New Hampshire's Rescue Law At Work

[AlanK]

A repeat negligent hiker should pay the fine. If the guy doesn't change and does the same thing again then that wouldn't be fair. And the fine should be hefty, otherwise what's gonna stop him from doing it a third time?

How many people in human history have been rescued twice, let alone three times?

[Hikin_Jim]

It's hard to get the straight story on exactly what happened.

Here's one article that has a couple of quotes as to why the authorities decided that Scott Mason was negligent.
http://www.wickedlocal.com/halifax/news/x631635939/Eagle-Scout-fined-for-Mount-Washington-rescue

In the above linked article, they criticize him for having an "aggressive" itinerary. "In our opinion he had an aggressive hiking itinerary". He planned a 17 mile hike in spring conditions. I don't know that his itinerary constitutes negligence. Seventeen miles doesn't seem like an unduly high amount. There are plenty of people who can do twice that on a day hike. Perhaps though, the key issue is "spring conditions" (soft, wet snow) which is difficult. None-the-less, I hardly see this as clear cut negligence.

They also criticise him for going off trail and straying from his itinerary. Again, I don't know that this constitutes negligence. Snow conditions are conditions under which I'd be more likely to go off trail. I'd want to get around bad sections, or the trail might be unsafe or impractical. I can fully understand why someone would make the choice to try to get back more quickly when injured. Some sources have reported that he was familiar with the XC route that he was taking. Again, not a clear cut example of negligence.

I guess the thing that bothers me most is the fact that a government agency can, solely, make a judgement of negligence when it isn't clear cut that negligence has in fact occurred, and, based on that judgement, issue a very large fine ($25,000).

I feel very uncomfortable that an agency is determining what level of risk is acceptable for me to choose. One man's "aggressive itinerary" is another man's walk in the park. For one person X-C travel would be utter foolishness, for another it would be a matter of routine. By what standard do they (the government agency) judge?

To me, there needs to be oversight by a jury of my peers. As US Supreme Court chief justice John Jay wrote in one of his opinions, "the power to tax is the power to destroy." So also with fines. While impractical to subject every fine to jury review, fines as substantial as $25,000 ought to be tried by a jury.

Our constitution provides each of us citizens with a protection: a jury must concur, through the process of a trial, with the government's opinion that you ought to be fined or jailed. Here though is a violation of that very protection. Sure, one might argue that this is an "administrative action" not a criminal proceeding. I would counter argue that simply calling a rose by another name makes it no less a rose.

One man's opinion.

[AlanK]

The New Hampshire incident seems like the guy just kept using bad judgement - he's an 18 yo former "eagle scout", hiking alone, into an incoming storm, he kept going after spraining his ankle, and going off-trail. . . deserves some type of consequence for impacting all those resources.

Maybe you have seen more comprehensive articles than I have.

NH negotiating with teen over $25,000 rescue fine

By NORMA LOVE (AP) � 2 days ago

CONCORD, N.H. � New Hampshire and a Massachusetts Eagle Scout who needed to be rescued from Mount Washington are negotiating the size of his fine, which the state initially set at $25,000.

Scott Mason, of Halifax, Mass., spent three nights alone on the Northeast's highest mountain after spraining his ankle and veering off marked trails. Officials praised him for using his Boy Scout skills to stay alive, but criticized him for being unprepared for treacherous spring conditions.

The fine is believed to be the largest sought under a nine-year-old law allowing New Hampshire to recoup rescue costs. In Mason's case, that included the cost of a helicopter.

The bill was due Sunday, but Mason's lawyer and the attorney general's office expect negotiations to continue.

"The parties are attempting to reach common ground," Mason's attorney, Jed Callen of Concord, said Tuesday.

Callen declined to discuss the details. The attorney assigned to the case in the attorney general's office was on vacation and unavailable for comment.

Mason, 18, had planned to spend one day hiking 17 miles in the New Hampshire mountains in April but ended up lost after he hurt his ankle and took a shortcut. The shortcut led him into rising water and deep snow caused by unseasonably warm weather.

State Fish and Game officials said he was negligent in continuing up the mountain with an injury and veering off the marked path. They said negligence is based on judging what a reasonable person would do in the same situation.

They praised Mason for using his skills � sleeping in a crevice of a boulder and jump-starting fires with hand sanitizer gel � but said faulty decisions put him in the predicament where he needed to use them.

Mason has said he was shocked to get the $25,000 bill, especially because he voluntarily had sent $1,000 to rescuers.

Copyright � 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

The guy got hurt and took a shortcut, evidently towards the summit. But there's civilization on top of Mt. Washington, and a highway to get there. This is not heading to the top of some remote peak. He may have been headed for the nearest help. It sounds like he was well trained and took damned good care of himself. Was he really negligent or did he merely misjudge things? I have seen plenty of judgmental comments but damned few facts.

[AlanK]

Jim -- I had not seen your message when I posted. You make some great points.

One of my objections to having hikers routinely pay for SAR activity is the unlimited license people want to hand the government. I find it funny that people who come off to me as generally conservative want to give the government license to carry on operations of arbitrary and unspecified size and then ask individual citizens to foot the (unlimited) bill. This bill is for services that, in many cases, the citizen did not request. (I refer to the fact that people have been rescued, and even charged, who did not even request to be rescued.) Rather, it is for services the government decided to provide, at a level of its choice. It's about as un-conservative as one can get.

I like things the way they are. The government saves enormous amounts of money by relying on SAR volunteers. They tend to err on the side of providing more help than the minimum that might be needed because they care about human life. Society bears the cost, which is rather small in the scheme of things. Occasionally, someone gets rescued who should have avoided the situation that created the need for a rescue in the first place. So what? Live with it. Respect the SAR people, who tend to be against charging for rescues.

[phydeux]

The more I find on this, the more mixed up it gets, but I still think some type of penalty is in order. Here's a link from summitpost.org's Eastern US forum. Near the bottom of page two it has another link to a local N.E. area forum with responses (14 pages!):

http://www.summitpost.org/phpBB2/viewto ... c&start=30

The $25,000 fine is probably the maximum fine and was set by the legislation enacting the rescue statutes. I'll bet the administrative agency imposing this probably just billed for the max and will allow it to be negotiated down. Best analogy I can relate is the way Cal/OSHA or Federal OSHA, and USEPA operate. They'll fine a company the maximum per violation, then allow it to be negotiated down based on how well the offender had remedied the situation since the violation was discovered, what they ahve doen to prevent it in the future, the costs the agency had to incur for any special stuff like lab tests, equipment (like a helicopter), or assistance from specialty contractors (hazwaste clean-ups, etc), and other expenses. And the violator can take the case to court if the are dissatisfied with the outcome.

$25,000 sounds harsh, but this may be the first case in NH, and it'll set a standard for the State and surrounding jurisdications. And isn't White Mountain one of those peaks that gets a lot of rescues? That's got to impact budgets of small states like NH. I know it has a drivable road all the way to the top (summer), and a hut, which might make it more tempting. A penalty just might make some folks think twice about there planning and preparations for climbing White Mountain in winter conditions.

[neverwashasbeen]

Here are links to two web pages by the NH Fish & Game people, made at the time of the rescue, conditions are given, regulations are given and extent of the rescue resources are given.

http://www.wildnh.com/Newsroom/News_200 ... 42709.html

http://www.wildnh.com/Newsroom/News_200 ... 42809.html

To add a little to what I've already said.

First, I think that the state of NH is trying to make a point. From reading the rescue logs, a lot of their rescues are from people who are not from NH. I suspect they will negotiate a settlement and not charge the full $25K.

Second, in CA we pay for the fully burdened rate of what paid rescuers would be paid. The county of residence pays the county that provides the rescue, that means that counties like Mono can afford to rescue the lost hiker from some place like Beverly Hills, because LA county pays for it.

Third, from what I've been reading on this topic, I'm wondering if some of us aren't taking the SAR folks for granted. Sure, they are volunteers, but don't you think they might rather be at home to celebrate a birthday or holiday, or perhaps go to the game/recital/etc that their child is participating in. Sure the work is rewarding for those that are willing to give, but they deserve a life as much as possible. They respond at the drop of a hat because no one else will do it, so let's not abuse their gift to the rest of us.

Off my box now, Happy Trails.

[AlanK]

And isn't White Mountain one of those peaks that gets a lot of rescues? That's got to impact budgets of small states like NH. I know it has a drivable road all the way to the top (summer), and a hut, which might make it more tempting. A penalty just might make some folks think twice about there planning and preparations for climbing White Mountain in winter conditions.

I don't know about a hut. There probably is one. When I last hiked Mt. Washington, I ate a bowl of soup at the restaurant on top and bought a T-shirt (a nice one which I still have) at the gift shop on top. There was a tractor-trailer parked outside. It was August -- summer -- which it is right now.

In addition to having some of the worst weather in the world--the weather station has recorded a surface wind speed of 231 mph, the highest anywhere, and annual snowfalls of over 500 inches--the summit of Mount Washington has a gift shop and snack bar for tourists. The 6,288 foot granite-topped summit of the Northeast's tallest mountain is a popular hiking destination, though it is considered a fairly lengthy day's hike. Visitors can also drive to the summit, or take the old-fashioned, steam-powered, cog railway.

[FIGHT ON]

A repeat negligent hiker should pay the fine. If the guy doesn't change and does the same thing again then that wouldn't be fair. And the fine should be hefty, otherwise what's gonna stop him from doing it a third time?

How many people in human history have been rescued twice, let alone three times?

Yeah Allan! Not ever in the history of the world have there ever been one single case of anyone ever being rescued more than once for the same thing. Ever! From the beginning of time, even from before the beginning! Nooooooobody!
And! It will never EVER happen either! let alone three times!

[phydeux]

I like to keep govenrment costs (taxes & fees) down, too, but I look at it from a slightly different angle. If there's no charge, then its pretty much a 'free ride' for a a group that gets in over their heads - just dial 911 and your free rescue is on its way. Imposing a fine or cost recovery of some sort (such as the cost of helicopter time) might make folks think before engaging in a voluntary act that involves some elevated degree of risk. And by implementing fines/charge, it also limits the amount of rescues and time in the field by the volunteers in a SAR organization.

If the costs are passed back to the county of the residence of the rescued person, that means the taxpayer gets stuck. I know I don't want some knucklehead from OC wasting tax dollars for a backcountry rock climbing rescue in Mono County, and I'd bet neither would you for LA County.

Multiple rescues? None recently. There was an inexperienced group that got rescued on Snow Creek last spring after 4 days(!) on the route (that's bad decsion making - those guys defiantely need a big bill!). Back in 1994-1996 there was a Korean group that got rescued off Denali's Cassin Ridge route in 1994 and 1995. They were denied a climbing permit in 1996.