Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 36

Thread: Teen Fined for Rescue

  1. #21
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    125
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 52 Times in 23 Posts

    Default No need to worry

    On a side note I was having a picnic today with a friend of mine who is an insurance underwriter I told him about what was going on and he told me that most insurance companies include personal property coverage with homeowners or renters insurance policies. He was saying that in a case like this the insurance company would cover you and fight it out with the state as long as nothing illegal was involved. Maybe that is what is behind New Hampshires thoughts.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mount Washington, NH/Kearsarge, NH/State College, PA
    Posts
    104
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Default

    Since VZeroMax's post seemed to mostly be directed at anyone thinking billing Scott Mason for his rescue was appropriate, and since I seem to be the only one posting that thinks this, I feel the need to respond to certain things in his post.

    Quote Originally Posted by VZeroMax View Post
    It's ridiculous for all those commenting here to claim they would "never go off trail" and that they would "never make that kind of judgement error". It just means you haven't tried anything resembling a tough mission.
    I don't believe that anyone that has posted here has made this claim. I know I haven't. Of course, one has to keep in mind that going off the trial is highly discouraged in the Whites, not necessarily because of the possibility of getting lost, but more because of the impact it has on the ecology of the mountains, especially when it comes to the alpine zone.


    Quote Originally Posted by VZeroMax View Post
    There's not a hiker or top mountaineer that I've ever heard of or talked to that hasn't made some stupid mistake along the way.
    I would agree with this point. However, the difference is preparation in my opinion. If you're equipped and prepared and plan properly, you may not need to be rescued if you get lost or make a "mistake".

    Quote Originally Posted by VZeroMax View Post
    The real problem are these people in the state of New Hampshire trying to turn this thing into a revenue opportunity. They know very well that they could turn literally every rescue into a negligence claim. It disgusts me to think that a wrong turn in a white out could escalate into a courtroom discussion over whether there was "negligence" involved in trying to route find in zero viz in a snowstorm.
    Again, it comes down to preparation. Someone who isn't negligent would look at the weather before heading out on a hike. If they see a storm is coming which could produce poor visibility, they would not hike if they are not experienced enough to route find in those conditions. If someone with that kind of experience does go out, prepared, and gets lost and/or hurt, then they should not and likely would not be billed for their rescue.

    Quote Originally Posted by VZeroMax View Post
    So net net, I think those posts that are saying the kid should have done this or that, must be written by some awesome route finders who have never gotten lost (or alternatively haven't ventured outside the confines of the appalachian trail).
    This statement really bothers me, mostly because it's extremely unfair to assume that about someone who happens to have that opinion about this issue. It also bothers me because it certainly isn't correct about me. If you knew me at all, you would know that I have ventured outside the confines of the AT and the trail in general (responsibly I might add) on countless occasions. Do I consider myself an "awesome route finder"? No, nor did I claim to be.


    Quote Originally Posted by VZeroMax View Post
    I think it would be a better idea to focus the MWOBS on making sure these guys don't get anywhere with this and the kid gets left alone.
    First of all in response to this, I will reiterate that although I am an Observatory staff member, I am posting my own personal opinion here.

    Regardless, I think it should be clear that the Observatory has absolutely no say whatsoever in this matter, nor should we anymore than anyone here in the forums. We are a non-profit, member supported, scientific organization. We help with SAR operations on a completely volunteer basis and about 90% of the time, that involves providing weather information to those in charge of the SAR. The decision to bill Mr. Mason for the cost of his rescue was made by Fish and Game.
    Brian Clark

    MWO Observer and Meteorologist

    http://mountwashington.accuweather.com<---- My blog on AccuWeather.com

    We are....PENN STATE!!

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Rhode Island
    Posts
    1,994
    Thanks
    60
    Thanked 243 Times in 126 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by VZeroMax View Post
    Just for comparison - - I hike and climb in the Canadian Rockies in Banff National Park. You buy a park pass for $5 and as long as you have it you qualify to be rescued. THAT's called making the outdoors accessible.
    I'm definitely not looking to pick a fight here, but this statement seems to be going in the opposite direction. Are you saying that as long as someone pays a $5 fee he should be able to go out and do whatever he wants and be entitled to free rescue if he is totally unprepared, irresponsible and negligent? I hope not. In my opinion charging a $5 fee that entitles a person to rescue even more encourages irresponsible behavior (hey, I paid the rescue insurance fee, right?). Unless they are making the person who pays the fee sign some sort of agreement that relates to their preparedness.

    If you read my historic posts on this subject you'll find that I always side with the idea of penalizing (fining, etc) someone who through their irresponsibility, negligence, unpreparedness not only creates costs for the rescue but also puts the lives of the SAR team members at risk (needlessly). Based on everything that I've heard in this particular case (much of it hearsay) I don't believe that this kid falls into the category that should incur the penalty. There is definitely no black and white answer here. Brian is also completely right about this having nothing to do with the OBS. Almost all of us here are only loosely associated with the OBS (a few employees, more members and many unaffiliated) and all of us are expressing our personal opinions.
    Mark

    Keep close to Nature's heart...
    and break clear away, once in awhile,
    and climb a mountain or spend a week in the woods.
    Wash your spirit clean. - John Muir


    Hiking photos: http://picasaweb.google.com/mtruman42
    Hiking Blog: http://theramblingsblog.blogspot.com/
    Seek the 2011 Peak page: Mark Truman's Pledge Page

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Coast of Maine
    Posts
    3
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    First lets ask whom supports NHF&G, it is not the state of New Hampshire, it is those guys that buy hunting and fishing licenses, matching money from Federal Government and some of the proceeds from ATV and Boat registrations, so whom do you think should pay for S&R the fishermen and hunters or those getting lost? If we do not want take a chance on getting a bill then we should consider a prepaid fee that lets you pay a $5 or $10 annually. if you fail to buy into the program they get to recoup up to $1000.00 a day. Otherwise we need to approach the state to fund NHF&G for S&R operations.
    Last edited by BruceWO1B; 07-20-2009 at 04:19 PM.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    449
    Thanks
    14
    Thanked 31 Times in 20 Posts

    Default

    (as soon as I saw this story on SP, I had to pop over here)

    Last time we hiked up, I'll admit it....we hiked stupid. We should have turned around earlier....when we saw the weather change. We were idiots.

    If we need rescue, we probably would have had to pay, and I'd say we'd have deserved it (though I can say that safely from my computer now)

    Was this kid really that unprepared? Depending how high (elevation, peeps ) I was and what time of day I was injured, I might have pushed on up as well, not sure.

    Anyway....I'd love to see the outcome of this, and it really is an interesting discussion

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Lovettsville, VA
    Posts
    731
    Thanks
    17
    Thanked 112 Times in 67 Posts

    Default

    The story just made it to Backpacker.com.

    Link here.
    Summit Club Member
    Seek the Peak 11
    Seek the Peak 10: Lions Head/Tuckermans Ravine
    Seek the Peak 09: Boot Spur (redux)
    Seek the Peak 08: Huntington Ravine
    Seek the Peak 07: Tuckermans Ravine/Lions Head
    My 48: Washington (07/07, 07/08, 07/09, 09/09, 07/10), Lafayette (08/08, 08/09), Lincoln (08/08, 08/09), Pierce (07/10), Carrigain (09/10), Cannon (10/10), Jackson (11/10), Field (11/10), Tom (01/11)

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    1
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Scott Mason, my son

    I want to thank most of you for your understanding. My son is having a harder time now dealing with the stress of an unexpected 25K bill and the media's accusations, than he did for 3 nights shivering alone and in pain in the Whites. To clarify a few points, soon after Scott was released from his overnight in the hospital, we sent one $500. check to the F&G and one $500. check to the NH Outdoor Council Volunteers to express our gratitude. (I had to borrow that money)

  8. #28
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Bellingham, Ma
    Posts
    356
    Thanks
    44
    Thanked 38 Times in 17 Posts

    Default

    My turn:

    I respect and give a lot of credit to the SAR folks for the job they do and that has nothing to do with my opinion on this kids predicament.

    In the article it says that there's usually about 140 rescues in a typical year and that there's about 40 of them that they could seek reimbursement on. For the most part it's been pretty easy up till now to spot which 40 they're referring to. With this decision the line between what's negligent and what's not in my opinion has gotten a whole lot narrower.

    I question Maj Acerno's statement criticizing this hiker about continuing up the mountain when hurt. Depending on the trail and how close to the top of it you are, going up in certain situations might actually be a smarter decision. If I was alone and injured and just a quarter mile from the top of lets say Six Husbands or Huntington Ravine I'd like my odds a whole lot better going up than trying to go down either one if hurt and once there I believe my chances of being found or helped by someone coming along probably goes way up.

    I think every rescue situation is unique and some people deserve to be fined and granted I don't know all the specifics in this case, but I just don't see doling out such a steep fine here. But then again I don't live in NH so it doesn't hit my wallet. (for now)
    Last edited by billysinc; 07-20-2009 at 05:32 PM.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,145
    Thanks
    541
    Thanked 121 Times in 73 Posts

    Default

    last year at seek the peak i got up above the tree line just below lions head when legs cramped up bad .

    so what would you do go up slow had hope you make it or go down .

    i sat there for about an hour after i said to the people i was with to keep going and i would head down after a long break ,water and a snack . people said going down that trail is a tough one .it was but i think going up would have bin a mistake .
    i took my time with walking poles and that helped .

    i think i made a wise choice if i had to be helped out does that mean i pay ,NO .if i went off trail on my way down because i thought it would be faster and got lost then had to be helped out YES i pay .
    i am a Summit Club member
    http://public.fotki.com/hvachawk/new pictures and videos

    If your not a OBS member yet then what are you waiting for

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Epping, NH
    Posts
    658
    Thanks
    8
    Thanked 58 Times in 25 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Charlie View Post
    last year at seek the peak i got up above the tree line just below lions head when legs cramped up bad .

    so what would you do go up slow had hope you make it or go down .

    .
    It's often discussed at the Obs that because of the 'civilization' at the top, many continue on into worse and worse conditions because of the perception of safety at the top. It is one of the few serious mountains that going up is even an option. Unfortunately, the safety net isn't as reliable as many would hope...the state park locks the doors, and the train is dependant on the crowd, and the auto road is weather fickle.

    Most people that I can remember encountering that continued up with a problem definately fell into my perception of very negligent. And again, I'm all for the F&G recovering costs on the very negligent. I just am unclear on the negligence involved here, and whether it warrants such an exorbitant price...
    Last edited by JimS; 07-20-2009 at 08:53 PM.
    "I've learned that everyone wants to live on top of the mountain, but that all the happiness and growth occurs while you're climbing it."
    ~Andy Rooney

    Follow my photography on Facebook:http://www.facebook.com/pages/Jim-Sa...y/156147782386

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •