Lost hiker benighted on Saturday night

[B the Hiker]

http://www.boston.com/news/local/ne...9/12/20/nh_hiker_rescued_in_white_mts_forest/

Fortunately it was Saturday night and not Friday night! As we were driving to the Rocky Branch trail on Saturday morning it was -10! It was only in the 20s on Saturday night, which still must have made for a rough time for this poor gent.


Brian

 

[TrishandAlex]

He "made camp" -- sounds like he was prepared. Glad there was a positive outcome.

 

[mahony]

Interesting that they say he was "rescued", when "saw him the next morning" seems like a more apt description.

 

[Waumbek]

Interesting that they say he was "rescued", when "saw him the next morning" seems like a more apt description.

"Rescued" is the appropriate term. F&G Officers Morse and Ober put themselves on the line to find this hiker:

http://unionleader.com/article.aspx...rticleId=1ceb395b-6dfe-4dd6-8913-6c589b6e1a6a

 

[bikehikeskifish]

Sounds like he was doing the Hancock loop, based on location and distance. F&G called his plan "aggressive". How would they describe a winter Bonds traverse?

Tim

 

[Waumbek]

Sounds like he was doing the Hancock loop, based on location and distance. F&G called his plan "aggressive". How would they describe a winter Bonds traverse?

Tim

Doesn't really matter what they'd call it; they'd come out and get you if something screwed up. They'd be courteous and compassionate to you; you'd be real happy to see them. The important part of this incident is that the hiker was prepared for the hike, whatever we want to call it, and the outcome was successful. Do not ignore the dedication of people like Morse and Ober and other F&G officers because of NH state politics about charging hikers for rescues. Two entirely different things.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

Doesn't really matter what they'd call it; they'd come and get you if something screwed up. The important part of this incident is that the hiker was prepared for the hike, whatever we want to call it, and the outcome was successful. Do not ignore the dedication of people like Morse and Ober and other F&G officers because of NH state politics about charging hikers for rescues. Two entirely different things.

I am not ignoring their dedication - I'm not sure why you might think I am. I remain entirely concerned with the definition of negligence, as I have been since the law was changed. One contributing factor in Scott Mason's case was an "aggressive itinerary". Thus, I am very concerned that a 9.5 mile, 2650' loop in winter constitutes an aggressive trip. In reality, it's one of the shorter and least elevation gains there is.

Tim

 

[grouseking]

Ooh he went on the Hancock Notch trail over the height of land. I suppose that could be excessive....I did it after 3-4 inches of rain and had a very difficult time following the trail. Still, glad he made it out ok, and it sounds like he was prepared.

 

[MichaelJ]

Article says he looped Sawyer Pond to Hancock Notch, not the Hancock peaks. I'd say that heading in there to break fresh tracks, solo, is certainly challenging if not an aggressive itinerary, given the combination of snow and trail finding.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

The Union Leader article which has (a bit) more details on the trip was not available when I earlier clicked the link. The Boston.com article is less detailed on the actual trip. The Hancocks loop trips is about 9.5 miles so I assumed that was his plan. The UL article also quotes F&G saying he was "prudent" which probably means he can't be cited as negligent.

Still, given that many of us routinely exceed 9.5 miles in winter I am concerned with the definition of negligence and aggressive, as I always have been.

Tim

 

[Grumpy]

"Rescued" is the appropriate term. F&G Officers Morse and Ober put themselves on the line to find this hiker:

Hogwash. The hiker was found, in good condition and evidently able to exit the woods under his own power. That does not constitute a "rescue" by any stretch of imagination or definition.

G.

 

[Kevin Rooney]

I agree with Grumpy that the term "rescue" is hogwash. No one is arguing that F&G officers are not dedicated individuals who put themselves at risk, and that their efforts are appreciated greatly in the hiking community and elsewhere. Having said that - let's also recognize that they voluntarily do this type of service on a regular basis, and receive a paycheck for it. Fire and policemen perform similar risky jobs, and their efforts are also appreciated.

It's important to maintain a level of proportionality. Some jobs are riskier than others.

 

[BobC]

Hogwash. The hiker was found, in good condition and evidently able to exit the woods under his own power. That does not constitute a "rescue" by any stretch of imagination or definition.

G.

Seems to me that this is an argument about semantics. Perhaps he wasn't "rescued" in the same sense that other people have needed a true rescue, but as Waumbek rightly says, the F&G officers put themselves out there in the same conditions as the lost hiker. Their actions are commendable, and in the end, whether or not he was able to exit under his own power is beside the point. If I was out there and someone came looking for me, I wouldn't want people to start splitting hairs this way in the aftermath - I'd just be extremely grateful for the help.

 

[MichaelJ]

I agree that "located and escorted out under his own power" is more semantically correct than "rescued." The latter, without the background information, does give a much greater impression from the point of view of the hiker. Would any of us want to say we were rescued in the same situation? No, we'd want to say we were benighted and made our way out the next day and found SAR looking for us.

But as far as the searchers and their point of view are concerned I would support this being a "rescue" as opposed to a "recovery" or even a "failure to find."

 

[Grumpy]

I agree that "located and escorted out under his own power" is more semantically correct than "rescued." The latter, without the background information, does give a much greater impression from the point of view of the hiker. Would any of us want to say we were rescued in the same situation? No, we'd want to say we were benighted and made our way out the next day and found SAR looking for us.

But as far as the searchers and their point of view are concerned I would support this being a "rescue" as opposed to a "recovery" or even a "failure to find."

The problem with this -- and it may seem like senseless quibbling to some, or many -- is the degradation of our language. The term, "rescue," to me always has implied a significant level of helplessness on the part of the person who is assisted. I don't get the sense that applies in this case, and believe use of the word "rescue" sensationalizes and distorts the fact and truth of the story.

What the would-be rescuers did in this case was search for, locate, and at best assist (but more accurately, apparently, escort) a hiker out of the woods. They performed yeomanlike service, which always is commendable. It is not always dramatic and heroic.

G.

 

[Tim Seaver]

I can see where this is going

Any long hike that goes awry is going to transform into an "aggressive itinerary", leaving plenty of leeway for going after the "negligence" angle if F&G is feeling squeezed for cash, or maybe just a bit grumpy.

Anyone who solos, bushwhacks, travels at night, or takes part in the dreaded "aggressive itinerary" once in awhile should be very concerned about the language F&G is allowing to creep into the descriptions of these events. It's not a good thing.

 

[Will]

What the would-be rescuers did in this case was search for, locate, and at best assist (but more accurately, apparently, escort) a hiker out of the woods. They performed yeomanlike service, which always is commendable. It is not always dramatic and heroic.

What they did _was_ a rescue mission, from their point of view. For all they knew the guy's life depended on their efforts and I'm sure they did all they could to save his life. Commendable and yeomanlike as you say, maybe more. Maybe heroic, depends on what they encountered, what they went through. Nothing you or I or anyone else has said diminishes that. Good job!

What the guy did is take care of himself and walk out.

 

[Grumpy]

What they did _was_ a rescue mission, from their point of view. For all they knew the guy's life depended on their efforts and I'm sure they did all they could to save his life. Commendable and yeomanlike as you say, maybe more. Maybe heroic, depends on what they encountered, what they went through. Nothing you or I or anyone else has said diminishes that. Good job!

By no means can calling the efforts of the rangers "yeomanlike" in this case, be interpreted to disparage those efforts. It merely places them in perspective without sensationalizing.

While we're on the topic of word usage, I suggest we save the characterization of search missions as "heroic" for those circumstances in which exceptional hazard and risk, and/or extraordinary human effort are called for to attempt and/or complete the task.

What the guy did is take care of himself and walk out.

Then he was not rescued, was he?

I think one of the problems with using sensational language in "reporting" these incidents is that it tends to feed public hysteria about "irresponsible" hikers tramping around in the woods and mountains. That, in turn, eventually gets you perverse laws like New Hampshire's current "negligent hiker" statute.

G.

 

[griffin]

Nothing you or I or anyone else has said diminishes that. Good job!

I don't think anyone's trying to.

But what they set out to do, what they were willing and prepared to do, and what they wound up doing in the end aren't necessarily the same thing. The fact that the guy didn't need rescuing doesn't diminish F&G's efforts - but by the same token F&G's efforts don't diminish how the hiker in question was managing on his own.

 

[DougPaul]

Any long hike that goes awry is going to transform into an "aggressive itinerary", leaving plenty of leeway for going after the "negligence" angle if F&G is feeling squeezed for cash, or maybe just a bit grumpy.

Anyone who solos, bushwhacks, travels at night, or takes part in the dreaded "aggressive itinerary" once in awhile should be very concerned about the language F&G is allowing to creep into the descriptions of these events. It's not a good thing.

I call it ex post facto logic. The victim got into trouble, therefore he must have (check one or more):

• had an aggressive itinerary
• been on trails that are less utilized and maintained
• been negligent
• been reckless
• etc

Sounds like the official version of lynch the victim to me...

Doug