Hiker fined $25K for rescue

[Cat]

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/090717/koddities/us_hiker_fined

A teenager, who was an Eagle Scount and knew the trail, was fined $25K for his rescue on Mt Washington in New Hampshire


Now, I've done stupid hiking before (not turning back in terrible weather), and I do agree with fining for stupid, ill prepared hiking. (Just what is stupid and ill-prepared is hard to define, however)

Now, this kid seems to know what he was doing, and while I'm not sure if I would have continued up (that would depend at what elevation I was), I do thnk $25K is excessive, without more information.

Anywho, thought this might spark a interesting debate, was the fine warranted, and indeed, are fines warranted at all?

[joe hx]

hmmm although the article says "fine" it sounds more like "bill"

the last time i road the ambulance, i got a bill from the city. promptly forwarded it to my insurance company and it was taken care of

[Greenday]

Yea, the fine is really a bill. The total costs of paying everyone to search for him, the equipment used, etc. Plus a little extra as a thanks.

[Cat]

Yup, he still has to foot the bill, in a month

http://www.backpacker.com/eagle_scout_fine_rescue/blogs/daily_dirt/1177

Little bit more info....apparently he did have crampons and an axe, but didn't know how to use them.

And as was mentioned on another board....relying on the summit building to be open is not a wise thing...hmmm....

[lordlundar]

Little bit more info....apparently he did have crampons and an axe, but didn't know how to use them.

And as was mentioned on another board....relying on the summit building to be open is not a wise thing...hmmm....

Hmm, could have sworn one of the fundamental tenets of hiking is to avoid getting yourself in a situation you can't get out of. I honestly wish more people paid attention to that.

And he's damn lucky. There was one person who decided to cross Death Valley with 4 litres of water and wound up dying of dehydration roughly 400 meters from the end of his run. 25k seems pretty cheap after considering the alternative.

[Cat]

Oh agreed.....I'm still trying to find out more info on his experience.


I still agree with fining/billing hikers who are foolish, I hope that makes more people aware of what dangers they can encounter.


Though I have heard agruments against this, along the lines of "its SAR's job to rescue, would you want fire fighters billing you for rescue?"

[Boozy]

So the hiker made a few decisions that went badly for him. They may have been due to incompetence or they could have been bad luck, but it doesn't matter. They weren't John Q. Taxpayer's decisions, so I see no reason for Mr. Taxpayer to foot the bill.

[BroomJockey]

Re: the firefighter's billing argument.


If you're responsible for the fire, they do bill you. It's called an arson charge.

[Flyndaran]

Re: the firefighter's billing argument.


If you're responsible for the fire, they do bill you. It's called an arson charge.

They do that only if the actual fire was intentional. They don't bill you if you were just stupid like falling asleep with a lit cigarette or grossly overloading an electrical outlet. The hiker was stupid: he didn't get lost intentionally.

[BroomJockey]

They do that only if the actual fire was intentional.

Intentionality is a difficult thing to prove. However, my point was apparently missed. The argument was fire fighters don't charge for their services, SAR was. Conditionally, fire fighters do have a system in place. The circumstances under which it's exercised differs, is all.

[Flyndaran]

Intentionality is a difficult thing to prove. However, my point was apparently missed. The argument was fire fighters don't charge for their services, SAR was. Conditionally, fire fighters do have a system in place. The circumstances under which it's exercised differs, is all.

I have never heard of any firefightingr group that charged for fighting fires when it was an avoidable accident.

[BroomJockey]

I have never heard of any firefightingr group that charged for fighting fires when it was an avoidable accident.

I'd tell you to duck, but my point flew so far over your head that you could be a pole vaulter and not be in any danger of it hitting you. I said, it's exercised under different circumstances than SAR's billing. Besides, if we really want, we can argue that since this person should have known better (Eagle Scout), he is directly responsible, to the point of accountability. But I don't wanna argue that. I'd rather argue a better analogy.

The better analogy is ambulance rides. You pay for those (directly or through insurance) even if it's an accident.

[Flyndaran]

...
The better analogy is ambulance rides. You pay for those (directly or through insurance) even if it's an accident.

Ok, good point. But what kind of insurance can you take to cover such a rescue as you could for an ambulance?

[BroomJockey]

Ok, good point. But what kind of insurance can you take to cover such a rescue as you could for an ambulance?

Not being an insurance salesman, I'd have to posit that you might be able to get some kind of personal coverage, similar to health care or travel insurance.