Silkroad Online Forums

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.
Related Stories

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.

aznronin wrote:Wow that's fcked up... and you seem to be the first person to summarize a news article in one sentence thank you. That should happen more often.

Azilius wrote:The way I see it..he never asked to be rescued so he shouldn't have to pay. =p

John_Doe wrote:What an asshole state

Bread_Fish wrote:these laws follow the same logic that makes screaming fire in a crowded theater and pulling fire alarms when there isnt a fire illegal
it costs money to dispatch fire truck ambulances helicopters and whatnot so the person at fault for having those things put into action should have to pay for it in situations when their situation was their own fault...
in this case the kid was stupid and put himself in a situation where he had to be rescued so it his fault so he should have to pay for it
of course if someone get caught in some sort of accident that no one could have done anything about they wouldnt have to pay for it
if this article was about someone getting trapped in a building after an earthquake or something then yeah itd be stupid but i doubt they apply this law that freely

Bread_Fish wrote:these laws follow the same logic that makes screaming fire in a crowded theater and pulling fire alarms when there isnt a fire illegal

Sharp324 wrote:Think of it like people driving across flooded roads cause they think they can make it, and get stranded and rescuers have to risk their lives saving them. The so called victim gets charged for it. The kid sprang his ankle and kept on going anyway, he could of stopped and just went home but he ignored his injury. He was responsible for it

Reise wrote:It's not the same.

The kid thought he was taking a shortcut. You might as well go and fine anyone for getting lost in the woods because it's "their fault" that they decided to go out there in the first place.

Sacchin wrote:"Can you just put me back instead?"