N.H. Bills Lost Hikers for Cost of Rescue

(AP)  Stranded with a sprained ankle on a snow-covered mountain, Eagle Scout Scott Mason put his survival skills to work by sleeping in the crevice of a boulder and jump-starting evergreen fires with hand sanitizer gel.

He put plastic bags inside his boots to keep his feet dry as he sloshed through mountain runoff hidden beneath waist-deep snow. After three cold days last April, rescue crews spotted him hiking toward the summit of Mount Washington, the Northeast's highest mountain.

Read Mason's survival story

New Hampshire officials praised his resourcefulness. So grateful was he for his rescuers that Mason, 17, sent $1,000 to the state.

Sometime later, New Hampshire sent him a bill: $25,734.65 for the cost of rescuing him.

New Hampshire is one of eight states with laws allowing billing for rescue costs, but only New Hampshire has made frequent attempts to do so — even strengthening its law last year to allow the suspension of hiking, fishing and driver's licenses of those who don't pay, according to an Associated Press review.

National search and rescue organizations insist just the possibility of being billed is dangerous policy. Hikers may delay calling for help while they think about the cost, and that could put them — and the mostly volunteer corps of rescuers — at greater risk.

Other states with laws allowing them to recoup costs rarely, if ever, enforce them, largely for that reason, the AP found.

"If it had happened in Colorado, he would have been applauded for being able to survive for three days," said Paul "Woody" Woodward, president of Colorado's Alpine Rescue Team. "New Hampshire is way out on their own on this one."

New Hampshire officials counter that being properly prepared — not the size of the scout's bill — should be the message about visiting wilderness areas. And, fish and game officials say, many of the state's trailheads are posted with signs warning hikers they may be billed for rescue costs if they aren't properly prepared.

Mason, now an 18-year-high school senior, from Halifax, Mass., has hired a lawyer to try to negotiate a settlement. Officials said he was found to be negligent because he veered off the marked path, was unprepared for melting snow that made a shortcut perilous and went up the mountain with an injured ankle, not down.

The bill included more than $24,000 for a helicopter and labor provided by state fish and game officers. Volunteers provided their time at no charge.

Three states besides New Hampshire — Hawaii, Oregon and Maine — have general laws allowing agencies to bill for rescues. Only Maine has attempted to recoup money a handful of times and the bills were never paid. California, Vermont, Colorado and Idaho have laws allowing state agencies to bill in limited circumstances, but the laws are rarely enforced — and when they are, draw a firestorm of protest from search and rescue groups.

Two years ago, the fire department in Golden, Colo., rescued a hiker from Kansas who had sprained his ankle and later billed him for $5,135. The outcry from national search and rescue groups influenced the city to change its policy and settle with the hiker for 10 percent of the bill.

Only New Hampshire has consistently billed people. Last year, lawmakers increased the likelihood of being billed when they lowered the legal standard from reckless to negligent to make it easier to collect.

Records obtained by The Associated Press from a Freedom of Information Act request found that New Hampshire spent $413,543 on 275 rescue missions over the past two years. The state issued 16 bills for rescues totaling $41,435 — with Mason's $25,000 bill the largest. The state spent far more, $59,426, on a December 2007 search that was not billed. In that case, the body of the 70-year-old hunter was found four months later. His family was not billed.

"We're not going out there with the intent to bill everyone," insists Fish and Game Maj. Timothy Acerno.

Policies vary across the country on penalizing people who ignore weather warnings, don't carry flashlights on long hikes, fail to leave itineraries, ski out of bounds or are otherwise unprepared or act irresponsibly.

If Mason had gotten lost in a National Park, his rescue would have been free, said David Barna, chief of public affairs for the National Park Service.

New Hampshire officials stress they only bill those who are negligent.

Acerno said that experienced search and rescue volunteers and fish and game staff consider what a reasonable person would have done and measure the person's actions against a hiker responsibility code that calls for knowing the terrain and conditions, taking proper gear, leaving an itinerary and turning back if conditions change. The attorney general's office makes the final determination.

Hannah Groom, a 21-year-old college student from Cumberland, Maine, learned the hard way.

While grateful for rescuers' help, Groom said the $3,360 bill sent to her and a friend was steep for one night on New Hampshire's Baldface Mountain in May. The two had planned a day hike, but took a wrong trail. She blames confusing trail markers.

"I do not believe that charging two young adults such a high fee for a mistake caused by poor trail markers is warranted," she wrote The AP in an e-mail.

Acerno said they were billed because they didn't tell anyone where they planned to hike and didn't have proper equipment, especially a flashlight.

Seasoned winter hiker John Winship, 46, of Boxford, Mass., paid the state $4,000 instead of his $1,479 bill after spending four days on Mount Washington last March when he missed his trail by 50 feet in a snowstorm. The third night out, he was getting frostbite.

"I was so grateful I got out of it. I have 10 fingers and 10 toes," he said of the experience.

Allen Clark, whose volunteer Pemigewasset Rescue Team participated in the Mason search, believes the punishment should be fixed dollar fines, not bills for state workers' time.

"This is an essential service the state should adequately fund," he said.

Woodward, of Colorado, said New Hampshire's image has been badly tarnished.

"If people are going to come to New Hampshire and go take hikes and make a mistake and get billed, they aren't going to come to New Hampshire," he said.

[daddycrc-2009]

THATS 1 DAM STATE I WEILL NEVER VISIT, Sounds more LIKE BIG GOV. OBAMASIZED..

[Sloughfoot]

If they're going to charge a youngster for rescues services they should charge adults for police services, dope snorting dead beat and perhaps their children should be billed for HHS. Perhpa NH will next also to demanding payment for fire services before they hook up the pumper, no water recues till the bill is prepaid, perhaps the next flood or other natural disaster should be prepaid prior to rescue services, the ignorance of adults to build in flood plains and a host of other ignorant adult behavior sure exceeds errant ventures by Explorer scouts.

[billpl-2009]

charge him $25 thousand?....big deal

now he can go out and hire a lawyer to sue them for $25 million

...for taking so damn long

[rightbehind]

That's pathetic. The tax payers pay taxes to keep these people on the payroll. It's all the little leach governments that need to be done away with starting at the state level. I for one am tired of paying property tax with sales tax and then they take payroll taxes as well. To make it worse state grants are given out based on the the amount of tickets written per hour. Where do the grants come from. the taxpayers. I for one am ready for a state house cleaning.

[cbsblogger]

I agree to some extent if consistency is applied to the policies. If some big wig's son is lost then he should pay too. But see possibility for abuse by agencies involved wanting to look good.

[mike18881]

Would the money go to the volunteers?

[luvheat]

well the server screwed it up but you can still look and see what I meant

[luvheat]

New Hampshire has a history of screwing the population and tourists over.
How can a state charge a kid for that kind of money when he didn't ask for
Support from NH air services. I as a tourist (dont count on it) would never
Use New Hampshire as a destination for my, in these days, hard earned money
Can you imagine camping in NH and having someone assault you? would you Kill the attacker or call 911 and be charged for the response?
Since NH charges for any emergency response what are your options?
Did this kid know he would be charged?
If so I would think he would say screw them I'll save myself.
Can you imagine the dilemma that he would be placed in?
Know this, if I were (god forbid) in NH I would be on my own!

OH and I am from california and took a page out of Arnie's "read between the lines" book. Take the first letter of each line and read how I really feel

[writer10]

LOLOL! Wow...you're post is shining with ignorance. It doesn't matter which state your travel destination is, if you get yourself lost, need search and rescue to come bail you out, it takes time, effort and money - if you think air services are just a given and you should have to pay nothing for fuel, man hours, ground search or any type of rescue, you better just stay indoors - you go out and don't know the area, or wander off the beaten path, your gonna pay, as you should. Colorado has a habitat stamp for hikers and a $.25 cent additional fee for hunting/fishing licences that ensure search and rescue are free if you pay that fee...if you're too uneducated to research, you don't belong anywhere you need assistance...depending on the helicopter...even on the lowest end to operate runs $1200 per hour...kid was out for 3 days - you do the math

[babooph]

This has great possibilities -the rich can pay for the police who are mainly to protect their massive assets& the Israelis & owners of the skyscrapers can pay for the US military at wars to protect them-my taxes will vanish!!!

[canislupus16]

Seems like there are plenty of good arguments to be made for and against. You would almost have to determine whether to bill someone on a case by case basis, involving some sort of independent panel to do so. Sort of sets up a whole 'nuther bureacracy though, as if most states really need that with budgets already hurting. Should he have done this? Brought that? Planned differently? Stayed on the trail? Left a trail purposely or accidentally? Bring enough food? Enough clothes? A tent? Sleeping bag? Flashlight? Stove? Matches? Read the weather report? "Forecasted" weather event or freak storm? Sign in or tell anyone? Thousands of factors.

I think if someone is out and out clearly negligent - or would the tougher standard "reckless" apply? - they should pay something. But, "clearly negligent". Or "reckless". Who shall define those terms?

Not to go off topic here, and not the same thing, but probably everybody believes Ballon Boy's parents should pay for that cluster *uck.

I recall the true story from a few years back, probably somewhere buried in those annals of all them Search 'n' Rescue groups, of some urban techno geek hiker out for a hike, alone, for a day hike, with basically a knapsack, not a full pack with tons of gear. He happened to just plain run out of food. Not due to being lost, or bad weather, or being out longer than expected, but just didn't bring enough, or maybe not any. Or maybe he was lost to some extent, whatever. But the circumstance occurred in the summer, with good weather, non-life threatening, and not all that far from civilization.

So the techno-geek does have a cell phone (ya think?). Calls in a 911. Says it's an emergency. Is asked for location and could do no more than approximate it. So at great expense, air and ground support resources along with bigtime manpower and off they go looking for this guy.

Well, they do find the idiot, in broad daylight, out in the open, on a semi-treed mountainside, below timberline, on a warm sunny day, in shirtsleeves. Sitting on a rock. Typing on a laptop computer. Seems ol' techno had room for the laptop in his knapsack but not for food. Or maps (of course today he could GPS it). And probably not for intelligent clothing if he had needed it.

Will somebody tell me why he shouldn't be billed for that? I would think the full cost, along with a 100 percent penalty surcharge because he potentially endangered the lives of others because those S&R resources might have been needed elsewhere for a true emergency.

The guys who found him and "rescued" him were pretty p*ssed according to the story, as I recall.

So far, we're talking about basic hiking. What about somebody whitewater rafting in Class 5 water and something goes really wrong? Clearly somebody at that level should know the inherent risks. And if they don't, they're negligent at the least, if not reckless. Should the "public" bear the cost of their rescue off some rock ledge or clinging to a tree branch in the middle of raging water? Figuring they should know the inherent risks (and risk will always translate to an actuarial economic value), shouldn't the occassional rescue be factored in as a cost of that sport? Therefore, either establish an insurance rescue risk pool, or chance "self-insuring" your own rescue - i.e., paying for the full cost yourself. Why should the public pay for the costs of your sport?

Of course, one can carry the concept of risk and value to the n-th degree: what is the financial value of a life? But not so absurd, since civil lawsuits are settled or adjudicated every day based on the lost earnings of a dead or injured person.

Anyway, I say unless it can be proven to be the "state's fault" anyone needing rescue should pay something.