$25,000 fine assessed for teen hiker

Lots of great posts here regarding this particular situation (Mason). What I am concerned about is the future.

What happens when another person is rescued and NH asks/demands reimbursement?

My two cents: An insurance program set up to offset the costs associated with rescues. At any of the facilities at or near the Whites you can pick up a card (similar to a library card). For $3 you are covered for your first week. If you need more, $2 for each consecutive week that follows. You can buy as much as you need. (This would be $105 for the whole year)

At the same locations of card purchase (and at trailheads) there can be a sign stating that if you choose not to insure yourself or group, there will be a fixed cost associated a rescue for any reason. This cost should be high enough to make someone think carefully. I'll use Mason's rescue as an example and pick $5000 (20% of total).

There you have it. Future rescues are limited to a $5000 individual liability. Fish & Game picks up the remainder which is offset by the insurance everyone else is purchasing.

DrJJFate said:

Lots of great posts here regarding this particular situation (Mason). What I am concerned about is the future.

What happens when another person is rescued and NH asks/demands reimbursement?

My two cents: An insurance program set up to offset the costs associated with rescues. At any of the facilities at or near the Whites you can pick up a card (similar to a library card). For $3 you are covered for your first week. If you need more, $2 for each consecutive week that follows. You can buy as much as you need. (This would be $105 for the whole year)

At the same locations of card purchase (and at trailheads) there can be a sign stating that if you choose not to insure yourself or group, there will be a fixed cost associated a rescue for any reason. This cost should be high enough to make someone think carefully. I'll use Mason's rescue as an example and pick $5000 (20% of total).

There you have it. Future rescues are limited to a $5000 individual liability. NH picks up the remainder which is offset by the insurance everyone else is purchasing.

Click to expand...

My guess is that very few would purchase the insurance, so we would remain in the same dilemma. This particular SAR was exceptional in that the Maine helicopter did not come gratis like the National Guard helicopters do. My question is whether F&G will request a private helicopter for SAR ever again given the way this case played out.

Dr. Dasypodidae said:

My guess is that very few would purchase the insurance, so we would remain in the same dilemma. This particular SAR was exceptional in that the Maine helicopter did not come gratis like the National Guard helicopters do. My question is whether F&G will request a private helicopter for SAR ever again given the way this case played out.

Click to expand...

That's an interesting dilemna, and one I hadn't thought about. At what point could some opportunist try to sue if an helicopter was not used?

I still think they would if available, but that is a good question.

dug said:

... At what point could some opportunist try to sue if an helicopter was not used? ...

Click to expand...

This is an interesting point to ponder and discuss. My thinking is that in its effort to extort money for SAR services from people like young Mason, the State of NH may have set itself up for lawsuits when things don't turn out so well.

Perhaps turnabout is fair play, but I would not applaud such a lawsuit should it occur. In fact, I would be disgusted and dismayed by it just as I've been left shaking my head over the Mason case. Humanitarian services like SAR for lost or stranded hikers/climbers should not necessarily come with an invoice, or a guarantee attached.

G.

bryan said:

i think the most unsettling thing about this whole story for me is that an amc staffer may have given him the advice to use the great gulf as a bailout route under those conditions. i like to think that those dispensing information at any amc facility have more sense than that. that said, had he done a little research on his own he could have easily ascertained that the water crossings in the gulf may have been an issue given the time of year and prevailing conditions and not had to rely on someone elses advice.
sounds like otherwise he showed amazing self reliance in a situation i certainly hope i never end up in.

bryan

Click to expand...

No one has said who the AMC staffer is. Like you, I certainly hope that those giving out advice are knowledgeable about local conditions. We have this information second, (or third hand). We don't know who the teenager spoke with, what questions were asked, and what the responses were. Foremost, if I were asked, I'd point out that for most people, just going to the summit and right back down is a full day in summer. Thus, I would discourage anyone from trying to do the northern Presidentials as well in the same day, even in good weather during the summer. So, unless it specifically came up in discussions, my bail out plan would be to turn around and go back down the way you came up. Forget about trying to do more than go to the summit and back down.

There has been a lot of speculation.

Dr. Dasypodidae said:

My guess is that very few would purchase the insurance, so we would remain in the same dilemma. This particular SAR was exceptional in that the Maine helicopter did not come gratis like the National Guard helicopters do. My question is whether F&G will request a private helicopter for SAR ever again given the way this case played out.

Click to expand...

This dilemma is eliminated. If you don't have the insurance, you're billed the fixed amount. The amount and reason for billing is unbiased.

Why should rescues in the woods be free of financial obligation, when rescues anywhere else are not?

If your car breaks down 100 miles from home and you call for a tow, what is your financial responsibility? You either have some form of roadside assistance/AAA (insurance) or you do not. The tow-truck driver is providing a service to assist people.

You already bought the insurance... you do pay taxes.

SAR is built into the forest service budget via governemnt taxes, State n Feds, just like salt n plowing snow. Do you pay extra each time the plow n salt trucks go out in the winter? So why charge for SAR?

It's a local rip off if you ask me, where did my tax money go?

Peaks said:

We have this information second, (or third hand). We don't know who the teenager spoke with, what questions were asked, and what the responses were.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't fault the advice given just for the reason Peaks gave above. My dad and I once hiked a similar route in Summer as part of an overnight trip, and one bailout option was the Sphinx. If the weather REALLY turned bad above treeline, hurricane-force winds and limited visibility due to rain/snow the main objective is to get into the trees. Crossing rivers further down becomes secondary. And in such conditions I don't know that he would be able to make it to Caps Ridge, or would want to take such an exposed route walking into the prevailing winds. My guess is this is the type of bailout situation that was discussed.

In Mason's case, his decision was a good one for the most part - his bailout got him below treeline onto a well established set of trails that would eventually bring him back to his starting point. Once down into the Gulf the route back is fairly benign on a hobbled ankle. If he makes it through the Gulf and back to the auto road before complete darkness he's home free. The only hiccup was the Peabody. Heading for Caps Ridge would have put him on a more technical trail that would place him on the other side of the mountains with no way to get back to his car.

<SARCASM>
This whole mess could have been avoided if they would just build more bridges over the Peabody in the name of hiker safety.
</SARCASM>

paul ron said:

You already bought the insurance... you do pay taxes.

SAR is built into the forest service budget via governemnt taxes, State n Feds, just like salt n plowing snow. Do you pay extra each time the plow n salt trucks go out in the winter? So why charge for SAR?

It's a local rip off if you ask me, where did my tax money go?

Click to expand...

Ho hum, you just don't get it. How many times do I need to go through this with you...the Fish and Game department is A STATE RUN ENTITY providing the service on Federal property. THEY RECEIVE NOT ONE SINGLE PENNY FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. I hope this is the last time I have to make this distinguishing point for you. I don't know how many times I have to say it. So rest assured not one single cent of your tax money is used for rescues in the White Mountains. Not even local taxes if you were a resident (which you are not) get used. The Fish and Game are a SELF FUNDED organization, an organization who is starting to strain in financial turmoil partly because NO ONE BUT FISH AND GAME are paying for rescues.

You savvy now?

Brian

I have reached the point where I think they should charge everyone for their rescue. This would eliminate all the time and money spent bickering over whether someone was reckless, incompetent, negligent, or whatever else they want to call it. They must have had to pay lawyers to try to get this resolved ,so they lost more money plus the cost of the rescue.

In our town we are given the option of paying the FD $20 in late December which will cover any ambulance rides you might require for the next year. If you have insurance they can collect what you are covered for, but you will never pay out of pocket for the ambulance ride. They could have the same program for hikers. Pay a certain amount and you will not be charge for your rescue. All other will be charged full price. If you endanger others with your reckless behavior you can prosecuted in the legal system. It would be up to the State to prosecute, and the offenders to defend themselves in the courts. Keep it all separate.

IF we can manage to get parking passes, I think we could manage to find a way to pay our $20 bucks for SAR "insurance". It could be available for purchase at various locations in the Whites and on the WWW. Pay the money, fill out the form, and you get your little insurance "card" for the year. The choice would be ours. If we choose to opt out and things don't work out, we can expect to pay the bill.

Scott's case will now set a precedent for all other SAR's.
For many months he was believed to be financially liable for the cost of his rescue. They had described the why's and wherefore's of their position at length and were holding him accountable. Now, for who knows what reason, miraculously he is not. How can they turn around and charge someone else for their rescue? I think they need to find some other way to get some cash, so why not SAR insurance, or maybe a permit or license for hikers?
This would end the "at fault" debate which is sure to happen again, and again, and again. While all this is ongoing, F&G has no reimbursement. This is no way to make money.

If the insurance or license doesn't work, they could always have the "spaghetti supper" at the Lions Club!

I still say the simple thing to do would be for the federal government to subsidize part of the SAR budget for Fish and Game. It seems the wider public still does not realize that Fish and Game does not receive funding from the State. All revenue comes from lic. sales, some OHRV funding, donations, etc. So the budget is already set depending on what kind of money they take in through these inlets. The problem is that with SAR costs rising there is not enough money to cover all the programs, and since SAR is such an important issue other areas have to suffer. There is no asking for funding increases, not requesting of budgetary supplements...what they have is what they have and can even fluctuate for any given year. The F&G does not run on some kind of tremendous surplus every year. In general what goes in goes out. In times past this used to not be such a problem, but then costs started rising and it seems more people are getting out every year and thus SAR call out's are becoming more frequent. Much of the hiker related SAR call outs seem to be in the WMNF, federal land. I can understand that the relationship that the state has with the government is an odd one. So I am not, nor would I think F&G, ask for 100% reimbursement from the Federal GOvernmant. But I feel that they owe some sort of responsibility in this matter. Even just taking care of 30% or 40% would go a VERY long way. But the choice has made to just let F&G starve for funds. And THAT is a scary thing to contemplate. Who are you going to call when you hurt yourself if the entity responsible for your safety can not even afford to fill the gas tanks of their vehicles.....

But some also think an insurance option would work. My opinion? If it gets F&G the money they need then I am all for it. Again, SOMETHING is better than nothing, which is what all the powers that be are doing right now.

Brian

DrJJFate said:

Why should rescues in the woods be free of financial obligation, when rescues anywhere else are not?

Click to expand...

This:

In the weeks following the search and rescue effort on Mt. Washington for Eagle Scout Scott Mason, the MRA has responded to a growing number of stories asking “who pays?”

“Charging subjects for their rescues can be dangerous for many reasons,” explained Charley Shimanski, President of the MRA. Shimanski, who served on a U.S. Senate-mandated panel that studied charging climbers on Mt. McKinley for their rescues, added, “Often people will delay calling for help when they fear a cost, and in the mountains, that delay in the call for help can increase the risk to rescuers And the subject alike.” He added that climber rescues are infrequent when compared to rescues of hikers, skiers, mountain bikers and other backcountry users. The latest data provided by the National Park Services shows that 82 percent of rescues in parks are for hikers boaters and swimmers. Mountain climbers represented just 4 percent of their rescue activities.

Click to expand...

NH is way out in left field on this. Every major SAR organization including the Coast Guard and NPS is against charging for rescue. Anyone who reads up on the facts on this issue knows that charging is a very bad idea that puts potential victims and SAR teams at greater risk.

Tim Seaver said:

NH is way out in left field on this.

Click to expand...

"NH" the state, or NewHampshire the poster above? I think the NewHampshire the poster makes a lot of sense, unlike many other recent posters here, who I believe are unrealistic in thinking that hikers are going to buy voluntarily insurance or pay for their own SAR, regardless of whether they are found negligent or not.

I definitely agree that there are abundant reasons why no SAR organization anywhere wants to charge for rescues. And, I think that most would agree that the negligence threat as an educational tool is probably not working. If we have learned nothing else from the healthcare debate in this country the past few years, we pay for those who are uninsured one way or the other (ex., expensive emergency room charges for routine health care for the uninsured that one way or the other comes out of the pockets of the insured). Perhaps some kind of mandated SAR insurance is the way to go, but unfortunately the easiest way to accomplish that would be through raising taxes at some level, whether it be state or federal.

Dr. Dasypodidae said:

"NH" the state, or NewHampshire the poster above?

Click to expand...

That would be the state I was referring to.

As NewHampshire has noted, it's amazing how few people even know how it's funded.

The state of NH would do well to adopt a system similar to the one used by Colorado, which is working very well.

But I am not holding my breath.

Tim Seaver said:

The state of NH would do well to adopt a system similar to the one used by Colorado, which is working very well.

Click to expand...

I wholeheartedly agree. NH, ME & VT would each (or together as a group) reduce or eliminate most S&R funding problems if a similar system were created here in New England.

The only reason that I would favor an insurance option like the one I describe in my previous post (#381) is that the Colorado Search and Rescue Fund relies not only on a surcharge for use licenses, but the sale of CORSAR cards. The CORSAR card is funded directly by general philanthropy of individuals.

As another Dr. previously mentioned:

Dr. Dasypodidae said:

My guess is that very few would purchase the insurance, so we would remain in the same dilemma.

Click to expand...

If an individual would not purchase voluntary, affordable insurance to protect themselves, why would they be any more inclined to give a donation ("buy a card") to support S&R groups directly?

Overall, I think this has been a most spirited conversation. What began regarding the Mason rescue/billing case has really opened up many ideas and opinion from a great number of VFTT members on providing for what I think we all deem a vital and well regarded S&R community. I truly appreciate everyone's points of view.

Here is an interesting read on who pays for SAR....

http://adventure.howstuffworks.com/pay-for-search-and-rescue1.htm

paul ron said:

Here is an interesting read on who pays for SAR....

http://adventure.howstuffworks.com/pay-for-search-and-rescue1.htm

Click to expand...

Or more correctly who pays for SAR in places OTHER than New Hampshire. The article mentions nothing about how New Hampshire funds SAR. For that, I yet again, point you to my previous posts.

Brian

Edit, sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words so:

http://www.wildlife.state.nh.us/Inside_FandG/pie_charts.htm

Note this chart is for 2006, so numbers are obviously outdated, but the simple fact is that it gives you an idea of where money comes from and where it goes.

Now hold on there, NH's White Mountains is a National Park. NH decided it wants to be self funded and will recoup the costs (as did a few other states). That's not my fault and because you are an exception, just bite the bullet and admit it doesn't work, proof is in the pudding. 25% of your funding is Federal money (see your chart). How you use tht money is not my business, I just know you got part of my tax moeny for service I expect in the National Park, including SAR.

You had the option of getting government funding but split off with a few other states by pushing the law through to take care of business yourself. So my tax money bought the property, and now as the appointed stewards (the special law NH is under), you wanted all the tax profits from tourism n wahtever to recoup costs. Yet it seems you can't afford the up keep, or are you just hiding the profits someplace else?

You have privatly owned mom n pop hotels in the sky, the puffer dragon, timber, and whatever else suposedly bringing in revenue to defray the costs. Where is all that money going, administrative costs, educational fees, stamps? Get rid of a few administrators n better manage your funds but you aren't going to get a red cent from me crying you're broke. Can't build bridges n properly maintain the land my tax money bought in the first place. You didn't get a National Park for free, it belongs to everyone, that's Federal land not NH's land and see's my tax money.

Live free and die poor. If people are going to pay for SAR, they may not call for help n fatalities will rise. OTOH Charge for SARs n watch the law suits pile up. Suits for not providing quality service, lacking certain equipment or too slow, not having certain training... your SAR will have to be a professional run unit with helos n planes with the latest equipment on board. What will that cost NH on a beer bottle budget?

paul ron said:

Now hold on there, NH's White Mountains is a National Park.

Click to expand...

National Forest, not National Park. They are administered by different organizations, the Forest Service vs. the Park Service, and even offer an example of how they are very different.

Would this all apply to hikers? No matter what? With the "right gear" vs. someone who was without? Winter, summer, fall, spring?

How about kayakers who get lost en route to the Isle of Shoals? A capsized fishing trawler? A couple of teenagers trying to canoe down the raging Lamprey River? Another teenager who tries to ride his bike through a river, and needs to be rescued from an island in the middle of it? A capsized boat on Winnipesaukee? A woman who falls over a 35-foot waterfall with her 21-month old in her pack? Is this just for mountains...WMNF...AMC Trails? What about a lost hunter in SW New Hampshire? Does it apply then? A lost 10-year old in Lincoln behind a condo complex? An experienced skier who takes a bad fall and breaks his femur?

All of these were search and/or rescue operations. All have varying levels of negligence, from virtually none to grossly negligent.

I have grave concerns about someone paying a different amount because they were a "hiker" when they were no more negligent, and probably less so, than some common folk downcountry.