http://www.timesargus.com/article/20090720/NEWS02/907200332/1003/NEWS02

HUNTINGTON — A backcountry rescue team helped a group of hikers down from Camels Hump on Saturday after the ill-prepared trekkers took a wrong turn in nasty weather conditions.



Upshot is, they went up the easy trail as the storm was coming in, with no wet weather gear, no lights, no food, and very little water. Storm gets to the top of the mountain the same time they do. The screw up, take the hard trail down, and eventually call 911 in the dark.

I'm not sure I oppose fining these guys. You see storm coming as you leave the parking lot... hmmm....

Having had the hard side of Camel's Hump beat me and a friend this spring (we could handle the snow, but not ice with a skin of flowing water on it), and having taken the Hump both ways before, I can't imagine NOT having gear with me on it.

They had no gear too... jeeez!

I miss Camels Hump, I remember making a few night time "study" trips to the top while at UVM... We were of course better prepared than this group was. Like Ironraven, I couldn't imaging not being equipped hiking in the back country but many many people do. I saw less of this when I was in VT, but I am sure it is almost as bad as it has been here in AZ.

Still one of my most memorable experiences was watching the sunset from the summit of Camels Hump.

This looks like it was a Summer Camp or something. So I would say they should be charged Double for teaching kids that they can do this!

When I was a Camp Counselor I was repsonsible for all of the decisions to go or NOT go. I was expected to have the experiance and knowledge necessary to keep the kids out of harms way.


I am gonna have to say that this bill is way more justifyable than the kid who broke his ankle in NH.

But that is just my opinion and, well we all know how opinions are.

You are opposed to the eagle scout getting fined, but not this group. I dont see a lot of difference. Both made mistakes and had to be rescued. Using that rationale, shouldn't the eagle scout be held to the same standard?

I dont think ANYONE should be fined for having to be rescued. Generally, taxes pay for it, or people volunteer to help for no pay.

Whether my house burns down because of something beyond my control, like faulty wiring, or because of my negligence, the fire department doesn't send me a bill for putting out the fire. No difference IMO.

I think that's a good comparison... house fire and getting lost negligent or not.. that makes me look at it differently.

El diablo, I disagree with you. I see your point, and I think there should be levels of negligence. Going up in a storm is certainly negligent. A scout getting to a place to be rescued, one he knows someone will visit, isnt. One is a dumb choice; the other is one of two options-not necessarily negligence.

If you want to use a house fire analogy, I have more compassion for someone's house burned becuase a mouse chewed through a wire, than for someone who was shooting roman candles in their house.

The weather around here has been down right Seattle-like around here. I don't think we've had more than 4 days without rain in the past month. Storms were forecast for Saturday, and they could see it coming in. That is why I'd call them negligent.

-Blast

I disagree with going out in a storm being negligent... it may be stupid but if you are prepared it could be a good adventure, and not negligent at all.

IE: You try to go snow skiing on the freshest powder, and sometimes you end up in a blizzard.

IE2: We go snow 4-wheeling when it IS snowing / blizzard to get the fresh snow, and have a good fun adventure. We go prepared to spend multiple nights, etc... not negligent but if I somehow got injured and was rescued they would most likely paint the picture as we were negligent and how ridiculous we were for going at that time etc.

A lot of things can appear negligent to the uninformed or someone who hasn't personally done / experienced it.

I dunno, it's still a darn hard call to make no matter what the situation is.