Mt. San Jacinto Outdoor Recreation

August 4, 2009

New Hampshire negotiating with teen over $25,000 rescue fine

The Associated Press

New Hampshire and a Massachusetts Eagle Scout who needed to be rescued from Mount Washington are negotiating the size of his fine.

Scott Mason of Halifax, Mass., spent three nights alone on the mountain after spraining his ankle and veering off marked trails. Fish and Game officials praised him for using his Eagle Scout skills to stay alive, but criticized him for being unprepared for treacherous spring conditions.

The state fined him $25,000. It is believed to be the largest fine 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.

That's obscene.

Right now the states are hurting for money, so they want to suck it out of anyone, any way they can.

For heaven's sake, he's an Eagle scout who was injured. It's not like somebody who walks partway up a trail and then says they're too tired to finish.

This will be a trauma in this kid's life. I think the "fine" in this case should be zero. In some cases, maybe a couple hundred bucks would make an impact on people with little judgment, but 25k for a good kid who got injured?

Somebody needs to be removed from their cushy position in the local government there. Maybe give them a penalty, like hiking water up to thirsty hikers every weekend for a year!

I mean, think about it. If we had that policy here, Perry would have been nailed for $25,000, Ellen would have been fined $25,000 + additional charges for using the accommodations in the hut by the peak...good, intelligent people who are active in the outdoors can run into unforeseen problems. The policy is idiotic. Totally idiotic.

Sorry if I'm ranting, I try not to rant much, but this one kinda gets me going!

Anyway, the bullies should leave the kid alone. My 2 cents.

z

I wouldn't say its obscene, but I'd also like to see more information on it. Freak accidents do happen, but there's got to be some point where personal responsibility has to be considered, and this article doesn't cover it. At some point you have to realize the risks of what you're going to do and how well prepared you are.

We're conditioned to the drama and "inspiration" of these types of events (makes great television & movies!'), but what about the boring aspects known as prevention & preparation? The article just mentions what's happened, but it only glances over preparation. How well was this guy prepared for spring conditions in the White Mountains? Did he have crampons and/or an ice axe? How much survival gear? How much training did he have? (today's Eagle scouts have a lot less outdoor experience than those of 30 years ago). What was the weather forecast before he went? Was he hiking alone and know the risks invovled?

As for charging for rescues, its not unknown here in SoCal. Look at the local fire/EMT agencies in your area and you'll probably find they charge for paramedic/ambulance services; they do here in Orange County.

nobohobo said that New Hampshire has a law regarding "neglegent hiking"

....interesting.

Wow! Maybe we should outlaw victimhood.

If your house burns, the FD should charge to put out the fire. The fire could have been prevented.

If you are mugged and left for dead, the PD should charge to go after the attacker. The crime could have been prevented.

And so it goes.

I did a little searching and found out some of the reasoning behind the large fine.

First, conditions were bad, Mr. Mason went out solo in poor snow conditons. Second, when he sprained his ankle, he tried to keep going instead of turning back. That does make me question Mr. Mason's judgement.

I'm all for helping someone who has had an accident, or encountered circumstances beyond their control, but I also pay taxes and hate to see tax dollars wasted on needless rescue efforts. Perhaps it's time to look at rescue insurance.

By the way, if you have a house fire, your insurance will very likely pay the fire department.

Happy trails

AlanK wrote:Wow! Maybe we should outlaw victimhood.

If your house burns, the FD should charge to put out the fire. The fire could have been prevented.

If you are mugged and left for dead, the PD should charge to go after the attacker. The crime could have been prevented.

And so it goes.

What you pay in taxes for a Fire department pays for fire responses, and codes related to building and community planning, have evolved to where there are very few fires today. Most modern day fire dept responses are emergency medical aid (something like 80%). Somewhat similar for police; criminal acts get taken care of, but minor stuff starts racking up charges - get caught drunk driving and watch the bills pile up.

Where I live in Hnutington beach the FD supplies the emergency medical services since it was found to be more cost effective than having to call in an outside ambulance service to do it. Even though there is a charge for med/ambulance service, you can mitigate it by paying $5/month for insurance-type coverage that will cover what you're medical insurance doesn't cover for emergency transport. Something like that would not be a bad idea for rescue services provided by a SAR or similar group.

Get involved with your local government and you'll be amazed at what folks want the bureaucrats to do - whether you live in a conservative or liberal community, its amazing the number of schemes folks want the government to fund, all "for the good of the community."

phydeux wrote:What you pay in taxes for a Fire department pays for fire responses, and codes related to building and community planning, have evolved to where there are very few fires today. Most modern day fire dept responses are emergency medical aid (something like 80%). Somewhat similar for police; criminal acts get taken care of, but minor stuff starts racking up charges - get caught drunk driving and watch the bills pile up.

Drunk driving is a criminal act. I would hope that the charges pile up -- including criminal ones.

phydeux wrote:Where I live in Hnutington beach the FD supplies the emergency medical services since it was found to be more cost effective than having to call in an outside ambulance service to do it. Even though there is a charge for med/ambulance service, you can mitigate it by paying $5/month for insurance-type coverage that will cover what you're medical insurance doesn't cover for emergency transport. Something like that would not be a bad idea for rescue services provided by a SAR or similar group.

Get involved with your local government and you'll be amazed at what folks want the bureaucrats to do - whether you live in a conservative or liberal community, its amazing the number of schemes folks want the government to fund, all "for the good of the community."

I am not proposing to have the government cover more things. I might cut out some nation-building and use a few pennies out of the trillions saved to fund SAR for free. I do note that SAR is largely done by volunteers at considerable cost to themselves. These volunteers tend to be against charging for rescues. Thus, although my gut feeling is that negligent hikers deserve to be charged, there are good arguments (that have been bantered about on these pages) against that practice. (I don't know enough about the New Hampshire case to have a strong opinion about who deserves what.)

This I'd consider a freak accident that would be a no-cost type incident:

http://www.nps.gov/lavo/parknews/nr09_j ... k_fall.htm

(copied from summitpost.org, the 'Lassen' thread on the California forum)

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.

I hate to see government waste too, but a lot of it comes from public pressure for local government to provide more services without realizing the costs or the consequences. Government funds are not a bottomless pit, and it seems like the only way that makes folks realize this is, and require them to use sound judgement, is it do it through their wallets.

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?