Cost of hiking on Franconia Ridge - fail

[Hillwalker]

http://nhpr.org/post/michigan-hiker-charged-9300-franconia-ridge-rescue

 

[JCarter]

I'm torn... once again, I fail to see how the "hiking solo" had anything to do with this rescue.

But on the other hand, having a history of hip dislocations and requiring canes to hike would suggest that he wasn't physically able to execute a hike in rugged terrain. Unless he had 20 people with him, he still wouldn't have been able to move once injured.

They bring up the weather, which certainly seems to be a factor in the difficulty of the rescue, but was it a factor in *requiring* a rescue?

I thought courts tended to have more "focus".

 

[Mike P.]

It will be interesting to see what happens. The court decision may impact the politics of the card. I'd expect the state would counter his MD and therapist with professionals of their own. Otherwise, you have two medical professionals saying his hip was okay for his planned activity. (While the Assistant DA and myself might disagree, neither of us are medical professionals)

If hiking solo comes up as a main reason, I'll be quite upset. Who will be allowed to hike solo? It's not like there is a gate and limited access like BSP to question hikers on plans and gear. Will I need to carry a spreadsheet showing my prior hiking history to show past solo experience?

Personally, The two hip dislocations in the prior year probably should have had him on easier terrain. (We don't know if he had been doing weekend trips on easier terrain & working his way back up to this kind of hike or if this was the first trip post surgery.)

Is an artificial hip an automatic check against? I'm thinking no but again, I'm not a medical professional. I did do a hike a few years ago with a guy with an artificial knee and he led the group over Macomb, East & South Dix, Macomb and Dix & then back to Elk Lake.

Will people be free to hike solo....

 

[Raven]

That had to suck.

Regarding the fine, this one is interesting. It may be in that "grey area." Some details may help if they come out.

IMO, regarding negligence and hiking solo (which more than a few of us here do), any checklist aproach is not going to work for determining negligence. If it's simply a matter of having a predefined set of factors, there's simply too much left aside from the actual details and circumstances including experience level, fitness, weather, decisions, etc. I think case by case it will make much more sense to use a more spectrum-type approach, where the real details of the story and individual(s) are known and each case is looked at individually, maybe with guidance from some form of standards, but certainly not just a list of factors.

 

[Ed'n Lauky]

As mentioned above there are many details that are not given in this report. Was this a search and rescue or was it just a rescue? If just a rescue, could it possibly have cost $9300 to take him down from Franconia Ridge presumably under five miles on a trail?

 

[TJsName]

I'm critical of recouping charges from something that seems like a public service (but perhaps that's the crux of the debate). If I accidentally set my house on fire (perhaps I left a candle burning and the dog knocked it over), are they going to fine me for my negligence? No, because the funding comes out of my property taxes, so I am already paying for the service. What about if I am driving up in NH (out of state) in the snow and I go off the road and hit a tree and need to be extracted using the 'jaws of life'? Would I be fined for that? I honestly don't know. But if I go hiking in the rain and get lost, I will be fined if I require assistance. I can see parallels in the last 2 scenarios - I'm out of state and I incur expenses that I'm not directly offsetting, but at the same time I am paying meal, gas, and lodging taxes (which is much much more than $25 a year for me). I haven't heard anything that makes me feel good about fining people that needed rescue.

If I needed help, I'll probably call friends before 911.

 

[sardog1]

Looks like I'll be making a trip to Concord to read the trial transcript when it's filed. Unless his attorney persuades him meanwhile of what I believe is the futility of this appeal. More later when it is publicly available. Meanwhile, let the speculation run riot!

I should probably 'splain my prediction a little. It's based on the standard of review an appellate court will apply to the District Court's decision and does not necessarily imply I think he should be liable for the rescue costs.

 

[sardog1]

I'm critical of recouping charges from something that seems like a public service (but perhaps that's the crux of the debate). If I accidentally set my house on fire (perhaps I left a candle burning and the dog knocked it over), are they going to fine me for my negligence? No, because the funding comes out of my property taxes, so I am already paying for the service. What about if I am driving up in NH (out of state) in the snow and I go off the road and hit a tree and need to be extracted using the 'jaws of life'? Would I be fined for that? I honestly don't know. But if I go hiking in the rain and get lost, I will be fined if I require assistance. I can see parallels in the last 2 scenarios - I'm out of state and I incur expenses that I'm not directly offsetting, but at the same time I am paying meal, gas, and lodging taxes (which is much much more than $25 a year for me). I haven't heard anything that makes me feel good about fining people that needed rescue.

If I needed help, I'll probably call friends before 911.

May I gently suggest that you look at the numerous VFTT threads on SAR expenses in NH? This isn't a fine, nor have the state's taxpayers been on the hook for the expenses, except to a limited extent recently.

 

[TJsName]

May I gently suggest that you look at the numerous VFTT threads on SAR expenses in NH? This isn't a fine, nor have the state's taxpayers been on the hook for the expenses, except to a limited extent recently.

You may, and I have read many but I feel the questions still worth asking in the context of an active conversation.

As for the semantics, fine is acceptable, as is tax, assessment, levy, fee, or whathave you. I am a techie, not a lawyer.

Interesting bit about the F&G being funded by use fees vs. the general fund. Definitely an interesting model.

 

[Remix]

If his doctors said it was ok to hike with his prior hip injuries, how can a untrained state official cite having hip injuries as contributing to negligence. Are they the state officials practicing medicine now?

 

[Raven]

Bear in mind, as is usually the case lately, the article itself has errors. There may be other mistakes or omissions here. Unless something has changed (and it may have), literally the first line of the article is incorrect:

"While the legislature considers whether to allow a $25 hiker’s card that would eliminate any chance of being charged for a rescue"

As I understand it, if the current model is passed, in cases of reckless (as opposed to negligent) behavior, hikers and climbers will NOT be covered regardless of whether they have purchased a card. This statement leaves no room for that. Can someone shed any light on that?

 

[sardog1]

"Fine" is not an acceptable characterization. It misconstrues the basis for collecting the amount and obscures the reason the statute in question was enacted. It's analogous to calling a smartphone a tablet, to put it in techie terms.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

It's worst than that, Charlie. Owning a smartphone or a tablet does not violate any statute. A fine implies a statute was violated and is imposed as punishment. The SAR bill is a fee for services rendered. You could compare fine/fee to "getting a speeding ticket vs. paying the Maytag repair man" (or more appropriately, perhaps, the ambulance company.)

Tim

 

[Peakbagr]

I wonder how this scenario would play out. A hunter or fisherman goes out into an area they are unfamiliar with. Bad weather forecast, no extra clothing, no map, compass or any idea on how to get back. They get lost and wander further into the unknown.
Does a search and rescue organization bill them for the rescue?
I see countless ill prepared sportsmen who get lost trout fishing or hunting, sometimes with long searches to locate them. Perhaps I've missed it, but haven't read about them being billed for the SAR. Or is it expected that hikers are doing something dangerous and the hunter who got 'turned around' ( a term I've heard countless times from hunters ) is just some Joe out in the woods on his day off?

 

[erugs]

With reference to the statement that "he needed two canes, not hiking poles" I don't see that as an argument for what shape he was in. Poles, sticks, canes - they all assist similarly.

I have traditional hiking poles that I use most often, but I also have a pair of what people would call "canes" that I also use, depending. My "canes" are made by Leiki and I like the shape of the handles because they give me something to lean on with a more natural straight wrist rather than curved as with poles. Sometimes my wrists are more sore than others (and I blame Lyme disease for my varied pains) and so I choose my aids "depending" on how I feel that day.

 

[RoySwkr]

I wonder how this scenario would play out. A hunter or fisherman goes out into an area they are unfamiliar with. Bad weather forecast, no extra clothing, no map, compass or any idea on how to get back. They get lost and wander further into the unknown.
Does a search and rescue organization bill them for the rescue?
I see countless ill prepared sportsmen who get lost trout fishing or hunting, sometimes with long searches to locate them. Perhaps I've missed it, but haven't read about them being billed for the SAR. Or is it expected that hikers are doing something dangerous and the hunter who got 'turned around' ( a term I've heard countless times from hunters ) is just some Joe out in the woods on his day off?

The difference is that the hunter or fisher is paying a hefty fee for their license so it covers the expense.

The second most expensive case after the Eagle Scout that year was an elderly hunter who much later was found dead, no outcry on that because he had a license and they don't bill the dead anyway.

 

[Tom_Murphy]

I suspect that finding someone up on the ridge with "two canes" and location of the injury predisposed the Rangers to classifying this negligent behavior. When the weather and solo status are combined with the two canes, nature of the injury and the previous medical history I can understand the determination that he should not have been hiking alone in the rain. I disagree with that decision but it is a reasonable conclusion.

How did they know about his medical history? Makes you want to be tight lipped when the SAR does show up. A "thank you" and then shut-up.

 

[erugs]

Wondering - do canes cost less than poles? Might be a conscious decision to be frugal, or to use what he already had on hand (pun intended).

 

[TJsName]

"Fine" is not an acceptable characterization. It misconstrues the basis for collecting the amount and obscures the reason the statute in question was enacted. It's analogous to calling a smartphone a tablet, to put it in techie terms.

Haha, fine, fine, have it your way. I actually use a 'phablet' though.

The 'fee for service' idea make sense, but it still makes me wonder about the out of town driver using the local services of the town. Why not recoup those charges? The big difference seems to be that the local agencies are already funded, whereas F&G is not.

 

[Remix]

I suspect that finding someone up on the ridge with "two canes" and location of the injury predisposed the Rangers to classifying this negligent behavior. When the weather and solo status are combined with the two canes, nature of the injury and the previous medical history I can understand the determination that he should not have been hiking alone in the rain. I disagree with that decision but it is a reasonable conclusion.

How did they know about his medical history? Makes you want to be tight lipped when the SAR does show up. A "thank you" and then shut-up.

I totally disagree. If we leave it in the hands of state Game officials to determine what medical conditions imply negligence, then this implies advice from a physician is worthless. Combining everything obfuscates the powers of the state official. I am sure the state officials would prefer fewer limits to their interpretation s.

I agree with you second point. Rangers and SAR volunteers must now be required to give the victim their Miranda rights.