Resue on Mt. Washington

vftt.org

Help Support vftt.org:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
I'm late to this party, but my thoughts on this incident seem to differ from the majority opinion, so I'll share them. As always, my comments are meant to foster thoughts on how we (the collective hiking community) might avoid a similar fate, or worse. The criticism is intended to be constructive.

She was located at 4000' elevation in the Monroe Brook drainage, half a mile from the trail. This makes it easy to pinpoint the location where she was found. It means she traveled nearly due west from Lakes rather than nearly due north. This is an easy mistake to make, but (IMO) not an acceptable mistake to have made. Having bailed down Ammo Ravine a couple of times in some pretty harsh conditions, I can attest to the fact that the trail into the trees can be challenging to locate. But with a compass it is very difficult to get off course by nearly 90 degrees. And there are good terrain features (multiple drainages) to help guide your bearing. Furthermore, it was a bluebird day. Perfect weather, perfect visibility. It's not like she was fighting whiteout conditions. She seems to have not used a compass once her phone failed. A person as experienced as her should have known that relying on her phone was foolhardy. In an effort to make the world a better place, I'll once again post my short and imperfect video on how to navigate by map and compass. She planned to either use her phone or follow her tracks. These are things number one and number two that you should never rely on for navigation in the winter.

In my experience, ANY snowshoes are better than no snow shoes in deep, unconsolidated snow. It still may not be possible to make progress, but they'll usually help a little. I've hiked uphill through waste-deep snow in snow shoes with a heavy pack. It's very hard, but it's possible to make progress. She was going downhill with (I suspect) a relatively small pack. I think snowshoes would have helped. Also, she made a decision to continue downhill, even when it was clear she was off trail. This decision may have been driven in part by the fact that going uphill was not an option. With snowshoes, it's amazing how much easier it is when you're the second person in line, breaking trail. If she had 'broken trail' downhill with snowshoes, she likely would have had a much easier time reversing course and following her own broken out trail back to where she knew the trail was. Without snowshoes this was not an option. So I think snowshoes actually might have prevented her need for rescue.

Finally, the Hikesafe card and her emergency locator beacon: I think it's worth asking the question whether she felt overconfident and/or enabled, knowing that she could get help with the push of a button, and that she wouldn't have to pay for it. Would she have made different decisions if neither of those pieces had been in place?

While she may have been an 'experienced' hiker (who the heck knows what that means), I see inability to navigate by map and compass, along with leaving a critical piece of gear behind (snowshoes), possibly coupled with overconfidence knowing she had rescuers at the push of a button, as having driven this incident. I have no desire to enter into a debate about the definition of negligent, but I think we should think carefully about this incident. I think (i.e. this is my opinion based on incomplete info) either the compass or the snowshoes would have prevented this incident. These are basics for hiking in the winter, and it goes doubly so if you're hiking solo. I write this not to suggest I'm so much more skilled, but with the intent to prevent others from going through the same ordeal. It's clear from her quotes this incident was very hard on her. It may affect her psychologically for a long time. I'm glad she made it out.
 
Regarding the Hikesafe card and the possibility of negligence in this instance, the verbiage on the Hikesafe web page makes it clear that even if a Hikesafe card-holder is negligent, the won't be charged for a rescue if they have a Hikesafe card. So even if you may consider it negligent to not have had snowshoes on this trip, having a Hikesafe card means that a rescuee won't be billed. Here's the wording, "A law passed in 2014 authorizes the NH Fish and Game Department to sell a voluntary hike safe card for $25 per person and $35 per family. People who obtain the cards will not be liable to repay rescue costs if they need to be rescued due to negligence on their part, regardless of whether they are hiking, boating, cross country skiing, hunting, or engaging in any other outdoor activity. An individual may still be liable for response expenses, however, if such person is deemed to have recklessly or to have intentionally created a situation requiring an emergency response." [emphasis added].

Maybe I have misunderstood, but some posting here seemed to indicate that the hiker should have been fined because she was negligent in not having snowshoes. I'm just pointing out that because she had a hikesafe card, that discussion is moot, other than to warn others that getting a hikesafe card might be a good idea.
 
I'm late to this party, but my thoughts on this incident seem to differ from the majority opinion, so I'll share them. As always, my comments are meant to foster thoughts on how we (the collective hiking community) might avoid a similar fate, or worse. The criticism is intended to be constructive.

She was located at 4000' elevation in the Monroe Brook drainage, half a mile from the trail. This makes it easy to pinpoint the location where she was found. It means she traveled nearly due west from Lakes rather than nearly due north. This is an easy mistake to make, but (IMO) not an acceptable mistake to have made. Having bailed down Ammo Ravine a couple of times in some pretty harsh conditions, I can attest to the fact that the trail into the trees can be challenging to locate. But with a compass it is very difficult to get off course by nearly 90 degrees. And there are good terrain features (multiple drainages) to help guide your bearing. Furthermore, it was a bluebird day. Perfect weather, perfect visibility. It's not like she was fighting whiteout conditions. She seems to have not used a compass once her phone failed. A person as experienced as her should have known that relying on her phone was foolhardy. In an effort to make the world a better place, I'll once again post my short and imperfect video on how to navigate by map and compass. She planned to either use her phone or follow her tracks. These are things number one and number two that you should never rely on for navigation in the winter.

In my experience, ANY snowshoes are better than no snow shoes in deep, unconsolidated snow. It still may not be possible to make progress, but they'll usually help a little. I've hiked uphill through waste-deep snow in snow shoes with a heavy pack. It's very hard, but it's possible to make progress. She was going downhill with (I suspect) a relatively small pack. I think snowshoes would have helped. Also, she made a decision to continue downhill, even when it was clear she was off trail. This decision may have been driven in part by the fact that going uphill was not an option. With snowshoes, it's amazing how much easier it is when you're the second person in line, breaking trail. If she had 'broken trail' downhill with snowshoes, she likely would have had a much easier time reversing course and following her own broken out trail back to where she knew the trail was. Without snowshoes this was not an option. So I think snowshoes actually might have prevented her need for rescue.

Finally, the Hikesafe card and her emergency locator beacon: I think it's worth asking the question whether she felt overconfident and/or enabled, knowing that she could get help with the push of a button, and that she wouldn't have to pay for it. Would she have made different decisions if neither of those pieces had been in place?

While she may have been an 'experienced' hiker (who the heck knows what that means), I see inability to navigate by map and compass, along with leaving a critical piece of gear behind (snowshoes), possibly coupled with overconfidence knowing she had rescuers at the push of a button, as having driven this incident. I have no desire to enter into a debate about the definition of negligent, but I think we should think carefully about this incident. I think (i.e. this is my opinion based on incomplete info) either the compass or the snowshoes would have prevented this incident. These are basics for hiking in the winter, and it goes doubly so if you're hiking solo. I write this not to suggest I'm so much more skilled, but with the intent to prevent others from going through the same ordeal. It's clear from her quotes this incident was very hard on her. It may affect her psychologically for a long time. I'm glad she made it out.
Excellent post. I totally agree on all your points. Interesting she had time to call her father just below the Summit and then her batteries failed later when she could have used them. The sole reliance on electrically charged devices with not being able to employ analog type skills is a slippery slope.
 
Last edited:
Regarding the Hikesafe card and the possibility of negligence in this instance, the verbiage on the Hikesafe web page makes it clear that even if a Hikesafe card-holder is negligent, the won't be charged for a rescue if they have a Hikesafe card. So even if you may consider it negligent to not have had snowshoes on this trip, having a Hikesafe card means that a rescuee won't be billed. Here's the wording, "A law passed in 2014 authorizes the NH Fish and Game Department to sell a voluntary hike safe card for $25 per person and $35 per family. People who obtain the cards will not be liable to repay rescue costs if they need to be rescued due to negligence on their part, regardless of whether they are hiking, boating, cross country skiing, hunting, or engaging in any other outdoor activity. An individual may still be liable for response expenses, however, if such person is deemed to have recklessly or to have intentionally created a situation requiring an emergency response." [emphasis added].

Maybe I have misunderstood, but some posting here seemed to indicate that the hiker should have been fined because she was negligent in not having snowshoes. I'm just pointing out that because she had a hikesafe card, that discussion is moot, other than to warn others that getting a hikesafe card might be a good idea.
See post #7. What if she did not have the Safe Card hypothetically. It has been discussed here before where F&G draws the line when it comes to negligence. At this point does their suggested Winter Gear list which includes Snowshoes and a lack of any of those items constitute negligence in a rescue situation for someone not holding a Hike Safe Card?
 
Last edited:
See post #7. What if she did not have the Safe Card hypothetically. It has been discussed here before where F&G draws the line when it comes to negligence. At this point does their suggested Winter Gear list which includes Snowshoes and a lack of any of those items constitute negligence in a rescue situation for someone not holding a Hike Safe Card?

I really do not like the concept that a Hike Safe Card operates like this. Is that accurate (not attacking your position - I legitimately don't know)? If I'm out being a total jack ass and not prepared and they have to come bail me out I get billed for the rescue.....but NO..I produce a cheap plastic card from my pocket and all is forgiven. Is that really how it works? The card helps finance SAR operations but if there are more "get out jail free rescues" as a result of this does it generate any positive financial effect (not to mention the increased risk to people that are going out on the increased number of rescues). Why wouldn't you spend $25 to avoid getting a bill costing thousands of $$$.
 
I really do not like the concept that a Hike Safe Card operates like this. Is that accurate (not attacking your position - I legitimately don't know)? If I'm out being a total jack ass and not prepared and they have to come bail me out I get billed for the rescue.....but NO..I produce a cheap plastic card from my pocket and all is forgiven. Is that really how it works? The card helps finance SAR operations but if there are more "get out jail free rescues" as a result of this does it generate any positive financial effect (not to mention the increased risk to people that are going out on the increased number of rescues). Why wouldn't you spend $25 to avoid getting a bill costing thousands of $$$.

Depends on what side of the negligent/reckless line "being a total *******" falls.
 
I really do not like the concept that a Hike Safe Card operates like this. Is that accurate (not attacking your position - I legitimately don't know)? If I'm out being a total jack ass and not prepared and they have to come bail me out I get billed for the rescue.....but NO..I produce a cheap plastic card from my pocket and all is forgiven. Is that really how it works? The card helps finance SAR operations but if there are more "get out jail free rescues" as a result of this does it generate any positive financial effect (not to mention the increased risk to people that are going out on the increased number of rescues). Why wouldn't you spend $25 to avoid getting a bill costing thousands of $$$.


History will reveal that you can be charged for negligence for having a sprained ankle, having the knowledge and resilience to survive 3 nights, making a decision to find shelter, and finding your way to with 200 yards of the MWO when you are spotted.

As far as hike safe cards go, the services provided used to be paid for by tax revenue, just like parking-safe stickers. Soon, perhaps, we will have drive-safe cards to cover police costs if you have an accident, ambulance safe-cards, fire-safe cards, etc etc. To prevent high rescue costs from negligent actions, a criminal or civil process should be initiated.
 
Last edited:
Finally, the Hikesafe card and her emergency locator beacon: I think it's worth asking the question whether she felt overconfident and/or enabled, knowing that she could get help with the push of a button, and that she wouldn't have to pay for it. Would she have made different decisions if neither of those pieces had been in place?

I think its worth asking what the cost of the rescue would be, whether more SAR personnel would be involved, whether there would be greater overall risk would be present, whether it would take more time to find her.... if she had been merely reported missing and no one knew her location.

I think its worth asking if a new set of crampons, a much better down jacket, improved insulated boots, or a much better sleeping bag instill confidence in people to take increased risks.
 
Last edited:
From what I read from post on this including hers, was that her compass was attached to her pack and was ripped off. She also stated I believe, that it was bluebird when she was high but conditions got much worse on her descent. I'm frankly not sure what to believe from what I've read. I know she is being lauded on FB and people are even asking her to write a book.
 
From what I read from post on this including hers, was that her compass was attached to her pack and was ripped off. She also stated I believe, that it was bluebird when she was high but conditions got much worse on her descent. I'm frankly not sure what to believe from what I've read. I know she is being lauded on FB and people are even asking her to write a book.

How do you make a book out of this and who wants to read the story of someone standing around in the snow? A picture book about snowshoes?
 
I really do not like the concept that a Hike Safe Card operates like this. Is that accurate (not attacking your position - I legitimately don't know)? If I'm out being a total jack ass and not prepared and they have to come bail me out I get billed for the rescue.....but NO..I produce a cheap plastic card from my pocket and all is forgiven. Is that really how it works? The card helps finance SAR operations but if there are more "get out jail free rescues" as a result of this does it generate any positive financial effect (not to mention the increased risk to people that are going out on the increased number of rescues). Why wouldn't you spend $25 to avoid getting a bill costing thousands of $$$.
Yes that is how it works. Read the link in post #7. No you are not attacking my position. What I am saying/asking is this. First the Hike Safe website gives a suggested Winter gear list which includes Snowshoes among many other safety related items. The question is does not having one of those items in a rescue situation constitute negligence in an individual whom does not have a Hike Safe Card. Last time I read any discussion here there seemed to be a lack of distinction upon F&G’s part on this matter. As far as being a total ******* that may be a matter of interpretation of the level to how much of a ******* you were. In other words were you a ******* to the level of just being negligent. Or were you even more of a ******* to be considered reckless.
 
Yes that is how it works. Read the link in post #7. No you are not attacking my position. What I am saying/asking is this. First the Hike Safe website gives a suggested Winter gear list which includes Snowshoes among many other safety related items. The question is does not having one of those items in a rescue situation constitute negligence in an individual whom does not have a Hike Safe Card. Last time I read any discussion here there seemed to be a lack of distinction upon F&G’s part on this matter. As far as being a total ******* that may be a matter of interpretation of the level to how much of a ******* you were. In other words were you a ******* to the level of just being negligent. Or were you even more of a ******* to be considered reckless.

So if I am negligent without a Hike Safe card - Invoice? Negligent with Hike Safe Card - No invoice? Based on definitions from the Post #7 link it would seem just about everything you do would probably be considered negligent and be covered by the Hike Safe Card. I still find it weird that doing the identical thing without a Hike Safe card is handled differently but I guess that is what you are paying for - to support F&G and cover your ass if you need to get rescued.
 
So if I am negligent without a Hike Safe card - Invoice? Negligent with Hike Safe Card - No invoice? Based on definitions from the Post #7 link it would seem just about everything you do would probably be considered negligent and be covered by the Hike Safe Card. I still find it weird that doing the identical thing without a Hike Safe card is handled differently but I guess that is what you are paying for - to support F&G and cover your ass if you need to get rescued.
They call it insurance.:DActually very popular if not required in many areas of the globe.
 
Top