Warning: Don't get lost in New Hampshire

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

When New Hampshire lawmakers decided to bill negligent hikers for their rescues, they figured they would solve some budget problems and teach hapless tourists a lesson. Then a 17-year-old Eagle Scout got lost on Mount Washington and ended up with a bill for $25,000.

Now New Hampshire officials, facing possible litigation, are defending a law that hasn't solved their budget troubles and puts the state at odds with national search-and-rescue groups that say billing hikers is dangerous.

"It certainly has put us on the hot spot," says Lt. Todd Bogardus, head of search and rescue for the state Fish and Game Department.

Few other states bill those who are rescued — and most of the other laws target skiers who stray off marked slopes.

Oregon caps the amount that can be billed at $500. Hawaii requires there be an "intentional disregard" for safety, and Idaho limits reimbursement to rescues from lands that are closed to the public. A Maine law that permits the state to recover costs of a search and rescue is seldom enforced.

The National Association for Search and Rescue opposes billing for rescue, contending people won't seek help if they're afraid they'll have to pay for it. "The public needs to understand that there's going to be someone there to help them and you shouldn't worry about downstream consequences," spokesman Howard Paul says.

In April, Scott Mason, then a high school junior from Halifax, Mass., set out on a 17-mile day hike in the White Mountains. The popular hiking destination includes Mount Washington, where unpredictable conditions have earned it the title "home of the world's worst weather."

When he didn't return by nightfall, his parents called for help. Teams from four search-and-rescue groups searched for four days, assisted by helicopters rented from Maine and Vermont.

Mason had hurt his ankle and tried to take a shortcut, only to get stranded by melting snow and swollen streams that also hampered the searchers. During his three nights on the mountain, he had built a rock shelter and started a fire using hand sanitizer as an accelerant.

Bogardus says Mason was negligent because he did not turn back on the trail after he was injured.

Mason, who declined comment, is in negotiations with the state Attorney General's office over the fee, his lawyer Jed Callen says.

Since the negligent hiker law took effect in June 2008, the state has billed 13 hikers other than Mason an average of $203 for their rescues.

"People (who) make poor judgments at some point in time have to be responsible for their actions," says Democratic state Rep. Dennis Abbott, who sponsored the law. "You don't rent helicopters for nothing."

National groups say billing for rescue is like a firefighter dousing the flames and then billing the homeowner.

Sometimes hikers are foolish, says Charley Shimanski, president of the Mountain Rescue Association. "But at the same time, you also have people who don't know how to use a welding torch … burning down their garage. And they still need the help of the fire department."

Bogardus and other New Hampshire officials point out that while everyone's taxes pay for the firefighters, search-and-rescue teams are funded by a $1 surcharge on snowmobile, boat and off-road vehicle licenses.

That covers only 84% of the annual cost of search-and-rescue missions, a department performance audit shows. The state averages 138 rescue missions a year and spent $258,000 on them in 2007.

Almost half of the missions are to help hikers, Bogardus says. And almost half of those hikers are from out of state, department records show.

An earlier New Hampshire law allowed the state to recoup expenses in rescuing "reckless" hikers. The new focus on negligence, Bogardus says, "is a much easier standard to prove."

Freddie Wilkinson, a climber and writer who was part of the search party that found Mason, calls the new standard a dangerous precedent because "the government assumes the authority to regulate personal decisions made in the wilderness."

Says Bogardus: "Take care of yourself and don't expect big brother."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-0...rescuefee_N.htm

[mawilson 2,133]

I love it

There's nothing more American than charging people for their stupidity.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Yeah well... the experts don't seem to agree.

Much the same reasoning that causes people to fear the healthcare system.

[mawilson 2,133]

Well, to be fair, they should have charged his parents, not him - the parents were the ones that called for help.

If I decide to get lost in the wilderness, I don't want the government looking for me and then charging me for it.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I don't think anyone would "decide" to get lost, but it happens.

Who is to say whether one incident is negligent and another isn't - its not unheard of for people to get lost in sudden snowstorms. There was a party of professional mountain climbers last year who got killed when that happened, and they'd taken precautions (maps, GPS etc).

Seems like a pretty dodgy precedent to me.

Edited September 24, 2009 by Gene Hunt

[Amby 490]

Mark when would you ever go out into the wilderness to get lost?

[The_Dude 1,142]

I don't think anyone would "decide" to get lost, but it happens.

Who is to say whether one incident is negligent and another isn't - its not unheard of for people to get lost in sudden snowstorms. There was a party of professional mountain climbers last year who got killed when that happened, and they'd taken precautions (maps, GPS etc).

Seems like a pretty dodgy precedent to me.

So the lesson to be learned here is.... Stay in the city kids or you'll end up in jail? Did I skip a few steps and jump to conclussions? (I am applying Dannologic here it would seem)

[mawilson 2,133]

I don't think anyone would "decide" to get lost, but it happens.

Who is to say whether one incident is negligent and another isn't - its not unheard of for people to get lost in sudden snowstorms. There was a party of professional mountain climbers last year who got killed when that happened, and they'd taken precautions (maps, GPS etc).

Seems like a pretty dodgy precedent to me.

I suppose so... but what if the whole thing is a prank, and the boy is really hiding in a barn?

[Amby 490]

If people are being stupid and not paying attention to signs I think they should be fined. Just because you think it'll be fun to go off the path and get lost, it's not smart.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

In reality, the focus should be on getting people out of these situations alive; rather than on dwelling about the "what ifs" about the situation and trying to deconstruct the decisions they made so that a case could be made for negligence.

[mawilson 2,133]

In reality, the focus should be on getting people out of these situations alive; rather than on dwelling about the "what ifs" about the situation and trying to deconstruct the decisions they made so that a case could be made for negligence.

That's exactly how the system works. Rescue first, charge later (or not.)

[_Simpson_ 250]

Well of course he should be charged for his stupidity. He should of turned around. If people start getting fined for making stupid decisions they are going to start thinking twice and hell who knows it might even save some lives. Theres things that happen that a hiker cant control and from the article they take that into consideration. I get fined for being stupid on the highways why shouldnt I be fined for stupidity on the trails. I drive 65mph for a reason.

Did someone make a health care comparison, Pike? Thats almost like Fox the other day comparing health care to terrorism.

[The_Dude 1,142]

Well of course he should be charged for his stupidity. He should of turned around. If people start getting fined for making stupid decisions they are going to start thinking twice and hell who knows it might even save some lives. Theres things that happen that a hiker cant control and from the article they take that into consideration. I get fined for being stupid on the highways why shouldnt I be fined for stupidity on the trails. I drive 65mph for a reason.

Did someone make a health care comparison, Pike? Thats almost like Fox the other day comparing health care to terrorism.

Do you drive an american car? That would explain the bolded part

[_Simpson_ 250]

No its not American, but I dont get your point. Its not the truck that limits me.

[The_Dude 1,142]

No its not American, but I dont get your point. Its not the truck that limits me.

Ahhh it's a truck, well that is why. I drive considerably above the speed limit. Why else would I have purchased a high performance car? The threat of punitive fines does not outweigh the thrill of driving fast for me.