So Who SHOULD Pay for the Backcountry Rescue of a Hiker or Skier?

[ComeBackMudPuddles]

no question that any skier who randomly follows someone else's tracks into the woods should pay for their own rescue....AND pay a fine for having had to take advantage of precious resources that should have been employed for real emergencies.

 

[thetrailboss]

no question that any skier who randomly follows someone else's tracks into the woods should pay for their own rescue....AND pay a fine for having had to take advantage of precious resources that should have been employed for real emergencies.

Pay a fine for:

(a) An "emergency" being that when the trails are skied off, only a select few should have the woods and their goods (hence, the precious resources);

Or:

(b) An "emergency" meaning when there is someone who needs rescue more badly.

:wink:

 

[Connecticut]

I made this suggestion to the Ragged Mountain Foundation for rock climbing along public and private land in Connecticut. The same process could work for wilderness areas.

There could be insurance devoted to rescues and medical expenses in wilderness or mountainous areas. Each person could pay a nominal fee for a one-time use, 7-day use, 1 month or year. I'm thinking that this would probably not cost very much, but it takes away what feels like a right or a freedom.

The other end of things is the actual cost of rescue. I'm willing to bet that if there was another optional rescue service, they could still provide the same level of care for about a quarter of the cost. "Crazy Jose's discount search & rescue."

Here is another point. Does the Coast Guard charge for their rescues? I'm willing to bet that the costs of a search & rescue by the coastguard is immense.

 

[thetrailboss]

Well, another story on WCAX about this summer with some key points we have discussed.

The article.

Some points:

"Weather's a big factor this year, but poor decisions are also a big factor," explained Brian Linder with Waterbury Backcountry Rescue.

"The most common mistake we see is people who go out on a beautiful day but get injured and because it's a beautiful day don't think they need extra clothing or extra food, flashlights, and by the time we get to them its after dark and they're cold and unprepared for the night."

Vermont is one of a handful of states where hikers can be billed for their rescue. Some rescue agencies do it, other's don't, fearing hikers will wait too long to call 911.

"We'd like to think we don't have to. On the other hand there needs to be some mechanism to encourage more hikers to be prepared," explained Hardy. "People should think twice because if they're gong to be billed the bills can be very significant. The one in New Hampshire recently was $25,000," added Linder.

 

[Connecticut]

The only problem with billing someone to be rescued is that nobody ever thinks they will need to be rescued. Nobody ever walks into a situation thinking they are unprepared.

Also, if a teen walks up a mountain wearing tennis shoes and brings no water then needs rescued, it is just as negligent as a backcountry skier that needs rescued because of a broken leg. Each walked into a situation that ended in disaster and each walked into the situation thinking that they would be ok. Just because one person appears to be prepared and trained means nothing. Disaster is indescriminant and will take the prepared and unprepared just the same. I'm willing to bet there are far fewer "prepared and trained" people going into the wilderness than people just out for a walk or a hike. This would mean that the percent of prepared people that need to be rescued is actually higher than the percent of non-prepared people that need to be rescued, even though the number of unprepared people may be higher -- something to think about.

Also, a $25,000 bill is completely unpayable. How does the state think they are going to collect this, especially from a teen? - Or somebody that resides out of state or out of the country?

 

[riverc0il]

Wow! $25K! Best argument to stay at home and play wii.

Does this function as an actual deterrent? Is any one here not planning on hiking or enjoying the outdoors due to the potential cost of a rescue? Is any one changing their plans due to a potential rescue?

Of course not. Most people do not sit around hatching up dangerous plans thinking "I might need to be rescued." The extreme thrill seekers will do so regardless because that is the nature of the beast and they know going into the game that death is a likely outcome if they screw up.

On the flip side, will "Joe Six Pack" out doing a "bit off more than he could chew" first hike will not call for help sooner rather than later fearing a $25,000 price tag? That is a dangerous position to place the public. How long is it until someone turns up dead that could have been rescued if they had called had they not feared a $25,000 bill from the state.

How long is it until fire and police departments start charging for rescues?

There are two questions that make this sort of thing unfair. The definition of what is reckless behavior are not defined by the law. The other question is how much is too much and did the rescue really cost the state $25,000? Maybe they should drop the Helo from feature rescues if they don't have the money to do S&R from the air. If the person footing the bill isn't given the choice, I don't see how the fees can be justified. No one starts their day thinking they are doing something dumb that could get them killed, especially those people that I have seen needing rescue these last few years.

Should a person that is rescued help foot the bill? I certainly would if I were alive thanks to S&R. But I sure as heck couldn't afford $25,000 right now. How much is too much?

 

[thetrailboss]

Also, if a teen walks up a mountain wearing tennis shoes and brings no water then needs rescued, [/B]

That is the kind of person that they are trying to deter.

...it is just as negligent as a backcountry skier that needs rescued because of a broken leg.

Not necessarily. In the latter, the person was prepared but as you said nobody can prevent such an injury. The agencies seem to be focusing on if the person who was injured was in a situation in which he/she could not have avoided. In the NH case involving the teen Eagle Scout in April, he simply said, "I'm an Eagle Scout, therefore, I can do this [intense] winter hike." He had no idea what he was getting into. From what I have read, his hubris really got the best of him. As a result of that, he got stuck in a bad situation, one that could have been avoided, and needed a rescue.

 

[billski]

This issue could move from the backburner to the front burner in VT
http://www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp?S=10831749

Hikers Being Rescued at Historic Levels

"Weather's a big factor this year, but poor decisions are also a big factor," explained Brian Linder with Waterbury Backcountry Rescue.

Brian Linder says several of the five rescue operations on Camel's Hump this summer could have been prevented if hikers had been prepared.

Vermont is one of a handful of states where hikers can be billed for their rescue. Some rescue agencies do it, other's don't, fearing hikers will wait too long to call 911.

River asks, "Does this function as an actual deterrent?" - No, but if the PR keeps up it may encourage people to be better prepared.

I will admit that as the years have gone by, I have added more and more items to my pack. I never used to pack for emergencies. In my incident last month, several of the items in my pack were used for the first time in 20 years and my partners were very glad to find what they did in my pack.

I really wish that hikesafe.com pamphlet could tucked into every single piece of outdoor gear sold.

 

[Connecticut]

As a result of that, he got stuck in a bad situation, one that could have been avoided, and needed a rescue.

This statement is true for any rescue situation.

There are more unprepared and otherwise clueless people walking into the mountains and wilderness that just happen to walk out ok than people who are "prepared" - plain and simple.

Hubris among the prepared or unprepared could be the leading cause of accidents. Either way, how can this be differentiated in a logical fashion?

It would make more sense to charge $25,000 across the board for any rescue (even though I think this to be absurd) - Or stop engaging in such expensive rescue operations. What happened to volunteers?

 

[thetrailboss]

This statement is true for any rescue situation.

There are more unprepared and otherwise clueless people walking into the mountains and wilderness that just happen to walk out ok than people who are "prepared" - plain and simple.

Hubris among the prepared or unprepared could be the leading cause of accidents. Either way, how can this be differentiated in a logical fashion?

It would make more sense to charge $25,000 across the board for any rescue (even though I think this to be absurd) - Or stop engaging in such expensive rescue operations. What happened to volunteers?

In making the determination as to who was reckless and who was not, and who should pay for the rescue (which uses limited volunteer resources), the State does not focus on the end result--i.e. if there was a rescue or not. They focus on what happened at the trailhead to infer how reckless one was.

The distinguishing factor is to focus on the intent of the party, and their appreciation of the risk they were taking.

And an update as to the MA teen fined $25k. They are trying to negotiate the fine.

As we have discussed before, the NH Game Service stated:

Fish and Game officials praised him for using his Eagle Scout skills to stay alive, but criticized him for being unprepared for treacherous spring conditions.

And why are they doing this? Because they need to deter reckless hikers and outdoors enthusiasts from wasting limited rescue resources, including volunteers. If you have the volunteers and the paid rescue personnel and equipment using helicopters to rescue a hiker who entered the woods unprepared, got lost, and called for help, you cannot rescue the prepared hiker who is traveling with a group, slips on a rock and fractures his skull and needs an immediate evac.

 

[Connecticut]

Nomatter what the fine, it could be a million dollars, the very last person who is going to head the warning and be "prepared" are the people that are flat out clueless. The fine in effect does nothing. Somewhere right now in the forests of Vermont there are some teens drinking beer and smoking weed on the way to the top of a mountain; maybe they all make it back safe or not, but I'm damn sure they aren't thinking about getting fined. However, if they do need rescued, their situation is just as legitimate as a group of NOLS instructors getting zapped by lightning.

From what I understand, someone can wrap their car around a tree after drinking and not be fined as much. $25K - crazy.

 

[thetrailboss]

From what I understand, someone can wrap their car around a tree after drinking and not be fined as much. $25K - crazy.

It technically is not a "fine." It was the cost of his search....which involved three days of volunteers and helicopter use. The latter is what increased the cost.

 

[Connecticut]

I'm curious now about what made this boy's trip into the woods so grossly negligent. What did he do wrong and how was this a contributing factor to his predicament?

 

[madman]

I still dont get the problem with fees! If I need rescue come and get me, my life is worth 25K. That is only the price of a nice car. My life is worth more to me and my family then a car. Hopefully they have a payment plan because I cant come up with the cash but will be willing to work something out.

 

[hammer]

I'm curious now about what made this boy's trip into the woods so grossly negligent. What did he do wrong and how was this a contributing factor to his predicament?

Are you saying that it's reasonable for a hiker with limited experience to try to tackle a mid-spring 17 mile hike in the Presidentials solo?

 

[thetrailboss]

Are you saying that it's reasonable for a hiker with limited experience to try to tackle a mid-spring 17 mile hike in the Presidentials solo?

+ 1. That is what happened in this case. The guy said, "I am an Eagle Scout, I can handle anything, I want a challenge," and set out for the Presidential Traverse in MID APRIL. That is a 17 mile hike over the highest peaks in the Whites, in pretty much winter conditions. He was planning on doing this in a day. That is not realistic given the conditions and snow depth. That is just barely doable for most people in a summer day, with a very early start and good weather.

He got going and got into trouble. I don't recall if it was the flooding stream that he could not cross or getting stuck in snow too deep for him, but anyways he left the trail and tried to bushwhack. His one day trip turned into three and at some point either him or his family called for help.

He bit off way more than he could chew. If you read the thread where we discussed this case, you will see that I am a bit harsh on him. That's because I am an Eagle Scout and we were always taught, and told others, to be smart when hiking and being outdoors and not getting into trouble in the first place. He should have turned back when it became quite obvious that he was over his head. I think he really reflected poorly on the rest of us Scouts and Scouters. He felt that his recent award gave him a sense of entitlement. As you said, nature doesn't recognize any entitlement. That's why you have to respect it and be conscientious of what you are getting yourself into.

The state is saying that his negligence is that he was not prepared for the hike to begin with.

For some, the wilderness offers a challenge. But with that challenge must come an appreciation of the risk, and preparedness for what could happen. And when weather or conditions get too bad, that person needs to turn around rather than making things worse for him/herself.

 

[billski]

Nomatter what the fine, it could be a million dollars, the very last person who is going to head the warning and be "prepared" are the people that are flat out clueless. The fine in effect does nothing. Somewhere right now in the forests of Vermont there are some teens drinking beer and smoking weed on the way to the top of a mountain; maybe they all make it back safe or not, but I'm damn sure they aren't thinking about getting fined. However, if they do need rescued, their situation is just as legitimate as a group of NOLS instructors getting zapped by lightning.

From what I understand, someone can wrap their car around a tree after drinking and not be fined as much. $25K - crazy.

Discussions like these are precisely the behavior they were hoping to provoke with an onerous charge. Talk to any SAR group and they will tell you that making people aware and prepared is their goal. Any way to generate publicity and discussion will do.

Can you catch everyone? Of course not. New fools are born every year. But at least you can work to minimize it.

My prediction is that they fine "negotiation" will linger for some time, probably until NHF&G believes enough time has passed and enough publicity has been generated and then they will quietly settle it for a more reasonable amount.

 

[billski]

+ 1. He bit off way more than he could chew. If you read the thread where we discussed this case, you will see that I am a bit harsh on him. That's because I am an Eagle Scout and we were always taught, and told others, to be smart when hiking and being outdoors and not getting into trouble in the first place. He should have turned back when it became quite obvious that he was over his head.

I agree 100%. It reminds me of a hike I took in July in the western whites. It was an ambitious circuit to begin with. I got into it and found washouts, unmarked sections where I lost/found/lost/found the trail and burned a lot of time. Later, I'm watching the clock and want to be certain I'm out before sunset and the skies open up and just pour. At that point, I turned around and got back safe and sound. I have never regretted any of the times I've turned around. I think that is the hardest decision to make when you've got a big ego or too much confidence or are ill-prepared.

 

[Connecticut]

I still believe that charging $25K for a rescue (for any reason) is nuts.

 

[thetrailboss]

I still believe that charging $25K for a rescue (for any reason) is nuts.

Then what should they have done? They have limited resources and volunteer SAR teams who have lives and real jobs. The goal is to reduce unnecessary rescues.