$25,000 fine assessed for teen hiker

[Mad Townie]

A distinction with very little difference.

The arbitrariness with which this "bill" is being applied also weakens this argument.

Doug

Doug, I beg to differ. It's a distinction with a significant difference. The amount of a punishment (financial, that is), is established without a direct connection to the amount of the harm. True, greater harm results in greater punishment, but you aren't necessarily punished with a $50 fine for stealing $50.

In a recovery of expenses, there should be a direct connection between the amount of the cost incurred by the state and the amount of the recovery. Of course the state may add to its direct cost a variety of indirect costs, such as the expense of recovering its costs. But if there isn't a direct connection, it's NOT a recovery, it's something else.

Parenthetically, in law there is a concept called "liquidated damages" which sets an amount in situations where the actual amount would be difficult or impossible to establish. That's not the case we're discussing here.

Note that I am expressing no opinion on the political question of whether such a recovery is a good idea or whether it was appropriate in this particular case, either in application or in amount.

 

[sardog1]

Perhaps another analogy will help to distinguish this situation from punishment, since the tree apparently fell without being heard.

S'pose you're a nun who writes a cooking column for a local newspaper. You're so good at it that you get syndicated. You send the syndication income to an orphanage while you continue to write the column. Some bloggers start impugning your motives and write some vile, untrue things about you. Some newspapers drop the column, citing the blogs, and your income is reduced as a result. You can't replace the lost income because all you know is nunning and cooking, and there's all those kids relying on you.

You sue one of the bloggers for libel. The recovery, if any, will go to the orphanage. Is there a deterrent effect in the suit? Certainly -- that's why you might send out a press release announcing it's commencement. Is it punishment? No.

 

[w7xman]

A quick internet search this morning finds that this story has circulated both the US and World News Circut. Papers as far away as Tawain and Australia are carrying this story. And whenever the paper offers a comment or talk back section, inevitably there are remarks in the vain of:

"Well I'm never traveling to NH to hike"

This really is terrible press for the state...

 

[Bigfoot]

One of the issues I have been wondering about is what affect this will have on the volunteer rescuers. While I was obtaining my advanced first-aid card I learned I was protected by the good samaritan laws. The question that arises is, if fees are charged for SAR, are the protections provided by the good samaritan laws voided? Are the rescuers now considered proffessionals?If this question could gain any legal foothold and potentially bring a level of liability to the volunteers, I suspect F & G would be on their own. (I am a strong supporter of F & G as my dad was a warden, once upon a time).

 

[Tom Rankin]

"Well I'm never traveling to NH to hike"

This really is terrible press for the state...

I don't know about that.

Only negligent hikers will stop coming. The leaf-peepers (non-hikers), and those who are prepared should not be deterred by this. Then we will have a better prepared set of hikers in the mountains, with fewer rescues, fewer injuries, deaths, etc. Maybe this will send a message that it's DANGEROUS to hike in the mountains.

 

[sardog1]

One of the issues I have been wondering about is what affect this will have on the volunteer rescuers. While I was obtaining my advanced first-aid card I learned I was protected by the good samaritan laws. The question that arises is, if fees are charged for SAR, are the protections provided by the good samaritan laws voided? Are the rescuers now considered proffessionals?If this question could gain any legal foothold and potentially bring a level of liability to the volunteers, I suspect F & G would be on their own. (I am a strong supporter of F & G as my dad was a warden, once upon a time).

An analogous point was raised by the National Park Service several years ago when the Department of Interior Inspector General thought it would be a good idea to start charging fees for SAR missions. NPS staff worried that it could negatively affect the legal protection afforded to agencies and individual officials performing a "discretionary function." (That's a legal term used in law dealing with claims against officials. E.g., the lawsuit against the Forest Service for an alleged failure to post proper warnings at Tuckerman Ravine turned on this issue. You can read about the case in Not Without Peril by Nicholas Howe.)

Let's distinguish between individual responders and their organizations for this one in NH. I think it's a non-starter for the individuals, as they receive no part of the funds.

For the organizations, at this point I think there's little risk of this happening, but I will say that's more guess than concrete prediction. Fish and Game has an agreement with the New Hampshire Outdoors Council, which is an umbrella SAR organization to which responding SAR organizations send delegates. The agreement provides in part for F&G to remit SAR funds it has received to the Council, at the department's discretion.

However, the 2008 Performance Audit Report for Fish and Game by the Office of Legislative Budget Assistant noted that no remittances had been made since 2004. Given the budgetary constraints on the department (the SAR fund even went negative for a while recently), I wouldn't be surprised to learn that there haven't been any remittances since then. But again, that's purely a guess.

 

[chomp]

It seems to me that a lot of non-New Hampshire residents are criticizing this action. For those of you who don't live here, you really don't have a horse in the race.

This seems to be just another case of out-of-staters upset that New Hampshire doesn't provide the same services that their home state provides. We have one of the lowest tax burdens in the country, but with that comes less services. We have fire departments, but most of them are 100% volunteer. Outside of the cities, its understood that the fire departments are there to save the cellar hole (and the surrounding houses).

Very simply, providing free rescue from the mountains to anyone that calls for SAR is NOT a service that New Hampshire provides. If you are from out of state and do not like... well, have you checked out the Green Mountains? I am curious why people think that New Hampshire is obligated to rescue somebody from the woods AND pay for it.

Also, last time I checked, there wasn't a tourism campagn that said "New Hampshire, come hike here and call for SAR anytime... FREE OF CHARGE!" In fact its quite the opposite - we say to come hike here, but first why don't you check out www.hikesafe.com.

Most people who live in New Hampshire tend of have a more independent point of view from my experience, and maybe that is the difference. Up here, this law is a non-issue.

 

[Lou Hale]

One of the issues I have been wondering about is what affect this will have on the volunteer rescuers. While I was obtaining my advanced first-aid card I learned I was protected by the good samaritan laws. The question that arises is, if fees are charged for SAR, are the protections provided by the good samaritan laws voided? Are the rescuers now considered proffessionals?If this question could gain any legal foothold and potentially bring a level of liability to the volunteers, I suspect F & G would be on their own. (I am a strong supporter of F & G as my dad was a warden, once upon a time).

Interesting point! I can see the headlines now. Family calls for rescue... rescue arrives to late... family sent bill for recovery of loved one... family sues F&G..

Being from Massachusetts where almost every thing is funded from general funds, which conscripts me to pay for services I do not want/need/support etc. I am a big fan of self supported agencies and laws that make the people responsible for cost incurred on thier behalf by the state. Especially in the case of stupid people needing recue(not saying thats the case here)

However I am dead set against, any state/county/etc agency being able to levy any sort of "fine" or what ever you want to call it with out some sort of abatement procedure and oversight. This is the very sort of thing our country was founded to prevent

This sends the mesage " don't go hikining in New Hampshire, becasue even if you don't need a resuce we are going to send you the bill "

 

[chomp]

This sends the mesage " don't go hikining in New Hampshire, becasue even if you don't need a resuce we are going to send you the bill "

Actually, I believe it sends this message, which New Hampshire has kindly put up on a website for everyone to read:

http://www.hikesafe.com/index.php/rescue/anatomy_of_a_rescue/liability_statutes

 

[Remix]

Chomp I have read the page and now I am confused-- was there not some distinction between reckless and negligent (law changed) and is this the old law?

 

[chomp]

Chomp I have read the page and now I am confused-- was there not some distinction between reckless and negligent (law changed) and is this the old law?

No, the law was posted earlier by sardog here:

http://www.vftt.org/forums/showpost.php?p=285039&postcount=70

That page is a "reader friendly" version of the law that was placed on the hikesafe.com website.

 

[Lou Hale]

Actually, I believe it sends this message, which New Hampshire has kindly put up on a website for everyone to read:

http://www.hikesafe.com/index.php/rescue/anatomy_of_a_rescue/liability_statutes

Under the current law, which is supported by the Fish and Game Commission, the Department reviews each search and rescue mission to determine whether a bill should be sent to those involved.

Big problem no outside oversight. If Fish and Game decides you need to pay Oh Well, fork it over or else

Hikers who may be billed include those who are poorly equipped for terrain or weather and/or lack reasonable skills or stamina to handle the hike without getting lost or injured.

Based on the repiles and what I have read here. One could make the arguement that none of the above applies in this particular situation. Since there is no oversite I guess none of that matters if Fish and Game decides you need to pay

 

[chomp]

For me, this is the important quote:

It is hoped that the prospects of getting a bill will itself act as a deterrent to hikers who may otherwise make incorrect and uneducated decisions.

 

[Lou Hale]

I would really like it if people here and in the news media would stop referring to this as a fine. It's a recovery of expenses incurred by the state. A fine is something levied as a punishment under a criminal or civil statute and is apart from this sort of restitution. It might seem to some as a picky technical legal point, but it is not. Calling it a "fine" obscures the reason for the statute and the nature of what the state wants to recover.

Search and rescue in New Hampshire is funded by a $1 surcharge on every New Hampshire Off Highway Recreational Vehicle and boat registration.

Money collected from reckless hikers will support training and purchases of equipment for volunteers of search and rescue organizations who help with rescue missions

how can some one claim this is a recover of costs incurred ? They explicity say they are funding SAR by other means. They even go so far as to say where the money collected will go and its not towards the cost of YOUR rescue. This sounds an awful lot like the $50 head injury trust fund fine you get assesed on all speeding tickets down here

 

[TrishandAlex]

It seems to me that a lot of non-New Hampshire residents are criticizing this action. For those of you who don't live here, you really don't have a horse in the race.

This seems to be just another case of out-of-staters upset that New Hampshire doesn't provide the same services that their home state provides. We have one of the lowest tax burdens in the country, but with that comes less services. We have fire departments, but most of them are 100% volunteer. Outside of the cities, its understood that the fire departments are there to save the cellar hole (and the surrounding houses).

Very simply, providing free rescue from the mountains to anyone that calls for SAR is NOT a service that New Hampshire provides. If you are from out of state and do not like... well, have you checked out the Green Mountains? I am curious why people think that New Hampshire is obligated to rescue somebody from the woods AND pay for it.

Also, last time I checked, there wasn't a tourism campagn that said "New Hampshire, come hike here and call for SAR anytime... FREE OF CHARGE!" In fact its quite the opposite - we say to come hike here, but first why don't you check out www.hikesafe.com.

Most people who live in New Hampshire tend of have a more independent point of view from my experience, and maybe that is the difference. Up here, this law is a non-issue.

You don't speak for all NH residents. Up "there," the law is certainly not a non-issue. And I find it hard to believe that most hikers from NH are that much different from hikers from MA.

Please don't insult people from MA and claim they don't have a voice. Many of us spend most (if not all) of our disposable income within NH shops and services. Some of us own property and pay NH (enormous) property taxes. Without the folks from MA (and beyond), NH's economy would take a substantial hit.

Most of the hikers I've corresponded with and spoken to -- from both NH and MA -- think this fine is a shame and a blatant abuse of power.

The kid deserves due process, some sort of legal way to have his voice and dispute this fine. Just fining the kid without him (or his parents) being able to legally object to it -- that's very un-American, in this one MA legal resident's opinion.

 

[RoySwkr]

Big problem no outside oversight. If Fish and Game decides you need to pay Oh Well, fork it over or else

Actually all the bills are reviewed by the Attorney General's staff before being sent, presumably they only send those they want to defend

IMHO [sending such a large bill was the right thing to do if it can be backed up because it may scare others from being reckless, but I'd settle for the $1000 already paid if they promise not to tell]

As to what happens when somebody else requests a search you don't want, perhaps the law should be amended to send them the bill

 

[chomp]

how can some one claim this is a recover of costs incurred ? They explicity say they are funding SAR by other means. They even go so far as to say where the money collected will go and its not towards the cost of YOUR rescue. This sounds an awful lot like the $50 head injury trust fund fine you get assesed on all speeding tickets down here

That is the heart of the problem. The $1 surcharge on OHRV and boat registration was not enough money to cover SAR activities.

 

[TrishandAlex]

Actually all the bills are reviewed by the Attorney General's staff before being sent, presumably they only send those they want to defend

IMHO [sending such a large bill was the right thing to do if it can be backed up because it may scare others from being reckless, but I'd settle for the $1000 already paid if they promise not to tell]

As to what happens when somebody else requests a search you don't want, perhaps the law should be amended to send them the bill

Interesting -- I didn't know the Attorney General's staff reviewed the bills before they were sent. So there is SOME sort of oversight.

 

[chomp]

You don't speak for all NH residents. Up "there," the law is certainly not a non-issue. And I find it hard to believe that most hikers from NH are that much different from hikers from MA.

Please don't insult people from MA and claim they don't have a voice. Many of us spend most (if not all) of our disposable income within NH shops and services. Some of us own property and pay NH (enormous) property taxes. Without the folks from MA (and beyond), NH's economy would take a substantial hit.

Most of the hikers I've corresponded with and spoken to -- from both NH and MA -- think this fine is a shame and a blatant abuse of power.

The kid deserves due process, some sort of legal way to have his voice and dispute this fine. Just fining the kid without him (or his parents) being able to legally object to it -- that's very un-American, in this one MA legal resident's opinion.

I strongly disagree. If you are not a New Hampshire resident, this is not an issue. Its a New Hampshire law. There are LOTS of Massachusetts laws that I don't like, which is one of the many reasons I don't live there. How much money you spend here really is your choice. When you enter another state, you are subject to that state's laws, whether you like it our not. New Hampshire has taken the extra step of actually advertising this law.

And only a small percentage of the New Hampshire residents that I have spoken with have any problem with this decision. So your experience and my experience are different.

 

[mookie]

I strongly disagree. If you are not a New Hampshire resident, this is not an issue. Its a New Hampshire law. There are LOTS of Massachusetts laws that I don't like, which is one of the many reasons I don't live there. How much money you spend here really is your choice. When you enter another state, you are subject to that state's laws, whether you like it our not. New Hampshire has taken the extra step of actually advertising this law.

And only a small percentage of the New Hampshire residents that I have spoken with have any problem with this decision. So your experience and my experience are different.

Let me ask this Mr. Chomp,
Would you feel differently about the 25k fine if it was one your own people?
Im not opposed to the laws, but i dont really see how this kid deserves the 25k fine he(or his family) got. i understand that the state is trying to make a point.
what about the canadian man that was missing? is his family going to have to pay for his search efforts?