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?
Another issue might be the issue of how the rescue costs are tabulated
They could likely come up with a schedule of fines/costs based on location, the activity (mountain climbing for example). I would also love to see a “stupid” factor worked in, but that would be too much to hope for.
I see no reason that asking to have a group who plans to scale a mountain, climb cliffs in remote areas, white water raft on class V or higher rapids….to post a bond that would be refundable if the catastrophe didn’t happen.
It costs tens of thousands of dollars, sometimes in the hundred thousand range to do a search and rescue in these remote, non developed areas. Many of those who participate in these rescues (in our area at least) are volunteers. We have a great group of guys who are the Flying Posse and use their own planes to do searching from the air.
It isn’t unreasonable to ask people who put themselves into extreme danger to put up something to cover the costs of their rescues.
Again. I don’t mean for the casual hiker on known trails or people who are camping in National Forest designations. Ordinary outdoor activities done by people who are responsible and know their limits. I am talking about the extraordinary lengths that have to be taken to rescue some dope from the side of a glacier or who drunkenly fell down a 200 foot cliff.
Many places require a permit to do such activities, like scaling Mt Everest. It isn’t unreasonable to expect the same for our popular mountain climbing locations in the US. A permit and a bond.
Another issue might be the issue of how the rescue costs are tabulated. The government can calculate everything from gasoline costs to depreciation of the rescuer’s uniforms to salary of the employees who would be ordinarily at work already to the cost of the raft that sat in the corner with five years of dust upon it.
After that, the $9K bill becomes $100K of which $91K is the gov’t fluff factor.
After the government is encouraged to bill visitors for rescues, the next court challenge might be the reasonableness of the rescue costs.
Paul. Just letting the vultures have the body would be bad for business.
Also, a friend’s son came down with a debilitating stomach something or other last fall and was helicopter rescued from a trail at the bottom of the canyon. I think it was from a contract firm who delivers stuff to Phantom Ranch and other areas, and they billed his health insurance policy, same as one would for an ambulance ride.
That place does have a lot of helicopters, most of them for tourist rides through the park.
John – I have heard of charging the insurance when they are injured and helicoptered out.
Insurance is a bad idea for reasons articulated by Prof. Turley. Affordable Hiking Act, anyone?
Posting a bond- I am generally opposed to this type of bondage.But if we are going to have people post bonds before they engage in inherently dangerous activities, we need to be even-handed about it, i.e., apply the same concept across the board to corporations, other types of inherently dangerous activities, etc. Who gets to decide what is dangerous enough to require a bond? Government, of course. Maybe you want to rethink that bond requirement for dangerous activities if you want less government in your life.
First they required bonds for the spelunkers, then the rock climbers, then the motorcycle riders, then owners of pit bulls, then baseball spectators sitting behind the third base dugout who might get hit by line drives, then…………
Can’t ever tell what us progressives will think of next 🙂
The possibility of being hit with fines for objectively unreasonable conduct should deter in most circumstances. Simpler is better.
Do you really think “rescues are part of the costs of maintaining these parks”? How naïve can you be?
I am more bothered by your inability to differentiate between parks and forests. You say parks, but your example is on a national forest, and the differences are significant. National Parks are run by DOI and are delimited, fenced mostly, restricted as to entry, with visitors usually registered and confined to established trails. Even so, have you ever looked at the budget for a park unit and seen a line item for a fleet of rescue helicopters and pilot pay? I didn’t think so.
National forests are public lands run by DOA, with fewer barriers as to entry, hiking, camping or driving restrictions, few places or need to sign in, and dozens to hundreds of forest entry points. BLM lands are even larger blocks of public lands with fewer restrictions. Policing or even having knowledge of the whereabouts of visitors on most public lands is impossible. People visiting national forests and BLM lands know and appreciate the difference between those lands and parks, and usually take steps to protect themselves from accidents. Established wilderness areas within parks and national forests are usually bound by a no mechanized equipment rule. A “no expectation of rescue” usually guides the behavior of backpacking enthusiasts in these areas, and their ability to police themselves
Other than the statements made in this blog, I don’t think I have ever come across people, and certainly have never hiked and backpacked with them in 30 years of doing such in the western US, who thought that the government or administrating agency ever had some additional responsibility to save them if they got into trouble. The help they would give was appreciated but never expected.
And we never mixed up a park with a forest. That would be really stupid.
John – yesterday Grand Canyon National Park lost a visitor who fell to his death. It was getting dark when they found the body so they will helicopter the body out this morning.
I sure the hiker would sign after getting injured
Did the hiker sign a form that if he needed rescue that to come and get him. If not then the bill is a voided contract. Who authorized the rescue. That is the legal party to be billed.
I think that there may be a solution as to who actually gets stuck with the tab for rescuing these individuals: INSURANCE. If decide to risk life and limb by hiking up mountains or sailing the seven seas, on my own, then I have a duty to assume the great risks that I have quite mistakenly believed that I could handle. Let the insurance company give an adequate assessment to some delusional old geezer with a bum hip and charge him accordingly, in the form of insurance coverage, if he insists on climbing a mountain with all of his ailments. Maybe an assessment, from a more rational being, with monetary costs involved for the participant, would make people think twice about throwing caution to the wind.
DBQ – that is a beautiful photo. It’s true that people are so far removed from nature nowadays, many do not even understand that they are taking foolish risks. They have absolutely no idea until things to wrong.
DBQ
Best comment. Great points.
excellent story…great posts
Thanks Nick. It isn’t my photo, but I do have others that I have taken from the same and similar spots.
Folks need to remember Bambi died
Seriously. The outdoors can be beautiful, wonderful, exhilarating……and dangerous. People should enjoy the nature experience and never put themselves beyond what they are capable of. Even so, accidents can happen to people who are most careful and who are NOT negligent.
This guy, in JT’s article, went foolishly beyond what he knew he was capable of and put others into the position of having to save him from his own stupidity and over inflated ego. He WAS negligent. He should be fined.
Neil “The Riddler” Faiman.
Folks need to remember Bambi died.
The circuit court decision was affirmed by the New Hampshire Supreme Court yesterday.
Beautiful photo.
I’ve commented on this topic before and usually get accused of all sorts of things.
People need to be fined when they are putting themselves and others needlessly in danger. Doing STUPID things, illegal things. Accidents do happen and most people like JT and others who are familiar with the outdoors are careful and do not exceed their capabilities. It is the dumbkoffs that I object to and the very dangerous activities that they attempt.
I live in a wilderness area and see this circus all the time. Mountain climbing is a big draw. We have seen people in JANUARY try to climb a mountain during a predicted snow storm. Not only is that stupid, they are not prepared for such a difficult event.
I swear some people, city people, seem to think that the wilderness is a Disneyland Park. So…..they get stuck, injured, lost, their Iphones don’t work no cell signal, DUH!!!!!. Then the rescuers get to put themselves in danger and the taxpayers get to foot a huge bill for the costs of their rescue. OMG. The wilderness is haaaard. Somebody save me from myself!!!!
We, who live here, just shake our heads at the annual stupidity.
My solution would be for those who are attempting these dangerous outdoor sports to post a bond. One that is refundable if they don’t get their stupid @sses in trouble and that would pay for some of the costs if they do.
I don’t mean for just walking around in the woods on cute little trails that the Forest Service (and taxpayers) have created or general hiking or general camping. I mean mountain climbing. White water river rafting in class V and VI rapids. People do this things without qualified guides thinking that THEY are special and again that it is some sort of fantasy park wilderness where Bambi and his mother live.
https://hikemtshasta.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/cascades-mt-shasta-oct2007-022-custom.jpg
Evahdently, yah ahn’t familiah with what constahtutes thinkin’ in New Hampshah! It reelected a govnah thet wanta ahm its National Gahd with nukleah weaponry. Sent to the US sENATE ovah the yeahs some of the dumbest chlucks evah!Gut a newspapah that cud be an adjunct tha Fox News channel. Gut the foahth lahgest legislative bawdy on the planet. pays ’em 200 hundred dollahs. but they get ta go through thah tool booths faw fRee. No sales, no income tax, gut to get revenoo somwayahs.. Got a rooms and meal tax which includes snacks. To its credit has one of the best supah mahket chains in the whole country that made national headlines last yeah. MARKET BASKET. NH loves ARTIE DEMOULAS!
Bruce
It is either Halliburton or the company that Rahm outsourced the parking contract to in Chicago.
Actually the appropriate way to deal with this IMO is to authorize LEOs to ticket the hiker for reckless hiking, reckless endangerment, or something similar to reckless driving. The ticket carries a fine. But don’t send a bill for the rescue.
An ambulance ride with the L.A fire department rescue to the hospital costs about $900. Makes you wonder where your taxes go?