View Full Version : Hiker Rescue.... Weigh in
joedperk
05-06-2015, 13:26
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/30/new-hampshire-hiker-rescue_n_7181022.html
Sarcasm the elf
05-06-2015, 13:55
That sounds like a very loose interpretation of the word negligence...
It's also interesting how articles like this love to quote the state's figures for the cumulative cost of rescues in the area while failing to mention the millions of dollars that visitors pump into the local economy annually.
Well, I've hiked all of the AT from Springer to Manchester Center, VT. Over the past few years, the NH overzealous charging of rescue fees in VERY questionable situations, has turned me off of that state entirely. It's been a couple of years since I've set foot on the At. I have changed my focus to other trails, JMT, Colorado Trail, CDT. More hiker friendly, and better scenery. If I ever do return to the AT, it will be to finish VT, then skip to Maine. I have no further use for NH hiking.
Walkintom
05-06-2015, 14:13
I tend to weigh on things like this by not spending money in places that do things like that. The huts in the Whites are a racket, imo and I already hold that against NH.
This is just another thing to keep me away. It's not that I'd ever likely find myself in this guys shoes - it's that this is how the state handles such a situation. Screw em.
Sarcasm the elf
05-06-2015, 15:12
The other thing I will say about this (from my perspective as a tourist/hiker) Is that it really is terrible public relations for the S&R teams. Here are a group of people, largely volunteers, that are willing to risk their lives to rescue people off the mountains, yet the publicity about their work is being tarnished with stories of the State going around and suing the same people that the S&R teams had so selflessly gone to rescue.
I'll still hike the Whites and will probably pay the $25 Hikesafe bribe just to be cautious. But this sort of thing does not fit in with the character of N.H. that I grew up loving.
Bluegrass
05-06-2015, 15:57
There is another thread that covers this: http://whiteblaze.net/forum/showthread.php/111043-The-cost-of-hiking-in-New-Hampshire-could-be-pretty-high
I tend to believe that the gentleman's behavior does fall under the category of "negligent", having read the court's decision.
I don't like it either but..... I live in NC. If I have to call a rescue squad (volunteer) they are going to charge me pretty good for driving to my house and driving me to the hospital. If I need to be air lifted to another hospital add on another $20,000.00. And they fly only in good weather and land on a pad with lights. Not sure what the whoop is all about if you think about it like that. I think that most find themselves in similar situations as far as fees go to get you to the hospital. I think some states have rescue insurance now.
I understand the sentiments expressed above but there is a lot to this situation. Rescues are very expensive and the number of them around the US and the world each year are staggering. While it is true that these 'tourists' are bringing money into the area that they are in I expect that little of that money is going to the folks who are spending dollars doing the rescues. Most of the money goes to private businesses. Rescue money comes out of the tax payers pockets in general. Thus not funding rescues by any other means than tax revenues means that the vast majority of the people paying for the rescues are not materially benefiting from the incoming tourist dollars. They are just the regular joes. Another fair point is that hikers/climbers (excepting places like Nepal) are not dropping major dollars in comparison to regular tourists (who seldom need rescuing).
It makes a lot of sense for folks who are going out in any kind of situation which has a significant possibility of a rescue situation occurring to have some form of rescue insurance. I am not talking about your typical summer AT hiker here, not that it would be a bad idea for them either, but anyone hiking in winter, the top of the Whites when bad conditions could occur, any form of climbing, more extreme hiking than the AT like the PCT/CDT/AZT and other much more dangerous and remote trails, and lots of other forms of outdoor activities. Check the following link out:
http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1892621,00.html
Some of the ways one can do this are by carrying the SPOT device as it comes with rescue insurance, joining the American Alpine Club (no you do not have to be climbing to join or get their insurance) and getting one of its insurance packages, and there might be others I do not know about. I do this and highly recommend it.
This guy you are talking about got off very cheap. Just over $9000 dollars? That could not have been more than 20% of what it really cost. The topic I posted today about the PCT rescue yesterday shows why it is a good idea. That kid had a SPOT device and will pay nothing, but that rescue had to have cost at least $20K.
Having insurance for these kinds of activities is just part of the world we live in and the penalty for not having it can be really high. A big time search and rescue can easily hit $100K. You do not want to pay that out of pocket. Another point. Assuming you have health insurance have you checked to see if it covers you if you are out in the wild doing some extreme sporting activity (and they get to define it)? Or do you need supplemental insurance like the Alpine Club has.
To give an idea what bad situations can cost. A few years ago I was in a really bad accident (not sports related just a regular accident). I broke my back in several places and had a number of other injuries. Deaths door as they say. The paramedics kept me alive until the helicopter got there and flew me to the trauma center, then ICU, then surgery, then ICU, then regular room, then home to rehabilitate. Total time in the hospital was about 8 days. Bill - $250,000. Fortunately I had good insurance. But the helicopter alone was $24,000 dollars. The insurance people laughed at me when I complained (yeah I know - what the hell was I complaining for) about that and told me it was cheap as they saw bills all the time for helicopters which hit $50,000.
4eyedbuzzard
05-06-2015, 17:04
FWIW, there are many other states that will also charge/fine you for S&R related expenses. In some, it is done by laws authorizing reimbursement, and it can also be county by county. Most states that do just haven't gotten the publicity yet because they haven't tried to address the issue head on the way NH has. Currently NH fishermen, hunters, boat, snowmobile, and ATV operators pay for all S&R through licensing fees. Hikers pay nothing, yet account for over half of all rescue expenditures, which are approx. $350,000 annually.
Well, I intend to hike the AT so will have to suffer through NH, just hope I don't have any issues there. I live in Florida so by definition, I have no areas I can practice that mimic the AT at all. If that is held against me then I guess people from flat states will have a problem. Part of the reason I am taking on the cost of a gear/warmup hike in Tenn shortly but I just can't prove I am ready by the hiking I've done in Florida.
4eyedbuzzard
05-06-2015, 17:52
That sounds like a very loose interpretation of the word negligence...
It's also interesting how articles like this love to quote the state's figures for the cumulative cost of rescues in the area while failing to mention the millions of dollars that visitors pump into the local economy annually.Read the court document. Especially pages 2 and 3 http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme/opinions/2015/2015031bacon.pdf The guy had four previous hip surgeries since 2005 and five dislocations of his replacement hip during the prior year, hiked into extremely bad weather admitting he hadn't checked the forecast, and injured himself by trying to jump up on a 4 foot rock ledge, moving the leg/hip into precisely the position his medical provider told him to avoid. Then he changed his story in court from what he told at least two Fish and Game officers.
Well, I've hiked all of the AT from Springer to Manchester Center, VT. Over the past few years, the NH overzealous charging of rescue fees in VERY questionable situations, has turned me off of that state entirely. It's been a couple of years since I've set foot on the At. I have changed my focus to other trails, JMT, Colorado Trail, CDT. More hiker friendly, and better scenery. If I ever do return to the AT, it will be to finish VT, then skip to Maine. I have no further use for NH hiking.I follow the issue pretty closely. And the only incident which comes to mind as somewhat debatable is the 17 year old, Scott Mason, who in 2008 spent 3 nights injured on Mt Washington in winter like conditions, and where helicopters from Maine were used instead of the often "free" VT Air National Guard helicopters which were not available during the search (the ANG, which is federally funded, considers most rescue participation as "training ops"). The charge was later rescinded after litigation and public discourse. The incident was one of several that added momentum to find a solution to the S&R funding problem resulting in the "Hike Safe" program (the problem being that hikers receive the vast majority of these S&R services but the funding comes from other outdoor fees for boats and off road vehicles). And just FWIW, both Maine and Vermont also have laws on the books allowing rescues to be billed should authorities choose to do so. You might want to boycott them as well. :rolleyes:
I tend to weigh on things like this by not spending money in places that do things like that. The huts in the Whites are a racket, imo and I already hold that against NH.
This is just another thing to keep me away. It's not that I'd ever likely find myself in this guys shoes - it's that this is how the state handles such a situation. Screw em.Yes, the huts should obviously be free. Because they cost nothing to build, nothing to maintain, staff, etc. The food should probably be free too. :rolleyes: If they didn't exist, you would have the same exact options - hike down below treeline and camp.
Jake2c
Well, I intend to hike the AT so will have to suffer through NH, just hope I don't have any issues there. I live in Florida so by definition, I have no areas I can practice that mimic the AT at all. If that is held against me then I guess people from flat states will have a problem. Part of the reason I am taking on the cost of a gear/warmup hike in Tenn shortly but I just can't prove I am ready by the hiking I've done in Florida.
If you are hiking the whole AT (either way) you would have practice before getting to NH.
Redrowen
05-06-2015, 18:25
I'll still hike the Whites and will probably pay the $25 Hikesafe bribe just to be cautious. But this sort of thing does not fit in with the character of N.H. that I grew up loving.
Bit of a drama queen, there is nothing wrong with the New Hampshire Hikesafe program. I wouldn't participate in it, but it is worthwhile for some.
I follow the issue pretty closely. And the only incident which comes to mind as somewhat debatable is the 17 year old, Scott Mason, who in 2008 spent 3 nights injured on Mt Washington in winter like conditions, and where helicopters from Maine were used instead of the often "free" VT Air National Guard helicopters which were not available during the search (the ANG, which is federally funded, considers most rescue participation as "training ops"). The charge was later rescinded after litigation and public discourse. The incident was one of several that added momentum to find a solution to the S&R problem (that hikers receive the vast majority of these S&R services but the funding comes from other outdoor fees for boats and off road vehicles). And just FWIW, both Maine and Vermont also have laws on the books allowing rescues to be billed should authorities choose to do so. You might want to boycott them as well. :rolleyes:
.
Yes, the Scott Mason case. He was not seriously injured, as I recall, he was late getting out because of flooded streams. He may have made a bad choice when selecting a route for exit, but he was not in any substantial danger. He was walking back up to Mt. Washington when the "rescuers" found him, continued to walk him up to the summit, then out. They accompanied him, they did not rescue him.
The State padded the bill with 20+ F&G personnel to "supervise" the SAR folks, who were all volunteer, and had as much or more training than F&G. The F&G folks all were paid double time, since it was on a weekend, and anyone who wanted to come in did so, no coordination or limits. The helicopter was billed way in excess of the reasonable actual cost because NH was using their own helicopter for a political excursion, so they called in and rented Maine's. That was the original story, anyway, they may have changed it after the public outcry.
The young man was fully equipped, but the F&G guidelines for what is required equipment are so vague, that they could deem virtually any level of preparation and equipment as "inadequate", and they did so. The young man did not request any rescue, but his parents panicked. Lesson of the story, tell your family NOT to call SAR, better yet, don't tell your family when you plan to be out - may cost you big bucks for nothing. Not sure that's the lesson they wish to be teaching, but it is, in effect.
4eyedbuzzard
05-06-2015, 18:52
Yes, the Scott Mason case. He was not seriously injured, as I recall, he was late getting out because of flooded streams. He may have made a bad choice when selecting a route for exit, but he was not in any substantial danger. He was walking back up to Mt. Washington when the "rescuers" found him, continued to walk him up to the summit, then out. They accompanied him, they did not rescue him.
The State padded the bill with 20+ F&G personnel to "supervise" the SAR folks, who were all volunteer, and had as much or more training than F&G. The F&G folks all were paid double time, since it was on a weekend, and anyone who wanted to come in did so, no coordination or limits. The helicopter was billed way in excess of the reasonable actual cost because NH was using their own helicopter for a political excursion, so they called in and rented Maine's. That was the original story, anyway, they may have changed it after the public outcry.
The young man was fully equipped, but the F&G guidelines for what is required equipment are so vague, that they could deem virtually any level of preparation and equipment as "inadequate", and they did so. The young man did not request any rescue, but his parents panicked. Lesson of the story, tell your family NOT to call SAR, better yet, don't tell your family when you plan to be out - may cost you big bucks for nothing. Not sure that's the lesson they wish to be teaching, but it is, in effect.F&G is legally responsible for the S&R activity. As such, they have to by law supervise it. Scott had sprained his ankle and was injured which is part of the reason why he couldn't negotiate the streams. But the overwhelming facts remain that he was a minor, hiking alone in the Presidentials in winter, and the rescue was initiated at the parents request. And the parents were then billed. They made a big deal over him being an Eagle Scout. Okay, then he also broke the "never hike alone" BSA rule. It's good that he was otherwise prepared and survived okay.
Lesson of the story: Don't let your minor child, who YOU the parent are legally responsible for, hike alone, and then expect not to be held liable for rescue costs when they don't return on time and you call the police.
No one expected the Kennedy family to get a Million+ dollar bill when JFK Jr crashed his plane into the ocean, why should we expect less for the family of an Eagle Scout doing what kids his age should be?
Sarcasm the elf
05-06-2015, 19:02
Bit of a drama queen, there is nothing wrong with the New Hampshire Hikesafe program. I wouldn't participate in it, but it is worthwhile for some.
I was being purposely facetious when I wrote that last statement, but there is something very unsettling about the state selling "get out of jail free" cards to the public (yeah, I know it's liability not jail but you get the idea). If they charged a $25 dollar fee to hike in a certain area that would be one thing, heck if they asked me to donate $25 to S&R prior to entering an area, I'd be glad to, but telling me that the same authorites that sell the hike safe card are the ones decide both whether to bill you for a rescue and how much to bill you strikes me as a rather obvious conflict of interest.
In all honesty I will probably buy a hikesafe card before I head up there again, but that doesn't change that I find the idea of public officals running a project that is essentially: "give us $25 now and we won't fine you later even if you deserve it" to be a but unsavory.
Starchild
05-06-2015, 19:23
No one expected the Kennedy family to get a Million+ dollar bill when JFK Jr crashed his plane into the ocean, why should we expect less for the family of an Eagle Scout doing what kids his age should be?
+1
The 'common folk' should be more gifted help then those of means.
gpburdelljr
05-06-2015, 19:46
When you get injured at home and need an ambulance, you don't expect it to free so you have medical insurance. When your car breaks down, you don't expect a tow the be free so you get AAA or something similar. Why would anyone expect a hiking rescue to be free? A $25 payment for insurance sounds pretty cheap.
When you get injured at home and need an ambulance, you don't expect it to free so you have medical insurance. When your car breaks down, you don't expect a tow the be free so you get AAA or something similar. Why would anyone expect a hiking rescue to be free? A $25 payment for insurance sounds pretty cheap.
The ambulance is typically private.
The red truck with the paramedics is not.
You get a bill from the first, not the second.
4eyedbuzzard
05-06-2015, 20:32
The ambulance is typically private.
The red truck with the paramedics is not.
You get a bill from the first, not the second.Not true. Many "red trucks" and paramedics/EMS will be accompanied by a (pretty big) bill. Depends upon type of call, where you live, availability, type of transport, where you are transported, insurance, etc. http://priceonomics.com/the-wild-west-of-ambulance-charges/
Lone Wolf
05-06-2015, 20:34
i run a volunteer rescue squad. you call 911, we come. you get billed 3 months in a row, the billing stops. it get written off
Lone Wolf
05-06-2015, 20:36
i run a volunteer rescue squad. you call 911, we come. you get billed 3 months in a row, the billing stops. it get written off
run with..................
The ambulance is typically private.
The red truck with the paramedics is not.
You get a bill from the first, not the second.
I'm pretty sure I get a bill for that every 6 months in property taxes, every time I purchase something and pay a sales tax, every time I fill up my car and pay excise tax, a bill once a year about April 15th from the Federal government and state government. I would much rather just pay a flat $25 and call it good.
Not true. Many "red trucks" and paramedics/EMS will be accompanied by a (pretty big) bill. Depends upon type of call, where you live, availability, type of transport, where you are transported, insurance, etc. http://priceonomics.com/the-wild-west-of-ambulance-charges/
OK, I stand corrected. By red truck I was thinking of the guys who arrive first-- not the ones providing transport.
I am assuming your town bills for services rendered regardless of fault. That is fundamentally different from what we are talking about in this thread.
The ambulance is typically private.
The red truck with the paramedics is not.
You get a bill from the first, not the second.
Depends on what state you live in.
Michigan public municipalities can (and sometimes do) bill for responses....
First, there is nothing fundamentally wrong with contracting for a rescue by buying insurance to cover it, as long as the insurer is bound to honor the commitment. Second, forcing a service on someone whether they want it or not, then charging for it, is very similar to the "protection" offered to various businesses when I was growing up in RI. Third, it is honorable to volunteer to put oneself at risk to save another, and also honorable to be happy to be compensated for that risk, but a binding expectation of that compensation no longer confers "volunteer" status.
I am very confident that a private insurer could determine the appropriate premium to cover rescue services based upon the individual, the location, the season, etc., if they were allowed to do so. Crowding out those solutions through a state scheme to use taxes and fees from one population to subsidize another doesn't appear to be working, as these examples demonstrate. :)
Francis Sawyer
05-07-2015, 09:09
When your chosen recreational activity involves a level of risk you should be prepared . Do not expect someone else to pay for your misfortune.
62 years old, previous hip surgeries and injuries? You can't fix stupid.
saltysack
05-07-2015, 10:29
Where I live the city does bill for fire rescue ambulance rides.....
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Where I live the city does bill for fire rescue ambulance rides.....
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The question is what services one expects to be paid for by taxes, vs. what services one expects to be paid for by the user.
Ambulance rides are charged to the user. I got that and did not mean to suggest otherwise. Putting aside the fact that such services are typically paid for by one's health insurance, this is a choice that communities make.
In contrast most communities do not send you a bill for the ladder truck that arrives on scene first. I suppose they could, and some may, but this is a choice communities make.
Now some communities/states have decided to charge for rescue services in the backcountry. But only if they determine you were negligent.
To my way of thinking they should either accept the responsibility for rescue services out of the general fund, or -- if needed -- charge everyone who uses these services.
Like the guy in the ambulance.
He is going to get a bill whether he had a heart attack or was driving drunk.
saltysack
05-07-2015, 12:05
Yep agree
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk