Lost Hikers might be fined

[hammer]

It pays to be prepared...or should I say it costs to not be:

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/13712268/detail.html

Of course, getting a fine could have been the least of their worries...:roll:

 

[LongStep]

sounds rational i mean why would you be at the top of a steep mountain w/o the bare essentials. that being said I wonder how far they will take this. I have heard of people or the state removing trail blazes, Having a knee injury I tend to watch where im placing my feet often during periods of shaky ground. Id hate to lose myself on a unfamiliar trail because there are no blazes and I missed a turn off due to watching my footing. I can defintly see why being unprepared such as the original story should lead to some fines i just hope it doesnt get out of hand.

 

[hammer]

sounds rational i mean why would you be at the top of a steep mountain w/o the bare essentials. that being said I wonder how far they will take this. I have heard of people or the state removing trail blazes, Having a knee injury I tend to watch where im placing my feet often during periods of shaky ground. Id hate to lose myself on a unfamiliar trail because there are no blazes and I missed a turn off due to watching my footing. I can defintly see why being unprepared such as the original story should lead to some fines i just hope it doesnt get out of hand.

Agree...I'd hope that, if you needed a rescue but were otherwise prepared, that you would not be fined.

 

[thetrailboss]

Eh...not much info there. IMHO if they were unprepared and if the facts show that they went out in either bad weather or too late, then they are negligent and should be fined.

I see some evidence of negligence, but need more info.

 

[David Metsky]

I have heard of people or the state removing trail blazes,

This is the USFS removing blazes in federal Wilderness Areas; there are 5 of them in the WMNF.

Having a knee injury I tend to watch where im placing my feet often during periods of shaky ground. Id hate to lose myself on a unfamiliar trail because there are no blazes and I missed a turn off due to watching my footing. I can defintly see why being unprepared such as the original story should lead to some fines i just hope it doesnt get out of hand.

The only times this law has been used is when people have made extremely negligent decisions; usually complete lack of preparation, disregard of warnings, or alcohol use.

 

[LongStep]

This is the USFS removing blazes in federal Wilderness Areas; there are 5 of them in the WMNF.


The only times this law has been used is when people have made extremely negligent decisions; usually complete lack of preparation, disregard of warnings, or alcohol use.

well then I don't see a problem with it. Im sure it costs a ton of money to send out rescue parties for people who aren't prepared or being negligent. I have never heard of people hiking while drinking, lord knows thats the last place id like to be boozing enroute up a mountain.


as for the removing of blazes id say thats a pretty silly thing to do.

 

[hammer]

Here's another article:

http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070719/NEWS02/707190367/1003/NEWS02

According to this one, they had no hiking gear and they started out at 3 PM...

 

[David Metsky]

I have never heard of people hiking while drinking, lord knows thats the last place id like to be boozing enroute up a mountain.

The first group that got charged under this law headed up Cardigan to watch sunset with nothing but a case of beer and cell phone. There are all types of crazy out there. It's far more common then you'd think.

as for the removing of blazes id say thats a pretty silly thing to do.

Federally designated Wilderness Areas are supposed to be as close to nature as possible. That means no shelters, bridges, no mileage on signs, and minimal trail maintenance. In most places out west it also means limited or no trail blazing. The areas in the WMNF are a bit of an oddity, since they were part of the normal National Forest (and before that, clear cut for pulp) before the designation. Most existing "non-conforming structures" like shelters and such have been grandfathered until they need major repairs, or simply removed after the designation went through. Removing the blazing on some trails in the Wilderness Areas is an additional step; not everyone is happy about it.

But it's also another thread.

-dave-

 

[MichaelJ]

My only comment is that according to one news article they were already asking post-rescue about being fined. I would have been a lot happier if they had instead offered a donation in lieu of a fine (I seem to remember someone else doing that in the past). Perhaps that may still happen.

Going up a trail at 3pm with almost 5 more hours of light, not a big deal. Heck, in winter una_dogger and I took many hikes where the *plan* was to hike out in the dark. But to keep ascending as the sun sets with no headlamp ... not cool.

Okay, 'nuf said by me for now. Let's see how this plays out with the people whose opinion really matters - Fish & Game.