We have previously discussed the trend of citizens being charged for rescue in federal and state parkland. I have always been a critic of the practice because rescues are part of the costs of maintaining these parks. Many volunteers participate in such rescues and largely oppose the charging of the victims, even when they made negligent decisions. The latest is Edward Bacon, 59 year old man from Michigan, who is appealing the imposition of a $9,300 bill for his rescue at the White Mountain National Forest.
Let’s be clear at the outset. As many of you know, I am a lifelong backpacker and outdoor enthusiast. In my view, Edward Bacon is clearly negligent. I have hiked the White Mountain National Forest, which is gorgeous but has some very challenging areas. The fact that Bacon was hiking alone (cited by the government) is not in my view negligent. I am a solo hiker and backpacker. I love the solitude and used to backpack for a couple weeks at a time alone. However, the other aspects of the hike were questionable in 2012. He went on a five day backpacking trip to a rugged area. He took this rugged course despite various physical problems, including four hip surgeries since 2005 and an artificial hip that had dislocated twice in the previous year. He also reportedly needed two canes. Then there was the weather. The forecast was for high winds and heavy rain but Bacon pushed ahead regardless along an exposed ridgeline.
Again, I am sympathetic with the desire to hike alone and I like remote areas. I have long dreaded the day when I will not be able to do challenging hikes and I admit that I push myself a bit much. However, I would not have taken this hike in these conditions. The worse part of such poor decision making is that it can put rescuers in danger. In this case, the rescuers from Fish and Game, the Pemigewasset Valley Search and Rescue Team, the Mountain Rescue Service and Appalachian Mountain Club responded. They had to carry Bacon for four miles of rough terrain with 70 mile per hour winds in the rain.
That was dumb. Really dumb. Indeed, I initially was so ticked by the report that I thought about an exception in such cases for clearly negligent actions. However, I still agree with the rescuer organizations that oppose such charges. People in peril do not want to be injured and usually over-estimate their capabilities. It happens. Yet, we all enjoy these natural areas and understand that it comes with risks. We do not want people to be reluctant to call for help in fear of fines.
I make an exception for those who break the law and get themselves into trouble. Many years ago, I testified with Bobby Unser in a hearing that touched on a fine that he was forced to pay after taking snowmobiles in a wilderness area in violation of regulations. Despite the rangers risking their lives in a massive snowstorm, Unser objected to be given a small ticket and fine. I was not just unsympathetic. I was incredulous. He deserved to be fined and his only response should have been profuse apology and thanks.
In this case, a judge in District Court in Concord, N.H. found that negligence warranted the imposition of costs against Bacon. Yet, most such accidents involve some level of negligence. You can take a risky leap or an ill-conceived technical climb.
Bacon had hiked the area before. He had proper equipment. That day’s hike was only 5 or so miles. Yes, he had a bad hip and should have been hiking with a partner, but I do not view a solo hike to be manifestly outrageous.
What really disturbs me is that the state is considering the sale of a $25 safe hiker card that is really an insurance plan. Those who have the card will not be charged for rescues, even when negligent. That card is likely to make calls for help less likely by many who will assume that they will be charged. Parks will end up like insurance where people do not report accidents because they do not want to see their rates increased. We pay for these parks to enjoy them. Fees are going up despite that fact that these parks are hands down the most successful government programs on the books. While the number of people enjoying these parks would suggest that we should be expanding parks and resources, the opposite is true. Fee are raising and services are falling.
New Hampshire is heading in the wrong direction. There should be no charge for rescues. Any costs can be folded into the costs of maintaining these parks and possibly passed on in the form of entrance fees. However, in my view, this is a basic role of state governments to maintain parks and the various costs associated with them. We should be expanded our parks and not adding charges given the number of increasing visitors. To go to Yellowstone these days is to face literal traffic jams due to the limited space. We seem to be moving toward a system where basic services are now being treated as luxuries or surcharges by the government.
Bacon is not an easy case to be sure but, in my view, he should not be charged.
What do you think?
Don Who would use beside Halliburton? the Clinton foundation?
We pay tax for the benefits and protections of the state. Right, at least theoretically? Then the state charges us more for protection against mistakes (er, negligence) on land set aside for the recreation of its citizenry? I wonder how many non-golfers enjoy paying tax to water fairways, maintain greens, and pay EMTs for the occasional coronary from a lost bet on public golf courses?
Free rescue, free health care, that’s the gimmie generation and what did they do to earn it. If they served in the military they earned it otherwise pay for it.
I agree w/ much of what Isaac said. But, Darren shows the wisdom of someone who worked for the govt. and had the sense to get out. The govt. will lie, cheat and steal to make people “negligent” when they are not, just to take a citizen’s money. There is nothing the govt. likes more than taking citizen’s money. Ya gotta feed the beast.
This has to be the first time someone has been charged money for bringing home the Bacon. Bad idea. You think the charge is steep now, wait til Halliburton gets the contract to rescue hikers.
BarkinDog, Please don’t give the crackpots ideas. Besides there are very powerful forces out there now that would LOVE to sell the parks to the highest bidder..D’oh……….
Do not charge this person the cost. I also hike alone, I know the risk, I accept the risk. I hike where there is no cell coverage so a call would not even be possible, just a call from those I leave behind when I don’t check in.
Charge him and indeed the number of calls for help will go down, the death rate will climb. Is that really what we want?
And the idea of the government being negligent is not so far fetched. In the wilds on government land there are all sorts of hazards from wild animals that will attack you, kill you, and eat you, to rocks and roots that will trip you up and cause you to fall. And these hazards are all found on designated hiking trails. By maintaining their land in such an unsafe manner it is only a matter of time when someone counter sues for the hazards on their land.
I think that Triple A should provide hiking insurance as an addendum to your car policy.
Is this discrimination? I can.t solo because I,m disabled? I have 30 years experience! A grey jay could shit in my eye, temp. blind me, and I trip and fall. Am I negligent because I have a prosthetic hip? Maybe the doctor is negligent if his hip keeps popping out. If they don’t want us there, why do they give free Access Passes to the disabled. Ah Ha! The government is negligent……
I’ve been in a lot of national parks. The Appalachian trail is about 1,500 miles long.
Never got into any trouble yet. But with wild boar, bob cats, rattle snakes, bear, fox, coyotes and bad weather, it’s just a matter of time.
I use the best expedition equipment including geodesic dome tent to withstand 150 mph winds, sleeping bag good to -35 below zero and rated for Mt Everest, to elaborate first aid kit.
Maybe I should sign legal wavier forum at ranger station before camping trip.
Anyone want to hike Mt. Washington? I always have 60 lb backpack. Even in summer it snows, and has highest world record wind speeds.
The state has quite an interest in labeling the lost hiker as being negligent. As a result in being held to be negligent the state can then seek retribution against the hiker for damages. Seems self serving to me.
The standard is not applied to municipalities where the negligent actions of residents necessitate a rescue in the city limits therefore the same should not be applied to hikers.
It all depends on the circumstances like any thing else in the common law. Here it seems reasonable to me but not some others to impose the cost of rescue on the risk-taker. Okay. That is why we have juries. A sudden natural disaster – e.g., earthquake – then less to no reason to impose the expense of rescue. Negligence, foolishness, down right obtuseness then sure there should be a recovery of rescue expenses. I can recall listening on a radio some years ago to descriptions of a 24+ hour search and rescue for two scout masters and about a dozen scouts (12 to 14 years old) who were out in the middle of a ferocious blizzard. Fire departments. Helicopters. Ambulances. The snow storm was already in progress and had dumped close to 10 inches of snow when the two scout masters decided this would be a good time to take these kids out to a wilderness area to earn a badge! Now that was just nuts.
The volunteer rescuers from the three search & rescue organizations all volunteered to assist; the Fish & Game employees were just doing their jobs. While I do think that the hiker used poor judgment, I suspect that the majority of rescues involve people who pushed the limits of their experience or equipment. I believe this sets bad precedent. Lost or injured hikers shouldn’t have to delay or avoid requesting help because they can’t afford a fine. Hiking already is, to some degree, unfortunately stereotyped as a pastime of the wealthy.
It seems like nobody else has to pay for their own stupidity, sooo why should he??? Let’s see, motorcyclists who don’t wear helmets, rock climbers, skateboarders, mountain bikers, etc. It’s hard to see “hiking” in that same category.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
The government has truly lost its way. If the man broke the rules then a fine is in order but paying the cost of rescue is just too punitive and out of line with the services that should be provided.
Interesting that banks who took unreasonable risks get rescued and pay nothing while a hiker gets hit with the entire cost.
We have hikers injured here all the time and carted out. We do not charge them.
Let’s take another example that occurs here about once a month. An elderly Alzhiemer’s patient wanders of and gets lost. Police are out looking for them. Should the patient be fined, if they happen to find them before they die in the heat?
If I get injured at home, I pay for the ambulance ride…
I consider it a hidden cost of living.
Wouldn’t this be one of those hidden costs of hiking?
This is going to be one of those bad ideas they use as examples in classrooms, some time in the future.
It is intuitively obvious that charging people for rescues will make people refuse or delay calling for help, with possibly fatal consequences. Most people are far removed from a familiarity with nature and outdoor activities. Others fondly recall activities of their youth and are in denial about their present state of fitness and preparedness. But taxpayer money funds emergency response, and volunteers, by definition, donate their time to help those who need it, whether it’s their own fault or not.
I’ve spent a lot of time outdoors alone, and I’ve made my fair share of mistakes, learning the hard way. Luckily, not of this magnitude. But no one should be in desperate straights, tallying up his assets, wondering if he had the funs to ask for help to save his life.
Have we sunk so low that we need to make it worth our while to rescue someone?
Here again is the conflict between the ideological and the reality. In a perfect world, all would be capable and the numbers would take care of those unfortunate incidents. However, when someone decides to gamble then perhaps they should pay. The bigger the gamble, the bigger the cost. Kind of a pay at the pump combined with socialism. Someone who was truly fit and capable could claim that it was nature’s fault. Someone with hip replacements and canes, well……