Lots of Rescues - Taking Stock

[DougPaul]

I had an additional thought this evening, which I did not post. We've all been discussing the negligence bit in the context of winter hiking. I'm sure that the jeans-sneakers-t-shirt wearers who get caught in the Presis in August in a rain storm and temperature drop are probably more likely to qualify as negligent than bivvy-less/bag-less winter hikers with extra/dry clothes, snowshoes, food+water and traction.

This points in the direction that I have been hinting at with my comments about liability for parents of wandering kids. I suspect that many who are pushing for charges are thinking "I'm not a winter hiker and am not at any risk for needing a [winter] rescue. It is just those crazies." The proposed change could affect anyone who goes out in the woods at any time of year. And it sounds as though the standard for declaring negligence is poorly defined.

For instance, one could see soloing being declared negligent because one is not following all the rules from the safe hiking pundits (which are typically aimed at beginners)...

Doug

 

[Willoughby]

For instance, one could see soloing being declared negligent because one is not following all the rules from the safe hiking pundits (which are typically aimed at beginners)...

Yes, that seems a likely (and to me, unpleasant) direction. For example, there's this from the hikeSafe website:

This is why it's especially important to never hike alone.

 

[Dr. Dasypodidae]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Dasypodidae
Quiz time: What is the declination to get off Lafayette, from the very summit next to the corral, down the Greenleaf Trail? An important number that should be taped to the back of everyone's compass before heading up Mount Lafayette, in my opinion.


Someone up there once told me you stand with your back exactly to the sign and walk straight ahead. Put your arms out to the side to make sure they are parallel to the sign. I don't know if it is true, however. Also heard to go the other way around as it is easier to find FWT off LH.

Tim

This is sound advice anytime going above treeline - what if you cannot see a cairn or a sign - it is not just winter - thick fog, clouds, snow, etc...FWIW I will be handing out info which I have on laminated cards to all that are going on my next hike - it includes declination adjusted headings to various important points along the hike and the excape routes...you never know when the trail and sign posts and cairns can vanish - you need something to go on - hopefully something better than gut instict.

I have measured the descent line between the corral and the large outcrop from the Lafayette summit as 300 degrees magnetic, which I think is easier to remember than degrees relative to true north (in which case, 284 degrees), especially if you are edging towards hypothermia. Beats trying to go north towards North Lafayette, south towards Lincoln, or worst case east into the Pemi.

 

[Maddy]

For instance, one could see soloing being declared negligent because one is not following all the rules from the safe hiking pundits (which are typically aimed at beginners)...

Doug

I have been thinking about this a lot because I solo hike most of the time. Unless they make a hard and fast rule, I think it might depend on the situation. If you fall and sustain the type of injury that prevents you from hiking out on your own, and you have your emergency gear with you to stay warm until help arrives, I doubt you would be considered negligent. In a case like this, whether you have friend with you or not, you would still not be able to get yourself out.
The same might apply to getting lost. Two can get just as lost as one.
I think most people on these boards have a good understanding of what we need to carry all four seasons, in the event of a serious mishap.
If we make a personal decision to not carry certain items,
and "hike our own hike", we can expect that if rescuers have to risk their lives to help us "fly our own flight out", (by ground or by air) we will just have to pay up!
If they want to charge me because they think that hiking solo is negligent, so be it, but I will still carry season appropriate gear.

 

[dug]

There has been some good feedback on this. However, the "gray line" is still massive. Sounds like I need to bring snowshoes and a bivvy to go out back and feed the birds.

 

[Pete_Hickey]

According to my cousin, who lives in Saratoga Springs, is a long-time ADK hiker and attorney (Asst. AG), the reason snowshoes became a requirement was to placate skiers...

Yes. In the past, winter use of the Adirondacks was mainly skiers. Hiking is relatively new. The snowshoe rule is to protect/maintain the ski trails.

That may be true, but that does not mean that safety is not involved.

The DEC always had the rule that you had to HAVE skis or snowshoes. That is the safety part. The newer rule is to WEAR them. That is to protect the trails.

FWIW, there are far fewer skiers in the ADKs these days than hikers.

Sad from the skiers point of view. A long-time ski area is now much more difficult for them to use. Not entirely unlike some walking trails that are now so used by mountain bikers, that the walkers can no longer enjoy the quiet walks they used to have.

 

[DougPaul]

I have been thinking about this a lot because I solo hike most of the time. Unless they make a hard and fast rule, I think it might depend on the situation. If you fall and sustain the type of injury that prevents you from hiking out on your own, and you have your emergency gear with you to stay warm until help arrives, I doubt you would be considered negligent. In a case like this, whether you have friend with you or not, you would still not be able to get yourself out.
The same might apply to getting lost. Two can get just as lost as one.
I think most people on these boards have a good understanding of what we need to carry all four seasons, in the event of a serious mishap.

You are thinking from the standpoint of an experienced hiker.

The net effect is that rules for hiking may effectively end up being made by non-hikers. Many of them consider winter hiking to be crazy and would be terrified by the thought of being out alone. The next step of calling winter hiking (solo or in a party) negligent might be all too easy...

Doug

 

[dug]

I have been thinking about this a lot because I solo hike most of the time. Unless they make a hard and fast rule, I think it might depend on the situation. If you fall and sustain the type of injury that prevents you from hiking out on your own, and you have your emergency gear with you to stay warm until help arrives, I doubt you would be considered negligent. In a case like this, whether you have friend with you or not, you would still not be able to get yourself out.
The same might apply to getting lost. Two can get just as lost as one.
I think most people on these boards have a good understanding of what we need to carry all four seasons, in the event of a serious mishap.
If we make a personal decision to not carry certain items,
and "hike our own hike", we can expect that if rescuers have to risk their lives to help us "fly our own flight out", (by ground or by air) we will just have to pay up!
If they want to charge me because they think that hiking solo is negligent, so be it, but I will still carry season appropriate gear.

What, exactly, is that gear? That is one of my biggest questions. And, where/when should that be applied? Am I seriously supposed to risk being fined because I went for a stroll to Franconia Falls without snowshoes (THE HORROR!!) and break my leg? My question is that the entire gear list, recommended hike locations, group party size, and weather conditions are all wwwaaaayyyyy too ambiguous.

 

[dug]

This points in the direction that I have been hinting at with my comments about liability for parents of wandering kids. I suspect that many who are pushing for charges are thinking "I'm not a winter hiker and am not at any risk for needing a [winter] rescue. It is just those crazies." The proposed change could affect anyone who goes out in the woods at any time of year. And it sounds as though the standard for declaring negligence is poorly defined.

For instance, one could see soloing being declared negligent because one is not following all the rules from the safe hiking pundits (which are typically aimed at beginners)...

Doug

This sums up my point perfectly, Doug.

 

[Waumbek]

I would not start catastrophizing just yet. As someone said earlier, even negligence will have a fairly high public standard to meet. Fish and Game doesn't decide these cases itself; they decide which ones to forward to the NH AG to consider for further action. Frivolous cases won't go forward. I think the thing for VFTT'ers to do is not to panic, but to re-examine calmly if there's anything an individual needs to do to avoid negligence. Use the situation creatively. It's made me re-think some very basic practices. I'm not terribly swayed by the "I don't have enough money to buy a sleeping bag/bivy" argument. Beg, borrow, steal, or ask Santa. I'll lend you a -20F bag and bivy if you need them. Meet you at Mac's. For security, I get your car keys.

 

[DougPaul]

A few comments on rescue charges/fines from another source:
http://www.network54.com/Forum/3897/message/1204051344/Rescue+Fines

Doug

 

[sierra]

This sums up my point perfectly, Doug.

oh I solo and leave no plans with anyone, where does that leave me? is it a crime to be an individual?

 

[dug]

oh I solo and leave no plans with anyone, where does that leave me? is it a crime to be an individual?

in the crosshairs.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

oh I solo and leave no plans with anyone, where does that leave me? is it a crime to be an individual?

We don't know yet. It will be decided by case law, apparently

Tim

 

[forestgnome]

Good discussion. Another consideration: What is the difference in rescue cost between a well-equipped rescuee and and ill-equipped rescuee? Our friends on Little Haystack still needed to be rescued, despite their level of clothing. The only difference their lack of gear made was their chance of survival. If they were truly well-equipped, wouldn't they still need the same rescue operation?

 

[cushetunk]

oh I solo and leave no plans with anyone, where does that leave me? is it a crime to be an individual?

you should go and be the test case!

 

[bikehikeskifish]

What is the difference in rescue cost between a well-equipped rescuee and and ill-equipped rescuee? Our friends on Little Haystack still needed to be rescued, despite their level of clothing. The only difference their lack of gear made was their chance of survival. If they were truly well-equipped, wouldn't they still need the same rescue operation?

And hence the question becomes "What is the difference in cost between rescue and recovery?" does it not?

Or if rescue was not initiated (may be outside control of the stranded), better gear may have allowed them to survive on their own, and walk out on their own when conditions improved, thus eliminating the need to be rescued, although concerned family and friends may well still have initiated the rescue.

Tim

 

[grog]

oh I solo and leave no plans with anyone, where does that leave me? is it a crime to be an individual?

It is a crime and the bots will punish you.

grog

 

[Maddy]

And hence the question becomes "What is the difference in cost between rescue and recovery?" does it not?

Or if rescue was not initiated (may be outside control of the stranded), better gear may have allowed them to survive on their own, and walk out on their own when conditions improved, thus eliminating the need to be rescued, although concerned family and friends may well still have initiated the rescue.

Tim

If the hiker was not deemed "negligent" would h/she still be charged?

 

[sierra]

you should go and be the test case!

Dont worry, Im out there every weekend, have been all winter. My 2 cents on rescue cost, if at any point they plan to tax or fee anyone who hikes that has not been rescued, at that point, IM for charging anyone who is rescued, regardless of the circumstances. I do not want to pay for rescues. To me its completely unfair to spread out the cost to people who do not need rescues. The only option I have seen and would participate in is the Colorado system, where you buy a card for 5 bucks and your covered, cheap and fair. ok maybe that was 5 cents worth. Accountability, very little of that left anymore.