Teen fined $25,000 for rescue

[Homer&Marje]

Punishments rarely fit the situations involved, unfortunate.

[Heater]

Cane him...

[Homer&Marje]

Cane him...

Sounds appropriate That American kid spray painting stuff in Singapore got 10 lashes right?

And Singapore is a FINE place to live

[Jack Tarlin]

Just read this whole thread.

One immediate point: What I find remarkable is that this kid is an Eagle Scout and was presumably trained and led in scouting and hiking in New England.

Did nobody, at any level, ever tell him about the dangers of bushwhacking and leaving established Trails in the Presidentials? Did nobody ever tell him how reckless and foolhardy it is to do this in winter?

Sure seems to me that some Scout leader dropped the ball somewhere. I hope this episode proves instructive for Massachusetts Scout leaders.

And as to the folks who are jumping all over the State officials and rescuers for taking too hard a line on this: Search and Rescue can be a very dangerous thing. In the White Mountains, in wintertime, it can be extraordinarily dangerous. Resucuers put their own lives on the line all the time and in fact, at least one of Mt. Washington's many fatalities was a rescuer.

The law that permits the State of New Hampshire to fine people in certain cases is, in my opinion, long overdue, and I'm not sure that everyone who has posted here is actually familiar with the law. When choosing whether or not to fine people, the decision to do so is limited to those situations where it is deemed that the rescue is needless, and is caused by ignorance, recklessness, carelessness, and irresponsibility on the part of the party that ends up being rescued.

Or to put it simply, if the rescuse becomes necessary because of questionable or careless behavior on the part of the guy getting the rescue, then the State reserves the right to charge him for it.

And it seems to me that in this case, the application of the law was entirely justified.

[Homer&Marje]

Just read this whole thread.

One immediate point: What I find remarkable is that this kid is an Eagle Scout and was presumably trained and led in scouting and hiking in New England.

Did nobody, at any level, ever tell him about the dangers of bushwhacking and leaving established Trails in the Presidentials? Did nobody ever tell him how reckless and foolhardy it is to do this in winter?

Sure seems to me that some Scout leader dropped the ball somewhere. I hope this episode proves instructive for Massachusetts Scout leaders.

And as to the folks who are jumping all over the State officials and rescuers for taking too hard a line on this: Search and Rescue can be a very dangerous thing. In the White Mountains, in wintertime, it can be extraordinarily dangerous. Resucuers put their own lives on the line all the time and in fact, at least one of Mt. Washington's many fatalities was a rescuer.

The law that permits the State of New Hampshire to fine people in certain cases is, in my opinion, long overdue, and I'm not sure that everyone who has posted here is actually familiar with the law. When choosing whether or not to fine people, the decision to do so is limited to those situations where it is deemed that the rescue is needless, and is caused by ignorance, recklessness, carelessness, and irresponsibility on the part of the party that ends up being rescued.

Or to put it simply, if the rescuse becomes necessary because of questionable or careless behavior on the part of the guy getting the rescue, then the State reserves the right to charge him for it.

And it seems to me that in this case, the application of the law was entirely justified.

Not trying to battle with you Jack on your experience, knowledge and proximity to the situation.

Tell me though, strictly as a comparative. Does NH charge, financially, for ignorance in ALL situations regardless of activity?

Lets say someone falls asleep with a cigarette...burns the house down, neighbors house down and a local store.

Lots of firefighters came to the blaze to put it out, no one got hurt because they were trained to do the job asked of them. Later on, arson investigators found the cause of the fire to be human negligence, smoking a cigarette and falling asleep with it.

Person got out fine, no one was injured but someone was negligent in their planning.

Pretty broad comparative so I'm opening the other side of this debate wide for you. But as volunteers, rescuers, and all other people and resources involved...have all agreed to do the task that is set forth of them REGARDLESS of safety, causation, or eventual result.

I would assume and hope that ALL of these people are trained and very well prepared for the situation they have put themselves in ( not the rescue itself but the inherent knowledge that they will have to participate in a rescue at one time or another) otherwise they have chosen an ill fated profession.

Just my thoughts....negligence laws, if implied should not be limited to hikers or any other singled out group, if they are to be adopted. It's the system of irregularities and niche results with so many variables that is hard to cope with.

Basic point I'm trying to make is if your going to single out a group to charge for negligence you should be finding much greater sources of negligence to charge for as well and come up with a standard of how it will be dealt with. I'm NOT disagreeing in any way shape or form that the rescue wasn't 25k worth of work, I bet it was.

Charge everyone for negligence in every group or following or charge no one.

[Jim Adams]

I know TOF you said that the authorities said he was minimally prepared...If so it was just on the cusp of bare minimum and just enough...I have continually said I believe his error in planning was the most significant cause of negligence...but he was prepared for a bad outcome...either way.

Not negligent. No fine.

You can not judge "minimally prepared" as described by SAR. Obviously the kid was "minimally prepared" to keep himself alive under adverse conditions for 3 days. SAR will argue in some locations and instances that unless you carry in your pack what they do then you are not prepared. USUALLY ALL of the SAR teams that I've dealt with are way over packed and too heavy. Should all of the ultra light thru hikers starting on Springer be charged with negligence because they are being irresponsible and placing themselves in danger because they don't carry what SAR does?
The parents freaked, the kid did what he had been taught...he didn't save himself, he simply used his knowledge and equipment to keep himself alive. THAT'S NOT NEGLIGENCE, THAT'S INTELLIGENCE!

geek

[MOWGLI]

If NH fixed their tax code, we wouldn't be having this discussion. But they want their cake (tourists), and they want to eat it too (charge for SAR).

[Lone Wolf]

the kid didn't asked to be rescued. why is HE being fined?

[Homer&Marje]

And the voices of reason proclaimed.......


Lot of experience on both sides of this argument that's all I have to say

[Jack Tarlin]

Geez, MOWGLI, lots of folks are perfectly happy with NH's tax code, especially the millions of folks who visit here every year and spend money, including lots of hikers.

I've been living here quite awhile and have yet to see anyone from Massachusetts or Tennessee or wherever ever complain about not having to pay sales tax when they buy something, go grocery shopping, etc.

But if these folks are truly that unhappy with the code and wanna send a donation to the State coffers in Concord cuz they weren't taxed correctly, well they can sure be my guest.

And since it was MOWGLI who brought up the subject, he can go first.

[MOWGLI]

I'll be content to spend my money in NH as I see fit. For instance, like when I went up to Londonderry to watch the Patriots lose to my NY Giants.

It is a tax code issue. A little political courage might be in order. You'd sooner find a $100 bill on the streets of downtown Concord.

[rickb]

If our society is willing to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to underwrite the health care cost of those engaging in unprotected sex, smoking and eating fried clams (both citizens and non citizens alike), I say we can pony up a few more bucks to support a stupid hiker.

If we don't want to fund search and rescue missions, that's OK too. I think we should, but I am just one voice.

A lot of activities most on this list think are pretty cool-- riding a motorcycle (with or without a helmet) to name one-- are really rather irresponsible when it comes down to it.

The hiker had skin in the game (his life) and that's enough for me.

Lets spend a few bucks. The kid might cure cancer some day, and besides, we get to feel smug and superior given that it wasn't us who had such a bad day.

[MOWGLI]

That's way too sensible Rick.

[Pedaling Fool]

Cane him...

Well since many consider waterboarding torture I could imagine the outcry...However, I bet the kid would rather be cained than fined $25,000 -- now that's torture

[Homer&Marje]

Geez, MOWGLI, lots of folks are perfectly happy with NH's tax code, especially the millions of folks who visit here every year and spend money, including lots of hikers.

I've been living here quite awhile and have yet to see anyone from Massachusetts or Tennessee or wherever ever complain about not having to pay sales tax when they buy something, go grocery shopping, etc.

But if these folks are truly that unhappy with the code and wanna send a donation to the State coffers in Concord cuz they weren't taxed correctly, well they can sure be my guest.

And since it was MOWGLI who brought up the subject, he can go first.

No one pays tax on groceries. It's considered a must have provision that's untaxable, thought that was federal law I could be wrong.

I have never traveled to New Hampshire to buy anything but booze on Sundays...we fixed that problem. Gave it to Maryland in form

If our society is willing to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to underwrite the health care cost of those engaging in unprotected sex, smoking and eating fried clams (both citizens and non citizens alike), I say we can pony up a few more bucks to support a stupid hiker.

If we don't want to fund search and rescue missions, that's OK too. I think we should, but I am just one voice.

A lot of activities most on this list think are pretty cool-- riding a motorcycle (with or without a helmet) to name one-- are really rather irresponsible when it comes down to it.

The hiker had skin in the game (his life) and that's enough for me.

Lets spend a few bucks. The kid might cure cancer some day, and besides, we get to feel smug and superior given that it wasn't us who had such a bad day.

I want to point out your not one voice. I stated in another thread about this I think that I think SAR should be done, If it's not in your states budget, don't do it. Just let me know, So I can prepare...oh wait...I should always go prepared for the worst.....wait, am I forgetting something, Does anyone have a New Hampshire Pack List Requirement form that I can fill out and photograph my gear for a day hike so that I don't get charged and everyone can know what I brought, where I'm going and when I stop to pee on my day hike?

Or should I just have the confidence in my fellow humans to help if something happens.

[Sleepy the Arab]

With that, I also think you are misconstruing my definition of negligence equating to death. I'm saying that the kid was found no worse for wear...was not starving, dehydrated, hypothermic, delusional, snow blind, or so many other things that could happen to a lost hiker. I'm saying that in a perfect world, had SAR not been called, he could have made it out alive.

So because the kid wandered out of the woods a-ok, two days overdue, and clearly didn't need rescuing (in spite of his bad judgment), he should not be fined. I guess then, next time someone is a few days late, we should keep the SAR home and not waste the time and money. At least until we receive definite proof that someone needs rescuing. A couple of panicked parents isn't going to be enough: "Call us when it's a tragedy!"

Great idea. Great precedent.

You seem to be so gung-ho about about the plucky kid surviving, that you just don't see that the dumazz cause the very expensive rescue by utilizing some very poor judgment that got him into trouble. That made him late. That panicked his parents, who then called for a rescue.

The big idea here, that I am going to bold so you don't miss it again, is that bad decisions that cause a search and rescue should rightly be subject to fines.

You should also note, that not every SAR situation is caused by negligence. So please, stop bringing comparisons into the thread that were not caused by negligence. And come to think of it, stop asking for blanket definitions of negligence being applied to every situation no matter how unrelated. That's a bad idea.

[Homer&Marje]

Please pay attention to the little red ball Sleepy.

I'm sorry... wasn't the kid prepared and about 45 minutes from rescuing himself??

Thought they were only going to charge idiots who go out un prepared....notable he tried way to long of a day hike...but if he had told people he was going for a 3 day...no S + R would have been conducted.

BS

He didn't ask to be rescued!!! He found the rescuers when he was 45 minutes from the top of Washington, where I assume he would have called to let his family know he was ok and to find a way down.

Like I said, this is total BS that he got charged....I was JUST explaining to my 14 year old brother in law while we were in the Whites just what they were now charging for S + R, and we discussed this case specifically. EVEN a 14 year old said he did everything right, after his mistake in planning.

Send an extra bill to the mother of 4 in a polo shirt and high heels trying to go up Washington with no water and a stroller.

Like someone posted before this is just going to stop people from getting rescued that need it and it will detract from the desire to go into the wilderness.

I think I'm well informed on the case. Please read all before responding. The kid WAS prepared, had a bivvy, emergency blankets, fire starting tools and extra food.

HOW WAS HE NOT PREPARED BESIDES HIS ERROR IN PLANNING!!!????

I'm not really debating the law...because in many circumstances, ill prepared folk should be charged for the SAR.

In this case, I full well believed from the beginning that he would not be charged because he WAS prepared and basically rescued himself. No one found him shivering under a tree branch in a t-shirt, dehydrated and malnourished.

Are they going to charge the 70 year old man's sister (his only living relative) that died on Mt. Washington a few weeks ago?

He WAS NOT prepared and died of exposure in the middle of the summer, the fact that the kid survived 3 days in rough spring weather is a testament to how well prepared he was, regardless of ill planning.

I might be wrong but in the original story I believe I remember that he checked in at the ranger station and checked in before his hike?

I also would consider a 1 day hike that turned into 3 a disaster...but it happens...and he WOULD have got out of it himself had his parents NOT called the SAR and they had not found him 45 minutes from the summit of Washington. Yes it was a disaster of a hike....but he was prepared and eventually, for not the SAR luckily running into him on the trail, he would have been fine.

I think stupid people should have to pay for the SAR....but where are they drawing the line? Break it down simply, how many times have you forgotten something you needed, screwed up in planning, or had things change on you in the woods in which the initial plan, and the initial well being of yourself is jeopardized.

You can pick apart ANYONES hike and find something they didn't do perfect up to the standards of NH SAR apparently.

My packs gonna be heavy next time I go to the Whites. Going to bring the Kitchen Sink so I always have a reliable water source. Don't want SAR to find me dehydrated and charge me 30 grand.

Because I'm sure you've never left late for a hike, wanted to do more miles than you could, suffered a minor injury, believed you could keep going and then made it out fine.

The fact that he didn't die is a huge point, the fact that he was prepared for something to go wrong is a huge point. How do you know he didn't tell his parents his contingency plans?

Do you know that he didn't inform them of the difficulty and his preparedness? After missing for a day the SAR was called by his parents to find him....you don't wait 3 days on someones contingency plans to pan out. You search for your child and expect that since he was prepared, well and alive that you and the child won't be charged as negligent.

Please pay attention to my posts if your going to discuss the topic with me. I have clearly stated many times what you are apparently trying to retort....hopefully everything is bold enough for you.

[Homer&Marje]

Don't want anyone to fall behind.

I might be wrong but in the original story I believe I remember that he checked in at the ranger station and checked in before his hike?

I also would consider a 1 day hike that turned into 3 a disaster...but it happens...and he WOULD have got out of it himself had his parents NOT called the SAR and they had not found him 45 minutes from the summit of Washington. Yes it was a disaster of a hike....but he was prepared and eventually, for not the SAR luckily running into him on the trail, he would have been fine.

I think stupid people should have to pay for the SAR....but where are they drawing the line? Break it down simply, how many times have you forgotten something you needed, screwed up in planning, or had things change on you in the woods in which the initial plan, and the initial well being of yourself is jeopardized.

You can pick apart ANYONES hike and find something they didn't do perfect up to the standards of NH SAR apparently.

My packs gonna be heavy next time I go to the Whites. Going to bring the Kitchen Sink so I always have a reliable water source. Don't want SAR to find me dehydrated and charge me 30 grand.

[WILLIAM HAYES]

poor judgement has a cost

[The Scribe]

<quote>"He didn't ask to be rescued!!! He found the rescuers when he was 45 minutes from the top of Washington, where I assume he would have called to let his family know he was ok and to find a way down."</quote>

Old Phfart or Jack can answer this better than I, but what would our dear boy have found when he reached the summit on that date in April? Is the Adams Visitor Center even open yet on that date? Is there access to a phone? It is stated very clearly that out of season there is NO shelter on the summit of Mount Washington.

So say he never found (or the rescuers never found him) 45 minutes from the summit. If he had made it to the top he would have been faced with an 8 plus mile hike down the auto road. Not sure it sounds like he had in the bag after all.

Peace.