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. 

Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.