Lots of Rescues - Taking Stock

On Kevin's List, I have found the Ammo pretty easy to find but the way the Jewell meanders above treeline, I definitely agree.

I'd add Lafayette to the list too as there have been instances of people descending into the Pemi or into Walker Ravine because they could not find the Greenleaf Trail.

On Valley Way I've been up a couple of winters where the trail desceneded teh upper section of the brook until it reaches the turn the trail makes to avoid the brook bed

The last time I was on Pierce in the winter, I was off trail the last coupel of hundred yards but knew I would cross the Webster Cliff Trail & that under no circumstances should be descending.

I have not been on Edmands in winter but know 2nd hand of people who have had problems staying on the trail above treeline.

Mike P. said:

I'd add Lafayette to the list too as there have been instances of people descending into the Pemi or into Walker Ravine because they could not find the Greenleaf Trail.

Click to expand...

Quiz time: What is the declination to get off Lafayette, from the very summit next to the corral, down the Greenleaf Trail? An important number that should be taped to the back of everyone's compass before heading up Mount Lafayette, in my opinion.

Philosophically, I think charges for rescues are not for the rescue but for some sort of negligence or carelessness that led to the need for it. Such negligence or carelessness will unlikely be resolved by a trail sign.

Stan said:

Philosophically, I think charges for rescues are not for the rescue but for some sort of negligence or carelessness that led to the need for it. Such negligence or carelessness will unlikely be resolved by a trail sign.

Click to expand...

Nor is it likely to be resolved by a punitive fine masquerading as a rescue "fee" to recover costs.

G.

Dr. Dasypodidae said:

Quiz time: What is the declination to get off Lafayette, from the very summit next to the corral, down the Greenleaf Trail? An important number that should be taped to the back of everyone's compass before heading up Mount Lafayette, in my opinion.

Click to expand...

Someone up there once told me you stand with your back exactly to the sign and walk straight ahead. Put your arms out to the side to make sure they are parallel to the sign. I don't know if it is true, however. Also heard to go the other way around as it is easier to find FWT off LH.

Tim

Dr. Dasypodidae said:

Quiz time: What is the declination to get off Lafayette, from the very summit next to the corral, down the Greenleaf Trail? An important number that should be taped to the back of everyone's compass before heading up Mount Lafayette, in my opinion.

Click to expand...

This is sound advice anytime going above treeline - what if you cannot see a cairn or a sign - it is not just winter - thick fog, clouds, snow, etc...FWIW I will be handing out info which I have on laminated cards to all that are going on my next hike - it includes declination adjusted headings to various important points along the hike and the excape routes...you never know when the trail and sign posts and cairns can vanish - you need something to go on - hopefully something better than gut instict.

bikehikeskifish said:

Someone up there once told me you stand with your back exactly to the sign and walk straight ahead. Put your arms out to the side to make sure they are parallel to the sign. I don't know if it is true, however. Also heard to go the other way around as it is easier to find FWT off LH.

Tim

Click to expand...

The first point is certainly accurate. Go straight, then when terrain pitches it does down to the right, and then it makes a sweeping turn to the left. If you can make it that far, and still find the occasional cairn, it usually gets easier.

As for going all the way to Little Haystack and then down - boy, I'd have grave reservations about that one. That's an extra mile or so above treeline, and one of the windiest spots is LH itself. I always tell people (when ascending FW) that don't make a firm judgement re: the wind until you're 1/4 mile past LH for that very reason.

I meant that if you are going to do the loop anyway, and it's good enough to traverse in either direction, it's better to be whited out on LH.

Note this is all heresay.

I have been on Lincoln only (up/back FWT) in low-vis conditions. Not so bad you couldn't see a few cairns, and it was clearing, not getting worse.

But I do like the idea of writing the bearings on tape on the back of the compass and will start doing that. Isn't it almost due west anyway, like 275 degrees?

Tim

Grumpy said:

Nor is it likely to be resolved by a punitive fine masquerading as a rescue "fee" to recover costs.

G.

Click to expand...

Maybe not, but considering the expense of rescues, levying fines may help make sure that rescue resources are available for the next unfortunate (and possibly negligent) soul.

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

To the best of my knowledge, I've tested it, the back to the sign bit is for getting off Little Haystack.

You should be pretty sure about the weather before you venture out of the trees on Lafyatette. The Greenleaf trail meanders a bit from the summit before getting to the trees.

griffin said:

Maybe not, but considering the expense of rescues, levying fines may help make sure that rescue resources are available for the next unfortunate (and possibly negligent) soul.

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

Click to expand...

The family of one of the deceased Mt Hood climbers has made a substantial gift to rescuers.

"He wanted to make sure there is money for the next search... he was insistent."
The Hood River County Sheriff's Office received $50,000 and the Clackamas County Sheriff's Office got $23,000. Wampler said the money would be put back in the sheriff's search and rescue fund and be used to replace equipment lost or damaged during the search, and to train volunteers.
The Crag Rats and Portland Mountain Rescue both got $11,000.
"For us, it's huge," Henderson said. "It means we can hire and pay a professionally trained instructor.""

So I'm sure good uses can be found for any fee or fine collected, even if the basic components of a rescue are "already paid for".

amstony said:

Beg to differ- suffer a significant injury while in the woods, go to the hospital, and expect a form to arrive in your mailbox shortly thereafter asking you where it happened, and wanting a full explanation, as it did to me. Expect the form to say you could be liable for paying for the cost if not on a "maintained trail". Better be able to prove it was a maintained trail, like I had to. And this is from one of the best rated health insurance companies in the country. Ask the claim examiner if this is for real, and he/she will say, yes it is, and you could be liable for paying.

Click to expand...

I finally got through to the customer service for my provider (Aetna) and asked about exclusions, just to be on the safe side. I specifically referred to hiking, backpacking, climbing, mountaineering and off-trail and maintained trail hiking. I have no such exclusions. As long as I need medical help, I'm covered. But it's not a bad idea, certainly, to check and be sure.

There were some exclusions regarding vitamin supplements and "reverse sterilization procedures" but I didn't pursue that conversation.

OK, on a more serious note. Those advocating that there should be substantial fines for "negligence" and/or "reckless behavior", I would like to hear what designates each of these behaviors.

First, what would be considered manadatory gear? I anticipate some wide-ranging responses. Some items will be mentioned by all, some by only a few.

Second, does the gear requirement mean for a trip of long exposure above treeline (i.e. a Presidential Traverse, Franconia Ridge, etc.)?

Third, how about a trip that is only above treeline for a short period, but has long approach (Bondcliff)?

Fourth, how about a trip that never gets too far above treeline, if at all, but is remote (Owl's Head)?

Fifth, how about a trip where you never above treeline, and aren't very remote at all (Jenning's Peak)?

Sixth, how about a trip where you aren't climbing, but rather just taking a long walk in the woods (Spaulding Lake)?

Seventh, how about a trip where you are neither climbing, or remote (Franconia Falls)?

Now, where is the cutoff for these "mandatory" items? If I follow the power lines behind my house, and need a rescue, and don't have the "mandatory" items, would I/should I, be fined? I have a pond about 200 yards behind my house. Do I need snowshoes, crampons, bivy, pad, goggles, gore-tex, hat, gloves, poles, etc. just to get to it? What if my house happens to be on the outskirts of the WMNF, and I do this daily? What if the pond in question is Unknown Pond? How does one designate "a long period of exposure", a "mountain", and "remote"?

And, is there a timeframe where these need to be applied? Within the winter months? Winter conditions? Defined by? What if I was camping for a week in late October, and a snowstorm kicks up that wasn't forecasted. What happens then?

To legally charge someone, it is my belief you need a black/white designation between right and wrong. I am having a hard time coming up with one as applied here.

dug said:

OK, on a more serious note. Those advocating that there should be substantial fines for "negligence" and/or "reckless behavior", I would like to hear what designates each of these behaviors.

Click to expand...

I do not think we will ever have 1 set of rules that covers every case. But...

Safety of everyone concerned, (hikers and rescuers), might be one reason the ADKs mandate snowshoes when there is at least xx inches of snow. Snowshoes are not the last word in safety equipment, but I agree with Paradox, who states, 'SNOWSHOES SHOULD BE CARRIED AS SAFETY EQUIPMENT, EVEN WHEN HIKING ON PACKED TRAILS.'

Tom Rankin said:

I do not think we will ever have 1 set of rules that covers every case. But...

Safety of everyone concerned, (hikers and rescuers), might be one reason the ADKs mandate snowshoes when there is at least xx inches of snow. Snowshoes are not the last word in safety equipment, but I agree with Paradox, who states, 'SNOWSHOES SHOULD BE CARRIED AS SAFETY EQUIPMENT, EVEN WHEN HIKING ON PACKED TRAILS.'

Click to expand...

Understood, but if I may continue to take the contrary 'argument':

-Will there be one set of rules if there is going to be fines levied?
-I understand WMNF and the ADK are different, but in NH it's SAR and F&G. So, would the rule apply statewide?
-You mention the XX inches of snow, is that at the beginning of the hike or at the time of the rescue? Using my freak snowstorm example, I may start out on leaves and come out with a foot on the ground. I've had it happen....

I am just hoping that before any legislation gets acted upon, these questions (and I am sure many others) need to be answered.

dug said:

Understood, but if I may continue to take the contrary 'argument':

-Will there be one set of rules if there is going to be fines levied?
-I understand WMNF and the ADK are different, but in NH it's SAR and F&G. So, would the rule apply statewide?
-You mention the XX inches of snow, is that at the beginning of the hike or at the time of the rescue? Using my freak snowstorm example, I may start out on leaves and come out with a foot on the ground. I've had it happen....

I am just hoping that before any legislation gets acted upon, these questions (and I am sure many others) need to be answered.

Click to expand...

You are making this far more difficult than it needs to be. The law does this all the time and it really isn't that hard to figure out. I apologize in advance to any lawyers here for my (over)simplification of the process but I believe that a reasonable person standard is applied. What would a reasonable person have done in a specific case? If you want to go out in a snowstorm in deep snow without snowshoes that is clearly your business and I don’t really care as I am sure most don’t. If you get pack without emergency services being involved more power to you. If on the other hand you do this and you require a rescue and it is determined by the professionals that a reasonable person should have known that they needed snowshoes and your lack of progress in those conditions were directly attributable to your decision to not bring snowshoes then another reasonable person would probably decide that you were negligent and fees would be assessed. The reasonable person standard is used over and over again in the law from what I have seen. Just like the description of obscenity. Justice Potter Stewart said basically that I can’t tell you what it is but I know it when I see it. Same goes for rescues. I am not going to try to define what “negligent behavior” is by an individual ahead of time but I think most reasonable people recognize it when they see it and the law is generally pretty good at recognizing this since it is fellow citizens applying it. As always if someone feels that they are being persecuted (by Fish and Game) they always have legal recourse in the courts.

For any lawyers that believe I am full of crap and everything I have said is wrong please correct me. Like I said, I am no lawyer, not that there is anything wrong with that.

Keith

I absolutely am making it difficult, Keith. And, I greatly appreciate your input since you have a better read on it than I.

However, I still am taking the position (mind you, for argument's sake only) that this is incredibly ambiguous. Laws are made to be written, I believe, to clearly disseminate between right and wrong. If I am forced to pay for my negligence or reckliness, I want to know if my action would be deemed illegal (fine-able, whatever) before I go ahead and do it.

When I mentioned in my first post, I have been negligent quite often even in the most narrowest of scopes in today's definition. However, at the time, I never felt that way.

dug said:

You mention the XX inches of snow, is that at the beginning of the hike or at the time of the rescue? Using my freak snowstorm example, I may start out on leaves and come out with a foot on the ground. I've had it happen....

Click to expand...

"Skis or snowshoes are required by regulation in the High Peaks Wilderness Area whenever there is more than eight inches of snow on the ground..."

I believe you could be fined if you hike in on leaves and are caught without shoes after more than 8" has fallen, but they might let you slide (or posthole) on that one.

dug said:

Those advocating that there should be substantial fines for "negligence" and/or "reckless behavior", I would like to hear what designates each of these behaviors.

Click to expand...

I don't think a law could be written that defines "negligence" and/or "reckless behavior", as some would argue that anyone heading off to hike and climb in the mountains is already negligent and reckless.

I would advocate a fee or fine for rescue, regardless. Unprepared newbies and experienced old timers all need rescuing occassionally. Perhaps there could be a sliding scale based on the complexity of the search and rescue; if Bob brings you coffee and Mountain Dew - you buy the drinks. If the local police, F&G, SAR Teams and a BlackHawk are required - $5000.

Chip said:

I don't think a law could be written that defines "negligence" and/or "reckless behavior", as some would argue that anyone heading off to hike and climb in the mountains is already negligent and reckless.

Click to expand...

Ah, yes, but New Hampshire has one in place today, and is looking to strengthen in it. That is what has my curiosity piqued.

Tom Rankin said:

Safety of everyone concerned, (hikers and rescuers), might be one reason the ADKs mandate snowshoes when there is at least xx inches of snow. Snowshoes are not the last word in safety equipment, but I agree with Paradox, who states, 'SNOWSHOES SHOULD BE CARRIED AS SAFETY EQUIPMENT, EVEN WHEN HIKING ON PACKED TRAILS.'

Click to expand...

Tom -

According to my cousin, who lives in Saratoga Springs, is a long-time ADK hiker and attorney (Asst. AG), the reason snowshoes became a requirement was to placate skiers, who viewed the ADK, and particularly the AMR, as their own winter playground. Wasn't the trail to Marcy initially labeled the "Von Hovenburg Ski Trail"? According to my cousin, they didn't want hikers allowed at all, but allowing those with snowshoes was their fallback position.

Maybe someone with 40-50 years of ADK background (Pete Hickey?) can comment on whether my cousin's assessment is accurate.

Kevin