Alpinfox Posted July 18, 2009 Share Posted July 18, 2009 Hiker fined $25,000 for rescue in New Hampshire CONCORD, N.H. – A Massachusetts teenager who spent three nights alone on Mount Washington in April after he sprained an ankle and veered off marked trails has been fined more than $25,000 for the cost of his rescue. Scott Mason had been praised for utilizing his Eagle Scout skills — sleeping in the crevice of a boulder and jump-starting fires with hand sanitzer gel. But authorities say he wasn't prepared for the conditions he encountered and shouldn't have set out on such an ambitious hike. "Yes, he'd been out there in July when you could step across the brooks. And people have been out there in winter in hard-packed snow. But with these spring conditions, it was soft snow, it was deep snow," said Fish and Game Maj. Tim Acerno. Acerno said he believes Mason's fine is the largest ever sought under a 9-year-old New Hampshire law that allows lost hikers and climbers to be charged for rescue costs. Mason's rescue was particularly expensive because the helicopters the state typically used were unavailable, and a helicopter from Maine had to be brought in, Acerno said. Mason, 17, of Halifax, Mass., had planned to spend one day hiking 17 miles in the New Hampshire mountains but ended up lost after he hurt his ankle and decided to take a shortcut. The shortcut led him into rising water and deep snow caused by unseasonably warm weather. Mason was negligent in continuing up the mountain with an injury and veering off the marked path, Acerno said. Negligence, he said, is based on judging what a reasonable person would do in the same situation. "When I twist my ankle, I turn around and come down. He kept going up," Acerno said. "It was his negligence that led to him getting into that predicament," he said. "Once he was in that predicament, yes, that's what we praise him for — he used his Boy Scout skills, and that's why he's still alive." Several states, including neighboring Maine and Vermont, have rescue repayment laws similiar to New Hampshire, though others tend to be more lenient. In Washington state, a bill that would have created a reimbursement system with fines capped at $500 never even made it out of committee this year. In New Hampshire, however, lawmakers made it even easier to charge for rescues last year when they changed the law to allow fines for those who acted negligently instead of the harder to prove standard of recklessness. New Hampshire officials have estimated that they could seek reimbursement in about 40 of the 140 or so rescues it typically handles each year. The money goes to the Fish and Game department's rescue fund. In most cases, hikers pay a few hundred dollars. For the fiscal year that ended June 30, there were 131 missions that cost $175,320, Acerno said. He did not know how many of them resulted in fines. Mason's family said they would not comment on the bill, which was mailed July 10. Mason has until August 9 to pay the bill; he could also take the state to court to contest the fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Posted July 18, 2009 Share Posted July 18, 2009 Hiker fined $25,000 for rescue in New Hampshire In Washington state, a bill that would have created a reimbursement system with fines capped at $500 never even made it out of committee this year. This bill proposed a .25 tax on every sportsman's license sold in the state. Volunteer SAR would then be able to recoup costs out of the fund. It also contained a provision for those volunteer groups to seek reimbursement from the subject of the action. This is the $500 reference in the article. It was a very poorly written piece of legislation. The Bill's author wasn't even aware that SAR teams may already seek reimbursement from the State DEM for "extraordinary" expenses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alpinfox Posted July 18, 2009 Author Share Posted July 18, 2009 Volunteer SAR personnel in WA state are already reimbursed for gas expenditures (when using their own car to respond to an incident) as well as any equipment/clothing/etc that is lost/damaged/consumed during the incident. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted July 18, 2009 Share Posted July 18, 2009 I don't know how I have survived this long without Eagle Scout skills. I knew there was a gap in my preparation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottP Posted July 18, 2009 Share Posted July 18, 2009 I want to know how to jump start a fire using hand sanitizer gel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScaredSilly Posted July 18, 2009 Share Posted July 18, 2009 More states need to have this type of legislation - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Lewis Posted July 19, 2009 Share Posted July 19, 2009 (edited) Dang! Poor guy, that is a big fine! Now this is why I never want search and rescue to come after me, I would rather crawl down a mountain if I had to! Such a limited time to pay the bill... how the heck is he supposed to get 25,000$ before August 9? Edited July 19, 2009 by Josh Lewis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJRiha Posted July 19, 2009 Share Posted July 19, 2009 More states need to have this type of legislation - No, more states do NOT need this type of legislation. The last thing we need is people dying in the backcountry because they're scared that the cost of rescue will be too spendy. What's next, charging you for fire services when your house burns, or how about a police bill when they respond to a burglar? It's bad enough that ambulance rides cost a damn fortune (the same time the EMTs that operate it are getting paid SHIT). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snoboy Posted July 19, 2009 Share Posted July 19, 2009 http://www.northshorerescue.com/chargingforrescues.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billbob Posted July 19, 2009 Share Posted July 19, 2009 So if a minor makes an error in judgement, as the 17 y.o. apparently did, his parents get the 25K bill ? In the infinite wisdom of New Hampshire voters, children must exhibit the same level of judgement as adults? I am the father of a 17 y.o. man-boy with surging hormones and a strong desire to prove himself, thus I know that kids do not always posses the experience or mental facilities requisite for good judgement. Sounds like the N.H. legislators have failed to use good judgement themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
denalidave Posted July 19, 2009 Share Posted July 19, 2009 I want to know how to jump start a fire using hand sanitizer gel. Seeing how most hand sanitizer gels are alcohol based, a little spark should get it going. Throw in a few Fritos and you have a bonfire... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pink Posted July 19, 2009 Share Posted July 19, 2009 "global warming" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Off_White Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 http://www.northshorerescue.com/chargingforrescues.html That's pretty much the normal opinion on the subject for those who actually perform the SAR, isn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CollinWoods Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 I am a memeber of Kitttitas County SAR and i dont think we should charge for rescues. Sure it would be great for our bugget and we could get some more cool gagets but that would be ridiculous! Most choopers used in SAR are police and millitary. Paid for by taxes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJRiha Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 I am a memeber of Kitttitas County SAR and i dont think we should charge for rescues. Sure it would be great for our bugget and we could get some more cool gagets but that would be ridiculous! Most choopers used in SAR are police and millitary. Paid for by taxes. The Coast Guard considers rescues as "training exercises" and doesn't really affect the taxpayer anyway. If they weren't out rescuing someone for real, they would be performing fake rescues. It's this stupid idea that some have that, "I'm responsible, I'm not out in the mountains, why should *I* the taxpayer pay for that guy". In reality, that guy usually doesn't pay all that many taxes, and it's generally the guy who smokes, eats like crap and doesn't exercise, and is going to cost Medicare an ass-load when he gets lung disease and diabetes in old age. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike B Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 Volunteer SAR personnel in WA state are already reimbursed for gas expenditures (when using their own car to respond to an incident) as well as any equipment/clothing/etc that is lost/damaged/consumed during the incident. Not exactly, we're only reimbursed if its over 100 miles travel, or if we are called to an out of county assist.j But I agree, we should NOT charge for missions. Sometimes a finger-flick-thump on the head might feel appropriate, but not charge. Our goal is to help folks back to safety, if they're worried about getting charged, that could make our jobs much much harder (playing hide and seek in the mountains can be difficult for both, the seeker, and the hider -wink/grin) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike B Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 ...and it's generally the guy [complainer wanting to charge rescuees] who smokes, eats like crap and doesn't exercise, and is going to cost Medicare an ass-load when he gets lung disease and diabetes in old age. Soooo So very true! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary_Yngve Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 We should charge all teenage boys who sneak one past the goal $25k for their stupidity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jordansahls Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 I think that the results of many "stupid" rescues are punishment enough, especially when someone dies. There are always 'special' cases, but I find it strange that the government always seems to feel that it has to spank the child for playing with fire, after he has already been burned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ponderosa Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 No, they're charging the parents a discount price for their child's life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary_Yngve Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 This fine is a load of crock. We bail out dozens of banks who were reckless for billions of dollars. We dedicated hundreds of millions of dollars each year for fighting forest fires so rich schmucks can have their 2nd home in forests that are expected to burn. We get tax deductions for capital gains losses (we made bad choices with our money, so we are given money back). Now, a kid twists an ankle, and the govt wants to fine him to a level that could prevent him from attending college? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 New Hampshire. Live Free or Die. Oh, the irony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-spotter Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Fucking hikers.Tax them and use the money to sponsor elite alpinism, I say! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sobo Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 Volunteer SAR personnel in WA state are already reimbursed for gas expenditures (when using their own car to respond to an incident) as well as any equipment/clothing/etc that is lost/damaged/consumed during the incident. Not exactly, we're only reimbursed if its over 100 miles travel, or if we are called to an out of county assist. I knew I could get my stuff replaced if lost/damaged/consumed on a mission, but I didn't know I could get bucks back for gas for driving my POV... Never thought to ask. Probably still won't. And I support NOT charging for rescues. The AAI had a great report up on its site a few years back. The report has since been taken down, but it gave a really compelling argument, and cites some of the same things as the North Shore website ^^ does, for why subjects shouldn't be charged for their rescue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sobo Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 We get tax deductions for capital gains losses (we made bad choices with our money, so we are given money back). Really? How does that work, Gary? I had to bring a $13,000+/- check to closing when I sold my first house. When tax time came around, H&R Block told me "tough titties" on seeing any of that scratch coming back to me. However, if I had made money on the sale, they told me, I would have had to pay CG taxes on that, unless I re-invested it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.