Teen fined $25,000 for rescue

[wrongway_08]

Why the hel# do people think its unconstitutional for someone to pay for what it cost for them being stupid?

If your out and something goes wrong, beyound your control, then I dont mind our tax money going to pay to help that person.

If its someone like this idiot, then our tax money shouldnt be spent on him cause he is stupid. His fault it happened - he has the constitutional responsibility to pay. (no, there is no law for this, but there should be, lets call it the Idiotic - head up your own Dumb Ass Law.)

[Pedaling Fool]

I don't know if the law is constitutional or not, but I do know that defining negligence can be a slippery slope. Some cases are very simple to determine, but others are not and when non-hikers are charged with determining negligence we run the risk of the govt. impinging on our hobby/way-of-life as hikers.

Some might say that hiking into mahoosuc notch is negligent, regardless of experience, that could lead the a requirement to have the AT relocated out of there, do we want that? The govt is already starting to require certain things to be wheelchair friendly.

This is a pretty good article about the New Hampshire law, check it out
(about 1/2 way down the page) http://alpineinstitute.blogspot.com/...cue-costs.html

[Homer&Marje]

I might be wrong but in the original story I believe I remember that he checked in at the ranger station and checked in before his hike?

I also would consider a 1 day hike that turned into 3 a disaster...but it happens...and he WOULD have got out of it himself had his parents NOT called the SAR and they had not found him 45 minutes from the summit of Washington. Yes it was a disaster of a hike....but he was prepared and eventually, for not the SAR luckily running into him on the trail, he would have been fine.

I think stupid people should have to pay for the SAR....but where are they drawing the line? Break it down simply, how many times have you forgotten something you needed, screwed up in planning, or had things change on you in the woods in which the initial plan, and the initial well being of yourself is jeopardized.

You can pick apart ANYONES hike and find something they didn't do perfect up to the standards of NH SAR apparently.

My packs gonna be heavy next time I go to the Whites. Going to bring the Kitchen Sink so I always have a reliable water source. Don't want SAR to find me dehydrated and charge me 30 grand.

If I planned on a 1 day hike that turned into THREE DAYS I would consider my plan a total and complete disaster. I would consider that I was unprepared for the hike that I had attempted... because if I was prepared to that hike of hike (physically, experience-wise and gear wise) than the hike would have truly taken one day.

This kid was prepared from a gear situation. He clearly had the necessary items and survival skills to survive several days.

He was unprepared in experience and possible physically for that kind of hike. So it depends on what angle you look at it from.

Personally, I think that it sucks he is getting stuck with the bill, but I understand it. He decided to embark on a hike that was ill-advised given the conditions - conditions he could have known about if he had simply asked about at the Visitor Center. This is to me the crux of the States argument, that attempting this hike at this time of year was reckless. NH might have realized this was going to get a lot of press, and charged him to highlight how much these rescues can cost.

As for the law being unconstitutional - until I hear from a lawyer versed in Supreme Court cases, I strongly disagree. To me its no different that charging someone for reckless driving when they are falling asleep at the wheel.

[ShoelessWanderer]

And I assure you, that EVERYONE on this website at one time or another has done something "stupid" or been "unprepared" on a hike. It goes with the territory. Fortunatly, most of us never have issues, but last time I checked I paid taxes to make sure, that if something does go wrong that someone will be there to help me.

[Homer&Marje]

And I assure you, that EVERYONE on this website at one time or another has done something "stupid" or been "unprepared" on a hike. It goes with the territory. Fortunatly, most of us never have issues, but last time I checked I paid taxes to make sure, that if something does go wrong that someone will be there to help me.

Exactly. Consider my contribution to the local NH economy EVERY time I go up there...and thankfully never had an incident...in the 15 years that I have been going there to hike.....Payment. Enough.

[SassyWindsor]

I'd Rather be Lost in the Woods
than Found in the City.

[gollwoods]

probably some insurance company lobbied for the law so they can sell insurance to cover the costs. Is that cynical???

[buckwheat]

Why the hel# do people think its unconstitutional for someone to pay for what it cost for them being stupid?

If your out and something goes wrong, beyound your control, then I dont mind our tax money going to pay to help that person.

If its someone like this idiot, then our tax money shouldnt be spent on him cause he is stupid. His fault it happened - he has the constitutional responsibility to pay. (no, there is no law for this, but there should be, lets call it the Idiotic - head up your own Dumb Ass Law.)

Nobody is arguing that it is unconstitutional for someone to pay for what it costs for them being stupid.

This hiker wasn't stupid. He was hiking, and was injured unexpectedly ... and never required, nor himself asked to be rescued, especially by a helicopter flown in from Maine because New Hampshire helicopters are not properly maintained ready for flight by the officials charged with their care.

How is this hiker an "idiot" because he twisted his ankle, and then hiked himself to relative safety using skills he learned as an Eagle Scout without requiring assistance from anyone?

The law is unconstitutional because in America our laws must be equally applied to everyone, regardless of how smart they are or where the helicopter comes from.

New Hampshire rescue officials whom we pay to be on duty should someone need to be rescued are trained, equipped and paid to perform those duties for all whom require it, regardless of that person's circumstances.

It is why we hire them and pay them with our tax dollars.

[The Scribe]

It has been in effect because, up to this point, it has always been cheaper to just pay the fine than to fight the case in court.

For the law to be declared unconstitutional by a court, someone has to pay a lawyer to challenge the law in court. That's the key. Up to now, the state of New Hampshire has been intelligent in understanding that the usefulness of this law is in whom it discourages and how it changes behavior.

The usefulness of the law is not in whom it actually extracts money from. Stupidly, New Hampshire officials have all but guaranteed, with this moronic fine, that the law will be challenged.

It is so blatantly unconstitutional that I cannot fathom any judge not ruling in the family's favor provided they retain a slightly competent attorney.

In my view, the idea of punishing irresponsible people who require rescue is probably a good one. The reality however is that this law is vague; it is unevenly enforced; it is arbitrary and capricious in who it fines, and how much it fines people.

It behooves the legislature to write a constitutional law; to apply it evenly and to fine everyone equally. That's justice in America, however inconvenient.

The $25,000 fine levied here will only result in the law being overturned, since the fine imposed is high enough to justify fighting the law.

I don't know Buckwheat. I am under the impression that something isn't unconstitutional until a court says it is so. Until then, it is enforced. I do admire your passion about this tho. Maybe you can lead up their defense fund. Personally, I think if I still lived in NH and in one of the towns that has to contribute to S&R (I used to) then find a way to make it up at Town Meeting and budget time, I would probably welcome any money the fines bring in.

[Homer&Marje]

Nobody is arguing that it is unconstitutional for someone to pay for what it costs for them being stupid.

This hiker wasn't stupid. He was hiking, and was injured unexpectedly ... and never required, nor himself asked to be rescued, especially by a helicopter flown in from Maine because New Hampshire helicopters are not properly maintained ready for flight by the officials charged with their care.

How is this hiker an "idiot" because he twisted his ankle, and then hiked himself to relative safety using skills he learned as an Eagle Scout without requiring assistance from anyone?

The law is unconstitutional because in America our laws must be equally applied to everyone, regardless of how smart they are or where the helicopter comes from.

New Hampshire rescue officials whom we pay to be on duty should someone need to be rescued are trained, equipped and paid to perform those duties for all whom require it, regardless of that person's circumstances.

It is why we hire them and pay them with our tax dollars.

And also note that volunteers are....volunteers

[Sly]

NH needs to start a program like they have in CO where hikers pay a few dollars a year. It probably would have covered this rescue.

[Sly]

And I assure you, that EVERYONE on this website at one time or another has done something "stupid" or been "unprepared" on a hike. It goes with the territory. Fortunatly, most of us never have issues, but last time I checked I paid taxes to make sure, that if something does go wrong that someone will be there to help me.

Better check again, I'm afraid paying taxes does not cover anything you may encounter.

[Skidsteer]

Why the hel# do people think its unconstitutional for someone to pay for what it cost for them being stupid?

If your out and something goes wrong, beyound your control, then I dont mind our tax money going to pay to help that person.

If its someone like this idiot, then our tax money shouldnt be spent on him cause he is stupid. His fault it happened - he has the constitutional responsibility to pay. (no, there is no law for this, but there should be, lets call it the Idiotic - head up your own Dumb Ass Law.)

In this case it appears he was willing to pay for being stupid if he didn't call for help.

Perhaps his parents should pay since they made the call.

[Homer&Marje]

Why the hel# do people think its unconstitutional for someone to pay for what it cost for them being stupid?

If your out and something goes wrong, beyound your control, then I dont mind our tax money going to pay to help that person.

If its someone like this idiot, then our tax money shouldnt be spent on him cause he is stupid. His fault it happened - he has the constitutional responsibility to pay. (no, there is no law for this, but there should be, lets call it the Idiotic - head up your own Dumb Ass Law.)

How is he an idiot? He had a bivvy, emergency blankets, fire starting devices, warm clothing, extra food and experience. He started a fired every night, boiled water and...Why is he an idiot?

Not to mention he basically got himself out. You should be a spokesman for that law you mentioned though.

[buckwheat]

I don't know Buckwheat. I am under the impression that something isn't unconstitutional until a court says it is so. Until then, it is enforced. I do admire your passion about this tho. Maybe you can lead up their defense fund. Personally, I think if I still lived in NH and in one of the towns that has to contribute to S&R (I used to) then find a way to make it up at Town Meeting and budget time, I would probably welcome any money the fines bring in.

You're very right ... something isn't unconstitutional until it's constituionality is argued in court. That's why this fine is really dumb; it guarantees a court fight that will result in the invalidation of this law.

And let me set the record straight: no town in New Hampshire is required to rescue anyone off of any of their mountains.

If, however, that town hires people ... spends money to train them in mountain rescue ... and equips them with helicopters and baskets and so forth ... I think it is reasonable to expect that they do their jobs without regard to the IQ of the individual who might require their services.

Unless, of course, that standard is going to apply evenly to everyone.

The State of New Hampshire created many of these trails. It entices people to use them. It created parks near them. It charges people to camp near the trails. It encourages people to hike these trails through advertising. Much of its economy is dependent on the tourist dollars these trails bring in. For the state of New Hampshire to then deny any responsibility for encouraging people to take risks climbing their mountains is the height of hypocrisy, don't you think?

The law is unconstitutional. This family, having been given the incentive to fight the law, will.

And they'll win.

[skinewmexico]

The State of New Hampshire created many of these trails. It entices people to use them. It created parks near them. It charges people to camp near the trails. It encourages people to hike these trails through advertising. Much of its economy is dependent on the tourist dollars these trails bring in. For the state of New Hampshire to then deny any responsibility for encouraging people to take risks climbing their mountains is the height of hypocrisy, don't you think?

Amen brother. This certainly doesn't encourage me to hike in NH, knowing that some beauracrat is going to decide that I was prepared enough, and had an approved accident, and was in proper physical condition. Sounds like the safety guy at a major corporation. And quite frankly, I'm shocked by the number of people who seem to have never required anyone else's help, in any situration, in their lives. And never did anything stupid as a teenager. Oh yeah, you just didn't get caught.

[Homer&Marje]

You're very right ... something isn't unconstitutional until it's constituionality is argued in court. That's why this fine is really dumb; it guarantees a court fight that will result in the invalidation of this law.

And let me set the record straight: no town in New Hampshire is required to rescue anyone off of any of their mountains.

If, however, that town hires people ... spends money to train them in mountain rescue ... and equips them with helicopters and baskets and so forth ... I think it is reasonable to expect that they do their jobs without regard to the IQ of the individual who might require their services.

Unless, of course, that standard is going to apply evenly to everyone.

The State of New Hampshire created many of these trails. It entices people to use them. It created parks near them. It charges people to camp near the trails. It encourages people to hike these trails through advertising. Much of its economy is dependent on the tourist dollars these trails bring in. For the state of New Hampshire to then deny any responsibility for encouraging people to take risks climbing their mountains is the height of hypocrisy, don't you think?

The law is unconstitutional. This family, having been given the incentive to fight the law, will.

And they'll win.

Very well stated

[River Runner]

If hikers who make mistakes are going to be charged for SAR, then it's only fair people who are in auto accidents where they are at fault pay for the cost of police, ambulance, and other emergency personnel who respond and people whose houses burn down because of a mistake they made pay for the fire department call. The fact that they pay taxes doesn't make them any more deserving than a hiker who also pays taxes.

Then, we could take it even further - people who get mugged because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time should have to pay the cost of the police investigation, people whose homes are broken into should have to do the same because they weren't prepared with adequate home protection plans, etc.

[Homer&Marje]

If there was even a "standard" fine for this type of thing it would be a little less of a heated topic.

How many hikers you know with 25 grand laying around? The magnitude of the fine says a lot about how the state of NH is going to handle these cases.

Find negligence in any way possible, and charge an astronomical fee for the SAR. Whether it be the true cost of the SAR or not, the fine is too large for how prepared he was for the situation that he got himself into, and out of.

[Lyle]

This ridiculous fine will encourage others to hike without leaving an itinerary, or to leave a greatly inflated itinerary with others so that they won't be subject to this BS if they happen to go a day or two beyond their plan. If something unfortunate happens, SAR will still be called out eventually, but it will be for a body recovery instead of a rescue, and there will be no one left to fine.

Very stupid implementation and application of the law. This kid was not rescued, the rescuers just joined his hike for about 45 minutes.