Was SAR requested by family/friends? If yes, then maybe a BILL, paid directly to the SAR group and others directly involved, but not a FINE paid to the government. If SAR was not requested, then who is the government to decide to fine him? Don't you have to break some law in order to get fined? What law did he break? Negligence against others that causes them harm - maybe. But negligence against yourself? What law prohibits that? We all do stupid things to ourselves on occassion and don't get fined for it.

If SAR responded out of the kindness of their hearts - which they probably did - then they could send him a bill, but if he or his family did not request SAR involvement, I can't see how the bill would be a legal obligation. Where it me, I'd try to pay what I could (to the SAR group - not the government!), but would consider my paying to be out of the goodness of my heart, just like the rescue effort was for the SAR folks. I would resist paying any government fine unless it were shown that I broke some kind of law.

Here is the pertinent part of the New Hampshire law:

RSA 206:26-bb (2009)

206:26-bb Search and Rescue Response Expenses; Recovery. I. Notwithstanding RSA 153-A:24, any person determined by the department to have acted negligently in requiring a search and rescue response by the department shall be liable to the department for the reasonable cost of the department's expenses for such search and rescue response. The executive director shall bill the responsible person for such costs. Payment shall be made to the department within 30 days after the receipt of the bill, or by some other date determined by the executive director. If any person shall fail or refuse to pay the costs by the required date, the department may pursue payment by legal action, or by settlement or compromise, and the responsible person shall be liable for interest from the date that the bill is due and for legal fees and costs incurred by the department in obtaining and enforcing judgment under this paragraph. All amounts recovered, less the costs of collection and any percentage due pursuant to RSA 7:15-a, IV(b), shall be paid into the fish and game search and rescue fund established in RSA 206:42.

II. If any person fails to make payment under paragraph I, the executive director of the fish and game department may:

(a) Order any license, permit, or tag issued by the fish and game department to be suspended or revoked, after due hearing.

(b) Notify the commissioner of the department of health and human services of such nonpayment. The nonpayment shall constitute cause for revocation of any license or certification issued by the commissioner pursuant to RSA 126-A:20 and RSA 151:7.

(c) Notify the director of motor vehicles of such nonpayment and request suspension of the person's driver's license pursuant to RSA 263:56.
............

It would be interesting to know how they arrived at exactly $25,000 for the expenses they incurred in this rescue. Not $21,479 or 24,223, but exactly $25,000. Probably sounded like a nice round BIG number to make their point rather for actual reimbursement of their costs. The kid should request an itemized list of their expenses. Simply put, the State is imposing a fine on this kid, and it has absolutely nothing to do with reimbursement of any expenses!

Well, so far, I've always managed to get myself unlost, eventually. I think being an outdoors-person requires a degree of self reliance, and generally consider it to be a virtue. But, as you say, it's a matter of judgment, or lack thereof.

Other than for children, I'd be hesitant to over-promote some sort of official "stop and wait for rescue" policy, especially one backed up by civil enforcement. I understand the impulse to seek reimbursement to the taxpayers for the costs imposed by the utter stupidity of others, but the outdoors is hardly the main place where this occurs.

I see the outdoors as one place where personal responsibility can still be nurtured and practiced, and I would just hate to see it become another place where reliance on the state, and general weenie-ism, is promoted and enforced.

Bankruptcy may be an option, if this debt doesn't pass through to his parents. Can a fine against a minor be enforced?

I'm sure some type of PLB insurance won't be far off. Kind of like those private medical evac. companies that offer coverage to people traveling in remote regions. Pretty much the same concept.

Lets try keeping politics out of the discussion.

I find it peculiar that in the event this young man had not been found, there would not be an issue. I can't imagine a government body fining the survivors of a family member whose "negligence" prompted an expensive search.

"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."

Unavailable for what reason? How is it that the state is allowed the greatest leeway in the burden of financial responsibility when the greatest cost of the rescue was the state's responsibility, not the eagle scout's?

According the article, the average cost of a rescue in New Hampshire last fiscal year was around $1338.32. If a fine must be imposed, that seems a better figure.

...and so, now that thousands have abused the process in the past, the pendulum will swing the other way for a while. Once people realize again that adventures into the wilds are a privilege and not a right, then perhaps we can wrest government control away from the bureaucrats, maybe. I kinda doubt it. History says once the government starts regulating a thing, they seldom quit.

It was bound to happen. Too many clueless wanderers counting on the effotts of a few dedicated experts. This had litigation written all over it for far too long, begging for government involvement like this.

I know that law, and I like it- it was written so that people who think you can day hike Washington wearing a tshirt, shorts, and carrying only a liter of water get spanked when they call for SAR becuase they are cold and hungry and they hurt when it is getting dark.

But fining this kid is nuts- he lost and honestly hurt. Was his short cut bone headed? Sure, but if he hadn't gotten hurt, would we be thinking it was dumb?

Questions that I'd bring up in court:

(1) Did anyone in the family REQUEST search and rescue? If they did, were they informed of possible costs they may incur?

(2) Is "leaving the trail" a slam-dunk "negligent" action?

(3) What OTHER search and rescue actions have been undertaken in the past, with circumstances similar to this one, and what charges were levied for those? Justify why the charges in THIS case are higher/lower than other cases.

(4) Itemize the actual costs involved and detail where (speciically) any money collected will go (to the SAR group?, etc.)

Rescue is costly. Groups should be reimbursed where appropriate. But from what I read here, I would need convincing that $25K is appropriate in this case. Willing to listen - but initially very skeptical.