Two Rescued From Garfield

http://www.pressherald.com/2014/12/31/two-maine-hikers-safe-after-getting-lost-in-new-hampshire/

http://www.wildlife.state.nh.us/Newsroom/2014/Q4/SR_hikers_rescued_123114.html

Sweat pants, jeans, no lights, no map. Cold night. Glad they are OK. I am guessing these two will have a different set of gear on their next hike.

Trying to figure this one out. The story in The Portland Press makes it sound like they ascended the Garfield Trail and ended up on Garfield Ridge coming down. The release from NHF&G sounds like they Did the Franconia Ridge Loop and ended up taking Garfield Ridge all the way to Garfield. Either way they're lucky they made it out.

Wonder if they had bought their hike safe card?

I expect that when the bill goes out it will be publicized.

By the way I was out on a short hike in Randolph yesterday and I had to pull out gear that I normally don't use as the wind chill was significant.

SherpaWill said:

Trying to figure this one out. The story in The Portland Press makes it sound like they ascended the Garfield Trail and ended up on Garfield Ridge coming down. The release from NHF&G sounds like they Did the Franconia Ridge Loop and ended up taking Garfield Ridge all the way to Garfield. Either way they're lucky they made it out.

Click to expand...

We were on Garfield Tuesday. Ascended and descended Garfield Trail. Saw 3 other hikers but not these two. We finished around 1:30 so they would have gotten a late start had they ascended Garfield Trail. The F+G release sounds more likely.

I've never been on that section of Garfield Ridge between Lafayette and Garfield in Winter, but I'm assuming it's not the easiest of trails to hike.

Dressed in cotton this time of year? I don't even want to imagine......The big guy in the sky sure was watching out for these fools.

The hike from Lafayette to Garfield is a very difficult section with lots of elevation change. It would be quite icy and I expect that the section below treeline heading up Garfield would be hard to navigate as recent weather has bent the softwoods over in the trail. If they were on this section they were quite lucky as access is poor.

We ran into two guys Memorial Day weekend that made the exact same mistake. If the summit is in the clouds it is easy to do if you don't know there is another trail. We took them back up the ridge and then down the Skook with us. No charge.

If Fish and Game were smart they would start publicizing the costs of the rescues as well as a copy of the cancelled check. It would make me think twice about buying a card, actually it wouldn't but I just wonder if they ever do charge some of these nincompoops.

Okay, so my friend Neil ("HikesWithKat") and I set out to do Garfield on Tuesday. We encountered some VFTT folks coming down as we were hiking up. They told us it was extremely cold.

It was! The summit was very very cold. Not a lot of wind, negligible by most standards, but given the temps were somewhere around zero (we estimated), keeping the extremities warm was very difficult.

We hit summit somewhere around 12:30, I would guess, and coming down from the summit back to the trail junction, Neil and I encountered two young women coming up. One looked appropriately dressed, but the other was in a cotton hat, a cotton sweatshirt, and didn't have any gloves on. Oh yes, and her lips were blue. I was wearing glove liners, wool mittens, and glove shells, and had on a wicking t-shirt, a long sleeve wicking shirt, a Patagonia R1 hoodie, a Marmot DriClimb, and a rainjacket, along with a buff and a wool hat over my hoodie, and I was chilled. So I said to the young woman "You don't have gloves on! Are you cold?" She replied, "I run hot, but I have gloves and we're going to put them on before we summit." They seemed surprised to learn they were just below the summit. I wanted to take a photo of the young woman to show her what her lips looked like, but there was no way I was going to take off my gloves and mittens to do so.

Nearing the bottom of the trail, just about at the end of the switchbacks, we first encountered one older gent hiking alone who wanted to make it up for sunset. It was so cold at that point that I can't describe it. We then met another older gent with a young woman, and we also told them it was extremely cold up top. They also wanted to make the sunset from the summit.

We were back at the car by 3:30ish. It was getting dark. The parking lot on Rte. 3 was a sheet of ice.

We never saw these two young gents, but I can't imagine the difficulty of hiking down from Garfield in the dark, partly having to bushwhack because the stream crossing was effectively uncrossable and required using the footbridge upstream, in those temps. I guess the folks were encountered didn't encounter trouble, but gosh, Neil and I saw three groups of folks I just didn't expect to see, given the conditions. I feel like it was fortunate there wasn't at least one more rescue call from the mountain that day.

Brian

Greg YEAH! said:

If Fish and Game were smart they would start publicizing the costs of the rescues as well as a copy of the cancelled check. It would make me think twice about buying a card, actually it wouldn't but I just wonder if they ever do charge some of these nincompoops.

Click to expand...

One of the articles in the O.P. mentioned approximately $1,000.00 would be billed in this case, if it came to it.

EDIT: Corrected wording

Remember Tom its a bill for the actual services expended by fish and game versus a "fine".

A lot of folks have mentioned the lack of appropriate clothing in response to this rescue, but it's worth noting that inability to navigate correctly was in fact the direct cause of this rescue.

Even if the hikers had been carrying all of the items listed at the end of the NH F&G write up, I suspect they still would have called for a rescue. It was pretty cold, and while a good puffy would buy them more time, I suspect they would not have been able to navigate the Garfield Ridge trail by headlamp and, faced with a forced overnight, would have called for a rescue. It's impossible to know for sure, but for me personally, standing around in ~0 degree temps, even with all of my clothing on, I find it difficult or impossible to stay warm. If they were able to start a fire, that MIGHT have helped, but I still suspect, absent real overnight gear, they would have called for a rescue.

On the other hand, if the hikers carried a map and compass AND THE ABILITY TO USE THEM, they almost certainly would not have required rescue, even with their poor clothing choices.

I think NH F&G places too much emphasis on having the right gear and not enough emphasis on having the right skill set. I think it's a mistake to think if you simply put 10 (or more) items in your pack you're "prepared." Why not place an equal or greater emphasis on being able to navigate, with the added point that in winter navigation can be REALLY hard?

hikerbrian said:

A lot of folks have mentioned the lack of appropriate clothing in response to this rescue, but it's worth noting that inability to navigate correctly was in fact the direct cause of this rescue.

Click to expand...

I'd add the nuance that, if F&G were aware of the clothing situation, it could make the difference between a higher-risk operation and not. I don't think they do this much in winter, but in summer there are many incidents where F&G is reported to have made the decision to go up in the dark vs. wait for morning based on their knowledge of how prepared people were.

For those who are new around here or haven't been paying attention, this "missing the turn off Lafayette" thing comes up probably about annually. Somebody posted the exact magnetic bearing to the Greenleaf trail off the summit once, but I can't find it back. In the meantime, one should be able to pull a reasonable bearing off one's map and determine if one is descending along that line...or stay home when the visibility's bad.

Therein lies the discussion on negligent versus reckless definition. If someone has the gear but not the skills are they negligent or reckless? If they have the skills but not gear are they reckless? Arguably a very skilled competent person can elect to make a trip with minimal gear based on their familiarity. If they get in trouble F&G can still charge them for the rescue even though they have bought a hike safe pass as they were "reckless" (the hiker should have known better). A clueless newby with a pack full of gear and a hike safe pass can get lost on Garfield ridge and not have to pay a dime.

peakbagger said:

Therein lies the discussion on negligent versus reckless definition. If someone has the gear but not the skills are they negligent or reckless? If they have the skills but not gear are they reckless? Arguably a very skilled competent person can elect to make a trip with minimal gear based on their familiarity. If they get in trouble F&G can still charge them for the rescue even though they have bought a hike safe pass as they were "reckless" (the hiker should have known better). A clueless newby with a pack full of gear and a hike safe pass can get lost on Garfield ridge and not have to pay a dime.

Click to expand...

Good points. I think if you have the gear and lack the ability to route find and get lost, your negligent. If you have the gear and the skillset and keep on in dreadful, unnavigable conditions, you are reckless. Of course, each situation is open to interpretation. What's reckless to some, is not to others, there in lies the grey area.

hikerbrian said:

A lot of folks have mentioned the lack of appropriate clothing in response to this rescue, but it's worth noting that inability to navigate correctly was in fact the direct cause of this rescue.

Even if the hikers had been carrying all of the items listed at the end of the NH F&G write up, I suspect they still would have called for a rescue. It was pretty cold, and while a good puffy would buy them more time, I suspect they would not have been able to navigate the Garfield Ridge trail by headlamp and, faced with a forced overnight, would have called for a rescue. It's impossible to know for sure, but for me personally, standing around in ~0 degree temps, even with all of my clothing on, I find it difficult or impossible to stay warm. If they were able to start a fire, that MIGHT have helped, but I still suspect, absent real overnight gear, they would have called for a rescue.

On the other hand, if the hikers carried a map and compass AND THE ABILITY TO USE THEM, they almost certainly would not have required rescue, even with their poor clothing choices.

I think NH F&G places too much emphasis on having the right gear and not enough emphasis on having the right skill set. I think it's a mistake to think if you simply put 10 (or more) items in your pack you're "prepared." Why not place an equal or greater emphasis on being able to navigate, with the added point that in winter navigation can be REALLY hard?

Click to expand...

I believe the Hike Safe site does place an equal emphasis on knowledge.

From their site,

Be prepared:
With knowledge and gear.
To leave your plans.
To stay together.
To turn back.
For emergencies.
To share the code.​

The amount of clothing you pack can be important in summer, but again, I personally have had a hard time staying warm, even when wearing all of the items listed in the F&G release, when standing around for a long time in temps of about 10 degrees F or below. Which is why I'd argue they would have needed to be rescued even if they had brought all of those items, and I suspect F&G would have recognized their need to be rescued right away (rather than waiting until morning) as well. In short, packing the 10 essentials would not have prevented rescue in this case, I don't think. Had they packed all the necessary gear and still required rescue (and I think they would have still required rescue), would F&G consider them negligent? Who knows.

Is there value in "buying some time" before you need to be rescued? Maybe, maybe not. In this case, would there have been a benefit if they'd held out until midnight before calling for rescue? I don't think so. In other cases, a few hours might be enough to regain the trail or build a shelter of some kind, or in milder temps make it through the night. So I do feel extra clothes are important, they're just over-emphasized.

Peakbagger, there is room for pages and pages of speculation in your post, as I'm sure you know. For the sake of my own sanity, I'm only speaking to what I consider to be best practices, not to what might or might not get you billed in NH. If I'm advising a newb on winter best practices, I continuously stress the importance of map and compass skills and general navigation ability - and knowing when navigation will be VERY difficult even if you're really good at it - not just what gear to bring. Better to not get lost than to get lost and then hope you've got the gear to keep you alive...and probably require rescue ultimately anyway. I think most people, especially newbies, don't take the probability and consequence of getting lost seriously enough. If you lose the trail in winter, you're immediately in a very serious situation, possibly a survival situation. THAT is what NH F&G should stress.

hikerbrian said:

A lot of folks have mentioned the lack of appropriate clothing in response to this rescue, but it's worth noting that inability to navigate correctly was in fact the direct cause of this rescue.

Even if the hikers had been carrying all of the items listed at the end of the NH F&G write up, I suspect they still would have called for a rescue. It was pretty cold, and while a good puffy would buy them more time, I suspect they would not have been able to navigate the Garfield Ridge trail by headlamp and, faced with a forced overnight, would have called for a rescue. It's impossible to know for sure, but for me personally, standing around in ~0 degree temps, even with all of my clothing on, I find it difficult or impossible to stay warm. If they were able to start a fire, that MIGHT have helped, but I still suspect, absent real overnight gear, they would have called for a rescue.

On the other hand, if the hikers carried a map and compass AND THE ABILITY TO USE THEM, they almost certainly would not have required rescue, even with their poor clothing choices.

I think NH F&G places too much emphasis on having the right gear and not enough emphasis on having the right skill set. I think it's a mistake to think if you simply put 10 (or more) items in your pack you're "prepared." Why not place an equal or greater emphasis on being able to navigate, with the added point that in winter navigation can be REALLY hard?

Click to expand...

This is not lucid thought. Waaaay back in the 90's when I did plenty of stupid stuff I still knew cotton kills. IMHO what any govt agency says is meaningless and we as hikers need to keep t that way. Slap in the ass for thinking the Whites and cotton on any level is ok.

I mean, I enjoy a good slap on the ass as much as the next guy, but can you point out to me where I wrote cotton on any level is ok? Thanks