Sunday Globe article on the many rescues this winter

[dentonfabrics]

I hate to start yet another thread about rescues and safety, but I thought this article should be seen. Rescue co-ordinator Todd Bogartus calls hiker Ben Davis "negligent". Interesting read.



http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/02/24/perilous_rescues_at_a_price/

 

[bcskier]

What is "negligence?"

This is being hashed over in another thread right now but it's interesting to note a couple of the quotes from the Globe article:

" 'They were certainly not fully prepared for an emergency situation, and when an emergency situation came about, they did not have adequate gear to help them survive,' Bogardus said. 'They failed in proper planning, in not assessing weather patterns.'

'It's one thing to break a leg and need to be carried out, but if you ignore weather reports and go without night gear (my emphasis), that's stupidity, and in those cases, I think a mandatory donation is appropriate,' he [Rick Wilcox] said.

Some mountaineers on the rescue team don't think the law should change.

They wonder where the negligence line would be drawn; would someone hiking in jeans or with old equipment be considered negligent?"

I think this debate will always be with us.

 

[Woody]

I would hate to see a solo hike be considered negligent just because they were solo but otherwise had checked the weather and were adequately equiped.

 

[king tut]

Interesting article. I think more people should be billed for their rescue. The fact that in this day and age you can go hike a major peak in foul weather and simply dial 911 on your cellphone and have some one came save you for free is ridiculous. In this age of capitalism, I would imagine at some point this service would become commercial. For instance if you need a cab ride or a hospital visit, you expect to get billed by those performing the service to help you out. If your car breaks down, do you expect the tow truck and mechanic to fix things because it is for the good of a common man?

The thing that annoys me about reading about most of these rescues as well is the survivor's explanation of what happened. It mostly goes something like this, "Well the weather closed in un-expectedly and then our gps stopped working correctly, and blah blah blah." Whatever happened to accountability and owning up to your mistakes? I rarely read one of these reports and hear that the person checked the forecast and had all the right gear, etc...

It just seems to me that we have become a nation of people that are looking for the easy answer, the quick fix, the free rescue. If you do something stupid, blame it on the equipment, the weather, etc. If I have to pay my tax dollars to save these people, I would like to hear them say, "I did not check the forecast, I did not know how to use my gear, i did not know the terrain, and i thank the people that saved me because I am not very intelligent." So unless you have a broken leg or another injured appendage due to mis-fortune, please just pay for your rescue and stop making some excuse that exhonerates you from guilt and re-payment.

 

[DougPaul]

The thing that annoys me about reading about most of these rescues as well is the survivor's explanation of what happened. It mostly goes something like this, "Well the weather closed in un-expectedly and then our gps stopped working correctly, and blah blah blah." Whatever happened to accountability and owning up to your mistakes? I rarely read one of these reports and hear that the person checked the forecast and had all the right gear, etc...

Let me point out that you are listening to a biased sample--only those who were unable to make it out on their own. We have no idea how many others got into similar tight spots and still made it out on their own. (From what I have read, it is possible that the Prezzie traverse rescuees would have made it out without rescue--just a "bit" later than expected.)

In general, I agree with you that one should not assume that the weather report will be accurate and that everything will go according to plan and that one should be equipped (mentally, skill set, physically, and equipment-wise) to deal with a reasonable range of the unforeseen.

However, I do not agree that the standard for charging the rescuees should be reduced. (Don't forget that mountain rescues include little kids who have wandered off triggering massive searches... Should their parents be considered negligent?)


It would be very interesting if someone put an estimated dollar value to the time and out-of-pocket expenses of volunteer SAR personnel. It would also be interesting if one could tabulate the value of impromptu rescues (your party stumples across another party in trouble and helps them out). (Probably not possible, but it is part of the overall cost and contribution profile.)

Doug

 

[king tut]

Let me point out that you are listening to a biased sample--only those who were unable to make it out on their own. We have no idea how many others got into similar tight spots and still made it out on their own. (From what I have read, it is possible that the Prezzie traverse rescuees would have made it out without rescue--just a "bit" later than expected.)

In general, I agree with you that one should not assume that the weather report will be accurate and that everything will go according to plan and that one should be equipped (mentally, skill set, physically, and equipment-wise) to deal with a reasonable range of the unforeseen.

However, I do not agree that the standard for charging the rescuees should be reduced. (Don't forget that mountain rescues include little kids who have wandered off triggering massive searches... Should their parents be considered negligent?)


It would be very interesting if someone put an estimated dollar value to the time and out-of-pocket expenses of volunteer SAR personnel. It would also be interesting if one could tabulate the value of impromptu rescues (your party stumples across another party in trouble and helps them out). (Probably not possible, but it is part of the overall cost and contribution profile.)

Doug

While I generally agree with Doug, he is a smart man and very knowledgable outdoorsman, I have to say that I do not agree with this line of thinking. The rescues this year have happened when the weather forecasts were not favorable for a 24-48 hour window. I am not saying that the forecasters were wrong, they were right, it just appears from my standpoint that the adventurers either were not paying attention to the forecasts, or just had a sense of hubris, a "hey, i am tougher than the mountain and what it can throw at me." I remember the days that these people were hiking, and I recall thinking that I would not try to test the Presidentials in this weather.

As far as kids wandering off. I do not think any children would be wandering off or actually be attempting Presidential climbs this winter. I cannot recall any accounts of search crews and helicopters searching for kids lately, just my own recollection. And, if kids did disappear during these hikes, I would have to blame the parents for negligence, who would take children up mountains in this kind of weather? I am all for saving lives, but many times when i am reading these reports, i am left thinking, what the hell were these people thinking?

If an avalanche or fall took their lives or caused a rescue, I would understand and be very sympathetic, but heading up into 5,000 foot tall mountains when the forecast calls for white outs or freezing rain, I just cannot comprehend this. In the past people can blame freak weather for sudden storms, but in this day and age, it doesn't make sense with the updated forecasts and technology. To hear some one say, " I headed up into one of the worst weather areas in the world on an unfavorable day and I blame bad luck for what happened to me", this is complete b.s.

If you are going to test mother nature and ignore forecasts, just pay your rescue bill. This whole "it's some one else's fault" reasoning is just moronic. Blame the local weather forecaster? Maybe you should get a lawyer and sue God? He caused this "freak" weather pattern that doomed you. A lot of hard working people saved Darwinism from happening, at least give them some money or payback, I am just tired of hearing, "the perfect storm happened". Let's be honest, you ventured somewhere where you just weren't prepared to be. I helped carry an injured hiker off Katahdin a few summers ago, and I was happy to do this. Bad fortune had fallen upon this person, I felt great to assist this person, I did not want any sort of financial reward. This is much different than the recent rescues though, a big difference between being unlucky and being unprepared/un-informed/fool-hearty. My Lewis Black rant is done.

 

[DougPaul]

While I generally agree with Doug, he is a smart man and very knowledgable outdoorsman, I have to say that I do not agree with this line of thinking. The rescues this year have happened when the weather forecasts were not favorable for a 24-48 hour window. I am not saying that the forecasters were wrong, they were right, it just appears from my standpoint that the adventurers either were not paying attention to the forecasts, or just had a sense of hubris, a "hey, i am tougher than the mountain and what it can throw at me." I remember the days that these people were hiking, and I recall thinking that I would not try to test the Presidentials in this weather.

All we know is how many rescues were required (a statistically very small number). We have no idea how many parties were out there or how many did the same hikes without requiring rescue. Bad and inadequate statistics yield bad conclusions.

As far as kids wandering off. I do not think any children would be wandering off or actually be attempting Presidential climbs this winter.

I did not specify winter or Presidential climbs. Kids wander off from hikes and campgrounds. The SAR personnel still go out, even in the summer.

Doug

 

[bcskier]

Rescue Insurance

Out west, in the San Juans specifically, you can purchase rescue insurance before you head into the backcountry. I don't think it covers the entire cost of rescue but helps defray it if you ever needed it. It's voluntary but has a very modest up front cost and just about everyone signs up.

 

[king tut]

Out west, in the San Juans specifically, you can purchase rescue insurance before you head into the backcountry. I don't think it covers the entire cost of rescue but helps defray it if you ever needed it. It's voluntary but has a very modest up front cost and just about everyone signs up.

They have similar insurance for skiing rescues in Europe, but seriously who is going to purchase this insurance if no one is ever charged for a rescue? This is like charging for parking at hiking sights, but not fining those who don't pay. The honor system does not work, you ask those who got air-lifted to safety. How much should I pay? "Well, since the weather changed over, it was not my fault, I will pay $30 for my rescue."

My advice, call the stranded people on their cell phones and negotiate a rescue price, I have a feeling that the self imposed cost of a rescue will increase prior to those being air-lifted off the face of the mountain in life or death circumstances. Maybe they will pay $100 after the fact, my assumption is that while they are huddled on a side of a mountain and waiting to meet their maker, they will be willing to pay more than that before the calvary comes in.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

If I, as a parent, let my kid wander off at any time or in any place, be it campground, hike, supermarket, parking lot, etc., I am not doing my job as a parent. I.e., I am negligent. That goes for 1 parent and 5 kids as much as 1 parent and 1 kid. Do not take more kids with you than you are capable of watching.

The question I really want to know is, assuming the 24-48 hour weather window is for non-whiteout, non-high-wind conditions, and I am disoriented or lost because of an unpredicted change in the weather, without a sleeping bag or bivvy, in winter, on a day hike, and require a rescue, am I negligent? I would say not, but those who already own the overnight gear my disagree.

And, while I agree in principle, the comparison with a tow truck is different. A better analogy would be if your house gets broken into or catches on fire. The police / fire department do not charge you. On the ocean, if you break down, and are not in imminent danger, you wait for Sea Tow -- the coast guard does not come get you.

Tim

 

[adamiata]

Don't forget that mountain rescues include little kids who have wandered off triggering massive searches... Should their parents be considered negligent?

Yes. Absolutely.

 

[blacknblue]

Out west, in the San Juans specifically, you can purchase rescue insurance before you head into the backcountry... It's voluntary but has a very modest up front cost and just about everyone signs up.

You must know a different everyone than me. I've been to the San Juans a number of times and have friends in Durango, Silverton, and Telluride, and I don't know of anyone who has ever bought rescue insurance.

I find it somewhat amusing that we, and the Globe, and the NH legislature, are spinning their wheels trying to define what a negligent hiker is, so that we can charge them three grand for their rescue, all the while we, as a society, dole out far more cash for the medical bills accrued by someone who has a poor diet and never exercises.

No, I don't think someone should be able to walk up Mount Adams in a blizzard and plan to call 911 from the summit for a free trip down in a helicopter. And yes, I'm a big proponent of self-sufficiency (I've walked/limped out of two incidents that I could have been 'rescued' from). However, I think we should be much more careful before throwing around the "negligent" label and assessing thousands of dollars of fees.

As DougPaul has implied, there were probably dozens or hundreds of other close calls that we never heard about, and many of those folks were likely negligent to some degree and just got a little luckier. A lot of trip reports on VFTT could have wound up as "negligent hiker rescued" stories with one or two unfortunate turns.

 

[dug]

OK, so we have as mandatory items: snowshoes, crampons, bivy, goretex pants and jacket, fleece jacket, sleeping bag, goggles (?), gps, map, compass, gloves, hat, whistle, foam pad, 2500+ cu. in. pack to carry it all...anything else?

Might be cheaper to hike the peaks naked and pay for the rescue

Please note: The opinions of the author are meant as a humorous interlude only. Any comments taken seriously must be taken with a grain of salt, as no disrespect is intended to any SAR, trip leader, dude who carries a kitchen sink, Fish & Game, Helicopter operator, or anyone else.

 

[Mike P.]

In case some of us are getting this rescue confused, with the first F-Ridge rescue which involved a fatality, the one called negligent in the opening & closing paragraphs involving Mr. Davis was the 2nd one.

Leather boots, solo, on a day forecasted to be quite cold & windy & no snowshoes. If any of them can be called negligent, IMO it's the Davis rescue. His cell seemed to be a primary piece of gear. If he wanted to poke his head out above the trees to see what bad weather felt like, stopping at the hut or doing Liberty would have sufficed.

This one was on the heels of the first one on another bad day. That soon after,more care/caution should have been used in planning.

While we have not spoken to him, the folks at SAR have, I'll have to agree with the experts who actually spoke with the man.

 

[Maddy]

My advice, call the stranded people on their cell phones and negotiate a rescue price, I have a feeling that the self imposed cost of a rescue will increase prior to those being air-lifted off the face of the mountain in life or death circumstances. Maybe they will pay $100 after the fact, my assumption is that while they are huddled on a side of a mountain and waiting to meet their maker, they will be willing to pay more than that before the calvary comes in.

Terrific idea, King Tut!

If I, as a parent, let my kid wander off at any time or in any place, be it campground, hike, supermarket, parking lot, etc., I am not doing my job as a parent. I.e., I am negligent. That goes for 1 parent and 5 kids as much as 1 parent and 1 kid. Do not take more kids with you than you are capable of watching.
Tim

Agreed!
I hiked with a friend years ago and her boy got lost on Ascutney and her two girls on Mansfield.
I had asked that we all stay together but she thought it was OK for them to run ahead, completely out of site and sound. Fortunately, hours later, but still well before nightfall, we found them. It ruined the entire day both times and in the boys case we had already notified the ranger that we might need help. IMHO this was inexcusable, negligent,and dangerous. I quit hiking with this individual.
I am delighted that this topic is getting so much publicity. It just might help educate those who think that the same gear they use to go for their Sunday walk in the woods at home will suffice for a "walk in the great range". Also, because it's a bluebird day at home does not mean that it will be balmy and sunny in the mountains.
One last point, I don't think we can compare paying for rescues in the mountains to treating people who eat all the wrong things and don't exercise. Other people's lives are placed in grave danger trying to save your bacon on a rescue, medical personnel are not risking life and limb treating your heart disease, etc.
Even though a lot of rescue folks are volunteers, it doesn't give the rest of us the right to place them in life threatening situations because we are negligent.

 

[blacknblue]

One last point, I don't think we can compare paying for rescues in the mountains to treating people who eat all the wrong things and don't exercise. Other people's lives are placed in grave danger trying to save your bacon on a rescue, medical personnel are not risking life and limb treating your heart disease, etc.

True, but one of the main reasons that the negligence debate is gaining steam in the NH legislature is because they want to make it easier to charge people for their rescue, not to reduce the risk to SAR. So, in the context of costs passed on to taxpayers, it's a fair comparison.

 

[blacknblue]

Yes. Absolutely.

Really? If all these rescues have taught us anything, it's that every case involves its own circumstances, and, therefore, making blanket statements is hasty at best.

 

[Jasper]

The Prudent Man

I think we are discussing risk management with a goal of self-sufficient winter hiking. Some of the principles that apply are:

risk is inherent,

risk can never be totally illiminated

and that risk increases with the desicion to act (go above treeline).

The 'prudent man' seeks to mitigate the risk by:

understanding the general nature of the risk (read the warning sign at the trailhead)

having appropriate planning/training/experience and physical conditioning,

understanding the specifics of the risk at the time decisions are made (Weather conditions at home, at the trail head, and at treeline etc.)

having the appropriate equipment, clothing and particpants for the planned trip and contingencies.

having a contingence/self rescue plan in the event things do not go well. (This incudes a turn around time and turn around conditions and sticking to them.)

When the decision to go above tree line is made the inherent risk is accepted. Failure to take these risk mitigation steps is evidence of neglegance and maybe reckess disregard. Taking these steps does not elliminate risk. Things can still go bad (twisted knee, illness, etc.) but the hiker has shown prudent care.

If a rescue is required and the hiker is shown to have been negligent, they should be fined. The fine would be for putting the rescuers at risk. The fine should be meaningful , say $1,000 plus. Then, they should be charged for the direct cost of the rescue.

 

[dug]

I think everyone agrees (at least I think so anyway) that a negligent hiker should be fined, and quite substantially. I think the problem is defining "negligence". That is much tougher.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

I think everyone agrees that a reckless hiker should be fined and/or made to pay for rescue costs. Once you try and define negligence, we start to get into a gray area.

Also, on the subject of negligence and parenting, the number one priority of a parent is to protect your child(ren) from harm, preferably by never letting them get too close to it. I don't think there is any room for interpretation there -- it's an ingrained part of our society. It's not enforced uniformly, of course.

Every week, it is my responsibility to go grocery shopping, and I usually take one or both of my kids with me. It is quality time I get to spend with them, and they've learned the dangers of the parking lot. I don't trust them yet (5 & 7 years old) and remind them every week before they get out of the car about the other cars not being able to see them. If one of them walked out behind the car and got whacked, I would 100% blame myself and consider myself negligent.

Tim