Mount Madison Rescue

[giggy]

For the same reason that adults without children still have a large percentage of their town/city taxes go toward public education. Because society has determined certain things are worth paying for, such as educating children and not letting people die on the side of a mountain. You can agree or disagree about whether that money is ill spent, but that's part of the reason.

negative! schooling is a public need - hiking is a pleasure- huge difference.

Schooling is a law, heading to side of a mtn is not.

 

[sardog1]

In madison case - not sure if any $$ was spent to get them. I admit, I am a bit ignorant on how volenteer SARS works in regards to $$$. They don't get paid, but there is $$ spent somewhere.

There was indeed money spent here, just as there is every time a SAR response is required. In this case, it was NH Fish & Game that had the statutory responsibility to manage the mission. That meant staff time, in the person of Conservation Officers, taken from an agency that is hurting for funds. One of the major reasons for creating the hikeSafe program was the financial impact of multiple incidents identical to the one in question here. Fish & Game and the USFS are trying to reduce the number of these incidents by educating the public on personal responsibility for trip planning and preparedness.

That's also why I support the discussion of this incident in this thread. It isn't merely preaching to the choir of the prepared. There are thousands of other people who read the forums here, many of them relatively inexperienced. If some of them see the analysis of these incidents, maybe it will prompt them to be more prepared and better informed before heading into the White Mountains and similar environments.

 

[Clown]

I agree with Tim. There should be a fee for every rescue, no matter how small or large it would still help out the Search and Rescue teams and it would be less money out of the tax payers pockets. Everyone makes mistakes and accidents happen but they are essentially providing a service.

 

[Kevin Rooney]

I think charging people for mountain rescue is a bad idea except in instances of gross neglience. There are countless ways that as taxpapers we subsidize/underwrite services and most of us never use them – and maintaining public staff - police, fire, rescue, fish & game, coast guard, civil air patrol, etc - are some of them. If people are automatically charged for rescue more people will die attempting to get out unaided in their belief they can’t afford the rescue. And if you doubt this will happen just look at what happens when people don’t have health insurance – they don’t get needed medical care until it’s either too late or the cost treating the problem has escalated dramatically.

 

[dvbl]

negative! schooling is a public need - hiking is a pleasure- huge difference.

Schooling is a law, heading to side of a mtn is not.

Totally my fault for bringing up the topic of public education. As much as I would love respond to your comments above and blow your argument out of the water (as I'm sure you'd love to do to mine), let's call a truce and get back to ripping these three 'yutes'. This is an outdoors website. I will borrow Dave M's mod hat for a sec and say the tangent we're heading off on belongs on another site.

 

[king tut]

I subscribe to the school of thought that says..

only put yourself into situations that you can get yourself out of on your own. If not, be ready to face the consequences.

So, if your not ready to potentially die, don't put yourself in that position. Don't jump into the deep end of the swimming pool if you can't swim. Too many people feel entitled. Someone will save them b/c it is their civic responsibility. I think that is complete BS. I have read many stories of people who skiied off the back side snowfields at Sugarloaf, and then called Rescue at 6 at night b/c they were cold, tired, and lost at .... upwards of a mile or 2 in the valley to safety. Maybe I just subscribe to Darwinism, but these people just should not reproduce. Maybe save them, but cut off their reproductive organs.

 

[Lawn Sale]

Wow, lots of posts to wade through.

The facts are these:

3 people went up the mountain and called for help, which was rendered.

Therefore I think some monetary remuneration is in order.

To me it's honestly that simple.

As to errors, they should have turned around when they had time, gear or no gear. How many of us have turned around, experience or no experience?

Forget the school analogy (I love debating this BTW, against it), and equate it to someone who goes out in a car for a drive and runs out of gas or breaks down. If they call for help and are rescued, why would they not pay for services rendered?

 

[Miau]

Is there actually a good reason why these huts are closed?

 

[NH_Mtn_Hiker]

Is there actually a good reason why these huts are closed?

Yes, to keep idiots like these three from climbing a mountain in winter conditions.

There is also the risk and difficulty's associated with trying to keep a hut open at -20F in 80+ mph winds, typical winter conditions.

 

[alpinista]

Since the only info we have is from an out-of-state newspaper, I for one am going wait until some additional facts from credible sources become available before passing judgement.

FWIW, the article appeared in an out-of-state newspaper, but it actually is an Associated Press article from the New Hampshire bureau _ which has covered probably dozens or hundreds of these things. These are the locals, mate, not some Beantown desk jockey. (In fact, they've been known to rely heavily on freelancers in the north country who are longtime, expert hikers with plenty of publications under their belts that many of read religiously.)

Just FYI, I'm not sure what the skinny is in this instance, but journalists can only rely on the information we're given. Sometimes it's faulty _ not because S&R is trying to steer us wrong, but because they are also sorting through the facts.

 

[forestgnome]

Sar-Dog's post (#102) makes sense.

Education and information has most likely reduced the number of rescues needed. We can't quantify them because they didn't happen. Many people interested in a first hiking adventure wind up here to read about it, so it's good to discuss and criticize the mistakes made because the discussion can lead to a reduction of rescues. The hurt feelings of the rescuees is inconsequential.

The newspaper article is not targeted to us, but to the general public who wouldn't know Madison Gulf Trail from Wilderness Trail. While I agree that the article is insufficient to form an opinion of this particular incident, the discussion is meaningful.

 

[Grumpy]

... I support the discussion of this incident in this thread. It isn't merely preaching to the choir of the prepared. There are thousands of other people who read the forums here, many of them relatively inexperienced. If some of them see the analysis of these incidents, maybe it will prompt them to be more prepared and better informed before heading into the White Mountains and similar environments.

I also support discussion -- analysis -- of this incident (and others like it) on VFTT. But only to the extent that we keep it objective, honest, rational, factual and educational.

Where these threads always go off the track is when folks speculate about the incident, that is, fill informational gaps about what happened, clothing, gear carried, and so on. Then we get suppositions about motives. And finally, we get calls for restitution of one kind an another.

The problem with this is, if we decide the subjects are “sympathetic” characters the suppositions and subsequent comments typically reflect a sympathetic attitude favoring the subjects. If they are “unsympathetic” characters, commentary quickly goes the other way.

Just so you know what I’m saying here, “sympathetic” characters, usually, are seen as “one of us” -- that is, physically fit, well experienced, thoroughly prepared, smart and wise mountain hiking enthusiasts like many of us think we are. Their boners are attributed to “bad luck,” or “freak occurrence,” or having been caught up with by the risks of daring, but rarely to poor judgement.

The “unsympathetic” characters, usually, are “not one of us.” They tend to be described as inexperienced (often young), physically unfit, ill-equipped, poorly prepared, often “privileged” or “coddled,” and frequently “stupid” or “idiotic” and lacking judgement.

Examples of what I’m writing about could be cited, but I’ve declined doing that because I don’t want to scrape open old hurts. Folks who have been around VFTT for a while will be able to recollect cases that illustrate the point.

Looking at the incident under discussion right now, with the reported facts (sans speculations) on the table, it appears the three people made a poor decision to go without confirming the availability of shelter they believed would be open to them as their day’s end objective. They did not have a tent. Poor weather did not help their cause. The lessons there are to check and re-check the shelter situation before making any assumption that shelter will be available to you. The further lesson is that in these transitional seasons, especially, you would be wise to carry gear that would allow for a weatherproof bivouac.

On the plus side, these three did have sleeping bags, which probably played some role in their surviving the ordeal in good enough shape to walk home under their own power (albeit guided by members of the SAR team). With night upon them and the anticipated hut unavailable, they retreated below treeline, sheltered as best they could and hunkered down for the night. They used a cell phone to contact authorities and describe their plight. Evidently, they stayed put until the SAR team found them. All-in-all, it appears that when things went to Hell in a handcart, the trio largely kept their wits, made the best moves they could, used the resources they had wisely, and everything turned out mostly OK. There’s a lesson in that, too.

If and as further facts emerge, there may be more to discuss. Wouldn’t it be nice if one or several of the principals involved in the incident felt confident enough of our good will to join the conversation here? Might we not learn something of value if that happened?

G.

 

[Tuco]

Well said Grumpy, IMO.

Perhaps what could be useful instead of charging for the SAR’s that occur is to make a day of community service where folks like this could talk to a group- kids or even an AMC young group club- to explain what happended and what they learned so they educate a population of less experienced people. Or have them write something up that could go into a club newsletter to hear how things can happen not from the after the facts news side but in the mindset of planning side. Thats what we all wonder about.

That or a day of trail maintenance……

 

[sardog1]

Perhaps what could be useful instead of charging for the SAR’s that occur is to make a day of community service where folks like this could talk to a group- kids or even an AMC young group club- to explain what happended and what they learned so they educate a population of less experienced people. Or have them write something up that could go into a club newsletter to hear how things can happen not from the after the facts news side but in the mindset of planning side. Thats what we all wonder about.

This is exactly what radio broadcaster Ted O'Brien did after he was lost for a few days in 2001. He did several interviews to educate people on what happened to him and what he should have done instead. You can listen to one of the interviews at Living on Earth: Oct. 19, 2001. Scroll down to "Lost Hiker," where you can read a transcript as well as listen to RealPlayer and mp3 audio files.

 

[Jeff-B]

Charge them $$$ costs

Whether or not these youths made poor judgments, they probably should be charged for the rescue.

For example;
US Coast Guard charges for many rescues for boaters, windsurfers, kayakers, ect.
These are PUBLIC SERVICES which are supported by TAX dollars directly.

Why then, should a mountain rescue not be considered the same?

Have we become complacent in these situations as to ignore personal responsibilities?

If I were in need of rescue and called for help, I would expect to foot the bill, regardless if I were negligent or simply injured.

In my view, NO ONE is any different with their experience, or lack of it, if they need the help, they should get it and pay for it.

Some folks here on this thread have expressed views which separate hikers into different categories where "they should be charged because they made poor judgment" and "we should not be charged because we are experienced"
BS in my opinion!

My argument to support everyone to pay for rescue services can be backed up by partially relying on your Homeowner insurance policy to cover your costs. (Deductables will hit you!)
Not to pass “responsibility” on to another institution, rather, this is why we carry insurance, because "sh*t happens!"
It's standard business practice for many activities, both recreational and professional.

I believe other policies can be available to those who are not homeowners for reasonable costs.

Admittedly, if I were 20, I might not have a policy in effect.
This does not mean however, I should not be required to pay for a rescue effort.

Jeff

 

[Tom Rankin]

... & retiring baby boomers are only going to tax the system more.

I fully intend to resemble that remark in a few years!

dvbl, it's too bad they didn't see your avatar before heading up there!

Ok gang, no offense, but I've read enough of this thread. Feel free to keep chatting, but I don't think y'all are going to resolve anything here. There are a lot of interesting points being made here though.

Now, let's go out and hike, and be safe!

Green squares for all, if I could!

 

[DougPaul]

I also support discussion -- analysis -- of this incident (and others like it) on VFTT. But only to the extent that we keep it objective, honest, rational, factual and educational.

Where these threads always go off the track is when folks speculate about the incident, that is, fill informational gaps about what happened, clothing, gear carried, and so on. Then we get suppositions about motives. And finally, we get calls for restitution of one kind an another.

Hear! Hear!

The speed with which members of this BBS castigate the victims of any rescue/accident without waiting for the facts to emerge is unbecoming.

Doug

 

[giggy]

I am going to beat this topic to death!!!

but seriously and no disrespect to anyone - this isn't a court of law, legal publication or science journal - this is a darn discussion board on the WWW. We have the freedom to discuss the issue - facts or no facts. Estimating and analyzing without the complete picture or facts is done everyday in every walks of life. And for the record - I haven't seen one comment that was totally out of line of assumptions.

I made my assumptions based on what i know of the area, skill set, decsions, lack or preparations, trail choice, weather, what brought, and what wasn't brought - and the fact they needed help out - with nobody injured going to a hut that is well known that is closed this time of year - and the fact that at least one has hiked the whites before.

i think a series bad descions were made and they flat out - screwed up. It seems some here are looking for excuses for them - well we don't know the whole story, - come on - lets get real dudes!

 

[Tim Seaver]

Views from the Mob

The speed with which members of this BBS castigate the victims of any rescue/accident without waiting for the facts to emerge is unbecoming.

I agree.

Let's not forget that there are plenty of instances where large, supposedly well prepared groups STILL require expensive and risky SAR missions. The Outward Bound group that "needed" a hiker with an ankle injury plucked off via helicopter on Kinsman Ridge a few years back comes to mind - I don't remember anyone demanding that they pay for the rescue.

It isn't necessarily about stupidity or incompetence. Stuff happens.

 

[dug]

Hear! Hear!

The speed with which members of this BBS castigate the victims of any rescue/accident without waiting for the facts to emerge is unbecoming.

Doug

Exactly what I was thinking.