Mountain Rescue Service speaks up about State billing

[Breeze]

I'm sorry, Red Oak, I didn't mean to or want to violate Julie's privacy. As the OP, I was commending Mountain Rescue Service for sticking up for Julie's skills and preparedness that most certainly resulted in her walking out in good condition and good company.

I can't apologize for NH F&G, nor can I apologize for the State of NH, or for the Conway Daily Sun. Julie, personally, is just ( and only) as much as a lightning rod in this issue as Scott Mason. It isn't really about her/him, where s/he lives, or age or sex. Lightning struck. Fingers point.


NH F&G deems hiker SAR as an unfunded mandate and will exploit any and every means to keep that political ball in play, including making Julie ( as Scott Mason ) another " case in point". Justified or unjustified , it isn't about right or wrong, its about <making someone > the fall person.

Personally I feel as though NH F&G would rather not be the statutory go-to agency for SAR initiation, co-ordination , and supervision within the WMNF. That becomes a political battle ground, one where people like Scott Mason and Julie will become depersonalized and disrespected <collateral>.

I'd rather see NH F&G go honestly to the NH legislature and fight face to face about unfunded mandates, question partnering with USFS and NH State Police, and NH State Parks and have all the volunteer MRS/SAR/EMS 501C3 orgs manning up and being heard.

It was never my intent to crap on Julie.

Breeze

 

[Billy]

From the Conway Daily Sun article (referenced in the original post):

The state, however, did not see it that way. Horgan had the gear and the skills to survive hostile conditions, Maj. Kevin Jordan of the Department of Fish and Game's law enforcement division said, but "that's a separate action than what got her into this situation."
What got her into the situation were a series of errors in judgment, he said. She did not heed weather warnings, bring adequate navigation equipment or pack extra food. "The whole situation could have been avoided completely."

I'll be the first to admit I'm not the brightest bulb in the circuit, but could someone tell me how not packing extra food contributed to this hiker losing the trail? Please tell me that the good Major didn't really say this, and that this is just sloppy reporting. Please.

p.s. Sloppy reporting aside, if this article is accurate, then this is just a good old-fashioned shake-down, just like the Mason case.

 

[dug]

From the Conway Daily Sun article (referenced in the original post):

The state, however, did not see it that way. Horgan had the gear and the skills to survive hostile conditions, Maj. Kevin Jordan of the Department of Fish and Game's law enforcement division said, but "that's a separate action than what got her into this situation."
What got her into the situation were a series of errors in judgment, he said. She did not heed weather warnings, bring adequate navigation equipment or pack extra food. "The whole situation could have been avoided completely."

I'll be the first to admit I'm not the brightest bulb in the circuit, but could someone tell me how not packing extra food contributed to this hiker losing the trail? .

Sure, the extra food would be a loaf of bread. A trail of breadcrumbs, as any serious navigator knows, is the only true way to follow path back to safety.

 

[sardog1]

NH F&G deems hiker SAR as an unfunded mandate and will exploit any and every means to keep that political ball in play, including making Julie ( as Scott Mason ) another " case in point". Justified or unjustified , it isn't about right or wrong, its about <making someone > the fall person.

Personally I feel as though NH F&G would rather not be the statutory go-to agency for SAR initiation, co-ordination , and supervision within the WMNF. That becomes a political battle ground, one where people like Scott Mason and Julie will become depersonalized and disrespected <collateral>.

I'd rather see NH F&G go honestly to the NH legislature and fight face to face about unfunded mandates, question partnering with USFS and NH State Police, and NH State Parks and have all the volunteer MRS/SAR/EMS 501C3 orgs manning up and being heard.

It is not something "deemed" by F&G as an unfunded mandate. It IS an unfunded mandate imposed on the Department by a statute enacted by the NH Legislature.

F&G DID go honestly to the Legislature a few years back. The rockheads in the 400 person Granite Headed State Legislature refused to deal with the situation.

Yeah, I AM tired of seeing F&G crapped on for something not of their doing.

 

[skiguy]

Sure, the extra food would be a loaf of bread. A trail of breadcrumbs, as any serious navigator knows, is the only true way to follow path back to safety.

It's called navigational assistenance beyond a Cell Phone.Bottom line she went to far beyond the means of return with the tools at hand.No Compass? Let's get real. A prime example of "Summit Fever" with no backdoor plan IMO. Self reliance has gone out the door in this Hikers readiness. Unfortunately this hiker did not use the basics and got their own arse in a snag and relied upon the system to bail her out at least according to the press. So why is it such a big deal for her to realize she screwed up upon her own accord and is being made an example of. Time to anty up.If you put your self in this potential situation then at least know where your bailout is and if it is a cell phone call accept the charge. Sorry but 8k or less in change is not alot to pay for your life if your back up plan is a cell phone call. I agree the criteria for rescue needs to be defined; but if it were me I would be glad to be alive and not complaining.

 

[Raven]

From the article referenced (my italics):

"Maj. Kevin Jordan of the Department of Fish and Game's law enforcement division said, but "that's a separate action than what got her into this situation." What got her into the situation were a series of errors in judgment, he said. She did not heed weather warnings, bring adequate navigation equipment or pack extra food. "The whole situation could have been avoided completely.""

These three reasons are given for the charge at least as cited in the article.

IMO:

1. Re: Did not heed weather warnings. zero degrees and 50 mph wind (sustained or gusts) is not an uncommon "higher summits forecast" for the Presidential Range in winter. I think she heeded the warnings by choosing Jackson over it's higher neighbors. She knew the forecast (good in itself) and chose a mountain to be reasonable given those conditions, her experience, and her gear. All good decisions.

2. Re: Did not bring adequate navigation. If she did not have a compass and map or its equivalent, that's a mistake IMO. I did not see what she had in this regard however so won't comment further.

3. Re: Did not pack extra food. This is where I don't see the connection. Although yes, it's good to have extra food, The situation would not have changed in any significant way had she had extra food. To suggest this is a reason for what got her into this situation and for how the whole situation could have been avoided completely is simply absurd.

Is this the standard for negligent now? An experienced winter hiker goes out in typical winter conditions and chooses a mountain within her abilities, but the particular circumstances and one mistake (IMO) combine to cause her to need a rescue...even though she was well-enough equipped and knowledgeable about staying warm, she survived the night in good shape.

Maybe the bar now is to expect to pay for your rescue. Period.

 

[Red Oak]

Is this the standard for negligent now? An experienced winter hiker goes out in typical winter conditions and chooses a mountain within her abilities, but the particular circumstances and one mistake (IMO) combine to cause her to need a rescue...even though she was well-enough equipped and knowledgeable about staying warm, she survived the night in good shape.

Maybe the bar now is to expect to pay for your rescue. Period.

Is there a federal precedent?Does not Fed law trump state?If the consensus sar position is to not charge,can the federal gov. tell nh not to charge?The gov. is raiding a wide assortment of health clinics registered to different state agencies around the country.I wonder if that kind of anti-states swagger could bully nh to come around.It would be a sad day for the north country economy if they lost a lot more then 8 grand to out of staters who simply can not afford to hike in nh because of a chance they might get lost[key word;might].If one can not pay for their rescue,how far does nh legally go get their money?Would the rescued have to wash dishes at the deerfield fair?I recently heard a story of a kid who many moons ago went hiking in and around washington and disappeared.It was a very cold winter weekend,but luckily for him there was a ice climbing class in the area.The ice climbers lent their hands and joined local sar for a very detailed grid search of the area.The searchers looked for at least two days with no luck in deplorable conditions.Finally it turned out the student had gone back to college and not even told his friends he had gone hiking with intially.That is supreme stupidity and selfishness.Not the case here....

 

[Raven]

If one can not pay for their rescue,how far does nh legally go get their money?....

This is the question. And, the publicity that would likely surround this would bring a lot of attention to the issue for fish and game which may be exactly what they want. Shine a spotlight on it. (as mentioned earlier in a post).

 

[Dave Bear]

First and foremost I would like to say, Julie, I am so glad that you are okay and hope that the uncomfortable part of this endeavor, resolving the litigation, goes well for you. It very well could affect the rest of us so if at a point we should start petitioning or organize a benefit, lets do it!

Second, I would like to say that anyone despite electronic gadgetry and vastly knowledge could end up in an equal situation so spewing off will invite your own bad karma!

Third, The real fact is that there are perils to "Doing what you are told!" The stay where you are and we will find you is almost a standard answer coming from somewhat sitting where they are comfortable. From my view the earlier mention that it may have been wise to have you go back up has many advantages even if it puts you in worse exposure. It keeps you moving and likely to stay warmer, doubtful she was asked if she had sufficient clothing. By retracing her path that is visible up to where she loses it she not only gets closer to the approaching rescuers but also gets back nearer to a known location from which to take a bearing. Even getting up closer to treeline would get you to where lateral moves may help identify mountain features or help you come across the packed trail under the blowing snow. I once met a fellow that was coming off of Pierce during a blowing white-out as I headed up and he was freaked out from having lost the path. His disadvantage over me was having his snowshoes on and could not "feel" the pack under the powder. There as many ways to find your way out of the crap as there are to get yourself in! It is never fair for us to sit back and armchair how or what should have happened, just chalk all of it up to gained knowledge and lost egos! Put yourself in the other persons boots not on the cloud your esteemed ego lives on!

Julie you were well-equiped for Jackson from some of what Red Oak conveyed to us. Kudos to you because after being given the order to stay where you were could have been enough to cause bodily harm to someone less prepared! Good luck! Happy trails and hope to meet you someday!