Hiker to be Charged for Rescue

[Nessmuk]

There are several negative aspects to a wild goose chase, such as the Whiteface Mtn. incident in February. https://www.adirondackexplorer.org/stories/missing-skier

Not only can it be extremely inconvenient for all searchers, professional and volunteer alike, it can take resources from normal work employment or other demands to our time. Although it was not true in this case, I have had recent situations where I had to choose between two different lost person incidents in differing parts of the state. Correct expenditure of time and resources can be mean saving a life or not. So my team and I traveled to spend a few days wearing snowshoes on the slopes of Whiteface, dodging teenagers on snowboards. Did anyone offer to pay for our overnight stay and 3 hour drive time and gas to get there? I don't think so. Due to the rugged bouldery terrain in the searched ravines between ski trails on Whiteface, several people ended up with broken snowshoes, another personal expense.

While I certainly don't object to volunteering my personal time and expenses for legitimate lost person incidents, wasting my time and money and taking me away from work and family for no reason is not cool. Similarly with NYDEC forest rangers, who typically manage lost person incidents in NY. The dozens of rangers that participate in large search campaigns are removed from their daily routine patrols and bona-fide emergencies and other generally person helpful parts of the job, not to mention use and cost of helicopters that we often have flying over the SAR area.

Nothing can be done about this case, no law was proven broken, but I am allowed to express my frustration, I hope.

 

[sierra]

I don't see negligence ever proven here. Tough situation when a host of S & R personnel go out on a goose chase. The optics are terrible for everyone when it happens and feathers understandably get ruffled. You can hear the collective WTF and associated eye roll from the team when they heard the guy is found at the local 5 Star hotel. A 4-digit donation and a gracious public apology for wasted time and effort would go a long way in mending that. I see no way a court awards it though. Saying he could have done things better is a far cry from negligence. Kudos to the searchers who went out after him thinking they were rescuing a guy in need with a medical condition. Sucks for everyone but it was only wasted time in the end. Glad no one was injured on either end.

Of all the post in different groups, I've read on this situation. This is the best response of them all.

 

[autonomy]

I'm not going to comment on the negligence issue but I'll point out something about Whatsapp - whenever you send a message to someone, the app shows 2 checkmarks to the right of each message and they tell you 3 things: "A single grey tick means it's been sent successfully, a second grey tick means it's been delivered to the other person's phone. The double blue ticks inform you that the message has been read by the recipient." That second tick usually shows up very quickly as the servers process and send out the message. However, I've had Whatsapp not send messages for hours in a well-connected environment.

Given that this guy was 70 years old, dead tired after a long hike, and it was 1 am... I can see how he would just rely on technology blindly (hey, isn't that the general theme?). In a situation like that I'd also give a quick ring & leave a voicemail.

 

[DayTrip]

I can't get past the not making a phone call in this situation. I regularly text back and forth with my wife about a variety of things and in a situation like this I would ALWAYS make a phone call and she would be expecting one. It would be a priority for me once I was safe to contact my wife and be positive she knew that. And you'd think if a 70 year old guy came staggering into the Mount Washington Hotel at that late hour with no reservation and seemed exhausted that possibly they might ask if there was someone he needed to contact. If he was that flustered or out of it I'd think the staff might have contacted an EMT to evaluate him if only to cover their own ass legally if something happened to him. Just seems really strange.

 

[JoshandBaron]

When I had a communication failure after returning from a hike, the authorities told the person who called me in as overdue that they would wait until morning before they even thought about doing anything. Did they just pull out all the stops because of age or is his medical condition that bad that he probably shouldn't have been out there anyway?

 

[DayTrip]

When I had a communication failure after returning from a hike, the authorities told the person who called me in as overdue that they would wait until morning before they even thought about doing anything. Did they just pull out all the stops because of age or is his medical condition that bad that he probably shouldn't have been out there anyway?

Really? In my pre-SPOT/inReach days I had an incident where I was several hours beyond my planned out time so my wife called the USFS and advised I hadn't checked in, but that I had left a map, was very well prepared, etc and they were still going to get things going. They told her they would send someone to see if my car was still at the trailhead and if it was they would initiate a search. Fortunately, while road walking the Kanc an off duty SAR guy drove by me in the dark and rain and gave me a lift the last mile to my car and I was able to get into Lincoln and get in touch with my wife before any sort of search operation had been initiated. Was late Fall and snow in the forecast so I don't know if that was a factor but they never said they'd do nothing until sunrise. That seems strange to me.

 

[skiguy]

Really? In my pre-SPOT/inReach days I had an incident where I was several hours beyond my planned out time so my wife called the USFS and advised I hadn't checked in, but that I had left a map, was very well prepared, etc and they were still going to get things going. They told her they would send someone to see if my car was still at the trailhead and if it was they would initiate a search. Fortunately, while road walking the Kanc an off duty SAR guy drove by me in the dark and rain and gave me a lift the last mile to my car and I was able to get into Lincoln and get in touch with my wife before any sort of search operation had been initiated. Was late Fall and snow in the forecast so I don't know if that was a factor but they never said they'd do nothing until sunrise. That seems strange to me.

All of these type situations are not the same. Adjustments are made depending on circumstances like weather, time of day and available resources.

 

[skiguy]

I can't get past the not making a phone call in this situation. I regularly text back and forth with my wife about a variety of things and in a situation like this I would ALWAYS make a phone call and she would be expecting one. It would be a priority for me once I was safe to contact my wife and be positive she knew that. And you'd think if a 70 year old guy came staggering into the Mount Washington Hotel at that late hour with no reservation and seemed exhausted that possibly they might ask if there was someone he needed to contact. If he was that flustered or out of it I'd think the staff might have contacted an EMT to evaluate him if only to cover their own ass legally if something happened to him. Just seems really strange.

He could have appeared and albeit just tired and not flustered. Assuming he was staggering is just that assuming. Maybe more pertinent details will surface later. Also what you would do as far as contacting might be different than what he perceived was protocol to do in his situation. IMO although probably not thorough as far as letting people know he made it in he seems to having been acting with good intent. That being said that is IMO where it would be difficult to prove negligence.

 

[Nessmuk]

When I had a communication failure after returning from a hike, the authorities told the person who called me in as overdue that they would wait until morning before they even thought about doing anything. Did they just pull out all the stops because of age or is his medical condition that bad that he probably shouldn't have been out there anyway?

There is quite a bit involved when establishing an incident command system (ICS) situation. You don't want to just throw a bunch of people out in the woods at night randomly searching and potentially contaminating the scene and fouling up any evidence that when properly done most likely leads to success. What kind and and when a search commences does depend a great deal on the exact situation. Believe it or not, among a ton of paperwork there is a particular form to be filled out, listing and grading on a point scale how critical the situation is, including age and known conditions of the lost person, including clothing, physical/mental state, subject's relevant experience, current and forecast weather, terrain and dangers, and a host of other considerations to be assessed. If so indicated by total points, an immediate rapid "hasty" search may be commenced (is it prudent and safe to do so?), otherwise, as the professional troops (Forest Rangers in the case of NY State) are called in, a determination is made on resource availability (such as experienced personnel, land motorized equipment, or aircraft) and the need for calling in trained SAR volunteers or not. A planning section and other functional chiefs are established to overnight determine how to best proceed in the morning with expected resources and statistics from historical searches of similar type, and setting up maps with search grid assignments plotted to best and most efficiently utilize all assistance that will become available. In most cases that are deemed non-critical, waiting until morning is the smart thing to do.

 

[TJsName]

It seems that part of the issue is that he had to walk so far to get to the hotel. But if there was a hotel at the Skyline switch...

I think this is a great teaching point on the importance of having and sharing one's itinerary, as well as making sure your loved ones know what to do if you're overdue. For me it's:

1.) Make sure they know I'm competent. Loved ones can worry, but if they know you know what you're doing, that helps ease their mind.
2.) Make sure they know I'm equipped. I carry emergency supplies for myself or someone I may come across.
3.) Make sure they know that self-rescue is the best rescue. If I can get myself out, then I'll do it. If I can't, I'll do what I can to be found safe and sound.
4.) Make sure they know when to call for help. I'm prepared to spend a night in the woods if need be. I've asked family and friends to give me until noon the next day. If they haven't heard from me by then, then it's OK to look for me. I'll make decisions based on that expectation.

I can't imagine being in this gentleman's situation, but if I were I'd feel compelled to help make it right, either through a contribution or volunteering, although I already do both. In my mind, there are far more takers than givers in the mountains, so I'd ask anyone who takes to consider giving a bit back in some form.

 

[DayTrip]

He could have appeared and albeit just tired and not flustered. Assuming he was staggering is just that assuming. Maybe more pertinent details will surface later. Also what you would do as far as contacting might be different than what he perceived was protocol to do in his situation. IMO although probably not thorough as far as letting people know he made it in he seems to having been acting with good intent. That being said that is IMO where it would be difficult to prove negligence.

I wasn't suggesting that constituted negligence. I just find that part odd. And when the guy checked in at a late hour without a reservation it also struck me as odd that a conversation of some sort didn't ensue, i.e. "So why did you choose our hotel tonight?" or whatever. It is not a $59/night room at the Red Roof. Again, not suggesting negligence. These details just struck me as odd.

 

[DayTrip]

It seems that part of the issue is that he had to walk so far to get to the hotel. But if there was a hotel at the Skyline switch...

.

I figured someone might go there eventually. Well played.

 

[skiguy]

I wasn't suggesting that constituted negligence. I just find that part odd. And when the guy checked in at a late hour without a reservation it also struck me as odd that a conversation of some sort didn't ensue, i.e. "So why did you choose our hotel tonight?" or whatever. It is not a $59/night room at the Red Roof. Again, not suggesting negligence. These details just struck me as odd.

Totally agree. I was not alluding that you were suggesting negligence at all. I do agree that his behavior upon arriving is probably not what most of would have done. All I’m saying is that what he did do in his mind was probably in good intent so therefore negligence would be difficult to prove. Although I am not a lawyer.

 

[jfb]

I see no way a court awards it though. Saying he could have done things better is a far cry from negligence.

"In 2009, the department issued a $25,000 fine to Scott Mason, an Eagle Scout from Halifax, Mass., for the three-day search that eventually located him. Mason had sprained his ankle and wandered off the trail.

The department eventually reached a settlement with Mason’s family for significantly less money.

In 2012, the department charged Edward Bacon, a 59-year-old hiker from Michigan with a history of hip surgeries, more than $9,000 after he dislocated his hip while hiking near Franconia Ridge and had to be rescued during a severe rainstorm. Bacon sued to have the fine reversed, but a circuit court and the state Supreme Court upheld it."

Recent history tells me that F&G will make a decision and the courts will support it. Personally, I think he'll get a bill. Isn't this type of incident the reason that the state law was changed to allow charging hikers for search and rescue?

 

[Raven]

"In 2009, the department issued a $25,000 fine to Scott Mason, an Eagle Scout from Halifax, Mass., for the three-day search that eventually located him. Mason had sprained his ankle and wandered off the trail.

The department eventually reached a settlement with Mason’s family for significantly less money.

In 2012, the department charged Edward Bacon, a 59-year-old hiker from Michigan with a history of hip surgeries, more than $9,000 after he dislocated his hip while hiking near Franconia Ridge and had to be rescued during a severe rainstorm. Bacon sued to have the fine reversed, but a circuit court and the state Supreme Court upheld it."

Recent history tells me that F&G will make a decision and the courts will support it. Personally, I think he'll get a bill. Isn't this type of incident the reason that the state law was changed to allow charging hikers for search and rescue?

You may be right however given the chance to replay the whole Mason case, I think they would let that one go the second time around. The optics of that decision were terrible and he wasn't negligent, thus the settlement.

In the second case, the man hiking continued on in the face of worsening weather and hoisted himself up on a rock using the very motion his doctor said would dislocate his hip, the motion he was advised medically to avoid. Negligence is not hard to see in this case.

In the current situation, I simply don't see negligence.

 

[kevinmac]

Hiker who turned up at hotel gives donation

"The 70–year-old Massachusetts man who was overdue from a hike in the White Mountains in April and was later found out to be staying at a hotel, paid a donation towards the cost of the search, New Hampshire Fish and Game told the Sun on Tuesday."

https://www.conwaydailysun.com/news...cle_075a65d8-846f-11e8-8599-27bfb43e1589.html

 

[skiguy]

Seems like a reasonable solution all around. Still would be interested why he was going to be charged. Not saying he should not or should be charged. Although it would be informative to find out what the exact parameters were on potentially being charged rather than contributing to yet another grey area definition IMO of being charged or not in a rescue situation. F&G would do them and outdoorsman a favor if they were to more clearly define the rules and expectations. This gentleman did most everything right. Although F&G seems to be saying..”You better have a Cell Phone or some other means of communication and know how to use it”. Is that while you are still in the woods or after exiting the woods?Pretty slippery slope if that’s the case. Just thinking out loud here. Any other opinions?

 

[DayTrip]

Seems like a reasonable solution all around. Still would be interested why he was going to be charged. Not saying he should not or should be charged. Although it would be informative to find out what the exact parameters were on potentially being charged rather than contributing to yet another grey area definition IMO of being charged or not in a rescue situation. F&G would do them and outdoorsman a favor if they were to more clearly define the rules and expectations. This gentleman did most everything right. Although F&G seems to be saying..”You better have a Cell Phone or some other means of communication and know how to use it”. Is that while you are still in the woods or after exiting the woods?Pretty slippery slope if that’s the case. Just thinking out loud here. Any other opinions?

I still think if he was actually checked into a hotel at 1 AM he should have made a DEFINITIVE PHONE CALL to his wife as opposed to relying on a text and then just going to bed and assuming all was well. Given the situation he had to know that she would be in a panic and had probably initiated some sort of search effort and the people involved should have been advised he was safe as soon as possible. But that is just me. I know if I were in his shoes and my wife was waiting nothing short of a phone call and a conversation would suffice.

 

[jfb]

F&G would do them and outdoorsman a favor if they were to more clearly define the rules and expectations.

These expectations seem to be pretty clear: http://www.hikesafe.com/index.php?page=leave-your-plans and http://www.hikesafe.com/index.php?page=changing-plans

 

[skiguy]

These expectations seem to be pretty clear: http://www.hikesafe.com/index.php?page=leave-your-plans and http://www.hikesafe.com/index.php?page=changing-plans

I’ll have to study this a bit more. First I have to go take pictures of all my boot treads. Without digging in too deep. Does anyone know if you are supposed to have a cell phone and know how to use it not to be considered reckless?