$25,000 fine assessed for teen hiker

[TrishandAlex]

I strongly disagree. If you are not a New Hampshire resident, this is not an issue. Its a New Hampshire law. There are LOTS of Massachusetts laws that I don't like, which is one of the many reasons I don't live there. How much money you spend here really is your choice. When you enter another state, you are subject to that state's laws, whether you like it our not. New Hampshire has taken the extra step of actually advertising this law.

And only a small percentage of the New Hampshire residents that I have spoken with have any problem with this decision. So your experience and my experience are different.

Well then, we will have to agree to strongly disagree.

Yes, it does indeed seem that your experience and my experience are very, very different.

In the meantime, all you MA residents out there who are active in the hiking community, please do keep posting your very sane, well-thought out, and valuable opinions.

You deserve to be heard.

 

[Bigfoot]

I believe one of the underlying concerns is, "what is next?" BTW, I have not made any sort of conclusion on this matter as, there are so many questions and issues to consider. This forum is very good at exposing this.

People doing their jobs supported by budgets incorporating their efforts (such as money earmarked for SAR) with the ability to submit bills for their efforts is cause for pause.

For instance:

Highway enforcement stops you for something and gives you a warning. They also give you a bill as a service charge. Extra if it is raining.

You are a hunter or fisherman. F&G does a license check and charges for their time.

Parent/teacher meetings for the benifit of your childs education and an hourly fee is charged.

You are in court for either a civil or criminal matter and the judge sends both parties a bill for their time on top of court fees.


You can imagine every adminstrator watching this case very closely, especially during these dificult economic times. This could be a whole new source of revenue. I admit it is very early in the process and the likelyhood of the above happening now is small but time has a way of allowing things to change.

Last year there was an effort to license horses.

 

[Gris]

Some Observations

Chomp is correct. The citizens of the state of NH clearly should have the last word on this matter. Any other result would be distinctly un-American.

First major problem with the law is using a negligence std in lieu of recklessness (assuming that is in fact the std). Negligence can mean almost anything...

Second potential problem with law is the apparent ability to charge someone who didn't want or need a rescue (someone else calls in the rescue, then the hiker is found to have been negligent in whatever they did - staying an extra day, etc.)

Third apparent defect is not expressly visiting liability for reckless minors on parents (do you really think the prospect of a big fine will influence teenager behavior absent parental involvement).

If I were a resident of NH, I would want less involvement from big-brother. I would rather see fewer rescues than more (with big billings). I am against protecting everyone from nature. It's seems 'un-natural' to me.

ps - Townie, was that rescue charge liquidated damages or a penalty? (LOL)

 

[chomp]

Alright, I can see this is getting out of hand pretty quickly.. I'm not trying to get anyone upset, but as a New Hampshire-ite, I get really annoyed when someone from south of the border starts saying "you should do this".

Massachusetts has an enormous tax burden because of all the services that it provides to its residents. And for the most part, people who live there like it that way. Things are very different up here.

From my perspective, this law is just another extension of that.

I stand by my comments that this an issue for New Hampshire residents, but the point isn't to stir up everyone from out of state. The point is that when you have a very low tax burden, there are some very hard decisions that need to be made as far as what services to provide, or not provide. This is one of those hard decisions. I love this state just the way it is, and so do many of the people that live here.

Does it suck that a 17 year old kid just got a bill for $25K? Yes, of course. But is it in keeping with NH Law and with the overall philosophy of the state? Yes, I think so.

 

[Grumpy]

It seems to me that a lot of non-New Hampshire residents are criticizing this action. For those of you who don't live here, you really don't have a horse in the race. ...

In the strict sense, of "having a horse in the race" only if one is a New Hampshire resident, you are of course right.

But as an outsider who may (or now may not) choose to go hiking in New Hampshire, I certainly do have an interest in this law, and in this particular case, in all their particulars.

What I want to know, in clear and certain terms, is exactly what I must do in order to avoid (not evade) the liability of being fined if I become the subject of a SAR effort in New Hampshire. How, precisely, do I protect my own interests as I pursue a perfectly legal activity (hiking) in the State of New Hampshire.

Vagaries like "don't be negligent," or "take reasonable precautions," or "make reasonable decisions," don't cut the mustard here. At exactly what point of "overweight," am I judged to be unfit for hiking (and therefore negligent if I do it)? Exactly what level of "experience" must I achieve in order to tackle a particular hike? Precisely what gear must I have with me to meet the "10 essentials" criteria under any given set of circumstances?

You get the idea.

I think the HikeSafe web site has done a great service and provides great information for avoiding problems and also charges of "recklessness" in hiking. At this point we need far more detailed instruction to avoid the more nebulous charge of having been "negligent."

G.

 

[J.Dub]

Actually all the bills are reviewed by the Attorney General's staff before being sent...[EDIT]...

Do we know if the NH AG (or anybody on his staff) is a hiker...?

...[EDIT]...presumably they only send those they want to defend

I'm assuming you mean defend against the inevitable lawsuit filed by some hiker who doesn't agree with his bill?


I flip-flop on the idea of recouping SAR costs in general. My crunchy-whole-wheat-goodness-side sees the merit in the desire to keep these groups more well-funded, but my sugary-frosted-side isn't sure that SAR should be a fee-for-service type deal. The fire company doesn't send you a bill for hosing down your house, nor does the police department send you a bill for investigating your burgled house. I guess it comes down to whether or not SAR falls on the public service side of the ledger.

That said, I think the revised NH law -- and, more importantly, how it is being applied -- is a stinky pile of poo for a number of reasons.

First, I have issue with the decision to recoup costs resting with one person (evidently the director of F&G) with no hearing or some other way for a hiker/family member to defend a claim of negligence.

Second, I think removing the limit on the amount you can be billed for SAR is ridonkulous. In this case, b/c the NH helos were N/A and somebody decided to call in the cavalry from a neighboring state, that extra cost now gets passed on to the "customer"?

Finally, is EVERY SINGLE SAR CALL-OUT being billed? Perhaps they are, and just aren't making the papers. But if a hiker on Monadnock breaks an ankle and has to be littered down (easy rescue) and doesn't get billed, while a lost hiker on the Rockpile (complicated search and rescue/recovery) does get billed, then obviously this law is not being fairly applied.


As an aside, I think sardog's point about calling it a "bill to recoup costs" vs. a "fine" is important, as it speaks to the intent behind the legislation (economic vs. punitive). However, while the original intent may have been economic, the way the law is being applied and comments like "teaching hikers not to go out unprepared" certainly gives the appearance that it's being used as a punitive measure.

 

[Little Rickie]

Interesting discussion.

Has anyone posting had a family member or close friend rescued?

 

[TEO]

In the strict sense, of "having a horse in the race" only if one is a New Hampshire resident, you are of course right.

I couldn't disagree with this more. For some of us, this law and this incident has far more direct relevance than it does to the vast majority of New Hampshire residents.

And yes, god forbid I'm in need of a SAR, I do not expect to have to pay for it. Nor do I expect to have to pay for an the fire department to put out my burning house, the police to investigate a break-in, or to borrow a book from the library. If you want people to pay for their own SARs, then it has to be universal, which would open it up to insurance being viable, which is what is done in Europe, but it is not the American way.

 

[Stash]

In the strict sense, of "having a horse in the race" only if one is a New Hampshire resident, you are of course right.

But as an outsider who may (or now may not) choose to go hiking in New Hampshire, I certainly do have an interest in this law, and in this particular case, in all their particulars.

What I want to know, in clear and certain terms, is exactly what I must do in order to avoid (not evade) the liability of being fined if I become the subject of a SAR effort in New Hampshire. How, precisely, do I protect my own interests as I pursue a perfectly legal activity (hiking) in the State of New Hampshire.

Vagaries like "don't be negligent," or "take reasonable precautions," or "make reasonable decisions," don't cut the mustard here. At exactly what point of "overweight," am I judged to be unfit for hiking (and therefore negligent if I do it)? Exactly what level of "experience" must I achieve in order to tackle a particular hike? Precisely what gear must I have with me to meet the "10 essentials" criteria under any given set of circumstances?

You get the idea.

I think the HikeSafe web site has done a great service and provides great information for avoiding problems and also charges of "recklessness" in hiking. At this point we need far more detailed instruction to avoid the more nebulous charge of having been "negligent."

G.

EXACTLY. The speed limit is 65 on 93 and if I go over I'm subject to a fine. I drive with a blood alcohol content of x% or greater and I pay the price. What have we got with this iteration of enforcing a NH rule/law/whatever you want to call it?

What did the kid specifically do that was wrong? Keep going when he twisted an ankle? If I stub my toe do I bail? Go off trail? Goodby bushwack. Hike solo? Hike solo under a specific age?

I have no issue with any law in NH, MA or MAINE as long as it is reasonably clear and enforced with uniformity. What I see here is an issue that's about as clear is mud.

 

[TrishandAlex]

Chomp is correct. The citizens of the state of NH clearly should have the last word on this matter. Any other result would be distinctly un-American.

Chomp is both correct and incorrect. Yes, it makes sense that residents of NH should have the LAST word on this matter.

But certainly not the only word. The valuable opinion and reasoning of all serious hikers should be heard.

In addition, there are plenty of NH hikers who do NOT agree with this law, or this fine. It should not be assumed that opinions which differ from Mr. Chomp's are simply those coming from out-of-state and should therefore be dismissed.

 

[Craig]

Now that all the facts have been heard, I think a poll is in order.

 

[sardog1]

Now that all the facts have been heard, I think a poll is in order.

Well, this fact has been overlooked by those who won't read the statute I posted. If you refuse to pay, Fish and Game has to sue you to collect. Which is where you'll get your due process -- in court, with a judge running the show and probably a jury.

 

[Little Rickie]

Now that all the facts have been heard, I think a poll is in order.

Can we discuss this first.

 

[Dave Bear]

Damn! Really knew this was coming soon and had hoped it would be levied fair and square on the shoulders of someone who clearly deserved it beyond a doubt! If something like this is dealt with in too much gray area it will not stick to its purpose and provide more cautious decision making and help fund rescue costs. It is clear to me, a NH resident born in the Whites and having never lived in any other state, that there are errors of inconsistency, clear definition and due process with what is taking place in this matter! This is not a matter that is just about where you reside, your age, how fit you are and who you left your hiking itinerary with, it is how you will be judged by people given authoriy to cast scarcly overseen judgement over your future. We all want to enjoy the outdoors to levels we are capable and be free to do just that! Unfortunately the precedent being set here is that you must be of ample means if you are willing to push your limits by any measure. Hate to think where this is taking the meaning of "Live Free or Die"!

In this case it is clear the plan was too ambitious for a day hike and possible that poor advice was given. It is also obvious that we don't have 20/20 hindsight on what the individual should have done once in trouble even with many facts. Staying up on the ridge may have been a death sentence, doubling back and trying to retake the summit of Washington after an injury could be considered reckless. Having more individuals involved does not necessarily save Mason or the someone with him, and could have resulted in them trying to cross the Great Gulf with no where near the equip and experience of SAR. He was walking out but there was a coldfront that night that may have got to him quicker than the rescue team. This debate should in no way reflect on the efforts and outstanding job they always do and did for him or their sincere and unselfish intentions!

There is not an easy or good answer to this. My head hangs low to think that people in my state did not refuse or return his gift when they knew they were going to deal him a harsh fine. This should be constructive in every manner possible so that he and others can gain from it but feel the pain of consequences for needing a rescue. Someone is trying to send a message and that is punitive by its nature but the reprocussions for doing so have the power to change hiking as we know it. Rather than just "Pay the fine and be happy your alive"! I would like to hear how those that think this is all justly done would advise the rest of us to proceed enjoying the woods. Injuries have, can and will happen to any of us no matter how fit and experienced we think we are! Are you bank-rolling for a helicopter or two in your future or lengthening the time before someone notifies authorities so it doesn't cut into your childrens college fund? What's your hike plan?

Also interested in whether someone like Mason would be considered a higher risk in the future if they needed another rescue and given an even more severe fine. Injuries have less discretion about striking in the same place than lightning!

 

[David Metsky]

Keep in mind that there are several places in the US (such as the Grand Canyon) where if you need a rescue they will send you a helicopter and a bill. You don't have much of a choice in the matter. A friend of a friend blew out his knee deep in the canyon and was choppered out. The bill was roughly $2K IIRC but that wasn't a search and only took 1-2 hours of chopper time.

 

[--M.]

If you refuse to pay, Fish and Game has to sue you to collect. Which is where you'll get your due process -- in court, with a judge running the show and probably a jury.

Ding Ding Ding, this is the lynchpin.

These issues need to hashed out for legal precedent. That's what will call the shots down the road. I encourage the kid to pursue his avenues and represent himself strongly. This will force the issue through the process and help delineate what actually constitutes negligence or recklessness.

As for NH ruling its own resources, I would only add that the WMNF includes multiple jurisdictions, not just state land. I don't give up my US rights when I drive across the state line, and I'll have a say -- the appropriate level of participation, a seat at the table -- in how things are done. If I were (in an extreme example) 'victimized' by an unnecessary and unwanted SAR, I would do more than say "No thank you"; I'd countersue and represent my interests. The kid (and his family) should do this. Make the state show why this figure is right. Hold their feet to the fire. It's an arguable case, and the young man has points in his favor. If he can't afford it himself, perhaps an ACLU-type organization could help out.

After that, fair's fair and some must pay. Harumph.

My heart often lies in New Hampshire, but this side of their view of law is ugly to me. Depending on how this case and others like it are adjudicated.

Individual, community, us, them. Seems American to me.

--M.

 

[AOC-1]

Well, this fact has been overlooked by those who won't read the statute I posted. If you refuse to pay, Fish and Game has to sue you to collect. Which is where you'll get your due process -- in court, with a judge running the show and probably a jury.

The statute authorizes F & G to file a lawsuit to "pursue payment" of a preexisting and predetermined legal liability. The judgment in such a lawsuit would allow the state to pursue property seizure, wage garnishment and other court-ordered strategies to satisfy the bill. The language of the statute does not suggest the court would have any authority to decide whether the hiker is liable in the first instance (i.e., was or was not negligent).

 

[Pete_Hickey]

.....and those who are prepared should not be deterred by this. .....

But who is to say you are prepared?

To many people, you are not prepared unless you have a GPS, cell phone, bear spray, locator beacon, etc. Brain does not count.

 

[Little Rickie]

Brain does not count.

Sad but true. I wish more used it...hiking of course.

 

[funkyfreddy]

I also support the state. The law is no secret, and the hiker should have been aware of that and prepared for the conditons. So he's fighting the fine - no surprise there. As a 17-year old, aren't his parents liable for the 25K?

Perhaps it would have been better for the family and the state if the kid had stayed home and smoked crack instead of hiking, maybe broken into a few cars as well .....

certainly would have been cheaper, lol