly indeed--right?
All of that training is supposed to teach you how not to get into a bind first then what to do when you do but for some reason people tend to retain the latter and forget the former. It seems to me maturity (not age) is what gets you over this hump and lets you remember how not to make mistakes...even then we are all human and blunder blindly into situations that we should have realized were problems long before they became obvious.
Eagle scout or special forces or Joe Blow out for a day hike...$25K is a very steep fine and it seems it's arbitrary in it's application. I say give the kid a small fine--maybe $300--and let him go about his life. However that ain't gonna happen so I say to the kid fight it in court...appeal all the way to the US supreme court if you can. Don't roll over for them. The law must be applied equally. Some liberal lawyer might take you pro bono just for the publicity.