$25,000 fine assessed for teen hiker

[dentonfabrics]

I'm surprised that they are fining him.
I didn't follow the thread about him getting lost, but on this thread he just seems like a young fellow who got hurt and made a mistake or two.
Did a heck of a lot better than I would have at that age (and for many years after that age)

If they said he was a little twerp that was stoned out of his gourd or drunk or something then I could probably understand it (as I could better relate it to how I might have been at that age)

Am I missing something other than he made some honest mistakes...?

Agreed. I think we've all read accounts of people doing really stupid things and getting lost in the mountains. I don't think this kids story is one of them.

I agree with the law that allows reparations for searches but it may have been misapplied, or at least over-applied in this case.

 

[NewHampshire]

And once again I would like to reiterate that I agree the inconsistency of this law is quite annoying. My guess is that the law is so vaugely written in lawyer-speak that no one really knows what they are looking at when they read it. If your going to charge negligent people, then charge all. If not, then stop it with the token cases.

But then again perhaps it is the simple fact this rescue did cost the state so much that this is why they chose to try and recoup it?

Brian

 

[Breeze]

And once again I would like to reiterate that I agree the inconsistency of this law is quite annoying. My guess is that the law is so vaugely written in lawyer-speak that no one really knows what they are looking at when they read it. If your going to charge negligent people, then charge all. If not, then stop it with the token cases.

But then again perhaps it is the simple fact this rescue did cost the state so much that this is why they chose to try and recoup it?

Brian

Brian, I am pretty much in that same frame of thought, we aren't so far apart in thinking.

<I> don't believe Mason was negligent or reckless, never-mind to the tune of 25K. MHO and others are free to disagree. The Presi's can bite a big chunk of butt any day of the year.

Prior to Mason's case there were 2 others this spring involving hikers bailing off the MW/ridge to the east side, one into Great Gulf and one into Dry River Wilderness. Both were resolved, in both cases the missing/overdue parties either walked out themselves or were walked out ( not carried). Both involved air search by helo as well as ground SAR, but in neither case have we heard anything about "bills" being issued to defray the cost of those SAR efforts. NH ( and Maine) Air Nat'l Guard flies SAR as "training missions", and do not bill ( double dip) the public.

In Mason's instance, Air National Guard Helo support was not available, thus a huge bill to the State of NH for private/chartered service.

Now, if Scott Mason's family/parents REQUESTED private or chartered air support, I'd have no issue with State of NH billing them the actual " charter" hourly rate for a chopper and full flight crew. And I'd be surprised that it was ONLY 25 K.

If Maj. Tim Acerno/ NHF&G wagged a finger and called in a private chopper for Air Support without mentioning/disclosing the matter of rescue specific costs to the family........... and now wants to recoup those costs after the fact...

um, er, uh, well, I'm guessing this one is going to be heard in court.

Breeze

 

[sardog1]

I would not infer that no payment is being made by someone because no amount has been publicly announced. I know of at least one instance in which an individual has signed a promissory note and is making periodic payments. Other payments have been made by individuals more or less voluntarily without public attention or awareness. (I don't know anything specific about the instances cited above in this thread.)

 

[bikehikeskifish]

I think if you are panicked enough to call SAR, you are going to not balk at the cost of a helicopter. It's easy to balk at it now that he is safe, but I would not be unhappy with my wife if she pulled the trigger according to our pre-agreed-upon protocol.

Tim

 

[spider solo]

I believe we have all already paid for this fellows rescue efforts...it is called taxes...taxes that we all pay.
What the gov't wants to do with the taxes we pay...well that would drift into politics....the forbidden subject....

 

[amstony]

. NH ( and Maine) Air Nat'l Guard flies SAR as "training missions", and do not bill ( double dip) the public.

In Mason's instance, Air National Guard Helo support was not available, thus a huge bill to the State of NH for private/chartered service.

Breeze

According to what I read the helicopter resources were pulled from Maine for this search, not sure where NH's chopper was.

What upsets me about the hikers being fined and increasingly picked on as a target is:


1. Are kayakers fined when they are lost along the Maine coast or farther out to sea? I could only imagine what USCG air and sea assets cost to run.
2. Why can a hunter shoot a woman hanging clothes in her back yard and get off scot free, saying she should not be in HER back yard during hunting season.
3. Are boaters on Lake Winnepauskee and other boating locales fined when they run out of gas and have to have gas brought to them or get lost somewhere on the lakes or rivers.


This is another NH state grab for money. These air and ground assets are collecting state paychecks whether they are searching for someone, out training, maintaining the equipment or whatever else is asked of them by the state. Much of this money comes from training funds at the state and federal level.

As for the volunteers, any I have met roll out to these searches in a heartbeat for free, I don't see big checks coming to them soon as part of this $25K money grab or we'd all be doing it.

 

[TEO]

This is extraordinarily infuriating and is what many of us feared would happen with the change in the law. I would encourage everyone here who feels similarly to write either Fish & Game and/or the Governor. It may even be worth contacting the Boys Scouts of America, asking them to support their member.

Furthermore, groups like the GMC, AMC, AMC 4,000 Footers, someone representing this forum, etc. should be writing letters of protest to the State of New Hampshire. This sets a very, very bad precedent.

Edit to add: If I were the parents, I'd consider suing the AMC for suggesting Six Husbands as a bailout route. If the State is going to play hardball, then the parents should, too. If Mason shared his complete plan, including the fact that he was going solo, and the AMC employees at Pinkham didn't discourage him, that would seem to be helpful towards his defense.

 

[chomp]

I just sent an email supporting the State of New Hampshire. The law may not be perfect, but there needs to be a dis-incentive to call for help. 9-1-1 is not bailout plan.

This kid is a minor, and his parents allowing him to go on a hike like this is terrible parenting. They are still legally responsible for him and should have taken more of an interest in what he was doing, and the dangers of doing a hike like that with the conditions such as they were. At minimum, they should have required him to hike with a friend.

Due to their negligence as parents, I'm all for charging them for the cost of the rescue. They substituted 9-1-1 and SAR for responsible parenting skills. Which is fine, as long as you are willing to pay for it.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

IF I was convinced that he was negligent, and
IF I saw a bill for services that came "close" to (or exceeded) $25K
THEN I would be on the side of NH F&G.

Until then, BikeHikeReasonablePerson is not convinced of Mason's negligence.

You can always find someone to say that behavior X is negligent and someone else to say it is not. That someone might well appear to be a reasonable person by all accounts too.

Take driving, for example, which I think is

1. Rife with negligent behavior
2. Full of consequences for your actions
3. A leading consumer of emergency services

Suppose you were found negligent by A. Reasonable Person. How would you react then to a bill for the police, ambulance, etc.? Yes, some is covered by your insurance, assuming you have it, but not all. At what point do you draw the line for negligent behavior:

Talking to your passenger
Talking to your kids in the back seat
Handling your kids a drink, snack or something else
Breaking up a sibling fight
Nodding off on the drive home because you've been up for 24 and hiking 17 of them
Talking on the cell phone
Changing lanes without signaling
Speeding
Tailgating
DUI
Not wearing a seatbelt
...

All things none of us do but we see others doing constantly. Consequences of accidents, negligent or not, cost all of us in taxes and insurance premiums.

Tim

 

[Stan]

I'd say this child made some commendable tactical moves but the overall strategy was flawed and for that, a fine is justified. The amount seems high by past standards but perhaps a new threshold is being established that should send a strong clear message to outdoor recreationalists.

... perhaps they are simply charging to rent the choppers from Maine, having likely received a bill which would far exceed the marginal cost of utilizing craft designated and typically available for SAR.

AMC may share some blame for the strategic blunders but we really don't know what caveats may have been behind the suggestion of Six Husbands as a bailout. And, why not go to plan B sooner when plan A was clearly a mistake, especially in our Monday morning quarterbacking?

P.S. Hikers, as a group, are well known to spend far less on fees, accommodations and meals and contribute less to the local economies than other outdoor recreationalists so let's quit feeling picked upon when there is a cost involved. I personally feel I get a lot more out of the outdoors than it costs, which is one of the many reasons I do it.

 

[spider solo]

This kid is a minor, and his parents allowing him to go on a hike like this is terrible parenting. They are still legally responsible for him and should have taken more of an interest in what he was doing, and the dangers of doing a hike like that with the conditions such as they were. At minimum, they should have required him to hike with a friend.

Due to their negligence as parents, I'm all for charging them for the cost of the rescue. They substituted 9-1-1 and SAR for responsible parenting skills. Which is fine, as long as you are willing to pay for it.

I don't know but that seems like a very unique point of view...the whole thing about terrible parenting...?

 

[David Metsky]

Gentle reminder from your friendly moderator. These are real people, not just headlines in a newspaper. You are free to express your opinions on these matters but we ask that you do so respectfully.

People will take opposing positions on this issue, and that's fine. But DO NOT attack the poster, discuss the post.

 

[Craig]

Unfortunately, with the way *they* have set up the system, the finding become very subjective. Without the possibility of peer review the “system” may take into account factors that it shouldn’t.

E.g.
1. The ability of a person to pay ( yeh, Mr. Mason’s a doctor (while ringing hands))
2. The state a person lives in – (freak’n massholes)
3. The demeanor of the F&G person in charge of the rescue (because of this rescue I had to change my vacation plans)
4. The demeanor of the friends and family toward F&G during the rescue (were they supportive or combative of F&G efforts)

I’m certainly not saying this occurred in this case or would ever occur at any level within the rescue community.
But arbitrary decisions made by individuals that are emotionally involved in an emotional situation and are under budetary constraints are a recipe for inconsistent results, IMO.

Perhaps a better system would be to form a committee for peer review of each rescue. The committee could be made up of representatives from AMC, RMC, guide services as well as SAR services. This committee could give the rescuee the opportunity to speak at the meeting to recall the facts of the situation. Committee meeting minutes could be generated and available as public record. The committee could vote with a majority rule.

I think this thing needs a little more transparency.

 

[Grumpy]

...

P.S. Hikers, as a group, are well known to spend far less on fees, accommodations and meals and contribute less to the local economies than other outdoor recreationalists so let's quit feeling picked upon when there is a cost involved. ...

At the risk of creating thread drift, I acknowledge that hikers have a reputation for being cheapskates. But I have long wondered how much underlying truth there is to support that reputation. Relatively speaking, after all, hiking is a quiet, low impact, highly accessible, low visibility activity.

As for feeling picked on when costs are involved?

I don't unless and until those costs hit -- or seem to hit -- unreasonable levels. Then I think it quite OK to cry "foul."

G.

 

[Gris]

This kid is a minor, and his parents allowing him to go on a hike like this is terrible parenting. They are still legally responsible for him and should have taken more of an interest in what he was doing, and the dangers of doing a hike like that with the conditions such as they were. At minimum, they should have required him to hike with a friend.

Due to their negligence as parents, I'm all for charging them for the cost of the rescue. They substituted 9-1-1 and SAR for responsible parenting skills. Which is fine, as long as you are willing to pay for it.

A common misconception amongst lay people is that parents are automatically liable for the actions of their children. However, in most states parents are NOT liable for the acts of their children. Independent negligence on the part of the parents must be proven before liabilty attaches. I.e., in most states parents are NOT legally responsible for failing to supervise their children unless they are on notice of a particular conduct that needs to be controlled.

Based on established precedents, I cannot imagine any judge or jury finding these parents liable. That (and the inability of kids to pay) is why I said that the law needs to be amended to impose liability upon parents. I havent read the law, but if it does not address who calls for the search that needs to be addressed as well.

 

[Grumpy]

...

I think this thing needs a little more transparency.

I could not agree more.

As a starting point, what is the actual history of fines being levied under the “reckless hiker” and now “negligent hiker” law?

Does anybody really know?

How many fines have been levied? In what amounts? What were the circumstances that precipitated the decision to levy a fine in each case? Are fines ever levied for “recovery” operations? What about cases in which fines are not levied – how do these compare to those in which fines are assessed?

G.

 

[jniehof]

The State also makes a fair amount in revenue from hikers.....

Pretty sure F&G sees none of that, which is (IMO) the root problem leading to the whole fine/reimbursement issue: F&G is responsible for a large pool of people and derives revenue from a much smaller pool.

 

[amstony]

I don't know but that seems like a very unique point of view...the whole thing about terrible parenting...?

Amen on that! Who is to say who a good or bad parent is. So if your spouse lets you go hiking and you fall and break your leg and your, OMG , hiking solo, is the spouse a BAD SPOUSE for letting you go hiking solo........? And if F and G gets involved do they send the bill to the spouse? Maybe the spouse should pay, thats what that argument implies.

And especially if your a doctor............hmmm.....deep pockets.........hmmmm ....and with reciprocity agreements between states- let see if they can register their car, renew a license....not w/o paying the $25K fine!

What this whole punitive punishment money grab is going to do is get someone killed this winter who will not call for assistance in a timely manner, maybe they have limited means, and don't want a fine.

As for hikers being cheap, I don't know, I've dropped more than my fair share at Woodstock Station, restaurants in Lincoln, and a few other places while hiking, and have seen others too! I don't think Woodstock Station thought we were cheap when 40 of us showed up in September 2004 to celebrate about 10 different hikers completing the NH 48 in one weekend. They took our cash!

 

[TEO]

Several more thoughts:

1) I sprained my ankle this spring while skiing and have been on a number of backcountry ski trips and hiking trips while it is recovering. On two of those I hikes, I've rolled it causing considerable pain for several minutes, but have continued with my hikes without further incident. By NHF&G's logic, it would seem that I'm negligent.

2) I've bushwhacked and I've even bushwhacked while recovering from the aforementioned injury. Again, by NHF&G's logic, it would seem that I'm negligent.

3) If the fine sticks, I wonder if how it will affect Mason's life. Will it determine whether or not he can afford to go to college? Will it prevent him from going to the college of his choice?