Cane him...
~~^^^~~^^~^^^~~~^^^^^~^~
Those who cannot remember the past, are condemned to repeat it.
rickb “Would you challenge Rick Wilcox when he said:
”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.”Here is another quote from Rick Wilcox, not out of context.rickb-“The quote speaks for itself. No more, no less.
Don't worry so much about what you think (incorrectly, I might add) that I am trying to "imply".
Rather, step back and reflect on the comments attributed to Rick Wilcox.
He may not even be right. But at a minimum, he is worth paying attention to.”
As you said, rickb, “The quote speaks for itself.” You can consider that the State of New Hampshire is also asking for “mandatory donation” in the case of negligence, no more, no less.February, 2008-“Another approach, which has worked in the past, is what Rick Wilcox, the state's dean of mountaineering, calls "mandatory donations."
Over the last 30 years, Wilcox, president of Mountain Rescue Service and owner of International Mountain Equipment in North Conway, estimates he has helped organize about 450 rescue missions, including one effort in 1981 that ended with the death of a member of his rescue team. Since then, when he finds obvious negligence, he lets survivors know that donations to the Mountain Rescue Service, composed of about 50 volunteer mountaineers, should be in order.
"It's one thing to break a leg and need to be carried out, but if you ignore weather reports and go without night gear, that's stupidity, and in those cases, I think a mandatory donation is appropriate," he said.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Absolutely incorrect. The facts show exactly the opposite. Scott was 45 minutes from the summit of Mount Washington, not 8 miles away at roadside when he was found. Take a look at the news stories where they have a photo of Scott being littered into a waiting ambulance with an injured ankle. The caption reads:"In this file photo taken April 28, 2009, Scott Mason grimaces as he gets ready to go to the hospital in Pinkham Notch, N.H."Jim Adams-"You are missing the point totally...the kid DID NOT NEED RESCUED."
Your idea of being rescued has a far different meaning that what the SAR experts in the Whites have. Quite frankly, I'll go with their assessment.
Did SAR protocol require him to take the ride down the mtn? Does there protocol also require him to take the ambulance? Is this so they get paid for their services?
Did you miss the part of the story where it's reported he was injured? Did SAR protocol require Scott to grimace as well?dmax-"Did SAR protocol require him to take the ride down the mtn? Does there protocol also require him to take the ambulance? Is this so they get paid for their services?"
If they told him he had the choice of walking down the auto road on a bum ankle or paying over $25,000 because he accepted a snowmobile ride I bet he would have walked
I agree. I'd have to be pretty close to dying to accept a 25k rescue!Originally Posted by Homer&Marje
If they told him he had the choice of walking down the auto road on a bum ankle or paying over $25,000 because he accepted a snowmobile ride I bet he would have walked
I wonder if they would have even let him turn down the rescue?
1) Those aren't the facts. The ride down didn't cost anywhere near $25,000; that was the cost of the entire 3 day SAR mission.Homer&Marje-"If they told him he had the choice of walking down the auto road on a bum ankle or paying over $25,000 because he accepted a snowmobile ride I bet he would have walked"
2) Once again, the ride down wasn't a snowmobile, it was a snowcat by Bombardier.
Sorry I misread, Snow cat. What are the exact denominations of how much all of the efforts cost and how is it dispersed.
I imagine the volunteers don't get paid...what exactly is the tally on all different aspects of this rescue?
List them however you want, alphabetically or from smallest to largest amount, or largest to smallest.
I wouldn't want any of the facts to be out of order.
Still think it's BS to charge a kid who was prepared...and could have walked out on his own....how much was the Snow Cat ride? $1000? $3000? Now we're back to the original question. "Would you like a $3000 ride down the mountain"? No thanks, I can walk. Hurts a little but I'll survive.
NOT ALL INFORMATION IS CORRECT AND CONTAINS SOME COMMENTS MADE IN JEST. THIS IS A DISCLAIMER.
That information is something I don't have but one of the quotes I used mentioned: "Fish and Game Col. Martin Garabedian, the agency's law enforcement division chief, wrote that the department spends about $200,000 to $260,000 per year on search-and-rescue missions in the White Mountains."Homer&Marje-"...What are the exact denominations of how much all of the efforts cost and how is it dispersed.
I imagine the volunteers don't get paid...what exactly is the tally on all different aspects of this rescue?
List them however you want, alphabetically or from smallest to largest amount, or largest to smallest."
If you need that information you could contact that person and see if that information is available to the general public.
1)It was determined he wasn't prepared for those conditions in the Whites that time of year and was negligent which met the requirements of the law.Homer&Marje-"Still think it's BS to charge a kid who was prepared...and could have walked out on his own....how much was the Snow Cat ride?
2)You're merely speculating that Scott could have walked out-HE DID NOT. Moot point.
3)Perhaps the State Park or the Observatory could give you the figures for a special trip with the snow cat but my guess it would be 4 figures. Edu-Trips take about 10 people up and down at about $480 each.
P.S. I doubt if they prorate the trip if you only go one way.
If they spend 200-260k a year on search and rescue for the entire year in the White Mountains then why is this kid footing 10% of the bill?That information is something I don't have but one of the quotes I used mentioned: "Fish and Game Col. Martin Garabedian, the agency's law enforcement division chief, wrote that the department spends about $200,000 to $260,000 per year on search-and-rescue missions in the White Mountains."
If you need that information you could contact that person and see if that information is available to the general public.
1)It was determined he wasn't prepared for those conditions in the Whites that time of year and was negligent which met the requirements of the law.
2)You're merely speculating that Scott could have walked out-HE DID NOT. Moot point.
3)Perhaps the State Park or the Observatory could give you the figures for a special trip with the snow cat but my guess it would be 4 figures. Edu-Trips take about 10 people up and down at about $480 each.
P.S. I doubt if they prorate the trip if you only go one way.
I'm sure they conduct more than 10 SAR missions per year correct? If they only spend that much per year on SAR I don't see how a 3 day SAR could cost nearly that much money.
I've been with you all along here besides our disagreement on the term negligent and how it has been applied....I have agreed that negligent hikers might need to be held accountable for their negligent actions.
I've also agreed that he made some critically bad decisions. What I don't agree with is a 17 year old kid footing 10% of the bill for the entire year of SAR when in ....my humble opinion.... and someone who has hiked in the Whites for 15 years of my 27 on this planet....that he was prepared "enough" to not be considered negligent. Sorry that you, some, or most disagree.
And I bet alot of it is tax deductable.
Here is a bit more context for the Mr. Wilcox's comments on fines. The underline in mine.
Seems like an honorable tact. I know when I discussed the matter with him some years ago, he recognized that this is a complicated subject.Over the past decade, the state has had little success in recovering costs from reckless hikers. Fifteen people or groups repaid the state $23,780, less than half what the state says it paid for their rescues, according to the New Hampshire Fish and Game Department.
Another approach, which has worked in the past, is what Rick Wilcox, the state's dean of mountaineering, calls "mandatory donations."
Over the last 30 years, Wilcox, president of Mountain Rescue Service and owner of International Mountain Equipment in North Conway, estimates he has helped organize about 450 rescue missions, including one effort in 1981 that ended with the death of a member of his rescue team. Since then, when he finds obvious negligence, he lets survivors know that donations to the Mountain Rescue Service, composed of about 50 volunteer mountaineers, should be in order.
"It's one thing to break a leg and need to be carried out, but if you ignore weather reports and go without night gear, that's stupidity, and in those cases, I think a mandatory donation is appropriate," he said.
As for the 25,000 fine, I ask again: Does anyone know who the individuals were (by name and title) who made the determination that the young man being talked about was "negligent" and subject to fine? And if there was a hearing? Seems like there wasn't one where he or his representative could attend.
Beware a Government that turns its back on due process, even in the name of promoting safety. If this can happen in NH...
The easy solution here is just accept personal responsibility...if you engage in a risky activity you are on your own there is no rescue...ever. This is what is being done in our hurricane evacuation zones. If you stay you STAY we will not come get your butt when you try to dial 911.
Let's face it as much as we don't want to admit hiking is a risky activity...you are many times miles from any assistance in an environment that can at times be dangerous and when help does come it is at risk to those trying to render assistance.
We all take risks. For example I've seen what is being pushed here as a first aid kit--what basically amounts to a few bandaids and neosporin all in the effort to shave a half a gram from the pack weight. The most you can fix with that is a shaving cut. Very few of you are trained in stitching up an open wound or even splinting a leg or arm not to mention you don't carry sutures. I'm not saying yo need to but not doing so is indeed assuming someone will come get your butt when you need them to. The same is true for much of the light weight gear: don't take a filter or iodine tablets--you wont need them and they are too heavy blah, blah blah...the list can go on. I'm not saying these are on their face bad ideas but each of these is a calculated risk that you as a hiker are assuming. That assumption is that nothing will go wrong and if it does someone will be there to bail you out.
So why not just admit that hiking is a calcualted risk and you might not be able to get help? Does that scare you? Would you pack differently if you knew that was the case? I'd bet you would.
I think the premise of charging someone like this is crap. Without a prescriptive gear list the law is arbitrary and can be applied at the whim of the "officials". As far as I am concerned the cost of SAR is part of the cost of doing business. If you are going to have a trail system and collect sales taxes on busnisess located along that trail system then SAR has to be part of the budget. I'm sure the state collected more than the total costs of all the rescues it performed in a year (negligent or not) in sales tax each year from the various hikers that come through and locals that buy hiking gear.
Take almost nothing I say seriously--if it seems to make no sense what so ever it's probably meant as a joke....but do treat your water!
When all of the "experts" and "peers" consulted have a direct financial stake in the outcome, what do you expect?
If they get away with this, I expect more and more outlandish charges for less and less negligent acts - it's already happening by the NH delegation's own arguments.
Decent idea - VERY BAD legislation, implementation, and application. Stay away from NH till they come to their senses, both the legislators and those who support this whole-heartedly.
LOL....the more I read about this fiasco the more I see that he didn't need any rescue. If the SAR unit was not able to charge this kid for the rescue I'm sure their assessment of the situation would have been different. NO ONE NEEDS AN AMBULANCE FOR A TWISTED ANKLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
WOO,
Yeah you're right.....they weren't gung ho. LMAO
geek
I think being stranded on the mountain for 3 days is punishment enough.
Furthermore, I think the law is bad and should be repealed. They've gone too far.
Panzer
This has been the basic premise of my argument...who determines how much and what gear is necessary and why is it not hammered in stone at EVERY trailhead for everyone to see.
I've seen the signs telling me to be careful. Where's the sign that lists every piece of gear I'll need and every person, authority and ranger station I should leave an itinerary with in order to not be considered negligent?
Granted, the Whites can be harsh, very harsh. So can any number of other Mountain Ranges in the US and around the world. I believe that MT. Washington is probably the only one in this class that has a road leading to the summit, a train leading to the summit, numerous trails (complete with an extensive hut system) leading to the summit, and a permanent weather station built on the summit! No wonder more harsh weather has been recorded here than at other harsh mountains.
To imply, as many of the "expert" NH hikers here are doing, that they alone can judge or determine negligence in this case is ludicrous, and I'm tired of seeing it. My previous comment was deleted by me, because I knew they would take offense that anyone would suggest that they weren't quite so special as they think they are, and that other's too can have perfectly valid opinions.
Is New Hampshire (live free but be careful) the only state that charges for SAR missons and who decides negligence ?
Next thing you know they'll begin to critique what gear is needed for any particular hike taken in New Hampshire .
But you all come on and hike up here and spend lots ol money cause' this outdoor adventure industry is our meal ticket you know.
Think OUTSIDE....no box required.
All SAR efforts don't cost the same. A few years ago I was involved in one where it took a handful of rescuers to litter a 78-year old man .75 miles on a flat wide trail you could almost drive. The cost of that was minimal. A 3-day SAR with multiple groups and helicopter would be very expensive. Ask for an itemized bill.Homer&Marje-"If they spend 200-260k a year on search and rescue for the entire year in the White Mountains then why is this kid footing 10% of the bill?"
+++++++++++++++++
There are what might be referred to as "accepted peer practices" where you are expected to have the knowledge, experience, and equipment necessary for the conditions and weather you would encounter in an area that time of year. That is hardly arbitrary.beakerman-"I think the premise of charging someone like this is crap. Without a prescriptive gear list the law is arbitrary and can be applied at the whim of the "officials". As far as I am concerned the cost of SAR is part of the cost of doing business."
As far as to the cost of doing business, the state has only gone after cases where there is negligence, which is not a legitimate business expense. The law provides for the state to recoup losses in these cases.
+++++++++++++++++++
Sorry, this is WB, not worldwideconspiracy.comrickb-"...Beware a Government that turns its back on due process, even in the name of promoting safety. If this can happen in NH..."
+++++++++++
It should be obvious that after hiking in the area for decades and basically living on the summit for 4 winters I would have more knowledge and experience that someone who is 17 and might be hiking that trail for the first time. You probably know a lot more about Michigan's UP than I do and that doesn't upset me one bit. The people who came to this decision are highly qualified, there is no disputing that.Lyle-"To imply, as many of the "expert" NH hikers here are doing, that they alone can judge or determine negligence in this case is ludicrous, and I'm tired of seeing it."
Posting Permissions
