Yes and wondering when there will be the first causality due to not calling for fear of getting hit with such a bill.Originally Posted by iAmKrzys
GrayBear,
I am not sure that you have to be a complete knucklehead in NH to be charged, maybe just a moderate knucklehead. The SAR volunteers actually seem to be opposed to what NH is doing, at least according to this article here...
http://nhpr.org/post/volunteer-rescu...hikers-rescues
Now that NH Fish & Game has a taste for this type of money, my guess is that cases like this will become increasingly common, and perhaps not just applied to the most extreme cases. Note that the fine was not just for the direct expense of the rescue, but for the salaries of people who were on duty and working anyway. Buy your 'Hike Safe' card or pay the price if something goes wrong.
This case raises many interesting questions. I ask WB what do you think about the following.
1) If you hike solo, are you being negligent?
2) If you hike in September in the rain with wind gusts to 70 mph, are you being negligent? Presume you are well equipped, carrying a shelter, and are prepared for multiple nights on the trail.
3) If you hike after hip (or other) surgery and your Dr. and Physical Therapist thinks that it is reasonable to presume your hip is safe for hiking, is that negligent?
4) If you require two canes (or trekking poles) to hike, should that preclude you from attempting a challenging hike? If you try a challenging hike in this condition, are you being negligent?
Since not all hikes are created equal, let's say your hike is a 4.9 mile hike up Franconia Ridge and you start at 7 AM so that you have plenty of time to complete it.
Here is my reference for this discussion...
http://nhpr.org/post/michigan-hiker-...a-ridge-rescue
Last edited by imscotty; 05-01-2015 at 10:36.
Personally, I wish we all assumed the risks and paid for the results of those risks. Someone is paying for them. The money or the value of the rescue does not fall out of the sky. This fact is nearly impossible to explain to people today. I will never grasp the attitude that says, "I will try and if I fail, someone else's dime or time will rescue me". "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is the norm today and people actually think it is necessary and good. This forced sharing promotes waste and irresponsible behavior. I am not saying people should live in bubblewrap. I am saying people should pay their own way. The hilarity is, those that do are vilified for not doing enough and those that don't think they deserve more.
In the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years. - Abraham Lincoln
The obvious answer is, it depends. It depends upon looking at all the contributing factors within the whole context, just like any other situation. The judgment as to what constitutes "negligence" generally comes down to the reasonable person standard. As I stated in a prior post in this thread, thousands of hikers of varying age, physical condition, and skill hike this route every year without incident. The rock where this accident occurred requires the ability to get oneself up and onto the top of the rock to continue. It is roughly 4 feet high, and there isn't any alternate route nor easy way to navigate around it. It can be a bit of a challenge even for someone without hip problems. Typically you take off your pack, throw it on top and pull yourself up either crawling up and over onto your stomach, or by jumping/hoisting your butt onto to it backwards. I've had three prior back injuries and can do it, but will say it isn't particularly easy. Like a lot of terrain in the Whites, there's some scrambling involved. For someone with multiple hip injuries, RECENT ongoing problems, in bad weather, I can see it being a much bigger problem.
5 miles up to and on the ridge in the Whites simply isn't a realistic trail for someone with this guy's medical conditions to have attempted, especially alone, regardless of how much time he budgeted to complete the hike. He stated that he was familiar with the area, and if this is true, definitely should have known better than to attempt it (and especially not alone given his recent medical history), or he should have turned back. The "negligence" occurs when he 1) hikes alone given his medical condition, 2) fails to heed weather reports, and then 3) fails to turn back or abort the hike when encountering terrain beyond his physical capabilities, or terrain that could not be navigated due to conditions 4) fails to turn back when weather worsens.
It's not any one single behavior that determines negligence. It's that there are multiple decisions/behaviors that a reasonable person would have foreseen, or upon encountering, made a decision to abort the hike or turn back.
"That's the thing about possum innards - they's just as good the second day." - Jed Clampett
I have mixed feelings about this subject. I'm all for supporting the F&G for their efforts. I'm opposed to giving a government agency another revenue stream to be redirected a and increased at budget time. Example NH Highway Fund. I'm all for people paying their own way. If I wad myself up on my bicycle riding to work I pay the bill. If I wad my self up on the mountain people buying a fishing licence pay the bill. I dont want anyone to die up there because they are worried about the bill if they call for help. I don't want anyone to think because they paid the $25 for a HS card they are entitled to a carry out if they get tired and hungry. Its not AAA
The best journeys answer questions that in the beginning you didn't even know to ask.
Yeah, I think most of us have mixed feelings. There's so many variables and conflicting wants and desires: personal responsibility, greater good, S&R budgets and funding, tourism, etc. The 400 lb gorilla is the funding as always. I'm very mixed as the total S&R costs are typically only in the $350K/year range, amounting to what would be under a dollar per each of NH's 520,000 households if S&R costs were appropriated funds. Given all the negative publicity from a tourism aspect generated by those few instances where negligence is charged and fees assessed, and the Hike Safe program, it would seem that a 67 cent tax per household would be beneficial from a net tourism revenue standpoint. Or not. But the way NH Fish and Game is funded, and provisions in the NH Constitution, does not allow that option. And so it goes.
"That's the thing about possum innards - they's just as good the second day." - Jed Clampett
Because I have a hunting/fishing license in my home state of NH, I get the same "benefits" of a hike safe card. I hope I never have rely on it. I had a family member involved in a hunting accident where he had a 12 gauge slug claim some of his skull and brain.
Fortunately, he survived. Unfortunately, he had to sue his best friend to pay rescue/medical fees.
I don't know why they charged him what they did for the rescue. It was an accident. Was it avoidable? Maybe. But when a bear charges your camp with intent, your heart rate increase dramatically, and accidents happen.
With SAR, I don't get to make the choice. If I have an accident, they're coming after me whether I want it or not.
As a former SAR volunteer in NH, I'm pretty pissed at the whole situation. It isn't encouraging subjects to avoid trouble. It's encouraging subjects who are already in trouble to delay calling, putting SAR at greater risk.
And the idiots being rescued are a tiny minority, actually. The common callouts are:
- little kids who've wandered.
- adults with cognitive impairments, psychiatric problems, or drug problems who've wandered..
- otherwise prepared people who've had falls.
- otherwise prepared people who've had sudden medical issues.
The first two can't be negligent, to say nothing of reckless, because they aren't responsible for themselves.
The remaining two - well, who among us hasn't fallen down on ice, loose material, tripping brush or slick rock? The fortunate ones have still been able to travel under their own power afterwards. Everyone gets sick sometimes, possibly suddenly.
To a jury of non-hikers, we're all reckless. We go hiking in the backcountry. No sensible person does that.
I'd buy insurance if it would help - but the way I read it, HikeSafe isn't that insurance. The way I'm reading it, it's like liability insurance that covers you only if you're not liable. What kind of policy is that?
And the costs are nearly impossible to assess, because they're almost entirely fixed costs. If you're going to have a helicopter work SAR, you're going to have to pay to keep it up. The flight hours that the crew put in on a mission simply mean that they fly that many fewer training hours that month. The volunteers come for free. The sheriff's deputy or the fireman get paid whether they're out combing the woods or sitting around the station drinking coffee.
I always know where I am. I'm right here.
I understand Birdbrain's point of view, although I think NH will be short sighted if they continue to pursue any but the most extreme cases. They are many areas where society has determined that a greater good is served by sharing certain costs. Families with no children still pay taxes to support the local schools. In this case NH benefits from the tourism of hikers, snowmobilers, and many others. This type of litigation could drive some hikers to neighboring states.
Perhaps this hiker did cross the line in the risk he was taking on. Still, it disturbed me that the prosecution implied that people hiking alone, or with disabilities are being negligent. But, perhaps some people think the Bill Irwins, and the wounded warriors of the world are being negligent when they confront their challenges outdoors. As Kevin said, some people think that anyone who hikes the backcountry is being reckless.
It is interesting to me that this particular hiker has returned to hike Franconia Notch twice since his rescue. (See article linked below). He was apparently successful in these later hikes. This was not some clueless NOOB who was totally unprepared. Rather, I get the impression of a man fighting some medical hardships trying to still enjoy his love of the outdoors.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/h...-bill-30698860
Last edited by imscotty; 05-01-2015 at 17:33.
I believe there is a reasonable expectation in a civilized society to contribute towards the maintenance of said civility. I do not feel it is reasonable to choose gratuitous activities, dangerous or not, and expect if things do not work out right to be bailed out. This is a vacation with risks. I do not believe the risk is irresponsible. I believe the expected free pass from costs incurred by this gratuitous activity, if things go wrong, to be irresponsible.
Last edited by BirdBrain; 05-01-2015 at 17:46.
In the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years. - Abraham Lincoln
The point to be made is not how it happened but the events that allowed it to happen. #1 hiking in difficult terrain. #2 age and condition of the hiker. #3 previous hip surgery. #4 Marginal hiking weather. These items all put the hiker in a dangerous situation.
The advent of cell phones has caused too many hikers to feel that extra safety precautions no longer have to be taken. You take your cell phone along and if you get into trouble you just have to call and someone will come and bale you out.
Grampie-N->2001
IF the state chooses to lie about the hiker jumping backwards up a ledge, what else will the lie about?
They should be ashamed about that.
You sound surprised. Lawyers view people during litigation like I view v8 cans during stove building. Their tactics are to be expected. Laying that aside, we still have the question of who should pay for a vacation gone wrong. The lawyers use an ends justify the means approach to declare that it is not the state.
In the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years. - Abraham Lincoln
I realize that the location was a bit inconvenient--about 6 miles from a road--but do you really need 15 employees and 30+ volunteers to make such a rescue? The trail is relatively sheltered (below tree line) approaching from the south, and the trail down from the ridge (past Liberty Springs Campground) was in good condition when I hiked it last year. I realize it would be a PITA to get that person down, but I would think that a team of 6-8 could do it.
I remember Chet telling me how he carried someone down Beaver Brook trail in his SAR days...and then the guy thanked him at the bottom and walked away... Getting down Little Haystack would be a piece of cake compared to Beaver Brook.
I think it is bad precedent to charge so much for what seems to be a relatively easy rescue...because who is going to call for help when it is a truly difficult (and expensive) rescue unless they really need it?
AT 2000 miler: 2011-2014 (via section hikes)
Camino de Santiago -- April/May 2016 (Camino Frances from Saint Jean Pied de Port to Santiago de Compostela)
CDT New Mexico sections next???
but do you really need 15 employees and 30+ volunteers to make such a rescue
Yup, if its a litter carry, they need several crews to alternate the carrying. They can probably do it with less folks but at a slower rate
I do give credit to all the Forest Service Professionals that got the call to drop everything at home an participate in the rescue. Even though they get paid, unlike the volunteers who helped out, I imagine the Forest Service rescue team doesn't really have the option to say "no".
Oh wait, only one was not already on the job...
The defendant changed his story on lots of things. What he testified to in court is not what Sgt. Morse testified that the defendant told him at the time of rescue. The defendants "revised" testimony differs from what he told Lt. Kneeland at the hospital. Nor does the physical evidence back the defendant's "revised" testimony regarding the nature of his injury, the weather, etc. My money is on the Conservation Officers telling the truth about what the defendant told them and the particulars of the rescue. Last time I checked, they didn't work on commission.
Last edited by 4eyedbuzzard; 05-01-2015 at 23:56.
"That's the thing about possum innards - they's just as good the second day." - Jed Clampett
Not challenging any specific testimony, but rather how the State presents its summation /characterization of it on the legal documents.
So the Hike Safe card seems like a good deal. Just like insurance, it covers gross negligence, but not intentional recklessness. It's not real insurance - but for $35 for a family, it's something.
I climb often in the Whites and I will buy it to support SAR readiness. I hope I will never need them, but I like knowing they are there.
When I go, I carry the recommended gear and try to exercise reasonable care. I carry enough gear to effect a self-rescue under expect conditions. If I can't rescue myself, I'd rely on SAR and hope that they would find me well-equipped and properly trained, but just unlucky.
In this specific case, the defendant should have just paid the $9,500 bill as it is also a good deal for the services he got. We are not talking about an astronomical sum - work out a payment plan.
You can also buy insurance policies for a less than $200 a year that cover you in these situations.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
