$25,000 fine assessed for teen hiker

[Craig]

...This year's increased cost is largely due to two missions that have been the most expensive by far in the past three years. The state spent $25,735 on the April rescue of Scott Mason of Halifax, Mass. A $20,413 search for Peter Shintani in June came up short. His body was found about three weeks later.

Both missions consumed three days and hundreds of personnel overtime hours. Both required helicopter assistance.

...."We're obviously spending more than what's coming in for revenue," he said. "We're going to have to come up probably with a new revenue source, and what that is we're not exactly sure yet."

Hiker fees are one option that has been considered. That could shift the burden of supporting search and rescue efforts more squarely onto the population that depends on it most. ....

...Rick Wilcox, who owns International Mountain Equipment in North Conway and runs the volunteer Mountain Rescue Service of New Hampshire - he's also hiked Everest - said the state's search and rescue crew deserves more taxpayer support.

Article is Here

 

[DougPaul]

Also a story in USAToday: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-09-23-rescuefee_N.htm

A short quote:

The National Association for Search and Rescue opposes billing for rescue, contending people won't seek help if they're afraid they'll have to pay for it. "The public needs to understand that there's going to be someone there to help them and you shouldn't worry about downstream consequences," spokesman Howard Paul says.

Doug

 

[Craig]

Interestingly enough, there is an article about the cost of a rescue in Orange County, California. Gives an idea of what helicopter costs are.

When officials at OCFA contract their helicopter out to other agencies, the total cost billed is about $3,200 an hour, he said. That cost includes fuel, personnel, insurance, overhead and maintenance of the craft, he said – bringing the estimated cost for a 90-minute flight to $4,800.

 

[spider solo]

I saw the USA article the other day.
NH really does embarrass itself charging this guy 25,000 for getting lost.

 

[MichaelJ]

"The public needs to understand that there's going to be someone there to help them and you shouldn't worry about downstream consequences," spokesman Howard Paul says.

Isn't this exactly the problem that New Hampshire has and is trying to eliminate? Perhaps Mr. Paul should refer to downstream financial consequences...

 

[chomp]

Isn't this exactly the problem that New Hampshire has and is trying to eliminate? Perhaps Mr. Paul should refer to downstream financial consequences...

If you are considering calling for a rescue and financial implications enter your brain... you don't really need to call for a rescue.

 

[MichaelJ]

If you are considering calling for a rescue and financial implications enter your brain... you don't really need to call for a rescue.

Ayup. That's a *great* way to think about it.

 

[--M.]

"Rash adventurers to foot rescue bill"

Saw this AP piece in this morning's Boston Globe:

"Spain’s Catalonia region has started charging mountain climbers, skiers, and other outdoor adventurers who get into trouble through negligence and need to be rescued."

"Between Jan. 1 and Sept. 15, teams went out on mountain rescue missions 365 times. Lanau said she did not have exact figures on how many involved negligence, but said that in general the proportion is low, perhaps 5 percent."

"France has had a similar law on its books since 1985."

http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2009/10/02/rash_adventurers_to_foot_rescue_bill/

I've always appreciated the aspect of fifty states that provides multiple jurisdictions to experiment with laws and try to get them right. It looks like we can add Spain to the experiment, and France has already been doing this (I wonder with what lessons learned).

I would be very interested to learn the details of the settlement between New Hampshire and the hiker involved in this OP.

--Mike.

 

[skiguy]

I've always appreciated the aspect of fifty states that provides multiple jurisdictions to experiment with laws and try to get them right. It looks like we can add Spain to the experiment, and France has already been doing this (I wonder with what lessons learned).

--Mike.

One lesson learned is when in France oneself can by Rescue Insurance. Wether this covers a negligent incident I am not sure.

 

[DougPaul]

One lesson learned is when in France oneself can by Rescue Insurance. Wether this covers a negligent incident I am not sure.

My understanding is that the situation in the European Alps area is very different from the situation in the US. Professional guides do much (most? all?) of the rescuing and present bills. Rescue insurance is readily available through the national hiking/mountaineering organizations (equivalents of the American Alpine Club).

Doug

 

[J.Dub]

My understanding is that the situation in the European Alps area is very different from the situation in the US. Professional guides do much (most? all?) of the rescuing and present bills. Rescue insurance is readily available through the national hiking/mountaineering organizations (equivalents of the American Alpine Club).

It's also worth noting that this is rescue insurance, and doesn't cover searches. (IIRC, the AAC policy details specifically call this point out.)

Besides the guides doing the rescuing, my understanding is that it's much more of a known/fixed-point-extraction type of deal in the Alps. Using a helo to pluck a climber with a broken leg off the Aguile du Fromage is a much different affair than searching the many square miles of timber in the WMNF for a lost hiker.

The costs for the former are much more likely to be relatively consistent (not to mention lower).

 

[DougPaul]

It's also worth noting that this is rescue insurance, and doesn't cover searches. (IIRC, the AAC policy details specifically call this point out.)

The insurance available from the AAC is very limited--I only mentioned the AAC as a parallel to the European national mountaineering clubs (eg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Alpine_Club, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Alpine_Club, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Alpine_Club, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_Alpine_Club), not as an insurance parallel.

I don't know the details of insurance available from the European clubs, but I do recall reading that it is readily available to members of other national alpine clubs, and is recommended if you are going mountaineering. (So for US citizens, join the AAC and then check out the appropriate European club.) This advice is a number of years old and I don't know if the situation has changed.

Doug

 

[skiguy]

My understanding is that the situation in the European Alps area is very different from the situation in the US. Professional guides do much (most? all?) of the rescuing and present bills. Rescue insurance is readily available through the national hiking/mountaineering organizations (equivalents of the American Alpine Club).

Doug

In Switzerland Military support also plays a role in addition to Professional Guides...mainly in Air Support. In fact I know of at least one situation where Professional Guides were rescued by the Military.

 

[DougPaul]

In Switzerland Military support also plays a role in addition to Professional Guides...mainly in Air Support. In fact I know of at least one situation where Professional Guides were rescued by the Military.

OK.

The military also supplies much of the air support in the US. It is treated as a training mission and the victim is not billed. (The crews would have to get in their training time/missions whether they are practice or real SAR.)

Doug

 

[billski]

An idea

As a recipient of a brilliant but difficult rescue, I am keenly sensitive to this issue. I'm wondering if F&G has ever considered instituting a hiker's fee via the fish and hunting license program? I know that many hikers would be willing to pay a fee, it's a common theme I see when this issue is discussed.

Today, hunting/fishing licenses are used to fund SAR operations. This implies, that hunters and fishermen are entitled to SAR services.


Here is the way I would see it. change the program name to including hiking/mountain wandering/whatever you want to call it. Using the hunting/fishing mechanism that is already in place to collect the fee, just change the forms.

In terms of enforcement, rather than have Wardens trolling the woods checking paperwork, the rubber meets the road if you ever have to call for SAR service. If you have a license, you are covered. If you don't you may be charged and/or fined. At that point, there should be a definite charge, just like a speeding ticket, which exceeds the cost of the annual fee. Leave the discretion in place for charging, I'll let you guys figure out the negligence aspect of it. Don't plan on hiking this year? Don't buy one. It keeps the burden on the active users.

Like driving without a license. You might get away with it for years, but first time you have an accident, you are in deep doo.

Now, if you don't want to or can't afford to pay an annual fee, you play nice, go on really simple walks, within easy commute to the hospital. It keeps nobody out of the woods, but it makes people think twice about what foolish/stupid adventure they will attempt.

Will it cover everyone? Of course not, but it's a type of insurance, without having to buy insurance. I've done the same research as others on this group and come to the same conclusion - the state of SAR insurance in the US is in sad shape.

It would not cost the state very much to administer a system like this, since most of the mechanisms are already in place. You can even charge in-state/out-of-state rates as they do today. It addresses the state's issue of being chronically underfunded and overworked.

What am I missing here?

 

[RoySwkr]

What am I missing here?

For one thing, you're missing that it's been discussed before
http://vftt.org/forums/showthread.php?t=9040

One objection is from the meals/lodging industry who feel that such a fee would encourage people to vacation in VT instead, which doesn't have NF parking fees either.

Another objection is from hikers, who say that the actual rescue cost per hiker in NH is more like 10 cents, if you just charged only every hiker on Monadnock $1 it would cover it. It will cost an agent fee of 50 cents to a dollar to sell the license, if the state charges $5 the rest will either vanish into the general fund or even worse will pay bureaucrats to invent more stupid rules.

 

[Tim Seaver]

Sock It To Me

I'm wondering if F&G has ever considered instituting a hiker's fee via the fish and hunting license program? I know that many hikers would be willing to pay a fee, it's a common theme I see when this issue is discussed.

It would be interesting to conduct a poll to gauge the support for this. Speaking only for myself, I would be very supportive of such a concept, bureaucracy and all. ANYTHING to stop all the whining about rescue fees would be welcome at this point ( OK, other than fining teenagers $25k for a dayhike gone wrong, although I suppose embarrassing your state on the national stage through such boneheaded choices can garner some attention and $$$ if massaged properly)

I can't see someone altering their entire mountain getaway to the point of travelling to a different state over a $1 or so fee at a trailhead, but then again, I am not a NH native or skinflint ( P.S. no research has been done on the overlap between those two groups. That I know of. )

 

[billski]

For one thing, you're missing that it's been discussed before
http://vftt.org/forums/showthread.php?t=9040

One objection is from the meals/lodging industry who feel that such a fee would encourage people to vacation in VT instead, which doesn't have NF parking fees either.

Another objection is from hikers, who say that the actual rescue cost per hiker in NH is more like 10 cents, if you just charged only every hiker on Monadnock $1 it would cover it. It will cost an agent fee of 50 cents to a dollar to sell the license, if the state charges $5 the rest will either vanish into the general fund or even worse will pay bureaucrats to invent more stupid rules.

Roy, Indeed, I've absorbed every thread written on this here and elsewhere. What I'm suggestion is that it not be mandatory anyways. From the NH data I've seen, the license fees indeed go to pay for the Wardens, enforcement and search and rescue. Since NH indicates license fees are not covering the SAR costs at least this year, I still advocate a license. I'm not convinced anything is vanishing into the general fund today. Of course administrative overhead is acknowledged as I proposed this, it's structural. However, its already a system and process in place and it works.

I dont' hear about hunters or fishermen going to another state. I would certainly expect certain hikers to complain, anytime you move the cheese and upset the balance of what was once free there will be those upset.

I think it would take a lot more than a hiking fee to make people vacation elsewhere. For starters, NH is convenient. It has a built-up tourism infrastructure for the whole family, including the honky tonk, that you won't find in VT for example.

Lastly, I'm not proposing it be mandated. Just remember, play safe, and if you don't, don't be suprised if you get charged when you call for help.

Maybe, just maybe, if enough money is generated, perhaps some of it can go to the volunteer SAR teams who give thousands of hours each year, and who NHF&G admits make SAR in NH possible at all.

 

[NewHampshire]

Or the USFS can send some money in F&G's direction since it is technically the Federal Governments property that the State agency is rescuing people from.

Brian

 

[Little Rickie]

Anyone got any new information on what is happening to the kid?