New grist for the SAR debate from Brown University study

[hikerbrian]

Kevin - It's not the coffee, it's an obvious conflict of interest. It's hard to take anything out of F&G seriously when this kind of crap is on the books. Except that there is precedent for F&G demanding very large sums of money in very questionable cases, and so we really MUST take this seriously.

Tim - trivial is exactly right. NH has got this one wrong. There's little more to be said.

Dave.m - I for one am not at all comfortable with linking the absence of an arbitrary set of gear with the concept of negligence and an associated - possibly exorbitant - fine. Many of the items are NEITHER necessary nor sufficient. I'd love to hear of a single rescue in the Whites in which sunscreen and sunglasses would have prevented said rescue. The same can probably also be said of extra food, a firestarter, and a knife. Useful items in certain situations, sure, but they'll rarely if ever prevent a rescue or save a life in the Whites.

To answer some of your inquiries above: in general, I agree with Doug - NOTHING is strictly necessary. I'm sure many could survive days or weeks without even clothes on their backs. Kind of tempting to do the experiment actually. Think of the Union (mis)Leader headlines in the case that rescue WAS required! Worth it for the comic value alone. Alas, I digress.
Fire starting: NOT an important skill in the Whites. If there is potential for death due to hypothermia, adequate clothing and shelter are FAR more effective at preventing heat loss than a fire is at replacing heat. There are many scenarios that could be worked through in which cold/wet is the main problem, however I can't think of a single one (that occurs with any reasonable frequency) in which fire is the best option for dealing with it. One is more likely to melt off their clothes and/or burn down their tent than they are to derive significant warmth from a fire, provided it's even possible to get one started (e.g. above treeline).
Ability to use a map and compass: very important. I believe this simple skill would prevent the vast majority of rescues in the Whites.
Splinting a femur: not very important. Femoral fractures are pretty rare in the Whites and will almost always require a rescue anyway.

There are always exceptions. But I find the most value in understanding the product of "probability" times "consequence" and planning accordingly.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

I don't think anyone takes the "just let them die" approach seriously, so I don't think that's even worth getting into.

I never said "let them die" - I said the state could remove the mandate if they don't want to fund it adequately - that is the crux / conflict of interest here - F&G is mandated but not funded. The whole debate has been about funding that mandate, either by the state or the rescued or by insurance cards, etc. Either fund them (trivial, as you point out), or do not mandate them. That removes the conflict of interest. It may or may not open up another can of worms. Let the people who want to provide free rescues fund it, by volunteers, donations, philanthropy, movie rights, etc.

Tim

 

[RoySwkr]

What about "don't rescue anyone"? How do people feel about that? Because that would solve the problem as well. As in the state has no obligation to rescue you. It was hinted at earlier, but I don't think it was ever really debated in any of these discussions.

One of the specific proposals I made at the hearing was to remove the mandate for Wilderness areas - if the FS decides not to adequately mark or maintain trails there, then let the FS do the rescues (or at least pay for the helicopters). That could be extended to the whole NF. Of course a major search might involve both sides of the boundary. F&G ignored this idea which would basically shift their revenue problem to someone with bigger pockets.

 

[dave.m]

Question for Sardog...


Based on your SAR experience, could you rate the following scenarios according to: common, uncommon, rare?

• Hiker becomes lost due to lack of MAP, COMPASS or skill to use them.
• Hiker becomes incapacitated due to lack of adequate clothing such as EXTRA CLOTHES and RAIN GEAR.
• Hiker is unable to start a fire and becomes hypothermic due to lack of FIRE STARTER and KNIFE (to make wood shavings).
• Hiker becomes benighted and incapacitated due to lack of a FLASHLIGHT.
• Hiker becomes incapacitated due to a lack of EXTRA FOOD and WATER.
• Hiker becomes fouled in rope or equipment and incapacitated due to a lack of a KNIFE.
• Hiker becomes incapacitated by minor injury or illness due to lack of a basic FIRST AID KIT.
• Hiker unable to communicate with searchers and remains lost due to lack of a WHISTLE.

Obviously, these are based on the list of essentials: map, a compass, extra clothes, rain gear, a fire starter, a flashlight, extra food and water, a knife, a first aid kit, and a whistle.


Second, and probably the more important question would be this...

In your experience, what is the percentage of SAR incidents that are traceable to "lack of equipment" issues as described above (as opposed to things not related to lack of equipment such as broken legs, heart attacks and lightening strikes)?

Thanks.

 

[dave.m]

Fire-starting - I have gotten better with a lot of practice but after a long stretch of rain I still find it impossible to find enough dry kindling and wood so once my tinder is used up.... I have been thinking about bringing a knife beefy enough to baton wood and seeing if I can process enough wood.

I've been stunned by the amount of practice it's been taking me to reliably light a fire. Sustaining them is even harder. If I anticipate a fire, I carry a large knife and a (Silky) folding saw. Actually, I carry the folding saw in my winter version of my essentials kit. I've been on 2 different winter trips in which a skier went into a river, both times far enough in that "going home" wasn't an option. Also been involved in a winter extraction that was made easier by jury rigging a litter out of sapling poles. I managed that with a decent sized folding knife but a folding saw really makes that much easier. Batonning does work but man, such a weight penalty.

 

[dave.m]

Yes I know that that is why they use such regulations. (And yes, there are lots of such regulations--enforce something that is easy to enforce rather than the real problem...) I am of the opinion that it misses so much and is so inaccurate that its use as a stand-in is indefensible.

In my work (related to risk management of a sort), I was asked by a customer to produce "object criteria" for the selection of some risk related thingamabobs. Once we got passed the posturing and grandstanding, we came to agreement that there was no such thing as objective criteria but, the criteria had to at least smell sort of objective because if it didn't, he would never be able to defend his process to his various stakeholders, who were more than happy to eat his lunch.

This is the rub, isn't it. Two things are true at the same time. The people in the know know that it's really silly to reduce hiker preparedness to a simple checklist. But at the same time, if the regulation were written as "fines levied against those considered unprepared by the judgement of the authorities", people would go ballistic about an ill defined standard that would be applied inconsistently and capriciously.

How would you suggest the standard be defined for when rescue fees are charged?

 

[dave.m]

Dave.m - I for one am not at all comfortable with linking the absence of an arbitrary set of gear with the concept of negligence and an associated - possibly exorbitant - fine.

Same question that I asked of Doug... What criteria would you suggest be used to determine if the hiker gets fined? Judgement of F&G?

I'd love to hear of a single rescue in the Whites in which sunscreen and sunglasses would have prevented said rescue. The same can probably also be said of extra food, a firestarter, and a knife. Useful items in certain situations, sure, but they'll rarely if ever prevent a rescue or save a life in the Whites.

Agreed on sunscreen. But I don't think that's on the list.

Sunglasses become important above treeline in the winter (sun blindness). Again, I don't think that's on the list (unless I missed it.

Disagree strongly about extra food. I can't tell you the number of times I've aided hikers by providing high energy food like gorp or power bars when they bonked. Given the relatively short distances and rugged trails in the Whites, bonk avoidance is often a tipping point between making it back to the trail head by night or not.

IMO, fire starter and knife are winter essentials, not 3 season essentials.

To answer some of your inquiries above: in general, I agree with Doug - NOTHING is strictly necessary. I'm sure many could survive days or weeks without even clothes on their backs. Kind of tempting to do the experiment actually.

Again, I disagree. My sense is that hypothermia is one of the leading causes for rescues in the Whites in the 3 season months, particularly in the high peaks and more to the point, my sense is that lack of adequate clothing is the primary reason.

Fire starting: NOT an important skill in the Whites. If there is potential for death due to hypothermia, adequate clothing and shelter are FAR more effective at preventing heat loss than a fire is at replacing heat. There are many scenarios that could be worked through in which cold/wet is the main problem, however I can't think of a single one (that occurs with any reasonable frequency) in which fire is the best option for dealing with it. One is more likely to melt off their clothes and/or burn down their tent than they are to derive significant warmth from a fire, provided it's even possible to get one started (e.g. above treeline).

Fires are completely off the table above treeline.

I agree they aren't needed in 3 season use.

Winter, below treeline is another issue though.

It's really a moot point though. Most hikers I know can get their stove going most of the time but not all of the time. Mostly this is due to lack of experience (I generally advise people make a cup of tea every day for a moth in their back yard to learn their stove.) With this as a back drop, I don't personally know a single hiker who is capable of getting a fire going in most conditions (including rain/wet snow) or who is capable of keeping one going. It's really a skill that requires practice. A backyard fire place is a good thing to think about.

Ability to use a map and compass: very important. I believe this simple skill would prevent the vast majority of rescues in the Whites.

Agreed on the map and will grudgingly concede the point on the compass. My sense, as stated above several times, is that well over half of the hikers I encounter are utterly incapable of using a map. They carry it but its almost extra weight.

 

[TJsName]

From what I hear by from friend who was on the Pemi SAR unit, they biggest issues were people falling and becoming incapacitated (possibly footwear issues, possibly experience, possibly a slip-up), and the other issue is people getting stuck in the dark.

 

[Kevin Rooney]

Fires are completely off the table above treeline.

I agree they aren't needed in 3 season use.

Winter, below treeline is another issue though.

If faced with a survival situation, in which warmth was a factor, if a fire was needed I personally wouldn't have a problem getting a fire going regardless of location, provided there was available fuel.

I would never want to be in a situation where someone (including myself) died or sustained permanent injury because cutting of wood in that particular area was prohibited.

Not to belabor the point, but - 3 season is a relative term. About treeline the Whites is climatically sub-arctic. It is never summer there in the sense that it is summer in the valleys. You should make a determination of what measures are needed based upon the condition of the victim and the environment at that moment, NOT the date on the calendar.

 

[DougPaul]

How would you suggest the standard be defined for when rescue fees are charged?

IMO, rescue fees (as they are being levied in NH) are ill advised, counter productive, and dangerous to both victim and rescuer.

Eliminate such fees and no such standard need be defined.

Doug

 

[bikehikeskifish]

Somewhere in one of these debates/discussions I seem to recall that the number one essential that causes people to call for rescue is (the lack of) a flashlight. Darkness is the one condition that is 100% entirely predictable

Tim

 

[dave.m]

Somewhere in one of these debates/discussions I seem to recall that the number one essential that causes people to call for rescue is (the lack of) a flashlight. Darkness is the one condition that is 100% entirely predictable

Isn't this the core issue?

I would love to be wrong on both of these points but I *thought* that in the past 15 years or so both: a) overall hiker visits are down but b) *calls* for rescue are up.

My understanding of this (again, I'm very happy to be corrected on this) is that better cell phone coverage and more common use of cell phones has led more and more people to call for rescue than "back in the day". Add to this the availability of personal emergency beacons.

I recall an essay by Rick Wilcox published in the Mountaineer in the aftermath of the Tinkham/Haas incident on Jefferson back in the 90s. Wilcox made a strong argument for volunteer rescue and maintaining a posture of "freedom of the hills" with no restrictions in the Whites. But this was a time when cell phones were the size of bricks and had no coverage outside major cities. Today, it's very different.

Doug, 2 follow up questions....

If I'm correct that rescue events are up (compared to hiker visits) particularly frivolous ones, how do you propose reducing the number of frivolous rescues and managing the costs to rescue organizations?

Also, how are rescuer fees dangerous to either hikers or rescuers?

 

[Kevin Rooney]

I would love to be wrong on both of these points but I *thought* that in the past 15 years or so both: a) overall hiker visits are down but b) *calls* for rescue are up.

To the contrary, at least re: a) - hiker visits continue to rise, both in anecdotal terms (personal experience) and as measured by the number of individuals completing one or more "official" peakbagging lists. According to Eric Savage of the 4K Committee, both 2011 and 2012 saw record numbers of completers. And not just in 3 seasons - I've seen more people above treeline this year in the Presis on a good winter weekend than I've ever seen on a comparable summer day. Peakbagger posted a thread within the past month or two which referenced a newpaper article reporting on a meeting held by the respective parties which have jurisdiction re: the summit of Washington. Winter hikers have increased in such numbers that human waste disposal has become an issue. As for b) - am not sure of a reliable source - perhaps sardog can comment.

 

[DougPaul]

Doug, 2 follow up questions....

If I'm correct that rescue events are up (compared to hiker visits) particularly frivolous ones, how do you propose reducing the number of frivolous rescues and managing the costs to rescue organizations?

Tim Seaver has already answered this:

It might be easy to forget, as long as the ridiculous SAR debacle has been going on, that the problem is NOT that an unreasonable amount of rescues being performed on stupid lazy hikers, it's because the state is unwilling to adequately fund it.

The overall amount of $ is trivial. Yes, trivial. A handful of screamers on Union Leader doesn't change that basic fact.

I'm not worried about hikers getting their act together, it's more about the overstuffed suits.

And I'd like to add that much (probably most...) of the cost is borne by volunteers...

Also, how are rescuer fees dangerous to either hikers or rescuers?

The threat of rescue fees discourages someone in trouble from calling for help early on. Only after the situation gets worse do they call, by which time the victims might be in more serious trouble and the rescue may be more difficult and dangerous for the rescuers.

Doug

 

[sardog1]

I would love to be wrong on both of these points but I *thought* that in the past 15 years or so both: a) overall hiker visits are down but b) *calls* for rescue are up.

The total number of all types of SAR missions is up over the last fifteen years by a substantial amount. But over the last half dozen years, I think the number has been fairly constant, averaging about 145-160 per year for all types. The 2008 Performance Audit indicated that "Hiking" was involved in 48% of the SAR missions in 2002-07: PERFORMANCE AUDIT REPORT JANUARY 2008 I don't recall any statistics indicating a recent trend in the hiker-related number. It's the total cost that has climbed substantially in the recent past.

So, the same cash-strapped department providing SAR also determines negligence? And the bill/fine is assessed without a hearing or ability to appeal? And if the bill/fine isn't paid in 30 days then some state-issued licenses, including driver's licenses can/will be suspended?

If you refuse to pay the bill (it isn't a fine, it's recoupment of costs), the state has to go to court to get a judgment against you. You'd have all the rights you'd have in any civil matter. The actions against any license, permit or tag would be governed by the same rules that apply ordinarily in the respective agencies, and you would still have your day in court if you wanted it.

 

[Maddy]

I wonder if they have a problem in our town with people not calling the FD for an ambulance when they need one.
We have to pay the entire cost ( insurance or out of pocket) if we don't sign on yearly for a membership. It's $40 annual fee. Covers the family. It would be interesting to have that data. Haven't heard any complaints but I bet there are some.

I know two of my neighbors don't go to their MD's or ER because they have such an enormous deductible on their health plan.
They are not putting rescuers at risk but they certainly are putting their own lives on the line. The state might be funding the ride for the poverty stricken, but the rest us get to open our checkbooks and that "critical care ambulance" costs megabucks.

Seems like everyone wants to be reimbursed for their services. You call a new doc for a medical app't and 1 st thing they want to know if what insurance plan you have, and be SURE to bring your card to your app't.

We buy good cars and care for them to get us back and forth to the mountains. We pay for gas and added wear and tear on our vehicles. We buy bike racks, roof racks, and racks for kayaks! We stop and eat at decent restaurants, buy a Starbucks brew, (or whatever). to keep up awake. We splurge on beer, decent backpacks, boots, and camelbacks. We attire ourselves in costly gortex and wick away fabrics. Camping does not always come cheap. Even dogs are now charged to camp in VT state parks.

Seriously it makes no sense to me that we balk at having to pay a fee for someone to pluck us off the mountain should the need arise. Why do we feel entitled to this service? This is the new millinnium and time for change. "Free stuff" is no more. MOVING RIGHT ALONG.

Last but not least take a deep breath. We are all debating this on our costly computers, and we are most likely calling for help on our expensive iPhones, ( Droid, etc), or PLB's. We don't like to be told how to hike, but is asking us to follow the Hike Safe protocols an unreasonable request from the folks who are at our beck and woof when we need them?

 

[bikehikeskifish]

This looks like the same study. It at least quantifies the three trailheads:

http://equipped.outdoors.org/2013/06/how-many-hikers-carry-ten-essentials-in.html

The study surveyed 199 hikers in summer 2011 at three White Mountain National Forest trailheads (Old Bridle/Falling Waters, Appalachia, and Zealand Falls) to determine whether they were carrying the ten essentials enumerated by the HikeSafe program: map, compass, extra clothes, rain gear, fire starter, light, extra food and water, a knife, a first aid kit, and a whistle.

Tim

 

[hikerbrian]

Same question that I asked of Doug... What criteria would you suggest be used to determine if the hiker gets fined? Judgement of F&G?

It's a very difficult task to carry out with any degree of fairness. The only solution I can think of is to bring EACH INDIVIDUAL CASE before a panel of sorts and assess the situation on a case by case basis. Of course this process would probably cost more than the state could hope to recover in fines (or recoupment costs, or whatever you want to call them...). I'm not suggesting it's a good idea, but it is better than an arbitrary fine. Note: I see Sardog1 has suggested that this is ultimately the path in cases where individuals refuse to pay, but I'd want to see the details of the process and know there isn't a "guilty until proven innocent" flavor to it. Whatever the case, when there is a budget shortfall (which appears to be the case here), there are many ways to solve it. I happen to think fining individual hikers is one of the worst possible solutions.

Agreed on sunscreen. But I don't think that's on the list.

Yet another problem with the proposal, which list to use?

Disagree strongly about extra food. I can't tell you the number of times I've aided hikers by providing high energy food like gorp or power bars when they bonked. Given the relatively short distances and rugged trails in the Whites, bonk avoidance is often a tipping point between making it back to the trail head by night or not.

I too have given food to folks who have "bonked." I've never heard of someone starving to death in the Whites, or requiring rescue because they were close to it. Cases of individuals sitting on a trail awaiting rescue because they're just too hungry to continue? Haven't heard of any. Hiking out after dark is a non-issue.

My sense is that hypothermia is one of the leading causes for rescues in the Whites in the 3 season months, particularly in the high peaks and more to the point, my sense is that lack of adequate clothing is the primary reason.

I'm not sure this is true, but it may be. Even if it is, it does NOT follow that lack of certain clothing items automatically makes one "unprepared" and/or "negligent." I submit that a fit (and adventurous) individual could survive for days or weeks on a hut trip in the Whites with little more clothing than adequate footwear. If that person were to slip on wet leaves, break an ankle, and huddle comfortably under a space blanket and leaves for a day or two until some discovered her, would we fine her for being negligent? I hope not - adequate clothing was not the primary cause of the injury, and said items would not have prevented rescue.

I don't personally know a single hiker who is capable of getting a fire going in most conditions (including rain/wet snow) or who is capable of keeping one going. It's really a skill that requires practice. A backyard fire place is a good thing to think about.

Well, I did get A LOT of practice as a kid (way TOO MUCH, according to my parents...), but in the past 2 years, just for my own informational purposes, I tried to start a fire in a late fall Kilkenny traverse after 2 solid days of rain, and as the rain was turning to wet snow. With some birch bark and standing dead wood, it was not so difficult. Next, on a sunny mid-winter day in the Pemi, I was again successful using the same (abundant) materials. In both cases, a single storm proof match was required. Your point stands, however, as I'm sure not everyone has the mad fire-starting skills that I do. But my point is this: I found it impossible to derive much warmth from the fire. I found my sleeping bag and tent to be MUCH more comfortable. In wind or heavy rain (very common precipitates of hypothermia), good luck deriving much useful warmth from a fire. Again, I've played out many scenarios in my head and can't think of a single one in which fire is the best idea. What scenario do you have in mind? Submersion? Pull out your spare base layers (in a zipper bag), extra fleece pants and down coat (also in a zipper bag) and be on your way. If you want to salvage your trip by drying your clothes, maybe a fire would help, but we're not talking about salvaging a trip, we're talking about avoiding rescue.

 

[sardog1]

It's a very difficult task to carry out with any degree of fairness. The only solution I can think of is to bring EACH INDIVIDUAL CASE before a panel of sorts and assess the situation on a case by case basis. Of course this process would probably cost more than the state could hope to recover in fines (or recoupment costs, or whatever you want to call them...). I'm not suggesting it's a good idea, but it is better than an arbitrary fine. Note: I see Sardog1 has suggested that this is ultimately the path in cases where individuals refuse to pay, but I'd want to see the details of the process and know there isn't a "guilty until proven innocent" flavor to it. Whatever the case, when there is a budget shortfall (which appears to be the case here), there are many ways to solve it. I happen to think fining individual hikers is one of the worst possible solutions.

Some points need clarification, apparently.

I'm not "suggesting" a path for the resolution of these cases, I'm stating it as a matter of law. If you refuse to pay the bill sent by Fish and Game, the state of New Hampshire can't collect the money in the end without a court order. That order would require proof that you acted negligently under the circumstances. The explication of how you get to court and the process there requires more space and attention than I care to devote to the matter.

It's NOT a fine that is at question here. I know lots of people like to characterize it that way, but as I have done on numerous occasions here, I will again point out that the statute authorizes the recovery of expenses incurred by the state, not the imposition of a fine. It's no small point to keep in mind.

 

[dave.m]

It's a very difficult task to carry out with any degree of fairness. The only solution I can think of is to bring EACH INDIVIDUAL CASE before a panel of sorts and assess the situation on a case by case basis.

Undoubtedly, this will be the approach taken to make a determination in either case. That panel will be F&G and the only thing we're talking about is whether or not a partial list of the criteria considered by the "panel" is published to public. Personally, I would rather whatever aspects of the criteria documented as can be. Possession of a fairly well accepted set of minimum equipment isn't unreasonable to me by any stretch.

Whatever the case, when there is a budget shortfall (which appears to be the case here), there are many ways to solve it.

Eugene Miya (from the old rec.backcountry days) suggested I get Garritt Hardin's pithy little book, "Filters Against Folly". Great read if you're interested in a nice discussion about the range of options for funding various forms of public services and infrastructure. Showing my bias, I think "provided as a free service" like we generally do with police, fire departments and schools makes a lot of sense.

As for budget crises, IMO these are created far upstream from individual agencies like F&G. Federal budgets have a bearing on state budgets as an additional consideration. I am reminded of the well documented budget crisis that the US Congress created for the USFS that fed into the creation of the USFS usage fee program. Again, showing my bias, I think recreational use of USFS lands should be free for all. In any event, I agree with you. If F&G has a budget issue, it's not of their making in all likelihood and, as you say, the fix is not with them.

Yet another problem with the proposal, which list to use?

The one from their web site?
http://hikesafe.com/index.php?page=the-10-essentials

I too have given food to folks who have "bonked." I've never heard of someone starving to death in the Whites, or requiring rescue because they were close to it. Cases of individuals sitting on a trail awaiting rescue because they're just too hungry to continue? Haven't heard of any.

Really? I suspect this is fairly common, actually. I would expect it's categorized as "exhaustion" or "hiker collapsed" or some such. I've seen several cases of it.

Again, I'm not talking about prevention of starvation, which as you say, is a non-issue. I'm only talking about people "bonking" and getting so low they can't make meaningful progress on the trail.

I'm not sure this is true, but it may be. Even if it is, it does NOT follow that lack of certain clothing items automatically makes one "unprepared" and/or "negligent." I submit that a fit (and adventurous) individual could survive for days or weeks on a hut trip in the Whites with little more clothing than adequate footwear.

This doesn't align with my experience at all. I agree with the F&S list of clothing for summer hiking above treeline and consider it "essential".

But my point is this: I found it impossible to derive much warmth from the fire. I found my sleeping bag and tent to be MUCH more comfortable. In wind or heavy rain (very common precipitates of hypothermia), good luck deriving much useful warmth from a fire. Again, I've played out many scenarios in my head and can't think of a single one in which fire is the best idea. What scenario do you have in mind? Submersion? Pull out your spare base layers (in a zipper bag), extra fleece pants and down coat (also in a zipper bag) and be on your way. If you want to salvage your trip by drying your clothes, maybe a fire would help, but we're not talking about salvaging a trip, we're talking about avoiding rescue.

If you're not getting warm from a fire (below treeline), it's not big enough.

Yes, winter or shoulder season submersion is the primary scenario. I've had it happen on parties twice on ski touring trips. I agree that extra clothes is key. But, I don't see the difference between salvaging a trip and avoiding rescue.

FWIW, I don't think fire making is a critical need in 3 season use in the Whites. Only in the winter.