Rescue Fines Can’t Teach People Good Judgement
By Michael Pearlman, 7-30-09
The footnote to the story of the lost Eagle Scout didn’t get much attention outside of New England. Scott Mason was a 17-year-old scout who was lauded back in April for using his scouting skills to survive for three days while lost in the New Hampshire wilderness. After a massive search effort, Mason was rescued and escaped serious injury. Story over, right? Everyone goes home and lives happily ever after.
But two weeks ago Mason got the bill for his rescue: $25,000, payable to the New Hampshire Fish and Game Department. The reason for the extraordinarily high fine, according to a spokesman, was the amount of helicopter time involved in the search operation (substantial) and because Mason had shown negligence by getting himself into trouble in the first place. According to rescuers, the ambitious scout had made some critical errors in judgement, first in setting out to on a solo hike in the soft April snow in the first place, then for not turning back once he sprained his ankle. If he’d made the decisions that a reasonable person would have made, authorities argued, the helicopters would never have had to fly in the first place. That’s a piece of the story that was conveniently missing from the initial rush to cast Mason as a teen survivalist hero.
The story brings back some of the same questions that last made national headlines in 2006, when a massive search for three missing climbers on Mount Hood drew national attention to the issue. Should foolish adventurers who show poor judgement be forced to pay for the costs of their rescues? What qualifies as a mistake in judgement in the first place? And why are helicopter rides in National Parks always free?
The concept of personal responsibility and who should pay for expensive, risky rescues isn’t a new debate. When the climbing party was lost on Mount Hood, one Oregon legislator called for mandating climbers to carry units that could easily identify their location. Another well-known news anchor for Fox News suggested they just close the mountain entirely during the winter, or when the weather gets bad. Meanwhile, search and rescue veterans were patiently explaining that they were volunteers who didn’t expect reimbursement, that accidents happen to even experienced mountaineers and attempting to legislate more control over recreational activities wasn’t an effective way to address the problem. The National Association for Search and Rescues doesn’t believe anyone should pay for the costs of a rescue, saying it makes people think twice about calling for help.
As a reporter, I’ve written numerous stories about excursions gone wrong and rescues that were initiated because someone hadn’t used common sense when setting out in the mountains, on a river or in avalanche terrain. In recent years, with the advent of technology such as GPS and cell phones, some outdoors recreationists believe they have a safety net in the event of an emergency, and that help will always be able to reach them. But sometimes, the most well-prepared outdoorsmen are a victim of circumstances, and an expensive helicopter ride is the difference between life and death.
New Hampshire’s law allows rescuers to charge for rescues, but they don’t always choose to, basing their decision on whether or not the victim showed negligence. It’s the same in many other wild areas around the country. But in National Parks, a rescue helicopter flight is free no matter how poor the victim’s judgement was. That’s a double-standard I think needs to be addressed. Why are people given a free pass to exercise poor judgement in National Parks, but similar actions in a National Forest can result in hefty rescue bills?
Additional educational efforts could be tried. Perhaps signs need to be installed at every trailhead and river put-in that read: “THINK about your actions and use good judgement. If a rescue is initiated, you may be liable for of the costs of your rescue.” But the truth is, no matter how many signs are installed and how many attempts are made to educate people, there’s no way to prevent some people from getting in over their heads.
It’s frustrating to hear about people who get helicoptered to safety because they thought they could climb the Middle Teton glacier in tennis shoes. I’m appalled by the guy who launched a swimming pool raft into a technical section of the Snake River, despite being warned by others. But I also think about a friend who fell on an exposed descent and whose free helicopter flight saved his life. He did everything right, but was still a victim that needed rescue.
It all gets back to personal responsibility, and whether government agencies believe they should bear the costs of avoidable mistakes. Search and Rescue organizations, most of which are privately funded through donations, do an incredible job of stepping in when disaster strikes. Regardless of how the victim ended up in a rescue situation, their response never wavers and it shouldn’t. Even though I think people should be financially liable for their own stupidity, I know it isn’t going to correct the underlying problem or reduce the number of unnecessary rescues.
Mason is appealing his fine and doesn’t have the financial means to cough up 25 grand. But the size of the fine is a reflection of how frustrating it is for a state agency when time and resources are used to initiate a rescue that never needed to happen. New Hampshire and other agencies can keep fining the idiots and bailing out people who are victims of their own poor decision making. But perhaps in exchange for a reduction in their fines, victims could be required to undertake a public education campaign to help prevent others from making similar mistakes. Educational efforts might save more money in the long run, and perhaps a few lives along the way.
[End of article]No amount of education will stop the need for recues from time to time. Making people responsible for their action will have an impact on the chances humans take. We are all humans and accidents will continue to go on -- I speak from experience - I paid for all my expenses and was glad to do it - I had my life. Who & what is paid after the crisis is over always changes. Before the recuse efforts are made the cost should be explained right up front. The cost of recues should be part of the rock climbing, backpacking, biking & any other classes held to to enlighten the participants.
Comment By Kitty, 7-31-09S&R;teams may volunteer their services, but helicopters and personnel cost money. I can understand someone having an accident and needing to be rescued. But I chafe when I think taxpayers are picking up the tab for stupidity.
Here's another article on a similar subject:
"The National Park Service maintains an annual Search and Rescue budget of approximately $3 million. In 2007, it went over budget and spent $4.7 million. This is common now. Most of these funds are devoted to rescuing lost hikers, backpackers, stranded mountain climbers, and other many-times unprepared people, and for dealing with medical emergencies and accidental deaths. Some parks (such as Yosemite) have started charging an extra visitors fee as a kind of insurance policy in case the visitor needs to be rescued. And this seems to be the wave of the future as the parks struggle to defer these huge costs.
...
Helicopter cost? $300 per hour."
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/06/29/dont-jump
...
There is so much to say about Search and Rescue (S&R;). In the case of New Hampshire, S&R;is legislated by the state legislature to be under the Fish and Game Department. The sportsman are rightfully upset that their license funds are used to rescue hikers. There have been years when the legislature has provided general fund for S&R;, recognizing that tourism (including hiking and climbing) is an important source of income for the state, and that sportsmen should not foot the bill for rescuing hikers.
Switzerland has a group called REGA. A couple can pay about $75.00 and be insured for the cost of rescue in Switzerland. It seems like the Swiss have the issue figured out.
I am puzzled by the previous comment.
a- fishermen and hunters are sportsmen while hikers and climbers are not?
b- fishermen, hunters and climbers do hike to whatever their goal is. As such they can get in trouble and need to be rescued.
c- the American Alpine Club (USA and Canada) offers insurance via a group called Global Rescue. Others can purchase it too. So the Swiss are not the only ones offering insurance.
d- the principle of insurance is that many pay so that few get the service, but the service is available when needed. It doesn't matter if your "sport" is to try and kill something or if you try to conquer a mountain. The point is you are a user of the land, and as such you participate in the general safety of your community. A license for use of trails may be needed in NH however, in addition to the Fish & Game licenses, if funding for SAR is dire.
As for the YNPS, YOSAR (Yosemite Search And Rescue) does charge climbers for helicopter rides if they wear daown jackets instead of synthetic fabric. YOSAR does not charge hikers who need a helicopter ride, regardless of their jackets. The logic is that climbers are expected to understand the mountains better, and thus understand that hypothermia (wet dawn) is a high probability rescue cause. I have no idea what percent of the Yosemite fishing license goes to YOSAR. The money has to come from somewhere, particularly in a place where 4 million visitors per year create a high volume of accidents. Sorry, I have no data on other parks, but the mountain rescue association probably does.
In May 2002 a $10 million Pave Hawk helicopter crashed during rescue operations on Mount Hood. Who paid for that?
Aside from the money, some volunteer search-and-rescue personnel (who have a tough time even getting reimbursed for gasoline) have lost their lives trying to save idiots in the mountains. One of these days some jerk high-marking in a snowmobile or some hiker with a pair of tennis shoes and a cell phone is going to kill not only themselves but the people who go out to rescue them.
Colorado tacks on a tax, I think it's $5, to hunting and fishing licenses to fund SAR operations. That insurance should be made available to anyone who might need it in the backcountry -- otherwise we, as taxpayers, should clean out their estate to recover the cost.
NH is very different from all other states. NH allows F&W;to make a decision on alleged negligence of the hiker. A reasonable person standard rather than all of the other states that charge which is a reckless standard. Was the person reckless in what they did. The irony of this story about Scott Mason is prior to receiving the bill from the F&W;he had sent SAR $1000 for his rescue. Or actually a non-rescue; accounts show that Scott was hiking on his own and on his way out of his predicament when he was found.
So $25,000 for something you do not need, did not ask for and for taking care of yourself in a situation where the standard to be judged is so low is excessive. 90% of criminal fines are less than what Scott is being asked to pay. NH should be boycotted until the state adopts a reasonable policy for dealing with idiots, not a ridiculous policy for those who want to go outside.
Humm? Yes, there does seem to be an issue with who pays for Search and Rescue in the back country, and if insurance can be made available to cover those expenses. The issue has been around for quite some time. Can we work objectively to come up with some potential solutions?
Comment By horst, 8-06-09Is search and rescue all that different from fire protection for the homes neo-frontiersmen build in the interfaces which taxpayers must pay so the forest service can protect them from fires?
The Swiss notion of insurance sounds like a solution to most of the problems caused by these latter-day Daniel Boones who are constantly having to be bailed out by the rest of us...
Excellent post and comments. Following up on an article in the November 2009 Outside Magazine "Hefty bills: the scary new trend in rescues. I lived near Yosemite Park for over 30 years and helped to pack a few bodies out. I also currently operate a wilderness survival school. One piece of the puzzle is the tremendous advertising by Concessionaires in our National Parks pushing the "Go Climb A Rock" mantra. I watched many a tourist scramble up boulders they could not down climb. It made me grit my teeth and I usually vacated the area for fear of watching someone pancake on a piece of granite. SAR insurance might be a good idea in areas with high numbers of back country traffic. Like national Parks.
This article was printed from www.newwest.net at the following URL: http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/rescue_fines_cant_teach_people_good_judgement/C564/L564/