$25,000 fine assessed for teen hiker

billski said:

I think it would take a lot more than a hiking fee to make people vacation elsewhere. For starters, NH is convenient. It has a built-up tourism infrastructure for the whole family, including the honky tonk, that you won't find in VT for example.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure VT would agree with you.

Surely dedicated hikers like dedicated hunters or fishers will pay the fees. But if you think the $25,000 controversy was bad, you should have seen the hoopla in the local paper when some ignoramus took a busload of kids from the local teen center to hike Mt Kearsarge and discovered it would cost $4 apiece. A family that wants to do a short hike of an hour or so and discovers it will cost $5 to park next year plus $5 each to hike will quite reasonably feel ripped off.

I would consider it quite reasonable to contribute 10 cents per state park admission and 10 cents per NF parking fee to S&R, but both groups will howl that they are short of money already. That would probably come close to covering the deficit.

billski,

have you tried to get an out-of state fishing or hunting license? It's been years since I've done it but a 3 day VT license for an out-of state fisherman is typically quite pricey for just three days. (less than teh fine though) When I did it the 3 day VT license was just about the same as my full year CT combination, (hunting/fishing).

Why would you leave NH to hunt elsewhere? No other state has much more game, well ME has more moose but also more space & why pay more for an out-of state license.

(self edit to elimante the big political rant/comments) We've seen other taxes & settlements (tobacco) that were intended for specific expenses get rolled into the general fund. With tax revenue down for services the larger percent of the population needs (Vs. what 1/100 of a % of hikers who get lost & need a rescue) money collected just in case a resuce is needed can't sit on a shelf while other programs need cash. If I wasn't a hiker, I'd want to know why my school, street, police, etc are cutting back while F&G has a lost hiker fund.

While the Rescue insurance in the Alps is for rescuing a found hiker/climber in peril, if I could buy coverage for search or rescue that would cover me in the US (even just the 48 states or all but Alaska as the bears may find me first) I might consider it.

As a CT resident, I pay a $20 or $25 WMNF annual parking pass already. A few days at the Loj parking cost about the same, if you hit me up for an other couple of dollars, I'd be found more than once very couple of years in VT. Honestly I would still do some hiking in NH, right now, it's about 80% of my hiking. It wouldn't take much to move that to 50 - 60% with a couple of VT trips, another Catskill trip or two & some more closer to home, especially as oil creeps higher.....

(Had a great view of a pond in CT this fall on a cold morning, fog off the water, foliage in bloom & only about 20 minutes from home in a State Park....)

The Cost of Getting Lost | New Hampshire Public Radio - 10/19/2009

Tim

From the NPR story:

....But then Lt. Doug Gralenski, the Fish and Game official who supervised the search, talked to Mason and others. He filed a 10-page report finding Mason made three major mistakes.

First, Mason should not have been hiking alone and after he hurt his ankle early in the trip, he should have turned back.

Second, when he decided he could not complete his trip he ignored advice given before he left and picked a dangerous escape route.

Finally, the report faulted Mason’s parents saying they should have known better than to let him go alone.

Colonel Martin Garabedian, the chief of law enforcement for Fish and Game, agreed Mason was negligent.

Click to expand...

Ah, so the third mistake he made...was made by his parents? Can we fine them too?

I hope this does not mark the start of equating hiking alone with being reckless, but there sure does seem to be momentum from the punitive crowd in this direction.

I'm glad to see some push-back from Rick Wilcox and similarly level-headed folks against these clowns.

In a similar vein:
From the NPR story:

....But then Lt. Doug Gralenski, the Fish and Game official who supervised the search, talked to Mason and others. He filed a 10-page report finding Mason made three major mistakes.

First, Mason should not have been hiking alone and after he hurt his ankle early in the trip, he should have turned back.

Second, when he decided he could not complete his trip he ignored advice given before he left and picked a dangerous escape route.

Finally, the report faulted Mason’s parents saying they should have known better than to let him go alone.

Colonel Martin Garabedian, the chief of law enforcement for Fish and Game, agreed Mason was negligent.

Click to expand...

1) He was hiking along and hurt his ankle. What does one do? One guesses one's ability to travel (events have shown he clearly could continue to some degree) and then one chooses what one thinks is the best escape route and then one follows it. The best escape route is not always turning back.

2) IIRC, earlier reports said that he had received advice at Pinkham to the effect that the Great Gulf was a viable escape route. Bad advice for that time of year. (As opposed to ignoring earlier advice.)

Finally) Fining him for (officials) disagreeing with the parents' judgment. I thought parents were legally responsible for minor offspring, not the other way around...

Somehow, something smells rotten in Denmark^H^H^HNH officialdom, IMO. It feels to me as if they are going out of their way to make an example out of him.


I agree with you, Tim--equating hiking alone with being reckless is a frightening trend. Perhaps not surprising considering how many people consider hiking itself to be crazy...

I don't mind having my outdoor activities judged by a competent mountaineer such as Rick Wilcox who understands how things work in the mountains and the role of luck, but I don't like the prospect of having to deal with the current breed of NH officialdom.

Doug

Perusal of the NHF&G website on the "10 Essentials" does not mention that you should not, or shall not hike alone. Clearly even the authors of the F&G website do not agree that hiking alone is negligent.

DougPaul said:

Somehow, something smells rotten in Denmark^H^H^HNH officialdom, IMO. It feels to me as if they are going out of their way to make an example out of him.

Click to expand...

Perhaps they're doing so because otherwise he might come across as a skilled (scout) hero for surviving?

I wonder why "The Powers That Be" find hiking solo negligent, but not other outdoor activities....

Some that come to mind: fishing, hunting, boating of all kinds, mountain biking, skiing, driving on a remote dirt road.....

MichaelJ said:

Perhaps they're doing so because otherwise he might come across as a skilled (scout) hero for surviving?

Click to expand...

Or they'd just feel stupid charging him 25K for a rescue he didn't need?

Jason Berard said:

I wonder why "The Powers That Be" find hiking solo negligent, but not other outdoor activities....

Some that come to mind: fishing, hunting, boating of all kinds, mountain biking, skiing, driving on a remote dirt road.....

Click to expand...

What about just going for a walk to clear your head? Now it's neglegence, unless you bring a buddy.

Jason Berard said:

I wonder why "The Powers That Be" find hiking solo negligent, but not other outdoor activities....

Some that come to mind: fishing, hunting, boating of all kinds, mountain biking, skiing, driving on a remote dirt road.....

Click to expand...

You left out walking in the big city...

Doug

I have a major problem with this quote from the NHPR story

Col. Garabedian says Fish and Game doesn’t have a choice in the Mason case.

The law says Fish and Game “shall seek reimbursement” when negligence is involved.

Someone has to make the "choice". Was negligence involved? To say that there is no choice is an excuse not to have to make an informed and intelligent decision.

On Sunday evening, I was alone on top of Temple Mtn in heavy snow and 25 mph winds, and loving every minute of a fall snow storm. I was properly equiped, and had a headlamp, but if I had fallen and injured myself, would the Colonel say that there would be no choice but to fine me? I know that I wasn't in the WMNF, but the theory is still the same.

I guess that my only choice is to disagree with him!

It seems to me he was doing a fine job of self-rescue. How can that be negligent?

There is more to this than what they are saying and they be in too deep to back out. I hope he has a good lawyer.

Quietman said:

The law says Fish and Game “shall seek reimbursement” when negligence is involved.

Someone has to make the "choice". Was negligence involved? To say that there is no choice is an excuse not to have to make an informed and intelligent decision.

Click to expand...

The same can be said of the person (or party) rescued.

I've been thinking for awhile about how to respond without sounding unsympathetic. Unfortunately, I am not terribly sympathetic. If you or someone on your behalf calls for assistance, you should assume it will cost you something [financially].

Thousands of hikers, both solo and in groups, who make responsible decisions regarding all aspects of their journeys should not be taxed due to the few who do not.

Nor, should the State of NH, its various agencies or local SAR organizations bear the financial burden to send out assistance at a moment's notice. These groups are available to anyone who calls for help. And, it is exactly this availability that the state and local governments and many generous individuals, organizations, and businesses provide.

Those who unpreparedly enter the wilderness may be lacking essential equipment, know-how, or direction. But all seem to have the false sense of security that no matter what trouble they may get into, someone else will be there to help get them out. And it is this security that seems to have no consequences, financial or otherwise.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. The merit badge type skills are commendable and helped this lad's outcome but the lack of a sensible mature judgement almost cost him his life. Debate the level of the fine or the philosophy of actually imposing one but the strategic errors of this kid are no brainers IMNSHO.

This incident is reflective of the demographic characteristics of the search and rescue experience of the National Park Service as described in another thread.

It is probably wise to test the senses of older drivers. Likewise, it might be wise to test the sensibilities of younger drivers ... and hikers, rhetorically speaking of course.

I agree that there has to be some reposibility for calling for a search/rescue. But the term "negligience" has to be defined. Having it decided on a case by case basis may only lead to endless debate on each case. I understand that this is more difficult than driving laws, but what is the clear definition(s) of negligience for hiking in NH?

I'd be curious to understand the process to fight this. Will a jury of peers make the judgement? Will it be a judge? Will any of these people be mountain folk or flatlanders who haven't ventured into the Mountains (or) woods? Would people be able to properly understand whats negligent of a winter hiker if they never participated in winter hiking?

How much does age matter?

There have been a number of records set of late for the youngest person to sail solo around the world. If any of these required a rescue should they be charged because they are young? All are likely more skilled than 90% of the sailors I've ever encountered.

Mason was and/or his parents were "negligent" because he was under age and solo. Had he been a few years older or if another "under age" hiker was with him would the same decision be made?

Would one or two 50 year old men with no experience see the same decision? Two 18 year olds? 21? What's the magic number?

Quietman said:

.... but what is the clear definition(s) of negligience for hiking in NH?

Click to expand...

Not having a GPS or cell phone... ... solo hiking...

Maybe not now, but it will come. Can't you see Perry Mason telling the jury.

"He was alone when all hiking books talk of the dangers of being alone... And no cell phone? Ladies and gentlemen of the jury: How many of you would even drive to the corner store without your cell phone."

Little Rickie said:

It seems to me he was doing a fine job of self-rescue. How can that be negligent?

Click to expand...

Yes, but they had already spent the money searching for him. The fact that he ultimately didn't need help is irrelevant...

IMO, the only real mistake that he made was attempting to escape through Great Gulf.

Doug