$25,000 fine assessed for teen hiker

[Little Rickie]

. never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

Weird but briliantly true.

 

[RoySwkr]

who suggested Six Husbands?

I think people would agree that much of the kid's difficulty came because he chose to go down Six Husbands Trail into Great Gulf, a choice roundly condemned by VFTT-ers. Had he bailed on Jewell, Caps Ridge, Castle, or Randolph Path he would have been down that night or the next morning at the latest.

If he was given that advice by an AMC staffer at Pinkham Notch, his choice can no way be called negligent as he would have reason to believe that to be good advice - after all there is a Forest Service logo on the sign and they are official cooperators. Furthermore, he should expect that when he turned up missing, that staffer would report the conversation to searchers and his tracks should have been found right away. And the staffer's name should be known to officials even if they choose to excise it from reports for privacy reasons.

Or was it just some hanger-on? Surely an Eagle Scout would not invent that story to protect himself? Anyone know?

 

[Grumpy]

...

There was a decision to conduct a search made by his parents. They chose not to look for him themselves. Be it lack of gear, experience, etc. they had his trip plan and knew the planned route and they chose to pass the responsibility to professionals. I have absolutely no problem with this. SAR teams know what they are doing. However, negligent or not, there is a cost.

I don't wish to belabor a point. But let's get and stay focused here.

We are discussing a specific case arising from New Hampshire's recently enacted negligent hiker law, which is a direct descendant of the state's older reckless hiker law.

The NH law as I understand it requires a finding of negligence in order for SAR costs to be assessed and recovered. Under that law the Masons (Scott and his parents) are being (assessed) fined for damages (costs) arising from their alleged negligence.

Bottom line is this: Scott Mason's parents notified the authorities and the authorities launched the SAR effort. It's a simple fact. Yes, the notification did set in motion events that racked up costs. But to suggest that notifying the authorities of an overdue hiker is justification for the $25,000 fine (or any fine) levied under NH's negligent hiker law is beyond the pale.

G.(ier)

 

[dug]

I think people would agree that much of the kid's difficulty came because he chose to go down Six Husbands Trail into Great Gulf, a choice roundly condemned by VFTT-ers. Had he bailed on Jewell, Caps Ridge, Castle, or Randolph Path he would have been down that night or the next morning at the latest.

If he was given that advice by an AMC staffer at Pinkham Notch, his choice can no way be called negligent as he would have reason to believe that to be good advice - after all there is a Forest Service logo on the sign and they are official cooperators. Furthermore, he should expect that when he turned up missing, that staffer would report the conversation to searchers and his tracks should have been found right away. And the staffer's name should be known to officials even if they choose to excise it from reports for privacy reasons.

Or was it just some hanger-on? Surely an Eagle Scout would not invent that story to protect himself? Anyone know?

I think this is a point that keeps getting lost. It was reported that the above is what he was told to do. It would seem logical if you have never been in that area. I almost drowned my dog crossing the swollen Peabody one June. The only way I now know to avoid that area is because I found out first hand.

So, I'm not buying his intended route was negligent. I'm not buying his gear was negligent. I'm not buying his bailout route was. I'm not seeing anything was negligent. In fact, quite the opposite.

 

[Tuco]

This article, from July has quotes on the negligence. I am sure these have been seem before but a reminder. http://www.wickedlocal.com/plympton/news/x631635939/Eagle-Scout-fined-for-Mount-Washington-rescue

In essence the negligence was from an agressive itinerary and straying from trails on his bailout (making it more difficult to find him-per the article, not me).

I still think a 25k bill is a real tough message.

FWIW- I also just found an article where Mason said that the AMC employee told him his bailout route was "clear at the time". If so, shame on the AMC worker if Mason wasn't told BUT with runoff it can be a dangerous situation so you should consider something else. I seem to recall but could not find where Mason asked if Six Husbands was OK for bailout and was not suggested by the AMC worker.

And lastly, the AMC Guide clearly states the the trails he was trying to navigate as his bailout are dangerous in periods of high water, etc. Should he have read that on his own before hand and used that as decision making? SHould he know that there is spring runoff in the Great Gulf? I think so but I have done some things where I assumed it would work out and did but clould clearly be questioned if they didn't work out so well so who am I to say.

I have no idea what negligence is........

 

[bikehikeskifish]

In essence the negligence was from an agressive itinerary and straying from trails on his bailout (making it more difficult to find him).

Ooooooooh! Who decides what is too aggressive? Is that A. Reasonable Person as well?

Straying from the trails instead of hanging out exposed above treeline? Hmmmm. Where have I heard that as a prudent suggestion?

I remain unconvinced of his negligence myself.

Tim

 

[Craig]

1 question:

Didn't I read somewhere this was his first time on the Presidential Range?

 

[Craig]

Fair and Balanced

2nd question:

His plan was to do a solo northern presi traverse? How was he going to get back to Pinkam from Appalachia? Hitchhike?

Or

Was his plan to do an solo northern presi out and back from Pinkham as indicated by the 17 mile trip distance quoted from the news articles?

 

[DrJJFate]

I would say the trip plan in fact anything but useless - it gave his parents a general idea of when he'd be down, and a general idea of where he'd be in the mean time. When he didn't contact them within the specified time frame it alerted them to a potential problem, and gave the SAR folks an idea of where to start looking.

The plan was incomplete, as it should have contained the bailout routes he may need to use along his trek. The trip was scheduled to be 17 miles. Even in the best conditions in the whites, 17 miles is never without its unexpected issues.

Not according to New Hampshire law. If cost applied "negligence or not" we wouldn't be over 300 posts.

You are correct. My point is that regardless of whether he is deemed negligent or not, there is a cost. And though it may not be addressed during this particular case, it will be addressed at some level (SAR or govermental) for the future.

I think our 300-some-odd post are clear indication that we all see some problems with how the system is presently set up. Although we may not agree on solutions going forward, there have many ideas shared amongst the crowd. I think that is a reflection of the passionate folks who frequent VFTT.

 

[Craig]

Fair and Balanced

3rd question:

What was the forecast and conditions on the range when he left Pinkham on 4/25/09 @ 8:30am (emphasis intentional) for his solo northern presi out/back.

Hint #1 – search 4/25/09 at right – Check ground conditions

Hint #2

 

[giggy]

So, I'm not buying his intended route was negligent. I'm not buying his gear was negligent. I'm not buying his bailout route was. I'm not seeing anything was negligent. In fact, quite the opposite.

100% agree - have yet to see any negligence as well. In fact, I have heard a few SAR people say the same thing...

the whole thing is a "stuff happens" event....lets move on and let the courts deal with it...

my guess is this fine or whatever it is gets tossed out...and it won't move me to to pay the state of NH any type of "insurance" fees or costs... The hunters and fishers have no problem paying this becuase the are hunting or fishing - firearms, the whole deal. They are en easy target to pay. I am not paying a fee to walk in the woods. Not happening.

Its not my problem this funds the "rescues" - maybe NH needs to deal with this another way - not my problem they are under-funded. Everyone and everything is underfunded.

 

[Craig]

Fair and Balanced

4th question:

What was Scott Mason's hiking experience background leading up to this misadventure?

The news media parroted his parent's and scout master's statement that he was an “experienced hiker”.
“He made many trips to the White Mountains”

What does that mean?

Theres a big difference between doing scouting camping trips in the Pemi and doing a solo presi traverse.

 

[Maddy]

4th question:
There is a big difference between doing scouting camping trips in the Pemi and doing a solo presi traverse.

BINGO!!!!!!!!! WE have a winner!

YES... a solo presi traverse at the age of 16, in the month of April, with no overnight gear, no escape route planned, and your parent's blessing.
A scout's motto is "be prepared". Poor preparation and execution constitutes negligence.
The proof your honor is
"It takes an army of volunteers, sinking in snow up to their waist, four days to find you."

IMHO there is something very wrong with this picture.

This kid got in way over his head, placed other people at risk, and is now having to face the consequences of his actions. I think he will have to pay a fine. In what amount, only time will tell.

It appears the rules of the game are changing. I fear this is only the beginning. The best is yet to come!!! The writing has been on the wall for some time. We all make mistakes and we all learn from experience. Unfortunately, some of those mistakes can be costly. We hikers are not out there on a scholarship!

The article posted describing this fiasco was excellent. I had forgotten some of the unfortunate details.

I look forward to seeing how this case evolves.
I think F&G is dead serious about fining people who do not "hike safe". Money talks and perhaps this is as good a way as any to get people attention.

 

[Craig]

Easy now, you're quoting me out of context.

Let us not forget that this young man did a remarkable job of surviving and self rescue. He should be commended for that.

 

[Maddy]

Easy now, you're quoting me out of context.

Let us not forget that this young man did a remarkable job of surviving and self rescue. He should be commended for that.

Sorry Craig.... I didn't mean to take you out of context.
I thought your statement "There is a big difference between doing scouting camping trips in the Pemi and doing a solo presi traverse" expressed the dimensions of what Scott was attempting very clearly.

"A little knowledge is a dangerous thing".
I have been guilty of this on more that one occasion and have gotten myself into some pretty frightening predicaments. It's easy to become overconfident and get into a heap of trouble because you believe you know a whole lot more than you do. The kid is only 16 years old. His experience in limited even as an "Eagle" scout.
Scott did do a good job surviving. He did the best he could under the circumstances but mountains are unforgiving, and I don't think he fully appreciated what he was getting himself into. This is why I wrote "poor preparation and execution constitutes negligence." If you want to undertake something of this magnitude, you must do your research and "be prepared" or you risk your adventure coming to a very bad end. Unfortunately this one did. I don't think they had any other choice but to fine him. He did not "hike safe" and to not fine him would give every other hiker license to do the same.
I think the article did a good job of describing the reasons why.

 

[Pete S]

A guides comment

I think this link has been posted before, but it is well worth reading

" The Criminalization of Risk", a comment by Marc Chauvin
http://chauvinguides.com/conditions.htm

 

[Maddy]

I think this link has been posted before, but it is well worth reading

" The Criminalization of Risk", a comment by Marc Chauvin
http://chauvinguides.com/conditions.htm

I had read this previously but did read it again.
I like the idea of rescue insurance very much but reimbursing the cost for "searches" needs to be addressed.

In the very last sentence of the article the question is raised regarding haphazard rescue systems, value judgments,the risks that hikers take, and us giving them the power to fine us if we err.

I hate the idea of referring to our present rescue system as "haphazard" because I think these folks work very hard, many of them for no financial gain, risking their lives to help save lost or injured hikers. They do the best job they can with what they have to work with. Things can always be improved but I suspect that it would cost even more $$$$$$ to accomplish this and someone needs to pay for it.
Value judgments, risks, and fines?
Having our own "personal" values is a wonderful thing but if our "personal value system" dictates that we take risks that endanger others, i.e. the SAR folks, and results in a costly rescue, the problem needs to be dealt with.

Enter...the fine $$$$$$, and the rules.

This is a fairly new process for NH. In time it will be changed and upgraded, improved upon if you will, but I think it's here to stay.

As human beings we have proven time and again that we have considerable difficulty regulating our "individual value systems", and we love the thrill of risky behaviors, so we have lots of laws that help guide us. If we choose to deviate from the path there are consequences, and that usually means paying out the big bucks. We have a great example of it right here on this thread. We cannot seem to agree on what negligent hiking entails and we are all hikers. This confusion can only lead to one thing. Someone else will make the decision for us.

I am not saying I like the idea, but I think it was predictable. I would much prefer we have insurance plans for the both searches and rescues but that does not look like a promising solution at this time.

 

[hikerbrian]

YES... a solo presi traverse at the age of 16, in the month of April, with no overnight gear, no escape route planned, and your parent's blessing.
A scout's motto is "be prepared". Poor preparation and execution constitutes negligence.
The proof your honor is
"It takes an army of volunteers, sinking in snow up to their waist, four days to find you."

This kid got in way over his head, placed other people at risk, and is now having to face the consequences of his actions.

I think you're forgetting a couple of essential facts. Namely that Scott survived for 3 nights in the snow in the Presidential Range and basically walked himself out. Whatever other gear you think he should have had can summarily be dismissed as extra weight since he clearly didn't need it. More gear does not make you more safe. The right amount of the right gear gives you your best chances (all else being equal). Scott lived. In fact he's no worse for the wear. You can't reasonably argue that he didn't have the right gear.

As for the "experience" quotient, I think people need to be real careful in how they judge that. I see plenty of people rolling around with their NH4K patch who have followed someone's heals for every hike and rarely been out for more than a night. On the other hand, give me someone who has planned a single multi-day trip out in Winter where they've been responsible for a loved one's well-being and I bet that person has thought through and planned for all eventualities. It's not the quantity of trips, it's the quality.

 

[DrJJFate]

AMC Outdoors arrived yesterday with an article titled "Rescue on the Ridge" by Amy VanHaren. In her byline it says she "has spent four years chronicling the extraordinary search-and-rescue community in the Whites."

The article is about rescues on Franconia Ridge, however she has a nice section about the costs of rescues. Regarding the decision to bill hikers who are considered negligent, she states:

"The final decision comes down from the state's attorney general in each case. . . Since the [July 2008] law passed [lowering the threshold for charging hikers for their rescue from reckless to negligent], there have been 152 SAR incidents, and only 10 hikers have been billed."

I mention this because in earlier posts, my own included, there was some discussion on conflicts of interest and the arbitrary nature of F&G billing someone to recover their own costs.

 

[Maddy]

I think you're forgetting a couple of essential facts.

Sorry...I don't believe I "forgot" anything.
http://www.wickedlocal.com/plympton/news/x631635939/Eagle-Scout-fined-for-Mount-Washington-rescue
In this case, I do agree with the explanation and decisions made by the F&G.
I concur with their final evaluation "negligence in totality" and IMHO I believe they have thus far satisfactorily documented their reasons why.
Scott survived in a situation where others might very well have perished or suffered grave bodily harm, but as I previously stated, "it did take an army of volunteers, sinking in snow up to their waists, four days to find him".
They risked their own lives and limbs and this entire situation could have been avoided.