$25,000 fine assessed for teen hiker

[DrJJFate]

But the term "negligience" has to be defined. Having it decided on a case by case basis may only lead to endless debate on each case.

The problem is not the definition of negligence, but rather the application. It is the word of the rescued against the word of the rescuers. If costs cannot be recovered, the law will eventually be changed from seeking reimbursement "when negligence is involved" to "when assistance is requested".

I am absolutely against labeling anyone as irresponsible for heading out into the wilderness solo. The majority of us prepare, equip, and observe with care, resulting in safe returns.

 

[Tim Seaver]

Colorado Decided Charging For Rescues was Dumb

A Boulder climber failed to arrest his rappel and plunged off the end of his rope. His body slammed into the rocks below breaking his pelvis. Fearing enormous costs of rescue, the man and his climbing partner decided to rescue themselves. Their attempt at evacuation exacerbated and added to the fallen climber's injuries. In the middle of the night, the two realized they couldn't get out without help. The unhurt climber hiked out and called search and rescue. In the end, the extraction of the injured climber in the middle of the night increased hazard to the search and rescue teams.

Seeing how fear of monstrous costs has a negative impact on a person's decision making process when calling for help, Colorado SAR groups decided collectively NOT to charge for services.

How do these teams cover operational costs?

Whenever someone buys a hunting, fishing, snowmobile, ATV or other state required license, there is a .25 fee added. That money goes toward rescue operations.

Hunters and ATV riders are not the only people who enjoy the wilds. Hikers, mountain bikers, campers and climbers saturate the mountains and woods.

COSAR came up with a Colorado Search and Rescue Card available at over 300 retail sites. Non-licensed people at play are encouraged to voluntarily purchase cards. Money from these cards ($3 for one year, $12 for five years) goes to the same fund as the .25 from recreational licenses.

25 cents. I am having a hard time seeing people getting worked up over that amount of money, but perhaps I lack imagination when it comes to the nickel-squeezing abilities of some folks in the Northeast.

Every major rescue organization I have checked with is against charging for rescues, period. I am glad to see that Colorado has made some sensible decisions that will ultimately save money and lives.

 

[NewHampshire]

Ah, so the third mistake he made...was made by his parents? Can we fine them too?

Well, I guess to be technical about things, considering the kids age (and thus financial status) I can only assume he will have to rely on his parents to help pay the fine (should it stand up in court) so by default I guess we can say they are already being fined too.

Brian

 

[Tim Seaver]

IMO, the only real mistake that he made was attempting to escape through Great Gulf.

Based on what I have read, I would agree with that. I have a feeling that he was unfamiliar with the dramatic effects of spring runoff - take that, throw in an injury, add the not-so-sage advice from Pinkham to head into the Great Gulf and you have the ingredients for a an "extreme misadventure". Given all the challenges this situation produced, I feel he performed admirably. But then again, I am not a reasonable person, so there's that...

It's odd that the state seems to be making the case in the public eye that somehow this has anything to do with "hiking alone", when everything that happened could have easily taken the exact same course even if there was another person with him. A team of two could still have sustained an injury, headed into the Great Gulf per their AMC approved advice, then realized the folly of such, then bushwhacked this and that-away, etc. I've been in more than a few tight spots with two people, and the crap was just as deep and scary.

The other thing I find a bit odd is that nobody is even mentioning the sheer fright that must have been going through his mind once he descended into the Gulf and realized he was essentially in a raging watery hole that he couldn't escape from except by going up. I am trying to imagine myself staying calm and collected with an injured ankle in that scenario, undoubtedly exhausted, and making 100% rational decisions at that point. Once deep in a situation like that for hours on end, it's very hard to make the best choices. Let's not criminalize panic.

No matter how NH tries to twist in the wind on this one,they will not come out of this looking the shining example of "Creative Budgeting for the 21st Century" by fining 17 year olds. They will probably end up spending more on some 500 page Brand Spanking New definition of "reckless" than they would on instituting a sensible program for recouping rescue costs.

Live Free Or Die ( Just don't go hiking alone, mmmk?)

 

[bikehikeskifish]

...If costs cannot be recovered, the law will eventually be changed from seeking reimbursement "when negligence is involved" to "when assistance is requested".

At least then we all have a CLEAR and CONCISE understanding of when we will be charged. I am in favor of charging people who deserve to be charged. I have a problem with the current methodology of deciding someone should be charged.

Tim

 

[DrJJFate]

25 cents. I am having a hard time seeing people getting worked up over that amount of money, but perhaps I lack imagination when it comes to the nickel-squeezing abilities of some folks in the Northeast.

Every major rescue organization I have checked with is against charging for rescues, period. I am glad to see that Colorado has made some sensible decisions that will ultimately save money and lives.

I agree. There must be an better way to fund these groups, as the expectation of the SAR security blanket is probably not going away.

Since the population is far smaller than that of CO and many people come from other states, would it make sense to advertise and offer recreationalists, and subsequently tourists, a type of rescue insurance or bond? Perhaps in conjuction with the White Mountain Forest parking passes, AMC hut reservations, at the ranger stations, etc. This way the infrastructure, the people needed to explain what it is as well as collecting funds, is already in place.

I am completely in favor of alternate solutions. I don't like the thought of dissuading people from experiencing the outdoors. At the moment we are stuck between Fish & Game's small budget and attempting to recover funds from those rescued.

At least then we all have a CLEAR and CONCISE understanding of when we will be charged.

Exactly.

 

[Grumpy]

Although I’ve followed this thread from the start, I’ve refrained from commenting on the merits of the State of NH’s “case” against Scott Mason. Mainly that was because I didn’t have a decent fix on the NH F&G concept of what constituted “negligence.” The NPR story link providing pertinent information is at post #263.

My conclusion is that the NH F&G is way out of line in this case. Tim Seaver said it well in post #284, above.

I am of the opinion that the fact young Mason survived three days and in the end was able to hike with his “rescuers” to the top of Mt. Washington for final extraction says volumes of overwhelmingly positive things about his level of preparedness, fitness and capacity to be primarily responsible for his own fate in the course of a very ambitious hike. Further, when located by his rescuers, Scott reportedly was well aware of his own location, and was en route to what turned out to be his extraction point.

As for hiking alone being negligent on its face? I think that presumption can be persuasively rebutted by actual common experience in the hiking community.

The only real mistake Mason appears to have made is to descend into deeper snow and bad runoff territory after hurting his ankle. But he also self-corrected in that error.

Scott Mason’s parents were in a terrible dilemma. Their son was overdue by late Saturday night, according to his hike plan and so they notified the authorities. Was that an act of negligence, or an act of prudence?

What if the parents had not called authorities for another day or three days, believing their son was capable of self-extraction, and their son perished? Would they have been negligent? Would they have been fined for the cost of search and recovery services in that case?

Or, what if the parents had not called the authorities for one or three days and he managed to self-rescue, which he evidently was well on the way to doing when located by the search party, and nobody was “officially” the wiser as to what went on until after the fact? Would the parents have been negligent?

As for Scott’s parents letting him go on the hike in the first place … . Perhaps the following analogy is not exactly perfect. But surely it is close enough to be relevant.

If I am not mistaken youngsters can join the United States armed forces at age 17 (Scott Mason’s age at the time of his hike) with parental permission; and at age 18 on their own hook (I’m guessing that Scott Mason was easily within a few months of his 18th birthday when he had his mountain adventure). Last I looked, military service can be a very hazardous occupation. In fact, the military and those in the service make a big deal about that aspect of service, and so do many members of the public at large. So that aspect of mil service is well recognized in society. Are the parents of 17 year olds who join up negligent? Are 18 year olds who join the military negligent, given the known hazards? Is it negligent to encourage young people to sign up for such a hazardous occupation?

(Apologies for going off on a slight tangent, there.)

Now, about that Eagle Scout business?

The fact that Scott Mason is an Eagle Scout is interesting but essentially irrelevant, especially when leveling criticism at him in this case. If he credits his survival to Scouting experience and its “Be Prepared” teaching, who is to argue anything other than it puts the Scouting connection to his advantage given all other facts of the case?

G.

 

[DougPaul]

At the moment we are stuck between Fish & Game's small budget and attempting to recover funds from those rescued.

This also puts F&G in an enormous conflict of interest--they reap the benefits of the fines they levy.

Doug

 

[DougPaul]

Now, about that Eagle Scout business?

The fact that Scott Mason is an Eagle Scout is interesting but essentially irrelevant, especially when leveling criticism at him in this case. If he credits his survival to Scouting experience and its “Be Prepared” teaching, who is to argue anything other than it puts the Scouting connection to his advantage given all other facts of the case?

Agreed. Irrelevant.

What counts was his skills and his successful execution of his escape. When the chips were down, it didn't matter how he got them, what organizations he joined and his rank within.

Probably makes a good sound bite (in the view of the reporters and officials)...

Doug

 

[NewHampshire]

This also puts F&G in an enormous conflict of interest--they reap the benefits of the fines they levy.

Doug

I think that is an unfair statement. They are not making profits, just recovering (in most cases) only SOME of the money expended. I would not exactly call that reaping any benifits.....

Brian

 

[Maddy]

I've been thinking for awhile about how to respond without sounding unsympathetic. Unfortunately, I am not terribly sympathetic. If you or someone on your behalf calls for assistance, you should assume it will cost you something [financially].

Those who unpreparedly enter the wilderness may be lacking essential equipment, know-how, or direction. But all seem to have the false sense of security that no matter what trouble they may get into, someone else will be there to help get them out. And it is this security that seems to have no consequences, financial or otherwise.

I think this fine is giving lots of folks food for thought because none of us are exempt from suffering the same fate if we opt to not "hike safe" and get ourselves into a bundle of trouble. That is one scary thought and well it should be. I think we are all intelligent enough to have a good comprehension of what would be considered risky, reckless, negligent behavior.

911-someone is always there to bail you out but it's not free and why should it be on MT W? You are going to be billed for the ambulance and the hospital. Our taxes pay for the police and the fire crew. The same should apply to rescue missions, most especially when they are the result of people who make conscious decisions to not "hike safe" and they can give you a million and one reasons why they are exempt.

I think if anyone does not understand what "hike safe" entails, it might be a good time to take some courses and get a few books that will help to clarify any questions they might have.

And whatever happened to parents saying NO to their kids? "You are not old enough. This is too dangerous.
I don't care if everyone else is doing it...you are NOT everyone else. You can research a trip with a group and we can discuss it. You have to save some fun things for when you get to be a little older ( and hopefully wiser)."
Scott didn't go out his bedroom window with a full pack and hitchhike up to Mt W while his parents slept.
Children have parents for a reason. World records are nice but is it worth the risk when you are 16 years old and have your entire life ahead of you? Who will care about your world record attempt if you end up in the belly of a shark? Or a frozen popsicle on Mt W? You will be old news in the blink of an eye and at what cost?

I have had some personal experience with three young teens, one of them an "eagle scout" and parents who refused to listen to the warnings re: above tree line travel in winter conditions. Yes, the kids made it out alive...barely... only to return and have one of them buried in an avalanche in TR. Fortunately his friend escapes so he was able to dig him out. One set of parents finally came to their senses and allowed me to take their son (not the eagle scout) to winter mountain safety classes and radical terrain ski courses. These kids lucked out and so did Scott. How many have not? As we know that mountain is Not Without Peril!

I will freely admit that I am not terribly sympathetic either. I hike solo about 95% of the time. I carry lots of gear, even on simple day hikes, never leaving the house without enough in my pack to spend the night in the woods, all four seasons. If for any reason, SAR needs to come get me, and my rescue was required as a direct result of my hiking "solo", I would expect to have to pay up. No whining about it. You play, you pay!

I think it's a very good thing that this case is getting sooo much publicity. Money talks and perhaps a few will think twice about risking life and limb and then expecting a freebie rescue from folks who are risking their own life and limbs to save their sorry bacon.

Be it a hiking license, insurance, extra fees at the trailhead to hike, something needs to be done. We need to be accountable, to take responsibility, and to appreciate that our actions have consequences. Personally, I vote for billing the individual, at least to start until they can develop a different, perhaps more all encompassing plan of action.

 

[DougPaul]

This also puts F&G in an enormous conflict of interest--they reap the benefits of the fines they levy.

I think that is an unfair statement. They are not making profits, just recovering (in most cases) only SOME of the money expended. I would not exactly call that reaping any benifits.....

Totally wrong!

The point has nothing to do with whether they are making a profit or not. The point is that the same organization that decides whether to levy the fine or not gets the money. Thus they have an incentive to levy the fine. QED.

My use of the word "enormous" expressed an opinion of degree--you could argue with that if you wish.

Doug

 

[DougPaul]

I think this fine is giving lots of folks food for thought because none of us are exempt from suffering the same fate if we opt to not "hike safe" and get ourselves into a bundle of trouble. That is one scary thought and well it should be. I think we are all intelligent enough to have a good comprehension of what would be considered risky, reckless, negligent behavior.

People often use the word "safe" as if it is binary--ie if we are "safe" there is no chance of an accident/injury/etc and if we are "unsafe" there is a very high chance of an accident/injury/etc.

In real life, degree of safety is a continuum--doing one thing has a higher probability (chance) of an accident/injury/etc, doing something else has a lower probability. There is also a very strong element of luck--one can do everything "right" (safely*) and still get injured and one can do many unsafe* (high risk, "wrong") things and emerge unscathed.

The net effect on hiking is that there is a fairly low average risk of accident/injury/etc per hiker day (averaged over all hiking days by all hikers) and thus low cost per hiker-day, but generally rare individual incidents can be expensive. This kind of situation is often covered by insurance, explicit fee (as in car insurance) or implicit fee (ie through taxes or surcharge on something else) to change a highly unpredictable (and possibly large) fee to a predictable relatively low constant fee.

* Of course, there is significant disagreement over what is safe and what is unsafe...

Doug

 

[DrJJFate]

The point has nothing to do with whether they are making a profit or not. The point is that the same organization that decides whether to levy the fine or not gets the money. Thus they have an incentive to levy the fine. QED.

Of course they have incentive. They have already paid for the resources of the operation.

Why is this being described as a fine? A fine is a penalty. This is payment for services rendered.

Fish & Game, et al. have an incentive [and a responsibility to the state taxpayers] to recover costs against everyone assisted, no matter what the circumstance. They simply choose not too.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

The root of the problem (why we are all up-in-arms) is really quite simple. I'm sure I stated it earlier in this thread, but I'll reiterate it here.

There is no way to know, reason, or even make an educated guess whether or not A. Reasonable Person will decide you are negligent, or as in this case, if A. Reasonable Person will even be consulted - all the news points to F&G making a decision. Being reasonable persons ourselves, and wanting to be prepared, is all well and good, but there is no checklist we ourselves can review to answer the question "Am I being negligent here?"

This case illustrates the arbitrary nature of the negligence definition, and F&G's ability to apply it as they choose. To Doug's point--even if there is not an inherent conflict of interest, there is certainly the appearance of one, which is just as bad. This is often the case with many law-enforcement, government, or political groups. The very nature of traffic tickets is appalling - "Oh, we need money - go out and write some speeding tickets", not "Oh, there is a public safety concern..."

Tim

 

[griffin]

Why is this being described as a fine? A fine is a penalty. This is payment for services rendered.

Because not everyone is asked to pay for those services when rendered. imo, that makes it a fine/penalty.

 

[Quietman]

there is no checklist we ourselves can review to answer the question "Am I being negligent here?"
Tim

Exactly!!!! And because it would be very difficult to create such a checklist that would cover all potential issues, the current process to seek reimbursement is arbitrary at best, and I feel unfair in this case.

 

[NewHampshire]

Totally wrong!

The point has nothing to do with whether they are making a profit or not. The point is that the same organization that decides whether to levy the fine or not gets the money. Thus they have an incentive to levy the fine. QED.

My use of the word "enormous" expressed an opinion of degree--you could argue with that if you wish.

Doug

Well, I guess we could agrue many points of semantics, like for instance I don't consider it a fine, I consider it recouping costs. But regardless this debate is getting really old, and some 20 pages means little. I hope it finally does come to some sort of conclusion so at the very least a precident is set and maybe something good can come of it.

Brian

 

[bikehikeskifish]

I hope it finally does come to some sort of conclusion so at the very least a precident is set and maybe something good can come of it.

I think many here are concerned that it will set a bad precedent, namely, it feels to many like we are at the whim of the F&G.

Once again to be clear, I am in favor of recouping costs, if the circumstances under which costs can be recouped are well-documented. The current law is like saying "you were driving faster than A. Reasonable Person might go" (and we're low on cash so go out and write tickets.) They have no proof and you have no recourse.

Tim

 

[NewHampshire]

I think many here are concerned that it will set a bad precedent, namely, it feels to many like we are at the whim of the F&G.

Oh, believe me, I do understand why many could be worried. But in general the F&G has been pretty decent about this in the past. This is one glaring exception, obviously, and I know we have seen a couple other ones discussed here. But of the hundreds of resuces that occur every year how often do you see F&G persuing them? What I mean about setting a precident is, hoepfully the State, not necessarily F&G, get on the ball and finally set concrete standards to follow.

Brian