When to call for rescue

[overmywaders]

With three parties of hikers (total of five men) rescued from the Presidential Range, here in NH, in an eight-day period, two questions obviously arise:

1/ Did someone install an idiot magnet in our mountains? :)

2/ When does a person reasonably request rescue?
Without going into details about the three events above, all three rescues occurred because the hikers were unprepared for conditions. One hiker lost his life, one was hospitalized in serious condition -- and chopper pilots risked their lives, as did ground searchers, in all these situations.

In one instance the lone hiker, who had no snowshoes in five feet of snow, spent, as planned, a night on the mountain in his tent and sleeping bag. The next morning he text-messaged his girlfriend asking for rescue. Then he called 911 and rescuers tracked his call. When found he was comfortable and drying his socks over a stove. IMO, this man risked peoples lives for his own comfort (based only upon what I have deciphered from the media).

In another thread on this forum, someone posted the following scenario:
"
I carry one only for emergencies. I mark the car so I can get back to it if needed. I lead a church teenage group every summer on the AT. Last year a girl fell on Hump Mountain and sprained her ankle bad enough that we had to call for help. I was explaining to the rescue people where we were on the trail but when I told them the exact coordinates it was great. Pinpointed us exactly. The lady on the other end of the phone was so appreciative that I had it. She said often people call but have no idea where they are.
http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/wb_style/buttons/quote.gif (http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=546268)

I mean no disrespect to the writer and the situation was probably far more complex than as written; however, no one remarked on the request for rescue?? Just from the information provided, it seems that there were sufficient bodies to carry/assist the girl with the sprained ankle back to the car (they were not lost) without requesting someone to "rescue" her!

Perhaps the presence of cellphones is making a call for rescue too easy. Here in NH, the government collects the cost of rescue (up to $10,000) from anyone who "recklessly" put themselves into a situation in which rescue forces are required/requested. Pending legislation will change the requirement to the "negligently" -- much easier to prove. However, because the state regards a call for rescue as an implied contract, it is seldom that they must prove even negligence.

Just one opinion.

When do you think a call for rescue should be made?

[Jim Adams]

only when ALL other modes of survival have been exhausted and your life is in real danger not percieved danger.

geek

[notorius tic]

Hell ive fallen an i cant get up or clap on clap off.. I Split my head wide open coming off of Saddle Bk this year an Niner stitched me up with the Dental floss that I carried for 1800 miles an used once<: ty I carried it.. An ty to Niner for carring the stiching needle<: Best friends are Best friends Forever<: Safe hiking 2 all

[notorius tic]

And Niner resides at Northen Outdoors sent some pics 8ft of drift today an got his snow shows on<: Life is about taking the unipected an expeting it<

[notorius tic]

SP unpredicted

[notorius tic]

Im sorry im the best speller in a hurry to get back out there the 1 thing breaks me from this suttle xperience ( a walk in the woods is better than any other walk) an i thank all the people that take care of it<:

[Jason of the Woods]

I think that a lot of it is ignorance, unfortunatley. As much as I would like to see more people work off their bellies by hiking I think that it is very important to be prepared, especially with knowledge. In these cases it sounds like that is the biggest problem.

To answer your question. If you are dying, then you call for help. Not if you think that you are dying because your ankle twisted. You are very right in the thought that others risk their lifes in a rescue. Know what you are doing!!!

[Frosty]

Did someone install an idiot magnet in our mountains? People who make errors in judgment, get lost, etc, are not idiots. They are sometimes people who are ignorant of certain knowledge, but they are most often people who know better but still make mistakes. Most people who hike a lot have done a LOT of dumb things. Most of us here on WB are careful, well-equipped and well-prepared hikers. We got that way generally from trial and error. Who has NOT had a scary experience in the woods, an oh-crap-this-is-not-good feeling? Yeah, some of the errors in judgment people make are astounding, but I wouldn't call them idiots.

Idioits are people who post crap like Post #1 in this thread.

[Jason of the Woods]

We sat under an outcropping for lunch in the rain and had a huge chunk of sandstone fall about five feet from us. Lesson learned- sit further up away from ledge above.

We heard the warning purr of a mountain lion right off of the trail while hiking. Lesson learned- Keep hiking and ignore until confronted. Don't go stomping through the bush to say hi.

Do these count?


People who make errors in judgment, get lost, etc, are not idiots. They are sometimes people who are ignorant of certain knowledge, but they are most often people who know better but still make mistakes. Most people who hike a lot have done a LOT of dumb things. Most of us here on WB are careful, well-equipped and well-prepared hikers. We got that way generally from trial and error. Who has NOT had a scary experience in the woods, an oh-crap-this-is-not-good feeling? Yeah, some of the errors in judgment people make are astounding, but I wouldn't call them idiots.

Idioits are people who post crap like Post #1 in this thread.

[overmywaders]

Frosty,

While I used the term "idiot magnet" whimsically, hence the smilie, the definition of idiot is "a foolish or stupid person".

Everyone has vast reservoirs of personal ignorance they can explore -- I certainly haven't found the bottom of mine -- but to be "without knowledge" is far different than those who possess the knowledge and trust in the goodness of others to get them out of situations they should never have been in.

Two of the hikers were EMTs and fully-equipped to spend days in the mountains. However, they thought that they would:

1/ Cover some of the toughest nineteen miles of the Presidentials, including Mt. Washington, in one day.
2/ Have clear visibility for their hike - "We didn't expect low visibility... down to twenty feet."
3/ Have no rain (it poured).
4/ Depend on their GPS, even though they had a map and compass. The GPS failed them in white-out conditions and they went the wrong way.
5/ Despite their preparedness, they had a friend call for rescue when they were only hours overdue.
5/ Despite their good equipment, youth, and good health; they had a chopper pilot perform some dangerous maneuvers to get them out, rather than walking out.


If you think the term "error in judgment" is applicable to the above, exactly how many consistent errors in judgment are required before a person is just plain foolish? If the people I mentioned hadn't requested others to enter deep snow, difficult terrain, and hazardous flying conditions to rescue them, my perception of them might be more temperate -- but these five I mentioned entered hazardous conditions, seemingly, with the perception that others were responsible to repair their "errors in judgment."

Most of the people who hike the mountains in winter are conscientious, clear-headed, and prepared. They handle mistakes and unforeseen circumstances well.

[ed bell]

Frosty,

While I used the term "idiot magnet" whimsically, hence the smilie, the definition of idiot is "a foolish or stupid person".

Everyone has vast reservoirs of personal ignorance they can explore -- I certainly haven't found the bottom of mine -- but to be "without knowledge" is far different than those who possess the knowledge and trust in the goodness of others to get them out of situations they should never have been in.

Two of the hikers were EMTs and fully-equipped to spend days in the mountains. However, they thought that they would:

1/ Cover some of the toughest nineteen miles of the Presidentials, including Mt. Washington, in one day.
2/ Have clear visibility for their hike - "We didn't expect low visibility... down to twenty feet."
3/ Have no rain (it poured).
4/ Depend on their GPS, even though they had a map and compass. The GPS failed them in white-out conditions and they went the wrong way.
5/ Despite their preparedness, they had a friend call for rescue when they were only hours overdue.
5/ Despite their good equipment, youth, and good health; they had a chopper pilot perform some dangerous maneuvers to get them out, rather than walking out.


If you think the term "error in judgment" is applicable to the above, exactly how many consistent errors in judgment are required before a person is just plain foolish? If the people I mentioned hadn't requested others to enter deep snow, difficult terrain, and hazardous flying conditions to rescue them, my perception of them might be more temperate -- but these five I mentioned entered hazardous conditions, seemingly, with the perception that others were responsible to repair their "errors in judgment."

Most of the people who hike the mountains in winter are conscientious, clear-headed, and prepared. They handle mistakes and unforeseen circumstances well.
overmywaders, I thought both of your posts were quite thoughtful. I caught the:).

[dessertrat]

only when ALL other modes of survival have been exhausted and your life is in real danger not percieved danger.

geek

If someone perceives that his life is in danger, erroneously, what do we make of that? Who says real versus perceived, other than the good judgment we demand of the person calling?

Some people have not been through enough physical hardship to know the difference between discomfort and danger. I don't know how to fix that.

[rafe]

None of this is new. I'm very fond of that plaque on the wall at Pinkham Lodge. There's a small brass plate, about 1"x4", for each of the deceased. Last time I looked at it (many years ago) there were thirty or forty brass plates.... and plenty of space reserved for more.

I think about that plaque a lot. Like, every time I set out for the woods. Can't get the image out of my mind. It helps keep things in perspective.

[Bearpaw]

People who make errors in judgment, get lost, etc, are not idiots. They are sometimes people who are ignorant of certain knowledge, but they are most often people who know better but still make mistakes. Most people who hike a lot have done a LOT of dumb things. Most of us here on WB are careful, well-equipped and well-prepared hikers. We got that way generally from trial and error. Who has NOT had a scary experience in the woods, an oh-crap-this-is-not-good feeling? Yeah, some of the errors in judgment people make are astounding, but I wouldn't call them idiots.

Idioits are people who post crap like Post #1 in this thread.

I will be polite enough not to call them idiots, but someone who heads into mountains, without basic navigation and wilderness skills, relying on GPS and a cell phone to get them out of trouble, are being very foolish.

And it seems this is becoming more common, at least from the number of stories I hear on the news each year. Mt. Washington seems to be the eastern Mecca for such incidents, while Mt. Hood appears to be the rescue capitol of the west coast.

Maybe overmywaders opinions are strong, but I don't find them to be those of an idiot at all. I agree with many of his points. If $10,000 rescue bills become more common, some of the more frivolous rescue calls would cease.

[mudhead]

Or even automatic minimum charges.

[dessertrat]

But at the same time, we don't want someone not calling for a rescue because of fear of a bill. There are some people who would no doubt freeze to death because they underestimate the danger rather than overestimate it, and the threat of a $10,000 bill would escalate that.

I am still not sure how to teach everyone experience and common sense.

[Lyle]

If someone perceives that his life is in danger, erroneously, what do we make of that? Who says real versus perceived, other than the good judgment we demand of the person calling?

Some people have not been through enough physical hardship to know the difference between discomfort and danger. I don't know how to fix that.

I guess, based on the information given in the original post, that I believe both of these parties should be responsible for the cost of their rescue. No injury, comfortable camp, not lost - this should not constitute a need for rescue in any reasonable person's opinion. If the gentleman chose to call for a rescue, he should be prepared to pay for it. You call a cab, you pay the cab.

Likewise, a couple of hours overdue in no way indicates a rescue is called for. I'm surprised that one was even initiated.

I have no problem with public funding of legitimate rescues, but perhaps a national system similar to what Colorado uses would have merit. You purchase an inexpensive, annual permit, card, whatever you want to call it. The funds are used to reimburse local communities for necessary rescue expense. Not necessarily 100% fair, and possibly could contribute to more idiots (yes, some are actually idiots in my book) expecting rescue, but better than the current system where all the costs are borne by the local communities. Could also set up some type of guidelines as to what constitutes a legitimate call for rescue. If this threshold isn't met, then the the rescuee is financially responsible.

Just thinking out loud here.

[Bearpaw]

If someone perceives that his life is in danger, erroneously, what do we make of that? Who says real versus perceived, other than the good judgment we demand of the person calling?

Some people have not been through enough physical hardship to know the difference between discomfort and danger. I don't know how to fix that.

I understand your point Dessertrat, but if the person requesting rescue asked him- or herself "Am I in enough danger to make it worth up to $10,000 to be rescued?", I suspect many hikers would begin to distinguish between discomfort and danger.

Four years ago, I prepared to hiked the Teton High Route at Grand Tetons National Park in the second week of July. The rangers at the permit office literally quizzed me on my backcountry knowledge and skills before they issued the permit. They seemed satisfied when I explained all my gear and how I would use it. They were also more open when I explained I had just finished leading a 30-day NOLS wilderness course in the Absaroka Range. But they were leery of issuing permits going through the Alaska Basin area because they had needed to conduct three separate rescues in that area over the previous 8 days.

I entered the area, and while there was still a decent bit of snow, simple compass navigation and ice axe use made it obvious where I needed to go until I reached bare ground and the trail again. I couldn't help but wonder how any one had had issues up here in mild weather (high 65, low 40). I asked when I got out. The ranger explained that the rescued had made a cell phone a part of their backcountry gear instead of a compass....

To me, this is a big-money rescue for the "emergency guide service" involved.

[mudhead]

A number of people go out when it might be prudent to stay closer to home.

Mother Nature can be interesting. (Raccoon covers it's eyes.)

[saimyoji]

I am still not sure how to teach everyone experience and common sense.

Its called "natural selection."

[Smile]

IMHO, I just don't get the draw of hiking in the Whites at the end of January and early February. :)

[envirodiver]

I get the feeling from some people that with the desire to lighten our packs that some folks don't carry the things that may be needed to get them out of jams and be "self sufficient".

I think that in "life threatning" instances rescues are needed and glad that they are an option. But, before we go into the backcountry, especially in dificult weather conditions, or more likely in areas that the conditions can change dramatically in a short time period we should "Be Prepared" for the worst and hope for the best.

Regarding rescues, I was hiking in the Virgin Falls area last October. Nice weather, reasonable trail about 3 miles from the trailhead and a young man came running by me headed for the trailhead. I asked what was up and he said that his friend had fallen and broken his ankle. I asked if someone was with him, and was prepared to go back and stay with him till help arrived. his reply was that there were 3 other guys still there and went on. I then thought, why the heck didn't those 4 guys get his friend out (for one thing it would have been much quicker to get him medical treatment), instead of going for help who would do the same thing?

[overmywaders]

I hope folks understand that NH is not inflicting fines or punitive measures in requesting costs (maxed at $10K) of rescue when it involves negligence. The state considers that the hiker is entering into an implied contract when they call for rescue -- the costs are requested for services (unnecessarily) rendered. They don't charge for children inadvertently lost in the woods, nor for the mentally unfit; just for the reckless or negligent.

If you call for an ambulance, you expect to pay the cost of conveyance. In that case there is not a possible risk for the "rescuers". How much more should you expect to pay for someone to rescue you from a dilemma of your own making?

[dessertrat]

What if you break your leg because you were "recklessly" descending a hill too fast? It becomes a difficult question as to who should pay and who shouldn't. I also like the idea of a permit that includes rescue insurance. I know some see it as "just another layer of regulation", but we charge for hunting and fishing licenses, so why not?

[Appalachian Tater]

What if you break your leg because you were "recklessly" descending a hill too fast? It becomes a difficult question as to who should pay and who shouldn't. I also like the idea of a permit that includes rescue insurance. I know some see it as "just another layer of regulation", but we charge for hunting and fishing licenses, so why not?Exactly.

[GratefulHike]

I am all about paying for a permit for and have the proceeds go towards funds to assist in rescues. It will help pay to get the "idiots" to get out of the way. Someone stated about the folks that go out there to be utlralight and not be prepared. I couldn't agree more with that, people think me lugging around a 40lbs pack is rediculous, but I always have enough gear to help out anyone in need of some warmth or food.

I agree at the worst, these people were very uncomfortable. Drying your socks over your stove definitely doesn't mean your life was at danger. I think ever time I go winter camping I am in that bad of a situation.

Please if you are hiking in groups take care of your own. We took a guy out on his first backpacking trip. After two days he had very very bad blisters. Also he didn't head the advise to buy a good backpack and ended up with nasty sores on his underarms. We got to a road and got the important stuff out of his pack and ditched it. We actually used the GPS to mark it and came back and got it after the hike. You do what you got to do.

Common sense is in the eye of the beholder I suppose...

[wtmntcaretaker]

that guy was not going to leave the mt. in good shape. he had NO SHOES! he and the first guy will probably get charged for the rescue. the solo hiker with no shoes called in his rescue at a good time. the last two did not ask for help/ rescue the people that they left their ittinerary with, after they were a day late called fish and game.

[warraghiyagey]

With three parties of hikers (total of five men) rescued from the Presidential Range, here in NH, in an eight-day period, two questions obviously arise:
1/ Did someone install an idiot magnet in our mountains? :)


Considering one of these resulted in a fatality, I'm genreally shocked that there are statements and general second guessing in these situations.
Yikes

[berninbush]

I'm seeing a bunch of people on here saying "Groups should carry out an injured member rather than calling for rescue."

But if I recall, a while back there was a thread about a boy scout troop that did this for an injured hiker, and they got blistered up and down on a thread here for moving the victim at all. A hot argument broke out as to whether they should have done this, or let the "professionals" do it lest the victim receive worse injury.

The very first time I tried an overnight backpacking trip with my teenage sister, we were hopelessly ill-equipped and naive about the challenge of the trail we'd chosen. I won't go into the whole long story, but we ended up huddled in a tiny tent near the top of a mountain in a raging thunderstorm with only one sleeping bag between us, and most of my gear (including my sleeping bag and sister's medicine) half a mile down the trail. Yes, I made some bad decisions in that situation, partly due to inexperience and partly due to exhaustion. In the morning, we called for rescue. We were actually next to a jeep road and I was able to tell them exactly where we were, so our "rescue" was a matter of two rangers driving up in a battered pickup truck and giving us a lift down. (One of them was nice enough to hike down and retrieve my lost gear, too.) Two points to the story: not all rescues cost $10,000 and endanger the rescuers' lives, and... people do learn from their mistakes and go on to become successful, better-prepared hikers in the future.

I guess the moral is to encourage people to challenge themselves but not to get so far in over their heads that they really have a life-threatening situation, or where their bail-out is going to cost a fortune. I was definitely a "noob" (and still am), but I know that I am and I don't put myself in situations like hiking the Whites in winter where a rescue is costly and dangerous. For people who DO engage in that kind of hiking, maybe the answer is to make them either demonstrate that they're as prepared as they can reasonably be, or to make them sign a waiver that if they require rescue they'll pay the entire bill.

[GGS2]

Good debate. I always consider that when I go into the back country, there is always a risk that I will do something stupid or have an accident and not come back. That is my own, personal risk assessment and acceptance of cost. I had a friend who carried a rescue alert system (EPIRB) on a back country trip. I think it was because of concern from his wife. He was out for several weeks on the barrens in unknown waters, and there was realistically some risk, even though he was experienced in this kind of travel. I don't think he would have called out for rescue until he had exhausted all his food and energy trying to get himself out. As it happens, neither of us have ever had to call for rescue, but both of us have been glad of assistance when it came to us as "trail magic."

The stories we have heard recently seem to me to be of a different character. They are of people out of their depth and apparently in no proper understanding of their situation. If you go into the alpine zone in winter, or at any time that bad weather can be expected, it is minimal common knowledge that you may get weather bound in wet, cold, icy, snowy, windy conditions. The trail may disappear, become slippery, be buried in snow. There may be white out, high altitude glare, overcast, lightning conditions. Travel may be impossible, difficult, inadvisable for days on end. You may become incapacitated by frost, injury, snow blindness, disorientation, hypothermia. Equipment may break, be lost, malfunction. And so on.

Why do these people set out without taking these risks into account? It seems to me that they are negligent of their own and others' safety, and untutored in the proper precautions and risk assessments that would have let them undertake these adventures in comparative safety, or perhaps have prevented them from attempting them at all. Many have an attitude of personal freedom which amounts to a license to the ill informed to put themselves at risk with the implied consent of all around them. "Go kill yourself if you want to. It's a free country." But I think it is another attitude which is even more risky. It is that we in this modern, electronic era may feel that we are never very far from assistance, and that it is our right to expect that others will go out of their way to help us out of whatever foolhardy jam we may get ourselves into. The notion of risk no longer enters into it. Nor does cost. We have come to expect an entitlement to rescue as a matter of right.

I'm not sure that people are more or less apt to get themselves into trouble these days. I'm sure a good many of our ancestors simply wandered off into the woods and never reappeared. It is just now a matter of public record when we do these stupid things, and a matter of public policy to extricate us if possible. While the available equipment may be vastly superior to what was formerly available, our general skill level in such situations is vastly inferior. Can the one compensate adequately for the other? Actually, our collective capacity for ignorance and general imbecility has never ceased to astound me, so I suppose the question is moot.

[weary]

only when ALL other modes of survival have been exhausted and your life is in real danger not percieved danger. geek
Now tell us how one separates real danger from one's perceptions of real danger. Personally, I don't carry anything with which to call for rescue, in order to avoid being tempted.

And yes, I realize that is equally inconsiderate. I'm sure rescuers would rather have GPS coordinates delivered by phone by me -- than to have to deal with frenzied calls from my wife and kids when I'm three days late returning from a winter hike.

Weary

[shelterbuilder]

I'm not sure that a rescue call hinges on ONE thing alone - like so many other instances, it may well be a series of small events (which by themselves alone would be of no consequence) which, when added together equal an "emergency situation".

There are, howver, two things today that IMHO are contributing to an increase in rescue requests: cell phones, and ultralightweight backpacking. The ideas that "less is more" and "I can always call for help if I'm in a jam" are probably contributing to a false sense of security in many of the outdoor enthusiasts who are intent on stumbling unprepared though the woods. Years ago, "going lightweight" meant carrying less than 40 pounds for a week - and once you were out there, you knew that you were on your own. You hiked with people you trusted; you caried some emergency equipment; you told folks back home where you were going and when you'd be back; you learned some first aid; you carried maps; and you depended on YOUR knowledge and YOUR equipment to keep from getting into a jam in the first place...and to get you out if you got into one.

Today, there are too many people - in town and in the woods - who assume that, because there is an emergency resonse system in place, that it's okay to use it for ANYTHING. And they make the choice to live a little closer to the edge than is prudent.

I admit that I have been in a few tight spots over the course of the last 40+ years (lost in the fog at night, and a sprained angle, are two that come to mind), and one of the hardest things to do when you're stuck is to sit down and think! You start to panic, and then you can only do the "fight or flight" routine. Medical emergencies aside, if more people would train themselves to sit down, make a pot of coffee or tea, and drink the whole pot BEFORE doing anything else, we might have a whole lot fewer folks using the system to ask for help that was really at the end of their own two arms. And for medical emergencies, if you've had any first aid training, then you already know what to do.

[rafe]

They don't know how lucky they are
they could have run into that tree
got struck by a bolt of lightning
and raped by a minority.
- John Prine, "The Accident" (Things Could be Worse)

[highway]

Personally, I believe that the negligent should be back-charged the cost of a rescue in the mountains. I have heard, though, that the cost of a helicopter rescue is considerable greater than the aforementioned $10,000.

A really neat compromise is Colorado's "insurance" in the guise of a "Colorado Hiking Certificate" at a mere $5.00 and it is good for 5 years. With it, a hiker is NOT charged for a rescue. But if you don't have it, you are. The income from selling all the certificates goes to fund the SAR folks in that state, too., so it is a win-win situation. And, I see that my second certificate just ran out, so I'll have to remember to buy my third next trip:-?

I also like Colorado's law against littering. I am convinced that is why so few do it:)

[Sly]

I have a fairly loud voice but if I were to call for help it probably wouldn't be heard and go unheeded.

[GGS2]

Personally, I believe that the negligent should be back-charged the cost of a rescue in the mountains. I have heard, though, that the cost of a helicopter rescue is considerable greater than the aforementioned $10,000.

A really neat compromise is Colorado's "insurance" in the guise of a "Colorado Hiking Certificate" at a mere $5.00 and it is good for 5 years. With it, a hiker is NOT charged for a rescue. But if you don't have it, you are. The income from selling all the certificates goes to fund the SAR folks in that state, too., so it is a win-win situation. And, I see that my second certificate just ran out, so I'll have to remember to buy my third next trip:-?

I also like Colorado's law against littering. I am convinced that is why so few do it:)

All good. I would be happy to invest a small amount of money to support SAR, and to have a no-litter law. The permit should bear a definition of litter, the fines for non-compliance and the burden of proof. Ie., if a ranger finds a fresh littered site and you are the only party on the trail, you're it. How would they do it, anyway? Probably only works at the heavy use sites with a resident ranger or LEO.

[rafe]

I have a fairly loud voice but if I were to call for help it probably wouldn't be heard and go unheeded.

In a howling blizzard on Franconia ridge? :rolleyes:

[shelterbuilder]

Why not prohibit the carrying and use of cell phones in the backcountry, and fine anyone who violates the prohibition $10,000, the monies collected to go to the local SAR groups?

[Sly]

In a howling blizzard on Franconia ridge? :rolleyes:

Reading comprehension problem?

[warraghiyagey]

Reading comprehension problem?
Huk'd on fonics werk'd for me.

[GoldenBear]

It is one of the freakish aspects of the American psyche that people would rather pay more money to ensure only people who "deserve" help get it, than the amount of money it would cost to give it to people who need it. This seems to be the attitude of some who post on this question.

SAR personnel are unanimous that the best time to seek help is AS SOON as you think you need it. They do NOT want people to wait until the situation gets even more serious, and the cost of the rescue goes up. Think it costs money to rescue people who are only lost on a trail? It'll cost MORE if they wait to call till after they go over a cliff in darkness!

Yes, I'm aware some people mis-use this approach to the point where they seek help for rather frivolous reasons. I'm also aware that some people mis-use free speech, to the point where they say things with the expressed purpose of causing pain. Do we accept the latter as a "cost" of free speech? Of course we do. In the same way, I'm prepared to accept frivolous calls for rescue as a cost of encouraging people not to wait until the situation gets even more dangerous and costly.

Charge people for rescues when these people are not negligent, but only stupid? Sounds great -- but WHO DECIDES when the rescued people were not negligent, only stupid? Does the government spend thousands of dollars in legal fees when people insist they were only unlucky, not careless? I can hear Judge Judy now: "Okay, Ranger Smith, you insist that people are careless if they fail to carry enough water in this desert hike. The other party was able to show that they had 12 liters of water. If they had carried 13 liters of water, would you have agreed to that they were not careless?" Rather than have court decisions on what constitutes "carelessness," why not just save the cost of legal fees and just rescue the person?

Of should we have a system where, before life-guards rescue a drowning person, they insist on pre-payment by cash or credit card?

This issue comes down to whether SAR is more like firefighting or more like ambulance service. In the former, the fire department will put out a fire in your home even if you were smoking in bed. They won't charge you for this fire-fighting unless you were "negligent." An ambulance company charges you no matter how much of an "innocent" victim you were.

Because freedom of speech is important to me, I don't want the government refusing to permit "stupid' speech, even if it means I'll hear some pretty stupid things. Likewise, because human life is important to me, I don't want the government refusing to rescue someone unless they are "innocent victims," even if it means I'll have to pay for some stupid actions.

I suppose if someone values their money over human life, they might reach a different conclusion. I hope they are aware that forcing people to pay for rescue, unless the rescued are "victims," means we'll end up paying MORE, not less.

[shelterbuilder]

GoldenBear, my point in all of this is that, somewhere along the way, the American psyche seems to have switched from "adventure" to "entitlement". Time was, when, if you ventured out into the woods - whether alone or with friends - you knew that you were on your own, and that if you got into a tight spot, you sat there until: someone from home sounded the alarm; your buddies managed to get you out; or someone else came down the trail, stumbled across you, and went for help. These days, you whip out your cell phone, dial "911", and help is on the way, whether its a "true emergency" or an "emergency-of-the-mind". And this can lead folks into taking more chances, with a smaller margin for error.

Granted, making the judgment-call between the two types of emergencies can be tough when it's YOUR a$$ on the line, but I think that the very presence of the emergency response system may be contributing to its "over-use and/or abuse". And I don't know if there's a way to reverse this.

[GGS2]

It is one of the freakish aspects ...

Good analysis, Bear. However, it still leaves the problem of who pays. The permit system means that at least some of the cost is borne by the users of the resource, namely the back country. While people in adjacent municipalities seem willing to bear the cost now, they are clearly feeling that the cost is excessive, hence the punitive cost assessments for frivolous use of the services. So I think the permit system has merit in laying the cost proportionally where it is incurred, but without a punitive burden on those who use the service at a possibly faulty judgment. The punitive cost is reserved for those who attempt to bypass the lesser burden.

In Ontario, and in Canada generally I think, we have an Outdoors Permit system which is unfortunately geared to fish and game licensees, rather than to general users of the outdoors recreational facilities and resources. The fees from this permit are used to support the activities of the Wildlife Protection branch, rather than SARs and the like. I don't know the statistics on use and need, but I would look favorably on a move to extend this permit somehow to include both the large number of other recreational users and the SAR-type services they require on an occasional basis. I think this is becoming more necessary as we become more numerous, since the load on facilities also increases. I'm glad to see Colorado leading on this, although I can forsee that they may have some administrative difficulties, and a few complaints about restrictions and paying for nothing. I presume the voluntary aspect of this is a sop to those who "never" need the services that are supported.

[woodsy]

overmywaders: They don't charge for the mentally unfit.
Thats good to know, I'll surely not be charged for rescue.

[warraghiyagey]

Thats good to know, I'll surely not be charged for rescue.
I'll just call Woodsy.
"Help - Woodsy. I'm stuck on a mountain and . . . anywho, can you find me? K."

[shelterbuilder]

Good analysis, Bear. However, it still leaves the problem of who pays. The permit system means that at least some of the cost is borne by the users of the resource, namely the back country. While people in adjacent municipalities seem willing to bear the cost now, they are clearly feeling that the cost is excessive, hence the punitive cost assessments for frivolous use of the services. So I think the permit system has merit in laying the cost proportionally where it is incurred, but without a punitive burden on those who use the service at a possibly faulty judgment. The punitive cost is reserved for those who attempt to bypass the lesser burden.

In Ontario, and in Canada generally I think, we have an Outdoors Permit system which is unfortunately geared to fish and game licensees, rather than to general users of the outdoors recreational facilities and resources. The fees from this permit are used to support the activities of the Wildlife Protection branch, rather than SARs and the like. I don't know the statistics on use and need, but I would look favorably on a move to extend this permit somehow to include both the large number of other recreational users and the SAR-type services they require on an occasional basis. I think this is becoming more necessary as we become more numerous, since the load on facilities also increases. I'm glad to see Colorado leading on this, although I can forsee that they may have some administrative difficulties, and a few complaints about restrictions and paying for nothing. I presume the voluntary aspect of this is a sop to those who "never" need the services that are supported.

Being a cheapskate by nature, I chafe at the ideas of: paying for something that I previously had "for free"; and paying for something that I don't use.

However, times change, $h!t happens, and - what the heck - I pay for all kinds of insurance, anyway. Maybe the "outdoor permit" system is the fairest way to spread the cost reasonbly among those who might use it most.

BUT, that still doesn't solve the problem of folks going out unprepared - both mentally and equipment-wise - and getting themselves into tight spots. How do we address this?

[Lyle]

Well Shelterbuilder, if the permit were mandatory in the sense that If you have the permit, the fund pays, if you don't buy the permit, then you pay, it should sort some of it out. You wouldn't need to determine if they were negligent, doesn't matter. If the don't buy the permit, they pay to be rescued (collection will be another matter).

Chances are those who are so negligent as to not properly prepare and equip themselves for this type of adventure, probably will be too negligent to buy the permit, so that will tip the scale towards fairness. The problem I see is that if they do buy the permit, they they will consider it a bus pass and call for service even more readily.

Definitely NOT an easy issue.

[woodsy]

I'll just call Woodsy.
"Help - Woodsy. I'm stuck on a mountain and . . . anywho, can you find me? K."
Sure I can, heres my phone # (207) (603) 911

[shelterbuilder]

Well Shelterbuilder, if the permit were mandatory in the sense that If you have the permit, the fund pays, if you don't buy the permit, then you pay, it should sort some of it out. You wouldn't need to determine if they were negligent, doesn't matter. If the don't buy the permit, they pay to be rescued (collection will be another matter).

Chances are those who are so negligent as to not properly prepare and equip themselves for this type of adventure, probably will be too negligent to buy the permit, so that will tip the scale towards fairness. The problem I see is that if they do buy the permit, they they will consider it a bus pass and call for service even more readily.

Definitely NOT an easy issue.

Precisely my point about the cell phone - many consider it a "bus pass", and will tend to use it instead of opting for common sense and preparedness.

Many of us here are old enough to remember when there were NO cell phones, and I just find it hard to understand how people can become so dependent on ANY device that becomes useless when the battery dies. (Yes, I carry one too - for my wife's peace-of-mind. That being said, it's turned off unless I'm making a call.)

[tx.katie.finch]

Who pays? It depends on who did the rescuing. If it's a national service, US tax dollars foot the bill. State service? State taxes. Local? Local taxes. At least, that's how it is in TX. I work for a county 9-1-1 system and the county pays for us to be here. As for the individual bill? Everyone gets one, regardless of IQ or amount of 'emergencyness.' Whether or not it gets paid is an entirely different story. Only 40% of emergent calls actually get paid for, including rescues, which makes all costs go up. So a $10,000 rescue likely didn't actually cost $10,000. The rescuers don't get a bonus for every individual they pry off of a cliff.
As far as when to call? In my opinion, as soon as you think you need help, ask for it. You might be safe in camp warming your socks, but if you know that if you leave, you're an ice cube, stay put. If there is any situation where I have to risk my toosh to get out to you, it's a qualified emergency/rescue. I'd rather find someone warm and toasty but generally safe than find someone half dead (or worse) 200 yards off of a trail. Granted, this doesn't mean that I won't be making fun of you later. Believe me... many people get made fun of (stubbed toe!?! seriously...). But when all is said and done, most people got into the rescue business to help people. Bad calls are just that; many people leave the job because of them. Flaky calls are annoying, but they're attended to just the same. A legitimate plea for help isn't ignored. Neither are the illegitimate ones.

[ed bell]

Sure I can, heres my phone # (207) (603) 911I've fallen off my computer chair and I can't get up. My cellphone is plugged in the wall so I can't call you. HELP!;)

[Wolf - 23000]

I get the feeling from some people that with the desire to lighten our packs that some folks don't carry the things that may be needed to get them out of jams and be "self sufficient".

I think that in "life threatning" instances rescues are needed and glad that they are an option. But, before we go into the backcountry, especially in dificult weather conditions, or more likely in areas that the conditions can change dramatically in a short time period we should "Be Prepared" for the worst and hope for the best.

Regarding rescues, I was hiking in the Virgin Falls area last October. Nice weather, reasonable trail about 3 miles from the trailhead and a young man came running by me headed for the trailhead. I asked what was up and he said that his friend had fallen and broken his ankle. I asked if someone was with him, and was prepared to go back and stay with him till help arrived. his reply was that there were 3 other guys still there and went on. I then thought, why the heck didn't those 4 guys get his friend out (for one thing it would have been much quicker to get him medical treatment), instead of going for help who would do the same thing?

envirodiver,

I travel with a very light pack but have never advise anyone to do the same as me. It is possible to backpack light weight safely if you know what you are doing. Not everyone can do that. As you said some people have the desire to lighten up but don’t have the needed equipment to be “self sufficient” to get out of jams. A large part of that is their skill level.

Search & Rescue are always willing to go out and attempt to rescue anyone regardless if it is a “life threatening” situation but what happens if they were not there. I like to know what would happen if S&R simple went away would it stop some of the idiots that go out into the mountains. How many hikers would reframe from going out if they knew no one would come after them if they got themselves in trouble?

Wolf

[Wolf - 23000]

I guess, based on the information given in the original post, that I believe both of these parties should be responsible for the cost of their rescue. No injury, comfortable camp, not lost - this should not constitute a need for rescue in any reasonable person's opinion. If the gentleman chose to call for a rescue, he should be prepared to pay for it. You call a cab, you pay the cab.

Likewise, a couple of hours overdue in no way indicates a rescue is called for. I'm surprised that one was even initiated.

I have no problem with public funding of legitimate rescues, but perhaps a national system similar to what Colorado uses would have merit. You purchase an inexpensive, annual permit, card, whatever you want to call it. The funds are used to reimburse local communities for necessary rescue expense. Not necessarily 100% fair, and possibly could contribute to more idiots (yes, some are actually idiots in my book) expecting rescue, but better than the current system where all the costs are borne by the local communities. Could also set up some type of guidelines as to what constitutes a legitimate call for rescue. If this threshold isn't met, then the the rescuee is financially responsible.

Just thinking out loud here.

Lyle,

The problem I see with it is you develop too many hikers that will call in a rescue when their not in a life threatening position. Hikers who feel, they "already paid for the service" not thinking about the real cost and the rescue workers who risk their lives to come get them.

Wolf

[woodsy]

A study was done by the WMS: wilderness medical society (http://www.wemjournal.org/wmsonline/?request=get-document&issn=1080-6032&volume=015&issue=01&page=0011) focusing on New Hampshire search and rescues from 1999-2001.
Interesting data for those interested.

One paragraph from the study:
IMPACT ON MEDICAL SERVICES
http://www.wemjournal.org/images/indent.gifIn 41.7% of the cases, the subject had to be carried out, a recovery method requiring tremendous manpower. The subject was airlifted by helicopter in 2.5% of the cases and recovered by divers in 3.4% of the cases. In 36.4% of the incidents, the name of the hospital to which the subject was transported was specifically stated in the narrative. Transport to a hospital was not specifically mentioned in 48.3% of the incidents, whereas in 13.7%, the subject was already dead at the time of recovery. Therefore, at least a third of search-and-rescue subjects in this series was transported to a hospital, utilizing local ambulance and hospital resources in addition to search- and-rescue resources. Volunteers were used in more than half of the incidents (53.3%). Injuries were sustained by 8 rescuers—by 1 New Hampshire Fish and Game Department officer, by 1 New Hampshire Army National Guard member, and the rest by volunteers. Rescuers were injured in 4.7% of the incidents in which volunteers were used, or 2.5% of all incidents. Injuries generally consisted of lacerations and sprained ankles and knees; however, in one instance, a rescuer fell out of a helicopter. Cell phone use was not systematically recorded, but in 15.6% of the cases, the narrative specifically noted that the subject, the subject's party, or a passerby used a cell phone to request assistance.

[overmywaders]

A lot of good points being presented.

What I don't understand is that if someone falls on the street, breaks his leg, his wife calls the ambulance and he is driven four blocks to the hospital; everyone assumes that he should be billed for the ambulance service. the poor fellow didn't do anything wrong, made no errors in judgment, didn't request anyone to risk life and limb -- but he probably doesn't think twice about paying the ambulance bill.

Suppose the same person is hiking and breaks his leg. His wife calls for help, the S&R find him and carry him down half a mile (I'm being conservative) of difficult trail, slipping and endangering their own limbs at every step (this is for dramatic effect) before placing him in an ambulance (for which he must pay). Why, suddenly, is it wrong to ask the rescued party to pay the cost, nothing more, of the search and rescue?? (The cost will probably be less than the ambulance ride.)

Personally, if I were lost and had a cellphone (that isn't going to happen -- the cellphone part, anyway) and were in threat of imminent demise unless saved by an airlift, one word would come to mind -- "TANSTAAFL!".

[Lyle]

Lyle,

The problem I see with it is you develop too many hikers that will call in a rescue when their not in a life threatening position. Hikers who feel, they "already paid for the service" not thinking about the real cost and the rescue workers who risk their lives to come get them.

Wolf

Yep, I agree Wolf. You try to solve one problem and inadvertently exacerbate another. Definitely a difficult problem.

[shelterbuilder]

envirodiver,

I travel with a very light pack but have never advise anyone to do the same as me. It is possible to backpack light weight safely if you know what you are doing. Not everyone can do that. As you said some people have the desire to lighten up but don’t have the needed equipment to be “self sufficient” to get out of jams. A large part of that is their skill level.

Search & Rescue are always willing to go out and attempt to rescue anyone regardless if it is a “life threatening” situation but what happens if they were not there. I like to know what would happen if S&R simple went away would it stop some of the idiots that go out into the mountains. How many hikers would reframe from going out if they knew no one would come after them if they got themselves in trouble?

Wolf

Wolf, your quote of envirodiver's post reminded me of something that happened on a club hike in Pa. many years ago. We were on a rocky section of the ridge between Eckville and Rt. 309 and one of our older members informed us that he had just taken his 2nd nitro pill and it didn't seem to be doing much good. Our group had several nurses and a few first aid/CPR qualified folks in it. It was decided that one of our younger folks would descend the mountain by the quickest available route (check your MAP, folks) while the others attempted to slowly walk the victim out (one person supporting the man under each arm) to the nearest access point. Progress was painfully slow, but we made it down and met the ambulance at the base of the side trail, and fortunately, our friend was none the worse for wear (although his wife could have KILLED him afterward!), and was discharged from the hospital after a short stay.

Was our friend an "idiot" for going up in the mountains with a heart condition? No, because this was something that he had lived with (and maintained trail with) for years, and he did have his meds with him. Did we (his friends) act correctly by walking him down while we summoned help? Yes, we think we did the right thing to get him out ASAP even while help was being summoned (this was in the day before cell phones). Were we ready (and capable) of administering more aid had his condition deteriorated? Yes, we were all prepared to do as much as possible.

Every case is different. This one turned out good. It could just as easily have turned out bad. But the point is that WE tried to do as much as possible to get our friend out of the woods before we relied upon others to get him out. I'm not so sure that this is the prevaiing attitude today. Today, I think that more folks are of a mind to turn everything over to someone else, for whatever reason.

[Lyle]

A lot of good points being presented.

What I don't understand is that if someone falls on the street, breaks his leg, his wife calls the ambulance and he is driven four blocks to the hospital; everyone assumes that he should be billed for the ambulance service. the poor fellow didn't do anything wrong, made no errors in judgment, didn't request anyone to risk life and limb -- but he probably doesn't think twice about paying the ambulance bill.



I think one of the major differences is that most of us have some type of insurance that will cover the ambulance. Either private, through work, or Medicare/Medicaid. Not many, if any, of these will cover rescue.

[woodsy]

overmywaders: "TANSTAAFL!".
translation please or something close

[ofthearth]

With three parties of hikers (total of five men) rescued from the Presidential Range, here in NH, in an eight-day period, two questions obviously arise:

2/ When does a person reasonably request rescue?
[/INDENT]Without going into details about the three events above, all three rescues occurred because the hikers were unprepared for conditions. One hiker lost his life, one was hospitalized in serious condition...When do you think a call for rescue should be made?

I would say before "One hiker lost his life, one was hospitalized in serious condition" unless you think it might be better" to see how things turn out" in less of course you have a sure fire method of knowing when things are "serious".

[warraghiyagey]

Sure I can, heres my phone # (207) (603) 911
"Is your number still 911? . . . AAlllllrighty then."

- Ace Ventura -

[overmywaders]

Woodsy,

Sorry -- "There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch".

[shelterbuilder]

I would say before "One hiker lost his life, one was hospitalized in serious condition" unless you think it might be better" to see how things turn out" in less of course you have a sure fire method of knowing when things are "serious".

It would add some depth to this discussion to know the hiking backgrounds of these people, and how much they cut into their "margin for error" by leaving certain pieces of equipment home and/or by "pushing the envelope" with bad weather conditions. At some point, all of the little things had to add together to tip the scales against them.

[overmywaders]

Ofthearth,

You said:

I would say before "One hiker lost his life, one was hospitalized in serious condition" unless you think it might be better" to see how things turn out" in less of course you have a sure fire method of knowing when things are "serious".


I do have a surefire method -- respond to every rescue call with the same energy. We must always, IMHO, accept every plea for rescue as a genuine emergency -- as a society we can do no less, and not just because, as some might suppose, of fear of litigation, but as a matter of genuine concern.

Once the S&R is done, hopefully with positive consequences, it is up to the bean-counters to determine the financial cost and apportion it appropriately.

[Wolf - 23000]

Wolf, your quote of envirodiver's post reminded me of something that happened on a club hike in Pa. many years ago. We were on a rocky section of the ridge between Eckville and Rt. 309 and one of our older members informed us that he had just taken his 2nd nitro pill and it didn't seem to be doing much good. Our group had several nurses and a few first aid/CPR qualified folks in it. It was decided that one of our younger folks would descend the mountain by the quickest available route (check your MAP, folks) while the others attempted to slowly walk the victim out (one person supporting the man under each arm) to the nearest access point. Progress was painfully slow, but we made it down and met the ambulance at the base of the side trail, and fortunately, our friend was none the worse for wear (although his wife could have KILLED him afterward!), and was discharged from the hospital after a short stay.

Was our friend an "idiot" for going up in the mountains with a heart condition? No, because this was something that he had lived with (and maintained trail with) for years, and he did have his meds with him. Did we (his friends) act correctly by walking him down while we summoned help? Yes, we think we did the right thing to get him out ASAP even while help was being summoned (this was in the day before cell phones). Were we ready (and capable) of administering more aid had his condition deteriorated? Yes, we were all prepared to do as much as possible.

Every case is different. This one turned out good. It could just as easily have turned out bad. But the point is that WE tried to do as much as possible to get our friend out of the woods before we relied upon others to get him out. I'm not so sure that this is the prevaiing attitude today. Today, I think that more folks are of a mind to turn everything over to someone else, for whatever reason.

shelterbuilder,

Was your friend doing something he shouldn’t have been doing? Neither one of us can really answer that question. Only his doctor could answer that question. Your friend was doing something that he loved, something I respect but if his doctor advice against it well than maybe it wasn’t the best choice. I love hiking myself but if break my foot or have some another injury and go out there anyway. Who fault is it if I get in trouble? Mine of course.

If things did not go as well as they did and he did not make it, what is his opinion on it? (thankfully he did). When my time does come, speaking for myself, I only hope I am doing something that I truly enjoy or believe in. I’m sure your friend might feel something similar.

Wolf

[weary]

....Personally, if I were lost and had a cellphone (that isn't going to happen -- the cellphone part, anyway) and were in threat of imminent demise unless saved by an airlift, one word would come to mind -- "TANSTAAFL!".
Whatever, if anything, that word may mean escapes me.

[Lyle]

Weary,

Check #62, above

[10-K]

So, how do they collect the $10,000? Especially if you live out of state. I guess it could be handled like a medical bill huh? Then they could ruin your credit if you made no effort to pay it.

Personally, $10,000 seems like an arbitrary figure and rather on the high side for most rescues (I'm assuming most rescues are not high drama cliff hangers).

[rlharris]

3413

says it all.

[overmywaders]

10-K,

As was mentioned, in NH they only charge the "reckless" (soon, I hope, "negligent") the cost of the rescue. Even with a chopper that may come only to a few thousand, in most cases it is probably less than a thousand.

This is not treated as a fine, it is considered part of a contract. Actually, they seldom apply the law at present, because of the issue of determining "reckless" conduct. However, when they do apply it, most people readily pay. Are you going to proclaim to the world "I am an utterly ungrateful person", and spend thousands more proving it in court?

At present the collection can be prodded by removing the ingrate's driver's license, business license, etc. Reciprocal arrangements for the driver's license are standard with many other states.

[berninbush]

Personally, $10,000 seems like an arbitrary figure and rather on the high side for most rescues (I'm assuming most rescues are not high drama cliff hangers).

That's what I'm thinking. If you have to spend hours or days searching for the person, I can see that... but if it's a matter of, say, six paramedics walking up a trail and carrying a person out when they've called in their position by cell phone, I can't see why the cost would be that high. Ordinary paramedics get paid peanuts.

If you're going to charge people for rescue, I think it should be the actual cost, not an "average fee," because rescues can have vastly different levels of difficulty and cost.

[Wolf - 23000]

A study was done by the WMS: wilderness medical society (http://www.wemjournal.org/wmsonline/?request=get-document&issn=1080-6032&volume=015&issue=01&page=0011) focusing on New Hampshire search and rescues from 1999-2001.
Interesting data for those interested.

One paragraph from the study:
IMPACT ON MEDICAL SERVICES
http://www.wemjournal.org/images/indent.gifIn 41.7% of the cases, the subject had to be carried out, a recovery method requiring tremendous manpower. The subject was airlifted by helicopter in 2.5% of the cases and recovered by divers in 3.4% of the cases. In 36.4% of the incidents, the name of the hospital to which the subject was transported was specifically stated in the narrative. Transport to a hospital was not specifically mentioned in 48.3% of the incidents, whereas in 13.7%, the subject was already dead at the time of recovery. Therefore, at least a third of search-and-rescue subjects in this series was transported to a hospital, utilizing local ambulance and hospital resources in addition to search- and-rescue resources. Volunteers were used in more than half of the incidents (53.3%). Injuries were sustained by 8 rescuers—by 1 New Hampshire Fish and Game Department officer, by 1 New Hampshire Army National Guard member, and the rest by volunteers. Rescuers were injured in 4.7% of the incidents in which volunteers were used, or 2.5% of all incidents. Injuries generally consisted of lacerations and sprained ankles and knees; however, in one instance, a rescuer fell out of a helicopter. Cell phone use was not systematically recorded, but in 15.6% of the cases, the narrative specifically noted that the subject, the subject's party, or a passerby used a cell phone to request assistance.

Woodsy,

Thank you for looking this up. The part that get me is in 4.7% of the rescue the rescue worker were injured. I know a lot of people are really for letting rescue risk their lives to bail someone out of a jam, but what about the rescue workers that get hurt or even worst killed? Is it really fair that someone go out into the wilderness but rather than excepting the fact that wilderness things happen; go in expect if they get in trouble someone will come to get their butt out?

Wolf

[woodsy]

Woodsy,

Thank you for looking this up. The part that get me is in 4.7% of the rescue the rescue worker were injured. I know a lot of people are really for letting rescue risk their lives to bail someone out of a jam, but what about the rescue workers that get hurt or even worst killed? Is it really fair that someone go out into the wilderness but rather than excepting the fact that wilderness things happen; go in expect if they get in trouble someone will come to get their butt out?

Wolf
These statistics put some reality into the real danger rescue people face.
I found the entire article quite interesting. Even though it is 6-7 years old, we can all imagine the increase in cell phone calls to 911 or other help since the study was done.

[weary]

shelterbuilder,

Was your friend doing something he shouldn’t have been doing? Neither one of us can really answer that question. Only his doctor could answer that question. Your friend was doing something that he loved, something I respect but if his doctor advice against it well than maybe it wasn’t the best choice. I love hiking myself but if break my foot or have some another injury and go out there anyway. Who fault is it if I get in trouble? Mine of course.

If things did not go as well as they did and he did not make it, what is his opinion on it? (thankfully he did). When my time does come, speaking for myself, I only hope I am doing something that I truly enjoy or believe in. I’m sure your friend might feel something similar.

Wolf
As people age, they have a choice. You can vegetate. Or you can continue to live. I choose the latter, knowing full well that some day someone may find me in a difficult place and have to carry me out with considerable difficulty.

To compensate in advance for that possibility, I keep trying to do useful things when I wander in the woods, like working on trails and raising money for trails and land that people might enjoy.

Weary www.matlt.org

[woodsy]

10-K;547791

Personally, $10,000 seems like an arbitrary figure and rather on the high side for most rescues (I'm assuming most rescues are not high drama cliff hangers).
You would if negligent or reckless only pay the costs associated with the rescue up to $10,000. Thats the way I understand it. It is not a set fee.

[warraghiyagey]

You would if negligent or reckless only pay the costs associated with the rescue up to $10,000. Thats the way I understand it. It is not a set fee.
I've heard up to $15,000 for a mountain-top helicopter rescue. Is that true??

[woodsy]

I've heard up to $15,000 for a mountain-top helicopter rescue. Is that true??
To get your azz off the top of a mountain probably:D

[warraghiyagey]

To get your azz off the top of a mountain probably:D
Owwwwwwwchhhh!!!!

(100 points to Woodsy)


http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/angry020.gif

[woodsy]

I've heard up to $15,000 for a mountain-top helicopter rescue. Is that true??
New Hampshire search and rescue rules (http://www.wildlife.state.nh.us/Newsroom/News_2001_and_previous/news_search_and_rescue_99.htm)

TITLE XII
PUBLIC SAFETY AND WELFARE

CHAPTER 153-A
EMERGENCY MEDICAL AND TRAUMA SERVICES

Reimbursement for Public Agency Response Services

Section 153-A:24

153-A:24 Responsibility for Public Agency Response Services. –
I. A person shall be liable for response expenses if, in the judgment of the court, such person:
(a) Negligently operates a motor vehicle, boat, off highway recreational vehicle, or aircraft while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage or controlled drug and thereby proximately causes any incident resulting in a public agency response;
(b) Takes another person or persons hostage or threatens to harm himself or another person, thereby proximately causing any incident resulting in an appropriate public agency response; or
(c) Recklessly or intentionally creates a situation requiring an emergency response.
II. A person's liability under this subdivision for response expenses shall not exceed $10,000 for any single public agency response incident. Source. 1999, 345:6, eff. July 1, 1999.

[warraghiyagey]

New Hampshire law:

TITLE XII
PUBLIC SAFETY AND WELFARE
or
(c) Recklessly or intentionally creates a situation requiring an emergency response.
II. A person's liability under this subdivision for response expenses shall not exceed $10,000 for any single public agency response incident. Source. 1999, 345:6, eff. July 1, 1999.

OK, so I'm savin 5G's by peril in NH. Good to know. Til' they explain to me that 10 grand was 1999 since it's 9 years later and the British pound was only 98 cents on a dollar - and now that it's $1.95 to a US dollar and that the price of insurance and oil have both increased at roughly the same rate, that it's now $15,00 dollars"?
Or am I just an idiot that should stay off mountains when there's snow on them?
BTW Woods, still up for a renegade TM session? PM me.

http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/whacky099.gif

[rafe]

Or am I just an idiot that should stay off mountains when there's snow on them?

Might not be a bad idea... I've done a bit of that, but looking back on it, it was stupid. Of course, sometimes the snow comes out of nowhere.

[highway]

So, how do they collect the $10,000? Especially if you live out of state. I guess it could be handled like a medical bill huh? Then they could ruin your credit if you made no effort to pay it.

Personally, $10,000 seems like an arbitrary figure and rather on the high side for most rescues (I'm assuming most rescues are not high drama cliff hangers).

It would seem too low to me. I suspect the helicopter alone could easily eat all that up; then there would be the personnel to be paid for delivering the rescue.
Regardless, somebody has to pay. So, the most likely payer would be the rescuee, right, and not the applicable community's taxpayers

[Wise Old Owl]

Aparently billing is sometimes discussed up front, when I read this thread I googled "SAR fines" I posted some of the reading below that I found. I copied the link and it is amazing how many hikers, quads, canoes, and Organized Groups mess up in Utah, I suspect it is the same in the Whites as that is what I was looking for. Click on Silt happens and enjoy a good read.

Copied out of old SAR comments

The call came for GCSAR to respond to a broken ankle. The ATVs were half way to the trailhead when 10-22d. The biker refused any treatment or transport when he learned it would cost him money.

"Received a cell phone call stating that they were on the Golden Spike Trail with 1 broken jeep and they were lost. I asked if they had matches and they said yes. I said to spend the night and if you can’t find a way out, call."

Rescue agencies are quickly getting more savvy in their dealings with hikers who "cry wolf" prematurely, demanding rescues and other assistance. AMC Outdoors reported several years ago about a pair of New York hikers who became lost in a dense November fog below Mt. Washington. They called AMC several times on their cell phone, tying up the line when there was no real emergency. Because they were uninjured, AMC declined to help them, except to advise them on their best route out. The hikers found their way off the mountain using map and compass which, fortunately, they were carrying with them.

1998 -Over the years, New Hampshire residents and their state legislative representatives have grown impatient with the high costs of rescues in the White Mountain National Forest, the costs for which are paid mostly by New Hampshire's Fish and Game Department, a state agency funded by revenues from hunting and fishing licenses. According to a late-1996 article in the New Hampshire Sunday News, the legislature passed a law that will allow the Fish and Game Department to fine hikers whose negligence leads to a rescue situation. State officials may charge rescue costs on the perpetrator if his negligence caused the rescue. This provision has only been used once, to fine a hiker who became hypothermic after getting drunk on Mt. Moriah. Other hikers bundled him up in a sleeping bag and space blanket, and he was evacuated the next day by the state. For his foolishness, he pled guilty to reckless conduct and was fined $500.


Jason Green (54) hiked up Negro Bill and got out onto the mesa top on the Porcupine Rim side. (Sort of where the Iowa boys were). He made his way over to the Hwy 128 side of those fins and then got stuck between fins, unable to go up a place he had jumped down. He yelled down to people on the river road.GCSAR responded to the Negro Bill trailhead with rock rescue gear. Upon further evaluation, it was decided to use a helicopter to insert rock rescue persons on top of the adjacent fin. This was done to avoid a very lengthy and hot overland route.Bego, Frank and Josh took a bunch of rope and anchors in the helo to the LZ. Pilot John Ruhl was to return in an hour. Frank rappelled down to the subject, put him in a harness, tied on the rope and we counterbalance hauled (as you would do big wall bags) Jason up the 50' of steep rock to safety. A while later, in came the helo and away we went.Jason is a private club tennis teacher from Brooklyn, NY. He'd done several other hikes in the region in the previous days.
Comments:
Jason may have caught on that had some details been a little different he could have died up in those fins. He refused to pay either the helo bill or the GCSAR bill stating that rescue work should be paid for by the local tax base.


http://www.gcsar.org/silt/2007/3/silt.htm

[cheflovesbeer]

But at the same time, we don't want someone not calling for a rescue because of fear of a bill. There are some people who would no doubt freeze to death because they underestimate the danger rather than overestimate it, and the threat of a $10,000 bill would escalate that.

I am still not sure how to teach everyone experience and common sense.

If someone is more worried about 10k than their life, I do not want them in the gene pool.

[rafe]

If someone is more worried about 10k than their life, I do not want them in the gene pool.

That situation, like a violent short-circuit, resolves itself.

[cheflovesbeer]

The American alpine club (http://www.americanalpineclub.org/pages/page/97)provides 5k rescue benefit with membership.($75) More for a fee.

[dessertrat]

Why don't we charge money when someone's negligent smoking sets their house on fire?

[warraghiyagey]

Why don't we charge money when someone's negligent smoking sets their house on fire?
Actually the home-owner does get a bill from the FD in many municipalities, similar to many rescue operations.

[woodsy]

Latest article (http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/02/24/perilous_rescues_at_a_price/) summarizes the last few years in number of perilous rescues and costs associated with them.


From 2004 to the end of 2007, the state spent more than $1 million and devoted about 14,900 hours to rescue 725 people, according to the New Hampshire Fish and Game Department. Of those victims, 28 percent were rescued in 2007.
Last fiscal year, the department spent more than $257,000 on rescue operations and for the first time ended the year with a deficit in its search and rescue account.

[Jason of the Woods]

I think that you should only call at the end of the day when you are tired. Oh no that's room service, never mind.;)

[zoidfu]

Just thinking out loud here but maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea to have the rescue calls in a certain area(like the Whites) routed to an SAR who can evaluate the situation and maybe give advice on how to deal with their emergency so maybe the hiker in trouble can get out on their own.... And if the SAR thinks it serious enough he/she could organize a rescue then...

[tx.katie.finch]

The only problem with this is... often times people doing the SAR have exponentially more training on how to get out of a wedge (one would hope) and often forget that people don't know the basics. Believe me... my husband doen't understand half of my medical jargon that I rattle off that I believe to be common knowledge. It seems like 75% of the time, we get calls that we believe can be handled POV or at home. (What... someone passed out at 0230? Why? Because it's 0230 and they're drunk and tired... next!) It's easy to give advice and evaluate actions when you're not actually out in the snuff. When you're actually out there, stuff gets very different very quickly.
Dispatch (in TX) is trained to evaluate how much of what help is needed, but they don't generally give out advice. By how much, I mean how many fire trucks do we need to call, not if we need to call them; everyone gets sent.

[Wolf - 23000]

As people age, they have a choice. You can vegetate. Or you can continue to live. I choose the latter, knowing full well that some day someone may find me in a difficult place and have to carry me out with considerable difficulty.

To compensate in advance for that possibility, I keep trying to do useful things when I wander in the woods, like working on trails and raising money for trails and land that people might enjoy.

Weary www.matlt.org (http://www.matlt.org)

Weary,

First I respect all you do (and others) for working on trails or raise money for trails.


Most people on this site I think would agree with you to live life and to its fullest. With that said, living life and entering into the wilderness requires doing so responsibility to get your butt out in one piece. I know the AT is far from wilderness but it should still be left to be as free from civilization needs as possible. Natural things happen in the wilderness.

Wolf

[Wolf - 23000]

Latest article (http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/02/24/perilous_rescues_at_a_price/) summarizes the last few years in number of perilous rescues and costs associated with them.

This article only proves you can have expensive equipment but without the knowledge to use it, it doesn’t do you any good. The same GPS might help a hiker who know how to use it get out without any problems, someone who does not know how to use a GPS can get a false sense of security.

Wolf

[Wolf - 23000]

Just thinking out loud here but maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea to have the rescue calls in a certain area(like the Whites) routed to an SAR who can evaluate the situation and maybe give advice on how to deal with their emergency so maybe the hiker in trouble can get out on their own.... And if the SAR thinks it serious enough he/she could organize a rescue then...

zoidfu2,

The rangers I talked with informed me they do just that. The problem they run into is it is to easy to say, "I can't" or "Come get me". They rather wait around for someone to come get them rather than saving themselves.

Wolf

[rlharris]

Just thinking out loud here but maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea to have the rescue calls in a certain area(like the Whites) routed to an SAR who can evaluate the situation and maybe give advice on how to deal with their emergency so maybe the hiker in trouble can get out on their own.... And if the SAR thinks it serious enough he/she could organize a rescue then...

In some areas, SAR can only be activated by the appropriate law enforcement or public safety agency.

[wtmntcaretaker]

I think considering the hundreds or thousands of people playing in the whites in winter, five people needing rescue is not that bad.

[Wise Old Owl]

Just thinking out loud here but maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea to have the rescue calls in a certain area(like the Whites) routed to an SAR who can evaluate the situation and maybe give advice on how to deal with their emergency so maybe the hiker in trouble can get out on their own.... And if the SAR thinks it serious enough he/she could organize a rescue then...


If the communication is clear enough and the can discuss by phone, they do just that. They ask questions and sometimes ask the person to work it out, if they can't by the next morning, call again. I read it on several SAR threads.

[wtmntcaretaker]

the $10,000 figure that you are talking about is not an accurate number. If you check fish and game the average cost for rescue this year is $6,000. not $10,000. and the people who are on the rescue teams are all volunteer (excluding the Dartmouth hitch cock helicopter pilot and nurses) and the people who are unprepared do have to pay for their rescue. the people who have the right equipment and just run into a bad situation get a free save. people are held responsible for being stupid. there just happened to be 5 rescued people within three weeks or so. nothing really new for NH in winter.

[Wise Old Owl]

I think considering the hundreds or thousands of people playing in the whites in winter, five people needing rescue is not that bad.

They track the # of calls that go to SAR, I spent several hours of reading several web sites last night and one SAR was averaging 250 calls per year. I do not remember if that was the whites and I was only able to see years prior to 2000. The advent of newer tech such as a cell phones and other devices and modes of transportation has led to many more calls.

[shelterbuilder]

shelterbuilder,

Was your friend doing something he shouldn’t have been doing? Neither one of us can really answer that question. Only his doctor could answer that question. Your friend was doing something that he loved, something I respect but if his doctor advice against it well than maybe it wasn’t the best choice. I love hiking myself but if break my foot or have some another injury and go out there anyway. Who fault is it if I get in trouble? Mine of course.

If things did not go as well as they did and he did not make it, what is his opinion on it? (thankfully he did). When my time does come, speaking for myself, I only hope I am doing something that I truly enjoy or believe in. I’m sure your friend might feel something similar.

Wolf

I'm back, again, Wolf. No, he had had by-pass surgery about 8 - 10 years prior to this incident, and had been an active trail maintainer and fellow shelter-builder for decades. He knew his limitations - as did we all - and was being prudent by going into the woods with other people he trusted. He did not go alone. He didn't push himself that day. It was just one of those things that was going to happen to him no matter where he was and no matter what he was doing. He chose to be doing something that he enjoyed - no, loved - and that was maintaining trail. His doctor wold probably have preferred it if he had pulled his easy chair up in front of the TV 8 - 10 years before that trip and sat and waited for death to come and take him at home...that wasn't my friend's way. Nor is it mine! My own surgeons would prefer that I go on disability (at age 52!) and sit quietly at home and die from boredom...I would prefer to make some prudent changes to the WAY that I do things, and then continue to get out there and DO THINGS that I love.

And that is my point: take responsibility for preparing for your trip, go prepared with the right equipment and a plan, and minimize the risks if possible. Divers have a saying: "Plan your dive, and dive your plan." Diving can be risky, but your planning and preparaion should aim to minimize that risk. You can't remove all risk, but you can bring it down to an acceptable level...and then you go with that risk. But YOU have to be the one who takes responsibility for YOURSELF; too often these days, it seems like too many people are abdicating their personal responsibility to others, and that's not right.

[wtmntcaretaker]

They track the # of calls that go to SAR, I spent several hours of reading several web sites last night and one SAR was averaging 250 calls per year. I do not remember if that was the whites and I was only able to see years prior to 2000. The advent of newer tech such as a cell phones and other devices and modes of transportation has led to many more calls.

probably not NH, but that is an interesting figure I am interested where you found that statistic. maybe it was for the entire east coast.

[Jim Adams]

But at the same time, we don't want someone not calling for a rescue because of fear of a bill. There are some people who would no doubt freeze to death because they underestimate the danger rather than overestimate it, and the threat of a $10,000 bill would escalate that.

I am still not sure how to teach everyone experience and common sense.

This is soooo true....I see people die at home because they are afraid of how much an ambulance bill may be! Why? They don't realize how serious the danger is. Is your life worth $500-$750? Mine too but these people know that they don't feel good but they don't know that they are about to die.

Now we are back to the percieved danger as opposed to real danger...if you can not tell the difference for the situation that you are in, then you are probably in over your head already!

I wrote something in the INTO THE WILD thread that was roughly a quote from some famous explorer, I think Shackleton: "The only difference between an epic adventure and a tragedy is whether you come back alive"....if you are truely on an epic adventure, you are probably in over your head at some points and most of the time it is common sense that makes the difference.
:-?
geek

[wtmntcaretaker]

I see people die at home because they are afraid of how much an ambulance bill may be!
Jim Adams

where have you seen this or even heard of it? I am pretty sure most if not all people would make an emergency call if their life were threatened.

[shelterbuilder]

I see people die at home because they are afraid of how much an ambulance bill may be!
Jim Adams

where have you seen this or even heard of it? I am pretty sure most if not all people would make an emergency call if their life were threatened.

Every year in Philadelphia, there's one or two older folks who die during the heat waves because they didn't turn their fans on - to save money on the electric bill. Same thing...they don't recognize the danger that they're in.

[Jim Adams]

I see people die at home because they are afraid of how much an ambulance bill may be!
Jim Adams

where have you seen this or even heard of it? I am pretty sure most if not all people would make an emergency call if their life were threatened.

I've been a paramedic for 32 years and couldn't even come close to remembering the number of times that people have died because they didn't want to pay the bill!:eek:

geek

[wtmntcaretaker]

fair enough. I wont argue with 32 years experience. longer than I've been around. I just have never heard of anyone in the back country not calling for help because of the bill they might accrue.

[weary]

Weary,

First I respect all you do (and others) for working on trails or raise money for trails.


Most people on this site I think would agree with you to live life and to its fullest. With that said, living life and entering into the wilderness requires doing so responsibility to get your butt out in one piece. I know the AT is far from wilderness but it should still be left to be as free from civilization needs as possible. Natural things happen in the wilderness.

Wolf
Well to be honest, most of the adventures I do these days involve exploring the 5,000 acres of protected land in my small coastal Maine community. Though I had little, if anything, directly to do with the acquisition of most of these lands, I find it fascinating that when I moved here 45 years ago and created a land trust this town had no protected land.

No one seems to be especially happy when I venture out alone these days.
However, I am seriously thinking of again doing the 300 miles of the AT in Maine next August. A few hundred miles in the south after the rush of thru hikers pass is a tempting alternative.

I hope to be replaced as President of the Maine Appalachian Trail Land Trust in June. I see my doctor in the morning. But I don't plan on mentioning the possibility of a long walk with him. I'll just chat about what, if any thing, he thinks I ought to be doing differently.

I know that cynics and realists say that attempting to do such things as protecting land and improving political life is naive. But most things I've managed to do has met with skepticism. However, much to my surprise and to the surprise of skeptics, a lot of things have actually happened.

I'm sure it's just a coincidence. But it is sure a comforting feeling as one inches towards being elderly.

Weary www.matlt.org

[Jim Adams]

I've been a paramedic for 32 years and couldn't even come close to remembering the number of times that people have died because they didn't want to pay the bill!:eek:

geek

Let me get more specific!

Patient has chest pain..."can't be a heart problem...I'm too (young, old, in good health, bloated...pick one!). It will go away"

2 hours later they call the ambulance "just to be checked". EMS will check the patient thoroughly, do an EKG, see an impending heart attack, suggest oxygen, an IV and cardiac drugs administered via the IV to stop the damage and reverse the situation.
The patient refuses all of this due to the cost of the ambulance treatment and transport and says that they will go with their wife or husband to the ER in their car, sign a release and EMS leaves.
They then tell their spouse that they don't feel that bad and decide to wait a while to see if it goes away......2 hours later, I am back there at the residence doing CPR on a dead body!
I truely am an a$$hole most of the time but the stupidity of people NEVER ceases to amaze me!
(How common is this scenario?.....if this thread were on an EMS site, I would insert a dancing banana here....really!)
geek

[shelterbuilder]

Well to be honest, most of the adventures I do these days involve exploring the 5,000 acres of protected land in my small coastal Maine community. Though I had little, if anything, directly to do with the acquisition of most of these lands, I find it fascinating that when I moved here 45 years ago and created a land trust this town had no protected land.

No one seems to be especially happy when I venture out alone these days.
However, I am seriously thinking of again doing the 300 miles of the AT in Maine next August. A few hundred miles in the south after the rush of thru hikers pass is a tempting alternative.

I hope to be replaced as President of the Maine Appalachian Trail Land Trust in June. I see my doctor in the morning. But I don't plan on mentioning the possibility of a long walk with him. I'll just chat about what, if any thing, he thinks I ought to be doing differently.

I know that cynics and realists say that attempting to do such things as protecting land and improving political life is naive. But most things I've managed to do has met with skepticism. However, much to my surprise and to the surprise of skeptics, a lot of things have actually happened.

I'm sure it's just a coincidence. But it is sure a comforting feeling as one inches towards being elderly.

Weary www.matlt.org (http://www.matlt.org)

GO, WEARY!!! You remind me of that Kennedy quote: "Some men see things as they are and ask, "Why?"; I dream things that never were and ask, "Why not?":sun

[GGS2]

I see people die at home because they are afraid of how much an ambulance bill may be!
Jim Adams

where have you seen this or even heard of it? I am pretty sure most if not all people would make an emergency call if their life were threatened.

It's not that simple. Suppose you are at home, possibly in bed, and your heart starts beating irregularly. You've been here before, and every time you go top the hospital for emergency care, it means a wasted night in an uncomfortable bed with people and fuss all around you, and it always ends up calming down after a few hours and a bit more beta blocker, or whatever you are on. Your md keeps telling you to go right away, but it all seems far more stress and fuss than it is worth, when you know that in a few hours at home, with a bit more meds, or whatever you have come to do, it will all calm down and everybody can get on with their lives. Then one time, it doesn't calm down, and there you are fighting for breath and the phone is just too far away.

That's more like it. My wife has congestive heart disease, and that's how it goes. She prefers not to go to emerg, because it is pretty depressing and exhausting, and they can't really do any more than she can. There are reasons that she should go, but they don't seem that important when you are trying to decide whether to interrupt everything or just wait it out.

I think this is how most people get into trouble out on the trail, too. Not one big crisis, so much as too many steps down the wrong path, and then there they are in deep trouble and no way out. The ones who call in prematurely are probably much less problem, even if they are frustrating at the time. Waste of time and resources, sure, but at least no body bags. It's only after you have been down that road a few times that you begin to recognize the blazes. We all know that kids have to be durable to survive childhood, and some of them never really grow up. Facts of life.

[dessertrat]

No one seems to be especially happy when I venture out alone these days.
However, I am seriously thinking of again doing the 300 miles of the AT in Maine next August.

I see my doctor in the morning. But I don't plan on mentioning the possibility of a long walk with him.

I know that cynics and realists say that attempting to do such things as protecting land and improving political life is naive.
Weary www.matlt.org (http://www.matlt.org)

First, you say no one is happy-- does that include yourself? I would presume not, since you head out anyway.

Second, you should mention it to your doctor. Are you afraid he'd advise against it? Your doctor's word isn't law.

Cynics say it, realists don't. We have different ideas about what it means to "improve political life", but you won't hear me say it's useless to try to accomplish something.

[Jim Adams]

It's not that simple. Suppose you are at home, possibly in bed, and your heart starts beating irregularly. You've been here before, and every time you go top the hospital for emergency care, it means a wasted night in an uncomfortable bed with people and fuss all around you, and it always ends up calming down after a few hours and a bit more beta blocker, or whatever you are on. Your md keeps telling you to go right away, but it all seems far more stress and fuss than it is worth, when you know that in a few hours at home, with a bit more meds, or whatever you have come to do, it will all calm down and everybody can get on with their lives. Then one time, it doesn't calm down, and there you are fighting for breath and the phone is just too far away.

That's more like it. My wife has congestive heart disease, and that's how it goes. She prefers not to go to emerg, because it is pretty depressing and exhausting, and they can't really do any more than she can. There are reasons that she should go, but they don't seem that important when you are trying to decide whether to interrupt everything or just wait it out.

I think this is how most people get into trouble out on the trail, too. Not one big crisis, so much as too many steps down the wrong path, and then there they are in deep trouble and no way out. The ones who call in prematurely are probably much less problem, even if they are frustrating at the time. Waste of time and resources, sure, but at least no body bags. It's only after you have been down that road a few times that you begin to recognize the blazes. We all know that kids have to be durable to survive childhood, and some of them never really grow up. Facts of life.


This is exactly what I meant.
Yes the bed may be uncomfortable, yes it may be hectic, yes if may be depressing and boring BUT if she would turn worse then she is already in the correct place with the correct treatment available.....how far would you walk down the A.T. w/o seeing blazes before considering that you are no longer on the A.T.?.........not far but your wife is willing to risk death because the bed is uncomfortable!
I mean NO disrespect to you or your wife...it is truely a shame that her illness cannot be cured but how much comfort is a life worth?
geek

[wtmntcaretaker]

what does this have to do with SAR in the WHite mountains. which is were this all originated from. just in case people forgot.

[dessertrat]

Conversations are organic. Grow with it.

[wtmntcaretaker]

Conversations are organic. Grow with it.

well then dont bogart that joint.:rolleyes:

[Wise Old Owl]

probably not NH, but that is an interesting figure I am interested where you found that statistic. maybe it was for the entire east coast.

You will find this interesting ... in 1999 it was 200-250, so what would it be in 2008? Here is the source with a detail message to hikers that are unprepared.

http://www.wildlife.state.nh.us/Newsroom/News_2001_and_previous/news_search_and_rescue_99.htm

[wtmntcaretaker]

I found that site too, Owl.

"the New Hampshire Fish and Game Department, handles roughly 150 to 200 search and rescues each year. Of those, only a small number are initiated because of the actions of reckless hikers, according to Col. Ronald Alie, chief of Fish and Game's Law Enforcement Division."

that is taken from Nh fish and game site. It is to bad they dont share the exact # that is initiated because of "reckless hikers"

That is a goood site for anyone curious about how SAR is handled in NH

[Wise Old Owl]

Go back up to Post #83

http://www.gcsar.org/silt/2007/3/silt.htm

The other site is in Utah - where you can read some of their dispatches and Silt Happens reports with very good details

As I said in the previous post the NH page was written in 1999 some 8 years ago. Tell you what, I will email the director and ask him.

[wtmntcaretaker]

Tell you what, I will email the director and ask him

that would be great. I hope you really do. :)

[GGS2]

This is exactly what I meant.
Yes the bed may be uncomfortable, yes it may be hectic, yes if may be depressing and boring BUT if she would turn worse then she is already in the correct place with the correct treatment available.....how far would you walk down the A.T. w/o seeing blazes before considering that you are no longer on the A.T.?.........not far but your wife is willing to risk death because the bed is uncomfortable!
I mean NO disrespect to you or your wife...it is truely a shame that her illness cannot be cured but how much comfort is a life worth?
geek

Hi Jim, I was telling the story to illustrate the hiker case. In my wife's case, we both know the situation well, and we know that a fatal complication may come any time. But that is not very different from any other person, aside from some probabilities. The problem is how to live one's life. It may be convenient for the emergency people to have the patient handy, and it may marginally increase the life expectancy (not in the terminal emergency but prior to it), but it is no way to live a life, nor is it cost effective for a health system. So many of us aging people, the walking diseased if you will, take ourselves a little way away from the front line and just get on with the task of living a life. When death comes, it comes. No complaints.

The case of those who have not come to some peace, and who are still running scared is perhaps different. And that of the young people who are still indestructible is clearly different. They have lessons to learn, and fears to pacify.

[Jim Adams]

The case of those who have not come to some peace, and who are still running scared is perhaps different. And that of the young people who are still indestructible is clearly different. They have lessons to learn, and fears to pacify.


I wish that everyone that I meet in my job had your understanding. You have made very wise points here.
Thanks!

geek

[weary]

Hi Jim, I was telling the story to illustrate the hiker case. In my wife's case, we both know the situation well, and we know that a fatal complication may come any time. But that is not very different from any other person, aside from some probabilities. The problem is how to live one's life. It may be convenient for the emergency people to have the patient handy, and it may marginally increase the life expectancy (not in the terminal emergency but prior to it), but it is no way to live a life, nor is it cost effective for a health system. So many of us aging people, the walking diseased if you will, take ourselves a little way away from the front line and just get on with the task of living a life. When death comes, it comes. No complaints.

The case of those who have not come to some peace, and who are still running scared is perhaps different. And that of the young people who are still indestructible is clearly different. They have lessons to learn, and fears to pacify.
Speaking of national tragedies. A third of all medical costs occur in the final three months of a patient's life. I sometimes think the best thing for me, the nation (and probably my family) would be a sudden death in the woods.

[mudhead]

Try and be close to a woods road.

[wrongway_08]

My father:

- 2 weeks away from retirement
- 4 weeks away from a quaddrouple bypass heart surgery.
- Loved the outdoors
- Loved his ultra-light plane.
- Loved keeping busy, never sat still, even with the heart problems that made it hard for him to walk his 5 acres of property for more them 20 minutes.

*for those unfamilar with a ultra-light, its a simple plane that is basically a seat in the front, nothing around it - this allows you to feel as if you just sitting in the air. Then wings attatched above the seat, the engine is behind the seat.


Was Sat morning, my father drove up to PA to fly his ultra-light plane, did this every weekend. We had a family get-together that day, my dad usually flew his plane down and tip his wings to say hello and then fly back up to PA,:sun he would be back home in about 2.5 hours after his wing tip.

Our family was out till about 3pm together, dad usually did the wing tip around 11am but he didnt fly over yet. We figured he went a different way this time. At around 4pm, I headed home and not even 30 minutes after getting to my house, I got a call - dads ultra-light crashed and he died instantly. :(

Here is what happened:
He started off from the airport in PA, flew about 40 minutes South and had engine problems. Going off the GPS unit he had, after the engine had problems, he made a loop back to a open field that was surrouned by woods. His plan was to just glid the plane into the open area and do a simple crash land. (easily done in a ultra-light).

What my dad could not see was that there was a church picnic going on in the field he was going to crash land in.

As he came over the crest of the hill, he saw the people on the ground and then decided to crash the ultra-light into the tress - rather then risk hurting someone on the ground. My dad would never risk someones safety for something he was responsible for. He always tought us to be responsible for our actions, he didnt just preach it, he lived by it up to the very end. :cool:

There was one branch that cought his helmet, he tried to put his arm up to deflect the branch but it ended up breaking his arm and neck.


Sorry for the long post but..... like others, doctors would have wanted him to stay home - due to the heart condition, not work and just wait around till he got the surgery.

In the end, he didnt die of the bad ticker, he died doing something he loved.
If you believe what our family believes, you die when your numbers up, doesnt matter - when its time to go, its time to go, then you should spend every minute making life worth living.

If you keep waiting for the right time...... you might run out of time to do the things you love.

[warraghiyagey]

Excellent story WW08. Thanks for sharing that.:sun:sun:sun

[envirodiver]

I travel with a very light pack but have never advise anyone to do the same as me. It is possible to backpack light weight safely if you know what you are doing. Not everyone can do that. As you said some people have the desire to lighten up but don’t have the needed equipment to be “self sufficient” to get out of jams. A large part of that is their skill level.

Wolf

Don't misunderstand my post as being a condemnation of UL backpacking, because that was not my intent. I just think that if you are going to do that, it is even more important to have a strong outdoors skill set to be prepared. I think we are in agreement.

[rlharris]

They track the # of calls that go to SAR, I spent several hours of reading several web sites last night and one SAR was averaging 250 calls per year. I do not remember if that was the whites and I was only able to see years prior to 2000. The advent of newer tech such as a cell phones and other devices and modes of transportation has led to many more calls.

New England K9 Search and Rescue was called out 50 times in 2007. The typical member of that organization spends over 400 (volunteer) hours conducting searches each year and another 1000 hours learning/honing search skills.

Most of searches they conduct are not for recreational users (e.g., hikers). They are for cognitively limited individuals. They also do not provide rescue or medical services -- they are "locators". A sister organization provides for the rescue if required.

[Bearpaw]

If you keep waiting for the right time...... you might run out of time to do the things you love.

True on far too many levels. A sad outcome, but excellent outlook on life. I'm glad he was able to live the way he wished.

[Wise Old Owl]

OK I couldn't wait for a email-I called them, here is what I found out. They track NH SAR rescues by fiscal year so from 2005 - June 2007 (two years) they did 296 rescues which is way down from 1999 or was that a misprint? 17 of those was a body recovery. The rest was hikers, some were children/elderly wandering off behind the house as they back up to the woods. On a recent rescue one of the victims incurred a $3000 helicopter ride.

The Fines are levied by the Attorney General. They are currently under review as the language of the law has not been holding up in court. They are having a hard time proving negligence, under the current language, and they are working to change it in the near future.

Sounds like they are doing a fantastic job up there in NH.

With that being said - Can we put the thread to bed.

[ed bell]

Thanks for the post wrongway. While there was a sadness to the story, there was plenty there that was uplifting.:sun

[envirodiver]

WW08, I watched my Dad die a miserable death in a bed, after an extended illness.

From my perspective your Dad and your family were fortunate that he was able to pass away doing something he loved. It's never easy to lose someone, but It would be nice to know we could choose.

Thanks for sharing the story.

[wrongway_08]

WW08, I watched my Dad die a miserable death in a bed, after an extended illness.

From my perspective your Dad and your family were fortunate that he was able to pass away doing something he loved. It's never easy to lose someone, but It would be nice to know we could choose.

Thanks for sharing the story.

Sorry to hear your dad had it rough.

From my perspective your dad and family were fortunate to have the chance to say goodbye and talk to one another.

It is hard either way, there is no "good" way to go.

Thanks for the kind words, from you and others here at WB! :sun

[Wolf - 23000]

Don't misunderstand my post as being a condemnation of UL backpacking, because that was not my intent. I just think that if you are going to do that, it is even more important to have a strong outdoors skill set to be prepared. I think we are in agreement.

I could not agree more with you. I'm all for hikers traveling light weight or ultra light if the have the skills to go with it. There seem to be to many hikers that travel light weight or ultra light website run by hikers who can only travel in good weather or get need to rely on others to bail their butts out of a jam. I call them irresponsible hikers myself.

Wolf

[Wolf - 23000]

Shelterbuilder & Weary,

I think both of you are talking about similar possibility. As Shelterbuilder point out you can minimize the risks when possible but you can’t take the risk out completely. The only way to take risk out completely would be to stay home and do just nothing. Something I think we would all agree is not living life.

The question that comes down to is what do you expect to happen after minimizing the risk and things still happen? Anyone who enters the wilderness knows there is a risk being away from civilization. A heart attack victim needs to be taken to the hospital ASAP or at least connected to an AED at a minimal. Something that is not always possible. A victim’s chances of survival decreases 10% ever minute he is has not receive medical care. Even at best, case scenery when the victim position is known and the helicopter crew is ready and can get to a clearing nearby by the time help arrive his chance of survival are not very good.

It is a risk every time we enter the wilderness. It is not always safe to expect that someone will be able to help you get out.

Wolf

[Wise Old Owl]

With three parties of hikers (total of five men) rescued from the Presidential Range, here in NH, in an eight-day period
, all three rescues occurred because the hikers were unprepared for conditions. One hiker lost his life, one was hospitalized in serious condition -- and chopper pilots risked their lives, as did ground searchers, in all these situations.In one instance the lone hiker, who had no snowshoes in five feet of snow, spent, as planned, a night on the mountain in his tent and sleeping bag. The next morning he text-messaged his girlfriend asking for rescue. Then he called 911 and rescuers tracked his call. When found he was comfortable and drying his socks over a stove. IMO, this man risked peoples lives for his own comfort (based only upon what I have deciphered from the media).

In another thread on this forum, someone posted the following scenario:
"
I carry one only for emergencies. I mark the car so I can get back to it if needed. I lead a church teenage group every summer on the AT. Last year a girl fell on Hump Mountain and sprained her ankle bad enough that we had to call for help. I was explaining to the rescue people where we were on the trail but when I told them the exact coordinates it was great. Pinpointed us exactly. The lady on the other end of the phone was so appreciative that I had it. She said often people call but have no idea where they are.
http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/wb_style/buttons/quote.gif (http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=546268)

I mean no disrespect to the writer and the situation was probably far more complex than as written; however, no one remarked on the request for rescue?? Just from the information provided, it seems that there were sufficient bodies to carry/assist the girl with the sprained ankle back to the car (they were not lost) without requesting someone to "rescue" her!

Perhaps the presence of cellphones is making a call for rescue too easy. Here in NH, the government collects the cost of rescue (up to $10,000) from anyone who "recklessly" put themselves into a situation in which rescue forces are required/requested. Pending legislation will change the requirement to the "negligently" -- much easier to prove. However, because the state regards a call for rescue as an implied contract, it is seldom that they must prove even negligence.

Just one opinion.

When do you think a call for rescue should be made?

(SHORT VERSION)
Provided you follow the code of safe hiking practices and not consciously disregarding safety practices in New Hampshire, You will not be fined.

http://www.wildlife.state.nh.us/Outdoor_Recreation/hiking_safety.htm

Since 1999 to date SAR have only fined some 15 groups or individuals in NH for reckless disregard for personal safety. A very low number.

The upcoming legislation is about funding the activity's of SAR. The burden of funding or contribution in rough numbers is $1 out of each Fishing license, Quad or ATV, license or Hunting license. Out of those groups that contribute to the fund of Search & Rescue they only reap 10-12% need to be rescued. On the other hand these groups and individuals have noticed that Hikers are 60% in need of rescue and currently contribute nothing. The legislation is looking into lowering the bar from Reckless disregard to Negligence/Poor decision making, to levy new fines for people hiking in New Hampshire that are not following the rules adopted by Safe Hiker. The process is to recoup some of the losses that are currently burdened by the taxpayer and licensed groups.

There won't be any changes unless the bill is adopted into law, and that might happen this summer.

The verbal source is the New Hampshire Fish & Game Dept.

[Bare Bear]

Years ago I was hiking Yosemite with three others and a sudden and very unexpected storm blew up bringing big wind and snow/ice. We had proper gear but the Forest Service folks showed up looking for hikers (registered) to "rescue". We were not given a choice, had already started back and would have been fine.A couple died up there that week. Two others were "rescued" by helicopter like our group. The papers of course reported the six rescues (who did not need to be) and the two deaths.
I have been in many dire circumstances (scuba diving and work in law enforcement for 28n years) but always self rescued myself/others. Being prepared is like being pregnant, you either are or are not.

[shelterbuilder]

Years ago I was hiking Yosemite with three others and a sudden and very unexpected storm blew up bringing big wind and snow/ice. We had proper gear but the Forest Service folks showed up looking for hikers (registered) to "rescue". We were not given a choice, had already started back and would have been fine.A couple died up there that week. Two others were "rescued" by helicopter like our group. The papers of course reported the six rescues (who did not need to be) and the two deaths.
I have been in many dire circumstances (scuba diving and work in law enforcement for 28n years) but always self rescued myself/others. Being prepared is like being pregnant, you either are or are not.

Well, then, I guess I could say that "the rabbit died" (any of you born after about 1970 won't get that reference)...I'm prepared!

I think that, after a while, some of the rangers get a little gun-shy and assume that no one is prepared and everyone needs to be rescued...erring on the side of caution can be annoying, but better a pissed-off hiker than a corpse, I guess. But if you've given some thought to what you would do "if", you can just make camp and wait it out.

When I go out into the woods, I try to go prepared for AT LEAST one extra night - just in case something goes wrong. If the weather turns crappy, I can just hunker down and wait. And if it should be something more serious, well, my family knows that I would prefer to die in the woods than in some hospital somewhere...and I'll thank in advance the noble folks who carry my remains back to civilization. (You CANNOT prepare for EVERY possible problem - they don't make packs that big, and God didn't make me big enough to carry one that big anyway!:D)

[Erin]

My worst and best and most memorable experience was canoeing next to a couple all afternoon in Arkansas. We didn't know them but exchanged chatter with them all afternoon. We all hiked around a point not far from the take out. At the take out, the husband had a heart attack and died. In front of his wife. In front of us. He really dropped ove dead in the canoe. One of our group, an ER flight nurse, worked on him for an hour until EMT coud get there. It was in the middle of nowhere. He so gone, but our nurse friend kept working on him anyway. His wife, said he died doing what he loved doing. Half our group was so bummed out that they walked to the cars, packed up and drove home. The five of us left stayed to hike out the next day. It was pretty down at the campsite. Our ER nurse came up, brushed her teeth and snagged a beer out of the cooler. Then people we did not know in the campground played great music. We all pulled up and listened. Turned out to be a celebrated local band that was just camping, like us. Incredibly beautiful music. For two hours. The place was mesmerized. The next day the five of us packed out 8 miles in the worst lightening storm and pouring rain, then it got cold. We hiked into the trail head, soaked, freezing and glad we stayed for some unknown reason. I will never forget that hike. Ever. I will never forget the wife in the "Conway High" sweat shirt watching her husband die on the sand bar.
So about rescue? The best care may never be enough when your are in the middle of nowhere and doing what you love to do.

[Jim Adams]

My father:

- 2 weeks away from retirement
- 4 weeks away from a quaddrouple bypass heart surgery.
- Loved the outdoors
- Loved his ultra-light plane.
- Loved keeping busy, never sat still, even with the heart problems that made it hard for him to walk his 5 acres of property for more them 20 minutes.

*for those unfamilar with a ultra-light, its a simple plane that is basically a seat in the front, nothing around it - this allows you to feel as if you just sitting in the air. Then wings attatched above the seat, the engine is behind the seat.


Was Sat morning, my father drove up to PA to fly his ultra-light plane, did this every weekend. We had a family get-together that day, my dad usually flew his plane down and tip his wings to say hello and then fly back up to PA,:sun he would be back home in about 2.5 hours after his wing tip.

Our family was out till about 3pm together, dad usually did the wing tip around 11am but he didnt fly over yet. We figured he went a different way this time. At around 4pm, I headed home and not even 30 minutes after getting to my house, I got a call - dads ultra-light crashed and he died instantly. :(

Here is what happened:
He started off from the airport in PA, flew about 40 minutes South and had engine problems. Going off the GPS unit he had, after the engine had problems, he made a loop back to a open field that was surrouned by woods. His plan was to just glid the plane into the open area and do a simple crash land. (easily done in a ultra-light).

What my dad could not see was that there was a church picnic going on in the field he was going to crash land in.

As he came over the crest of the hill, he saw the people on the ground and then decided to crash the ultra-light into the tress - rather then risk hurting someone on the ground. My dad would never risk someones safety for something he was responsible for. He always tought us to be responsible for our actions, he didnt just preach it, he lived by it up to the very end. :cool:

There was one branch that cought his helmet, he tried to put his arm up to deflect the branch but it ended up breaking his arm and neck.


Sorry for the long post but..... like others, doctors would have wanted him to stay home - due to the heart condition, not work and just wait around till he got the surgery.

In the end, he didnt die of the bad ticker, he died doing something he loved.
If you believe what our family believes, you die when your numbers up, doesnt matter - when its time to go, its time to go, then you should spend every minute making life worth living.

If you keep waiting for the right time...... you might run out of time to do the things you love.

Sorry for you fathers death but what a great story....it is so nice to have your father also as your hero!

geek

[HIKER7s]

Books, movies, news stories and family/ friends stories influence, thats a good thing-great topic, love it.

However some overlook what it requies to get there. training in the skills that will save your life neverminding the skills that will give you a happy trip.

If someone is going into the wilderness, the mountains, ...anywhere like that that you know on just a whim.

smack em!

[overmywaders]

Some have suggested that S&R should "talk" people out of their difficulties. On the face of it, this sounds good - much like 911 operators. However, I'm not certain that most of the people who carry a cellphone "for rescue" are tremendously clever; this video on hunting safety (I can't recall who made it) is somewhat analogous, IMO.
http://overmywaders.com/huntingsafety.swf

[Insert several dozen smilies here.]

[Wise Old Owl]

New England K9 Search and Rescue was called out 50 times in 2007. The typical member of that organization spends over 400 (volunteer) hours conducting searches each year and another 1000 hours learning/honing search skills.

Most of searches they conduct are not for recreational users (e.g., hikers). They are for cognitively limited individuals. They also do not provide rescue or medical services -- they are "locators". A sister organization provides for the rescue if required.

NH Fish and Game said the SAR's they conduct are 60% Hikers & some limited individuals. - ???

[Gray Blazer]

Read the list on top of Mt Washington of all the people who died up there. Look at the dates. Not all of them perished in the winter. Now, the guys who tobogganed down the cog tracks. They were prolly idiots.

[overmywaders]

Wise old owl,

The stats do not conflict. K9 is only used when needed, and the times of the greatest need are for those who may be too young/frightened/or mentally incapacitated to respond to the cries of searchers. The dogs can follow a child right to the tree he is huddled against.

Besides, hikers leave a trail of gorp droppings and other protein bars - you don't need dogs.
:)

[Wise Old Owl]

Wise old owl,

The stats do not conflict. K9 is only used when needed, and the times of the greatest need are for those who may be too young/frightened/or mentally incapacitated to respond to the cries of searchers. The dogs can follow a child right to the tree he is huddled against.

Besides, hikers leave a trail of gorp droppings and other protein bars - you don't need dogs.
:)


Thank's That whole gorp dropping thing up to this moment was a real mystery to me. :D