Hiker to be Charged for Rescue

vftt.org

Help Support vftt.org:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
skiguy said:
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?
Click to expand...
What's next? To require carrying a PLB set to send out a track geolocation point every few minutes? I can see it coming down this slippery slope. I barely have a cell phone at all, an old style flip phone, it is not my constant companion, and I certainly am not tied to it in any manner.
 
Nessmuk said:
What's next? To require carrying a PLB set to send out a track geolocation point every few minutes? I can see it coming down this slippery slope. I barely have a cell phone at all, an old style flip phone, it is not my constant companion, and I certainly am not tied to it in any manner.
Click to expand...
Well put. My sediments exactly!
 
I'm glad the F&G tries to educate all the wanna be hikers..they need it. And it's not the F&G's place to do that. They should do more as I run into so many "tourists" with pink and green pant and sneakers with no jackets etc every hike.
 
I have just returned home from multiple days on a search incident in the northern Adirondacks. DEC Forest Ranger radios did not reliably work in the particular area we were in, even with multiple repeater towers scattered throughout the region. Volunteer SAR team radios tuned to DEC FR frequencies did not work either. Certainly there was no cell service at all either. We relied on NY State Police car-to-car radio frequencies with patrol cars stationed on nearby roads to relay communications. Forest Rangers have the ability to program their radios to NYSP frequencies. However volunteer SAR organizations do not have that comm capability, so without FR/SP comm there could be no trained volunteer crew bosses solo independently leading SAR teams, as would otherwise be the normal case.
 
Best outcome possible IMO unless he had donated $4000.

What one "should do" and negligence are very different standards. He *should* have made contact with verification. It was a huge waste of time and resources and people put their lives at risk to look for him. That said, I think going after negligence would have further wasted time and resources. Glad he made a sizeable donation
 
Raven said:
Best outcome possible IMO unless he had donated $4000.

What one "should do" and negligence are very different standards. He *should* have made contact with verification. It was a huge waste of time and resources and people put their lives at risk to look for him. That said, I think going after negligence would have further wasted time and resources. Glad he made a sizeable donation
Click to expand...

Can you delineate between "should do" and negligent as a standard? IMO if Fish and Game were going to charge but did not the press at least has not published what F&G's intent would have been if the individual had been charged. Is the standard "should do" a code of morality that can be substantiated in the realm of F & G's parameters of when an individual will or will not be charged in a rescue situation. IMO a standard of "should do" is rather an abstract paradigm to be applied in this situation. What you "should of done" might be different than what this individual in his mind "should have done". As I mentioned earlier in this thread I believe this individual in his mind acted in a way of what he thought was correct without any ill intent. In other words he did what he thought he "should do". Yes personally I think he should have made sure the message went through. Although that is my personal standard of what should or should not have happened. Just that.... my interpretation and not necessarily a universal one IMO. Negligence is on the other hand in the eye of the Law is clearly defined and in this situation could be challenged if it occurred or not. IMO in this situation it seems as if F & G was ready to charge him based on negligence by not making thorough contact. This individual was staying in a Hotel with phone lines that could have been used in lieu of a Cell Phone. Which would have been a lot more secure in making definitive contact of his whereabouts. Although as I mentioned already above what is the stance of F & G going forward regarding appropriate contact. It seems as if it can be potentially very situationally dependent. Coming out of the woods with no cell phone or a dead battery after being overdue at a remote trailhead is quite different than walking out of the woods into a four star hotel. Until F & G explains their actions more clearly in these situations they are IMO opening themselves up to a very slippery slope of potential litigation. At this point it seems as though they made a judgement call based upon the individuals understanding of the levity of the situation and making a donation. Would the shoe be on the other foot if the opposite behaviors had been evident by this individual?
 
It really is a horribly worded law and concept. To me, if you initiate use of the service you should be responsible for the cost. His wife called and said he was missing. So they went out looking for him. It's a verbal agreement isn't it? I don't walk into McDoanlds, order a bunch of food and then say "You know what? I'm not hungry after all. Just throw my food in the trash. I'm not paying for it. I don't need it. I'm not hungry." They either need to charge everyone for their services when requested or just suck it up and say it's a public service and do it all at no charge like other states do. Trying to figure out all these different levels of necessity, negligence, point of view, etc is kind of nonsense. For all the reasons cited in the many posts here, trying to differentiate all of these incidents is an exercise in futility. No one agrees on anything and if a cost was assigned to our point of view it probably would get misrepresented anyway.
 
DayTrip said:
It really is a horribly worded law and concept. To me, if you initiate use of the service you should be responsible for the cost. His wife called and said he was missing. So they went out looking for him. It's a verbal agreement isn't it? I don't walk into McDoanlds, order a bunch of food and then say "You know what? I'm not hungry after all. Just throw my food in the trash. I'm not paying for it. I don't need it. I'm not hungry." They either need to charge everyone for their services when requested or just suck it up and say it's a public service and do it all at no charge like other states do. Trying to figure out all these different levels of necessity, negligence, point of view, etc is kind of nonsense. For all the reasons cited in the many posts here, trying to differentiate all of these incidents is an exercise in futility. No one agrees on anything and if a cost was assigned to our point of view it probably would get misrepresented anyway.
Click to expand...

Weak analogy. McD's takes your money first, then produces your meal. :D

Alex
Notorious post-hike McD customer
 
The factors that go into charging for a rescue are murky at best. The brawls, I've seen discussing said issues online, has been amusing. I have held the opinion that you should either charge for all rescues, or none of them. Arguing about negligence is like arguing about how nice it is outside. Hundreds of opinions, all based on our own perspective. Like in this case. I do not think he should be charged, he made a call and to his knowledge, it was a done deal. If you get rescued, you used a service you should pay for that service. If your that concerned about being charged, do what I do, don't leave your plans with anyone. Then you can relax and go about your self rescue and have all the time in the world to get out.
 
alexmtn said:
Weak analogy. McD's takes your money first, then produces your meal. :D

Alex
Notorious post-hike McD customer
Click to expand...

Also a notorious post hike McD customer. The shut down in Gorham is killing me!! :)

On the analogy, yes maybe I didn't think that through (although in the drive up I would have asked for food first and then not paid at window so it isn't totally off base). My point was that you are entering into an agreement for services when you call F&G and say "Hey! I'm stuck in Huntington Ravine and I'll need help to get out" or "My husband said he'd be home from his hike at 4PM and it's 9PM and I still haven't heard from him. Can you go look for him?". If you ask for the services shouldn't you expect to pay for said services? I suppose the most obvious response to eliminate any doubt would be for F&G to state "Are you asking for our help? You should be aware that there may be a cost associated with these services. Do you consent?". It really is a muddied mess the way the whole thing is communicated in NH.
 
sierra said:
The factors that go into charging for a rescue are murky at best. The brawls, I've seen discussing said issues online, has been amusing. I have held the opinion that you should either charge for all rescues, or none of them. Arguing about negligence is like arguing about how nice it is outside. Hundreds of opinions, all based on our own perspective. Like in this case. I do not think he should be charged, he made a call and to his knowledge, it was a done deal. If you get rescued, you used a service you should pay for that service. If your that concerned about being charged, do what I do, don't leave your plans with anyone. Then you can relax and go about your self rescue and have all the time in the world to get out.
Click to expand...

I agree as I stated also. Charge 100% or do it as a public service. And in this case I have to disagree. He didn't make a call. He sent a WhatsUp electronic message according to one of the articles. I think they should be charged. He may have done a fine job bailing out of trouble, getting to a hotel, etc but he did not speak to anyone knowing there had to be a fuss going on considering the time and circumstances of his arrival at the hotel. I think any "reasonable" person would have persisted with phone calls until an actual conversation was had. Not a WhatsUp message and hit the pillows and assume all is well. And his wife did call and initiate a search. Does she get the bill? As far as she knew and SAR knew he was still out there potentially in trouble. Just gets back to what you said. Too many ways to interpret it. Should be all or nothing. And NH doesn't do itself any favors by ambiguously discussing the topics and having murky quotes in newspapers about the incidents.
 
jfb said:
The Hike Safe "card" could be considered to be hiker insurance where anyone with a card gets a free SAR and everyone else pays. Check out this link: http://www.wbur.org/news/2014/05/06/new-hampshire-hiker-fee-rescues
Click to expand...

Actually, that is a false statement. If you have the Hike safe card and get rescued, if you are proved to be reckless or negligent you can still be charged. That card is a joke, it's one of the most poorly designed tools, I've seen. If you were covered no matter what, it would make sense.
 
To date I dont know of any incidences where a hike safe card owner was charged. There was a somewhat publicized rescue last year where a hiker was carried off, I believe, Chocorua, with a hike safe card in hand. F&G has a lot of latitude with enforcement of all laws and regulations and that applies to rescues. I have speculated in the past that there is some correlation between publicity about charging and budget season. F&G is perpetually in the red and its resources are thin, the legislature always wants to extract some blood when F&G goes before them as its a good photo op. I expect that F&G really doesnt want to charge a hike safe card holder as it potentially kills a revenue stream.

I wish F&G would post statistics on the amount of resources expended for different categories of rescues. IMHO the inherent problem is hiker rescues are resource intensive, they cant be readily automated. Hunters tend to inherently hunt near roads, if they get lost its far easier to get volunteer folks in the field as the potential risks to volunteers is low so the pool of available volunteers is higher. For backcountry hiker S&Rs, the potential for secondary accidents to untrained volunteers is much higher so the pool of qualified volunteers is lower. I expect ATV incidents are far more prevalent these days but they dont require a lot of trained resources compared to S&R. I also suspect that F&G is under orders to minimize the resource impact as ATVs are a cash cow. ATV accidents sites are inherently accessible, its closer to a car accident then a backcountry situation. F&G normally is the first responder to an ATV event but they rapidly can hand off to local law enforcement and local emergency medical groups. The EMS groups dont seem mind the business as they charge for their services so the revenue can offset the fixed expenses of maintaining the services.
 
Last edited:
Negligence is a legal standard. As I understand it, to be negligent, one must first have a duty to others to exercise care. One then must break/fail that duty. This results in damages or harm that are a direct result of the original omission.

If I toss a bottle of whiskey into the fray or I do any of it by design, it becomes recklessness.
 
Peakbagger... I saw the statistics on were F&G does it's rescues and hikers has most of that pie. Many of my local friends trash hikers cause of that.. cause they don't pay a dime into F&G like ATV,Hunters,Boat folks,etc. Come up on a tank of gas with own food..camp out or stay at tax free AMC .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Scubahhh
More sad news: fatality on Kinsman
Replies
1
Views
1K
NorthShore
NorthShore
P
Another Unprepared Hiker Rescue
2 3 4
Replies
69
Views
7K
peakbagger
P
ChrisB
Ageism or Irresponsibility?
2 3
Replies
54
Views
6K
jrcinnh
J
P
A couple of other rescues - Far less dramatic
Replies
7
Views
963
Andrew
A
P
Hikers Stranded on Mt Washington during Northeaster - No that Mt Washington ;)
Replies
0
Views
814
peakbagger
P

Latest posts

Top