Grumpy
New member
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2003
- Messages
- 1,503
- Reaction score
- 153
I would find the Scott Mason case far less objectionable if NH law provided that all SAR (including corpse recovery) services will be billed to the hiker, his/her guardians, or estate. But it doesn’t.
First the NH law required the hiker’s actions to be “reckless” in order for the SAR services to be billed. Recently the law was changed to set the standard at “negligent,” which is far less stringent and considerably more nebulous than before.
There always has seemed to be allowance for considerable arbitrariness in who gets billed and how much, which should be troubling to everyone. Now we see – in the Scott Mason case and under the “negligence” standard -- the largest billing ever imposed for SAR by NH F&G, a billing that by all appearances has a substantial, but unspoken punitive component as well as an attempt to “recover costs.”
Right out front it is my opinion that the facts of the Mason case as I know them do not support a finding that Scott Mason and his parents were negligent to any degree justifying the unprecedented size of the fine they were assessed by the F&G agency. I find it difficult to believe they were negligent at all, unless it is determined that hiking in the White Mountains’ upper elevations during April is an inherently negligent act, in and of itself. I will stipulate, of course, that so far we only have heard or seen NH F&G’s side of the argument, as the Mason family and their attorney have chosen to remain mum in the face of negotiations toward settlement, or litigation in the matter of the negligence charges and fine.
More’s the pity in the latter situation, because it keeps the public – and especially hikers – from having in a timely manner what might be a very informative and worthwhile account of Scott Mason’s misadventure. But, alas, that’s part of the public price we pay as a result of legislative and government administrative silliness.
It has been argued above that we as a society have come to “expect” hiker and climber rescue services, thus lowering hikers’ sense of need for individual preparedness and self-reliance. I think this is a chicken-egg puzzle. Did public expectation for rescue arise from public demand, or was it subtly imposed on us through an increased level of government-imposed regimentation of hiking activity?
Of course, the chicken-egg type argument is moot, because however it got here we have before us today a very different situation than we had years ago, vis a vis SAR expectations. When I started more serious backcountry tripping 50 years ago, it never really occurred to me that I would become the focus of a SAR operation. That wasn’t hubris. I, and the people I went on trips with planned and prepared to deal with the challenges and contingencies we might face along the way, fully expecting to fend for ourselves and get out of the woods on our own if things went to Hell in a handcart, as a matter of necessity and not of choice.
I think we should remember one thing in discussing this particular case. The facts as now publicly known most strongly suggest Scott Mason represents the old school of hiker self reliance, and not the new school that relies on a cell phone to summon assistance in even minor incidents. To me, that puts NH F&G under the microscope here, to fully probe the agency’s rationale behind this outrageous fine (or fee assessment, if you want to call it that).
And it puts the State of NH on the spot to devise a law of clear purpose that will ensure equitable, fair and just responses to all situations.
G.
First the NH law required the hiker’s actions to be “reckless” in order for the SAR services to be billed. Recently the law was changed to set the standard at “negligent,” which is far less stringent and considerably more nebulous than before.
There always has seemed to be allowance for considerable arbitrariness in who gets billed and how much, which should be troubling to everyone. Now we see – in the Scott Mason case and under the “negligence” standard -- the largest billing ever imposed for SAR by NH F&G, a billing that by all appearances has a substantial, but unspoken punitive component as well as an attempt to “recover costs.”
Right out front it is my opinion that the facts of the Mason case as I know them do not support a finding that Scott Mason and his parents were negligent to any degree justifying the unprecedented size of the fine they were assessed by the F&G agency. I find it difficult to believe they were negligent at all, unless it is determined that hiking in the White Mountains’ upper elevations during April is an inherently negligent act, in and of itself. I will stipulate, of course, that so far we only have heard or seen NH F&G’s side of the argument, as the Mason family and their attorney have chosen to remain mum in the face of negotiations toward settlement, or litigation in the matter of the negligence charges and fine.
More’s the pity in the latter situation, because it keeps the public – and especially hikers – from having in a timely manner what might be a very informative and worthwhile account of Scott Mason’s misadventure. But, alas, that’s part of the public price we pay as a result of legislative and government administrative silliness.
It has been argued above that we as a society have come to “expect” hiker and climber rescue services, thus lowering hikers’ sense of need for individual preparedness and self-reliance. I think this is a chicken-egg puzzle. Did public expectation for rescue arise from public demand, or was it subtly imposed on us through an increased level of government-imposed regimentation of hiking activity?
Of course, the chicken-egg type argument is moot, because however it got here we have before us today a very different situation than we had years ago, vis a vis SAR expectations. When I started more serious backcountry tripping 50 years ago, it never really occurred to me that I would become the focus of a SAR operation. That wasn’t hubris. I, and the people I went on trips with planned and prepared to deal with the challenges and contingencies we might face along the way, fully expecting to fend for ourselves and get out of the woods on our own if things went to Hell in a handcart, as a matter of necessity and not of choice.
I think we should remember one thing in discussing this particular case. The facts as now publicly known most strongly suggest Scott Mason represents the old school of hiker self reliance, and not the new school that relies on a cell phone to summon assistance in even minor incidents. To me, that puts NH F&G under the microscope here, to fully probe the agency’s rationale behind this outrageous fine (or fee assessment, if you want to call it that).
And it puts the State of NH on the spot to devise a law of clear purpose that will ensure equitable, fair and just responses to all situations.
G.
