Are we charged for rescues ?

[spider]

This isn't about any particular recent events with kayakers.

This was a question posed on a well respected hiking web site (it also has a small section for paddlers) .

So a young fellow is lost in the White Mountains for a few days, but apparently self rescues and all is well.

but

He is being charged $25,000.

So, are we also charged if we need a rescue when paddling ?

Are we charged if a rescue is called when we don't need to rescued?

Is our next of kin charged if it is to late for a rescue, but there is a retrieval search?

thanks

[Gcosloy]

This isn't about any particular recent events with kayakers.

This was a question posed on a well respected hiking web site (it also has a small section for paddlers) .

So a young fellow is lost in the White Mountains for a few days, but apparently self rescues and all is well.

but

He is being charged $25,000.

So, are we also charged if we need a rescue when paddling ?

Are we charged if a rescue is called when we don't need to rescued?

Is our next of kin charged if it is to late for a rescue, but there is a retrieval search?

thanks

I don't think that the CG is considering charging for rescues although there are severe penalties for "calling wolf". The most serious objection that I've heard against charging for rescues is that it might discourage someone in trouble from calling for help when they needed it. A much better solution I think is for insurance companies to offer policies that would reimburse rescuers if needed. We all should have health insurance; why not rescue insurance. Given how much time I'm on the water there is a better statistical probability that I would need a rescue someday than my house catching fire.

[rick stoehrer]

This isn't about any particular recent events with kayakers.

This was a question posed on a well respected hiking web site (it also has a small section for paddlers) .

So a young fellow is lost in the White Mountains for a few days, but apparently self rescues and all is well.

but

He is being charged $25,000.

So, are we also charged if we need a rescue when paddling ?

Are we charged if a rescue is called when we don't need to rescued?

Is our next of kin charged if it is to late for a rescue, but there is a retrieval search?

thanks

that was new hampshire and it's an outrage. kid did everything right AFTER he hurt is ankle and is living proof he did everything right. the law is to charge unprepared, jelly shoe wearing knuckleheads who get caught out and this kid ain't one of them. and i do wonder if the state woulda had the unmitigated chutzpa to charge the family had the outcome been recovery and not a rescue. i think the state is trying to make some fool point hope they lose the case when/if somoene files it. that whole thing stinks!

massachusetts doesn't have a similar law and to my knowledge, the feds don't charge.

about 10 years ago NAVAL WARSHIPS and fleet of other craft were tasked to find a kennedy that can't operate machinery (there have been a few) and it's pretty unlikely anyone handed them a bill when they recovered the plane.

[tyson]

Anyone have any links to information or key words I could use to search?

Thanks!

Ty

[bazzert]

Anyone have any links to information or key words I could use to search?

Thanks!

Ty

Here's one article.

[Michael_Crouse]

Hi Rick, all the articles I've read imply that he kept hiking after he hurt his ankle. He definitely left the trail after he hurt his ankle. I assume that greatly complicated the search for him. Also the state of Maine provided the helicopter for the search, perhaps they are billing NH, who in turn is billing the kid from Mass?

I agree with charging for rescues in some cases. Like when a group of folks hike into the woods with 8 cases of beer and no shelter, sleeping bags, etc... But I'm not so sure about this one.

[tyson]

Here's one article.

Thanks! I read that and then armed with a name I was able to find others:

http://news.google.com/news?pz=1&ned=u...out+Scott+Mason

Unfortunately, what I found was typical of press reporting. There is a serious lack of information. The original post (or a follow up here) said that he self rescued. I didn't find that in any of what I read.

Some of what is lacking is what equipment he had and what conditions he wandered into. It sounds like he didn't have a map. It sounds like he didn't have flotation (snow shoes, skis, etc) which is absolutely required for hiking up there when there is snow. In the spring you can get away without it if you stick to the trails.

I'm going out on a limb here and since the reports lack critical detail, but it sounds like he was seriously under equipped and was negligent by leaving the trail into deep soft snow. In short, he may have done everything right once he was lost, but may have done many key things wrong up to that point. ...but I could be wrong.

However, even if what I'm guessing is correct the amount of the fine seems very steep. There are much better people to make examples of than this kid. I'm thinking of the ones who do what he did, but instead of having some survival skills they lack basic clothing, come armed with a cell phone and call for help when they get tired.

As for the MA vs NH comparison, MA gets a small fraction of these problems because MA doesn't have the "recreational wilderness" that NH, VT and ME have and so their problem is much smaller. On a per capita basis, the cost of rescues much higher for NH than MA. ...and I'll go out on one more limb and suggest that NH residents might not be the cause of the disproportionate statistics.

Independent of all of the above, I found this quote quite disturbing:

Major Tim Acerno of the New Hampshire Fish and Game Department said the soft, deep snow in April made the area too dangerous for hikers.

It is too dangerous for people who are careless or negligent, but that blanket statement is absurd.

I know some people who might know some people who might know a bit more about what happened. I'll check.

Cheers!

Ty

[spider]

Hi the thread is over at

www.viewsfromthetop.com

(edit..can't get the link to work...I need to get better at this...)

much like this web site it can be read by anyone but only members can post.

( at that website membership is free but a person must be sponsored to join.)

One point that I'm not clear on and need to ask. I believe Mt Washington is State owned within the White Mnt Natn'l Forest...if he was exclusively on National Forest property would it be safe to assume that he would not be charged ?

So here in kayaking is the Coast Guard National or does Mass have a GC and NH a different one Main different etc.. etc...

that would help to understand if we are comparing Apples for Apples as the saying goes...

[spuglisi]

Hi the thread is over at

www.viewsfromthetop.com

(edit..can't get the link to work...I need to get better at this...)

much like this web site it can be read by anyone but only members can post.

( at that website membership is free but a person must be sponsored to join.)

One point that I'm not clear on and need to ask. I believe Mt Washington is State owned within the White Mnt Natn'l Forest...if he was exclusively on National Forest property would it be safe to assume that he would not be charged ?

So here in kayaking is the Coast Guard National or does Mass have a GC and NH a different one Main different etc.. etc...

that would help to understand if we are comparing Apples for Apples as the saying goes...

Spider,

I think that no matter who's land it is...It was the State of NH that conducted the search and they're the ones billing the hiker.

[tyson]

Hi the thread is over at

www.viewsfromthetop.com

(edit..can't get the link to work...I need to get better at this...)

Here is the thread:

http://www.viewsfromthetop.com/forums/showthread.php?t=31231

I don't know if the folks there are better informed than the press and they certainly chat about a lot more than the objective facts, but it may be that he was better equipped and more sensible than the press coverage seemed to suggest to me.

Ty

[Phil Allen]

I don't think that the CG is considering charging for rescues ...

While the CG doesn't charge for rescues (mayday calls), I believe if you're just floating around in a non functional boat but not in immediate danger they call Sea-Tow, who does charge for the rescue service.

Phil

[JohnHuth]

If there's a harbor nearby, the CG will instruct the boater to reach the Harbormaster to arrange for a tow, so they don't have to clog up their time. At least that's been my experience.

The topic of paying for rescues has been a hot-button issue in the mountaineering community for quite some time. Some places will require you to put down an insurance deposit for a permit to climb a peak.

SAR's are expensive propositions, and there's a lot of back and forth on the topic. There's a lot that's been said on all sides of the issue. I don't know enough to comment on this particular incident, however.

[florriej]

I think that no matter who's land it is...It was the State of NH that conducted the search and they're the ones billing the hiker.

This is a quote from the NH Forest Service website. There's a bunch of stuff on rescues there (of hikers, not paddlers), but this is all I could find about being charged for one - it's pretty vague. For more go to hikesafe.com

"In search and rescue scenarios, New Hampshire Fish and Game Department is the lead agency and is in charge of coordinating the rescue efforts. Typically, search and rescue crews are made up of New Hampshire Fish and Game Department Conservation Officers, White Mountain National Forest personnel and volunteers who venture into the backcountry in order to find lost and injured hikers.

Many times these individuals are putting themselves at personal risk in order to find someone who has perhaps used poor judgment and stumbled into a dangerous situation, especially when there is a severe weather situation.

Hikers should also know that if they need to be rescued as a result of their irresponsible actions, they can be charged for the cost of the event, which averages in the thousands per rescue. Annually, New Hampshire spends $260,000 on rescues"

[jeffcasey]

....<snip>...Annually, New Hampshire spends $260,000 on rescues"...<snip>

<<rant on>>

IS THAT ALL ???? <<insert disgust and disbelief>> $260k may be a pile of cash on the individual level, but on the state budget level it is not even interest on the interest on the small potatoes. I'm sure the governor spends more than that on new carpet for his office, or a couple of lavish parties. Why is there any anguish over footing the bill. Even the most die-hard libertarian will admit that this is the sort of leveling function that government is intended for (just like firefighting, etc.)

If the goal is to discourage idiots....

...1) it is precisely the unprepared idiots who won't acquaint themselves with the law or the penalties ahead of time, thus won't be influenced one way or the other by laws for rescue charges

...2) if you insist on penalizing those rescued, charge them by sentencing them to community service, payable on a flexible and generous schedule, but adding up to the equivalent labor to that spent to rescue them. even the poorest of the poor can scrape together a few hours a week to sweep the streets or somesuch, and the wealthier idiots will learn a far harder lesson this way than by writing a check.

<<rant off>

[jtmllr]

It sounds like he didn't have flotation (snow shoes, skis, etc) which is absolutely required for hiking up there when there is snow. In the spring you can get away without it if you stick to the trails.

Snowshoes/skis are not only for safety, but trail etiquette. I believe we should charge barebooters for post holing the trails, and 25G sounds good to me. People that have no regards for others probably aren't going to be prepared for themselves, either. There's a correlation between lack of etiquette and lack of understanding/common sense, as they are usually ignorance based.

If someone initiated the search, then I see no problem with charging. If he didn't initiate it, then charge the person that made the call, but he probably had some arrangement with friends/family about his plans, implicating him in the rescue if he didn't come back on time. NH doesn't have a lot of taxes, therefore not a lot of $ to make everyone safe and happy, or other forms of socialism. Free or Die, after all. NY and MA are right next door for people that want society to take care of them.

We make a choice when going into the woods or on the water, and we are therefore responsible for whatever happens. If people want backup they can go with a group. If people want a rescue they can have the appropriate means to signal for it. I never tell anyone enough that they would be inspired to call for my rescue, as I go outdoors for the freedom, challenge, etc. and don't want anyone looking for me. I would have to miss a few days of work before anyone would think something is wrong, and that's the way life should be. Otherwise there are malls and casinos and such.

Insurance would be a good idea, but people without health insurance get to scam the rest of us and get care anyway, so I see no reason the rescue uninsured wouldn't demand saving too. There shouldn't be any gov't rescues anyway. People should have to hire a firm rather than expect automatic saving. Privatization of search and rescue would give rural areas an economy boost. 260Gs could do a lot of conservation and enforcement. Trailhead parking. Launch sites. Or signage: NO LIFEGUARD ON DUTY, NO SERVICES NEXT 100000 ACRES, etc. Not to mention that when you enter the wild you become part of nature, and we're hardly an endangered species. The herd is overrun with the less fit, we shouldn't be spending money to promote their longevity. We all die someday, some how. People seem to forget this.

[PeterB]

....<snip>...Annually, New Hampshire spends $260,000 on rescues"...<snip>

<<rant on>>

IS THAT ALL ???? <<insert disgust and disbelief>> $260k may be a pile of cash on the individual level, but on the state budget level it is not even interest on the interest on the small potatoes. I'm sure the governor spends more than that on new carpet for his office, or a couple of lavish parties. Why is there any anguish over footing the bill. Even the most die-hard libertarian will admit that this is the sort of leveling function that government is intended for (just like firefighting, etc.)

If the goal is to discourage idiots....

...1) it is precisely the unprepared idiots who won't acquaint themselves with the law or the penalties ahead of time, thus won't be influenced one way or the other by laws for rescue charges

...2) if you insist on penalizing those rescued, charge them by sentencing them to community service, payable on a flexible and generous schedule, but adding up to the equivalent labor to that spent to rescue them. even the poorest of the poor can scrape together a few hours a week to sweep the streets or somesuch, and the wealthier idiots will learn a far harder lesson this way than by writing a check.

<<rant off>

I think I agree with some of the points here.

Will diabetic children, or their guardians be charged or fined for failing to excercise or eat properly? Will AIDs , cancer , or heart disease patients be charged for the "choices" they made in their behavior which led to their condition?

Whether it is a fire truck arriving at a burning house, or a doctor treating lung cancer, an ambulence crew arriving at the scene an automoble accident , or a wilderness rescue of a lost or shipwrecked person, to start imagining each suffering soul being blamed and then charged for their negligence is to also start imagining an uncivil , uncivic society.

[jtmllr]

Displacing responsibility doesn't seem civilized to me, quite the contrary. I would suggest that's the downfall of any society. Forcing others to compensate for the bad decisions of people isn't appropriate. And yes, parents should definitely be held accountable for their children beyond what is reasonable to expect the children to be accountable for themselves (a lot.) They insist on raising their kids they way they want to, so therefore they should accept accountability. There are certainly circumstances out of people's control, but the vast majority of life is causation, and usually because of choices and there are plenty of facts out there these days with which to formulate decisions. I consciously make some inappropriate decisions, but I proudly take full responsibility for them. Propping up irresponsibility is the main cause of its continuation. I reject any philosophies that impose accountability on anyone other than the self, outside of negligence of course, and any philosophies that force me to take part against my will. Should we have to lose hard earned money to taxation so that others don't have to pay their way? Should we have to pay excessive insurance bills so that others don't have to buy insurance at all? Society cannot replace reality, so it is best to have one that works with it. Freedom has its price, and that price should not be imposed on others.

If someone can afford a smoking habit they could instead afford health insurance. If they choose to not cover their necessary expenses in favor of funding vices, I say "screw them" unapologetically. When I got out of college I was paying student loans, health insurance, and full auto on $10/hr because it was the right thing to do. It didn't leave me with much money but that's life. So's working two jobs for awhile (each of which I HATED, one of which was in order to get health insurance), when extra money is desired. I didn't do all of that just to cover some lazy person. We aren't talking about things out of people's control here, like a refugee situation, natural disaster, or disease outbreak. Someone hikes alone and gets into trouble requiring rescue. They could easily have hooked up with a group with which to hike, assistance would have been largely at hand and quite possibly outside rescue avoided. There are many ways to go about doing things. That 260G/yr has to come from somewhere; the NH Forest Service isn't some rich uncle.

[dogfish]

You call a MAYDAY or a PANPAN and if your nominal 5watt fm radio 18 inches above the water can hit a CG asset you will get the standard.

Vessel calling mayday -- what is your position -- , what is your boat, what is your nature of distress, the inevitable 'please put on your life jacket' at this time they are launching an asset already. By the way your on channel 16 not 72 or any other one. If they have difficulty spotting you, they may ask you for back bearings - you do know how to do those? or fixes, or a flare or two or three. Dont have that how about a mirror? Dont be surprised if the boat turns out to be a: harbormaster, fireboat, fisherman, auxiliarist, concerned citizen (who monitors channel 16), or anyone else.

People who end up paying are people who are not in imminent danger or those that have had a UMIB sent out for them or they have elected to have a commercial tower respond. Admiralty laws apply. Not saying this may happen but this applies to everyone -- a hard grounding is called a salvage operation in which case sea tow or Boat US are now called Salvage contractors who may make a claim against you or your insurance equal to the value of your vessel because you would not have gotten it unstuck without them and they after all dont endanger themselves just to unstick you.

Here is more on what the CG does.. State and Local governments may be different.....

SAN DIEGO (CG Public Affairs) - For more than 200 years the U.S. Coast Guard has responded to distress calls at sea as quickly as possible as if it were an actual call for help. But every once in a while, some of those calls are found to be false alarms, or hoax calls, sent by people who willingly mislead the Coast Guard and other search and rescue assets for various reasons. What they don’t realize though is that a hoax call could potentially divert valuable search assets from an actual distress case, and put rescuers unnecessarily in harms way while responding to the false call.

The federal law concerning false distress calls:

14 U.S.C. 88© makes it a federal felony for anyone to knowingly and willfully communicate a false distress message to the Coast Guard or cause the Coast Guard to attempt to save lives and property when no help is needed. Penalties include up to 6 years in prison, $250,000 fine, $5,000 civil penalty, and the possible reimbursement to the Coast Guard for the cost of performing the search.

Hoax calls affect everyone, including people who are not boat owners or part of the maritime community. Hoax calls affect:

The U.S. Coast Guard by placing our men and women in danger by operating ships, boats and aircraft, responding to these false distress calls;

The American taxpayers by wasting hundreds of thousands of dollars annually. This is money that can be alloted homeland security and/or additional training;

Those really in distress at sea by interfering with legitimate search-and-rescue cases.

Anyone who knowingly and willfully commits a hoax or false distress call is fleecing America. The Coast Guard is working with the Federal Communications Commission, Department of Justice and other federal, state and local agencies to aggressively prosecute hoax callers and recover costs for the federal government on behalf of all taxpayers.

Coast Guard Assets and Average Hourly Costs

The U.S. Coast Guard, as a matter of both law and policy, does not seek to recover the costs associated with search-and-rescue from the recipients of those services. While we must be mindful to employ a cost-effective response to an incident, response or distress itself must not be delayed or limited by the misplaced concern of “who is to pay the bill.â€

One of the exceptions to this rule is the perpetrators of false distress calls. One penalty levied on hoax callers is reimbursement to the Coast Guard for the costs of performing the search. This is determined by hourly standard rates for cutters, boats, aircraft and crew. The follow is the hourly rates for San Diego-based Coast Guard assets (amounts do not include personnel and crew cost and are based on 2005 statistics, they do not reflect current fuel costs):

More than $480 for a 110-foot patrol cutter

More than $280 for an 87-foot patrol cutter

More than $770 for a 41-foot utility boat

More than $420 for a Coast Guard 25- or 28-foot response boat

More than $4,400 for an HH-60J Jayhawk helicopter

[tyson]

....<snip>...Annually, New Hampshire spends $260,000 on rescues"...<snip>

<<rant on>>

IS THAT ALL ???? <<insert disgust and disbelief>> $260k may be a pile of cash on the individual level, but on the state budget level it is not even interest on the interest on the small potatoes. I'm sure the governor spends more than that on new carpet for his office, or a couple of lavish parties.

<<rant off>

Though some of your comments that are closer to this incident may have some merit, the above blanket statement is out of line.

$260K is not small potatoes and in NH the governor does not spend that much on a couple of lavish parties. That is why NH has one of the lowest total tax rates in the country vs. places like CA. Note how now CA is in a serious financial jam and NH is not.

Ty

[EEL]

$260K is not small potatoes and in NH the governor does not spend that much on a couple of lavish parties.

Although those days are long gone, I remember a NH Gov. routinely standing in line at hog dog stand (still there) on Main Street waiting to buy his lunch like everyone else.

Ed Lawson

[spider]

Thanks nice info. esp the CG info. and also who gets billed on an inland search/rescue.

(I imagine the rescue of the young fellow is being "talked to death" on a bunch of hiking websites by now, not just the one I'm familar with.)

With the CG, if I'm understanding it correctly, if I'm half way between Nh & Maine (which come to think of it would be the Portsmouth area) it won't be a case of each state saying I'm not looking for him he's on your side we want money if you want our help...or at least if they do it would be settled amongst themselves and not on the individual or next of kin.

Still a little shaky if the Coast Guard is state by state or federal or a mix of the two...

[Phil Allen]

Thanks nice info. esp the CG info. and also who gets billed on an inland search/rescue.

.....

Still a little shaky if the Coast Guard is state by state or federal or a mix of the two...

CG is federal, though they may call on state or local resources like the harbormaster if appropriate.

P

[jeffcasey]

<<snip>>

$260K is not small potatoes and in NH the governor does not spend that much on a couple of lavish parties. That is why NH has one of the lowest total tax rates in the country vs. places like CA. Note how now CA is in a serious financial jam and NH is not.

<<snip>>

I absolutely acknowledge that NH is one of the most frugal of states...it is a pretty good example for others. I merely point out that states move big numbers around, and $260k is very very small on that scale.

To wit: NH unrestricted revenue for FY2008: 1.98 B$ (that is billion, not million)

(about 30% from business taxes, much of the rest from various luxury taxes)

NH spending...about 21.5% on genl government, only about 15% on education.

21.5% on "general government"? Are you sure there wasn't carpet there?

(hot dog stands make great photo ops for frugal politicians, but 21.5% of state spending is a lot of money).

I think they can afford to set aside a quarter million to rescue souls - stupid or not...especially as they make a lot of revenue actively attracting folks to their outdoors.

[EEL]

(hot dog stands make great photo ops for frugal politicians,

No photographers around. He just liked to walk across the street to get a hot dog and soda on nice days. Even just 25 years ago NH and its government was very different than today.

I think they can afford to set aside a quarter million to rescue souls - stupid or not...especially as they make a lot of revenue actively attracting folks to their outdoors.

Bingo!

Ed Lawson

[Brian Nystrom]

<<snip>>

$260K is not small potatoes and in NH the governor does not spend that much on a couple of lavish parties. That is why NH has one of the lowest total tax rates in the country vs. places like CA. Note how now CA is in a serious financial jam and NH is not.

<<snip>>

I absolutely acknowledge that NH is one of the most frugal of states...it is a pretty good example for others. I merely point out that states move big numbers around, and $260k is very very small on that scale.

To wit: NH unrestricted revenue for FY2008: 1.98 B$ (that is billion, not million)

(about 30% from business taxes, much of the rest from various luxury taxes)

NH spending...about 21.5% on genl government, only about 15% on education.

21.5% on "general government"? Are you sure there wasn't carpet there?

(hot dog stands make great photo ops for frugal politicians, but 21.5% of state spending is a lot of money).

I think they can afford to set aside a quarter million to rescue souls - stupid or not...especially as they make a lot of revenue actively attracting folks to their outdoors.

Jeff,

While $260 isn't much in relation to the STATE budget, the cost of rescues is paid for by NH Fish and Game, which is a grossly underfunded agency. It receives no money from the state, with all of it's funding coming from hunting/fishing/trapping licenses and a few other fees. The money spent on rescues is a huge burden on the department and I absolutely support them levying fines where appropriate in order to recoup rescue cost. The amount of the fine in this case is eye-opening and I suspect that it was done as a way to make an example of this case and hopefully make people think twice about doing something stupid in the backcountry. I would be very surprised if they didn't settle for a considerably small amount, as it's going to court.