A Lost Hiker’s SOS Signal Sparked a Wildfire. Now He Must Pay $300k
backpacker.com
backpacker.com
> In the early morning of May 27, Powers set out to hike what he believed was the 17-mile Cabin Loop, which his guidebook described as an easy-to-moderate trail. [...]
> In her verdict, United States Magistrate Judge Camille D. Bibles disagreed [...] He wasn’t, she said, even on the right trail: Instead of the 17-mile, moderate Cabin Loop, he was hiking the 18.8-mile Taylor Cabin Loop, a full 50 miles away, which his guidebook rated as strenuous.
Even if they started at the same place, it would be the hiker's responsibility to verify where he is and that he was on the intended trail, not just at the start, but as he progressed along it. If what you are seeing around you does not match up with what your map shows, go back to the last place you were certain.
If this guy's life was in danger - and, having been to Taylor's cabin myself, I can well believe it was, especially given how clueless he was - then he has bought the rest of his life for $300K, by abusing an infrastructure set up with considerable effort by people who are doing their best - and taking a risk - to act responsibly. He should be grateful for that and quit whining.
And when I am going hiking on a route I had not been on before, I take a map of the trail and use it, especially at a time of the year when one should expect temperatures exceeding 35°C.
If he had made his way to his intended hiking location, it is quite possible he would still have become lost, as the trail system there has many branches.
Though I do feel bad for the people who live on such streets, with how often their food delivery gets sent to the wrong place. Turns out delivery drivers aren't always the ones with the greatest attention to detail.
Also Vanbrugh Castle as a house name within the same radius but, obviously, isn't on any of the aforementioned roads.
"No."
"I didn't think so."
Liverpool Street Station is in London. Liverpool Lime Street is in Liverpool.
At the Secaucus station, the two Penn Stations are in opposite directions, and I am sure many end up going the wrong way and wasting an hour.
Source: me, wondering if I want the Bronx bound train or the Queens bound train
There's a Penn Station in Baltimore too. Making that mistake nowadays is less of a personal safety issue than it used to be, at least.
Something we learned out of all this was that each train company used to have their own station in each city, before things became consolidated, so it makes sense for there to be many stations for the Pennsylvania Railroad.
Turns out, before the Pennsylvania Railroad built the tunnels under the river , you had to take a ferry from New Jersey.
Concrete jungle where dreams are smothered
There’s nothing you can do
Because you’re in Newark
In any case, this reasoning shows a worrying lack of personal responsibility. Often ascribed to US. Do people seriously consider legal steps against a trail-book because names of trails are confusing? More general: do people actually win a court case because a route-app brought them somewhere "dangerous"?
Oh the American people are probably more independent than most and that comes with understanding personal responsibility.
The real issue is the lack of soft unwritten societal rules that exists in most other countries, so everything must be codified into law and if the rules are not specific enough, they are abused by everyone from corporations to everyday peeps who grew up under the opaque system.
Ironically when the laws are too specific, there are also loopholes to be abused.
At the end of the day, laws aren't the solution to every societal issue.
close, but i think it's the other way around. Those soft rules do exist, but they're regionally scoped to about the size of the median european country. We just have several dozen such regions.
The "codify everything" impulse can arise from things like interstate/inter-region commerce alone.
There have been cases of GPS directions being wrong and people suing. I think some of the Cades have been successful depending on the circumstances. Wasn't there one in Australia that took someone down a wrong deserted road or something?
What if I microwave my cat (she was wet, I wanted to dry her. The manual did not explicitly state I could not dry my cat in the oven), and then sue?
Sounds the upside risk is big: chance to win thousands (millions?) but what if I lose? Am I forced to pay thousands (millions?)? It sounds like you are saying the chances to lose are big.
Do you think my answer was incorrect for a real world example?
Though, reading up on that, I believe it is "famous" in a my age group mostly, so it could be some younger hackers missed that reference. Sorry for that.
They heard wrong. Source: looked at my microwave.
Oh wait, he didn't bring a map.
One of the worst wildfires in San Diego county history occured for this same reason. Decades later the landscape is still a blackened scar.
Instead of fire starting equipment, maybe he should have brought a GPS? Extra batteries? Solar charger? This is crimnal neglegence, nothing less.
This thread is also a poster child for the ineffective HN comments feature.
After some moron burns up the countryside, all the discussion here is about how different places have similar names?
Pathetic...
If I get drunk, drive, and cause property damage, would you feel the same way?
People have a responsibility to not drive drunk and not to start forest fires. We can do a 5 whys activity but that doesn't negate the culpability of the individual.
Is he an idiot? Sure. Do forests burn? Yeah. Just ban him from public lands and fine him.
Fire is a natural part of the landscape in the west. You should learn to appreciate it because our policy of putting out fires for aesthetic and logging reasons has made our whole landscape a powder keg.
Because that's how cosine similarity works.
I can't begin to estimate how many trail names might include the words "cabin" and/or "loop".
Just further indicates the level of incompetence and ill-preparedness here.
One of the worst wildfires in San Diego county history occured for this same reason. Decades later the landscape is still a blackened scar.
Instead of fire starting equipment, maybe he should have brought a GPS? Extra batteries? Solar charger? This is crimnal neglegence, nothing less.
This thread is also a poster child for the ineffective HN comments feature.
After some moron burns up the countryside, all the discussion here is about how different places have similar names?
Pathetic...
Setting the fire like that was reckless. I wonder if he could claim temporary insanity due to the medical state he was in. Heat injuries can have a mental impact.
"Setting fires was illegal regardless of the circumstances"
I'm not sure this is the whole picute. Isn't there a legal concept that you can break the law to prevent a further harm? Like speeding on the way to the hospital. I'm betting if he set a distress fire in the fire ring, they wouldn't be after him. So that might be misleading.
Anyways, my biggest takeaway is that you can make a mistake and be completely fucked for the rest of your life. It's safer, legally, to just stay inside and not participate in anything due to legal risks. As perverse as it sounds, it almost seems the hiker would have been better off dying and let his estate sue everybody. At least it seems the legal system prefers it that way.
Even if you agree to the point of view that he went on the hike ill-prepared, that does not change the fact that he found himself in a potentially life-threatening situation with no other means to signal for help.
Now, the article also mentioned that he left the fire unattended, and that raises the question whether or not a signal fire could have been done with more care. But that is not at all what the court focuses on.
At the same time, isn't the sum of $300,000 influencing our judgment here? Would we think otherwise about the judgment if the damage were much lower, say, around $1,000?
Yeah, I'm not saying the court decision is necessarily wrong, but the way they went about it seems wrong. They are focusing too much on stuff that doesn't matter - like a first aid kit.
Yeah, the amount is definitely an influential factor. However, it's probably based on actual cost to put out the fire. I'm not sure what the answer is to balance interests here. Should tax payers just foot the bill anytime someone accidentally starts a fire (reckless? Negligence? Etc too?) or needs to be rescued, or do we need to have personal insurance against these things and what does that cost? I'd say I'm generally against personal insurance for everyday life and definitely against mandated personal insurance for most activities as you can essentially regulate lawful activities out of existence and price out classes of people. A potential fix would be charging a low fee hiking pass that acts similar to insurance to help the governwment cover costs likely to arise from public use. Although I'm sure this has some concerns with use restriction and pricing people out of a public resource as well.
Thats extreme recklessness, stupidity, against the law in the first place, and could have endangered the lives of an unknown amount of people hiking on the same trail or in the vicinity.
He took no precautions with the fire and the entire situation happened because of recklessness in the first place.
The sentence is just and appropriate. Frankly probably low considering the amount of work needed to put the fire out.
He made a mistake, and this sentence is brutish and unjust, and could cause a chilling effect on others who might need to take drastic action to save lives, causing more harm in the end.
But 300000 would probably be something they’d be willing to pay to be rescued.
The fact that he's fighting it shows he's not that willing to pay.
If you’re reckless, yes. You bear consequences for your actions.
Note the counterfactual case, where the hiker cleared the area around the fire, where damages were not found (on appeal).
That's good. So they weren't fucked for the rest of their lives, just for a few years for the trial and likely tens of thousands in legal fees.
For causing massive, irreversible damage to a public space and natural ecosystem, damage entirely avoidable had they taken reasonable precautions? Yes.
Sycamore canyon isn’t a forest, it’s a high desert. While fires a bit north, on the Mogollon Rim, are common, they’re not around Sedona. These regions contain centuries-old cacti. So yes, it would recover in pristine conditions over a century. But amid the changing climate, that hill may be too steep for the original ecosystem to return.
It got out of hand yes and there were better ways, but I bet he was not thinking clearly since he was suffering medically and mentally.
Nit: this is a popular myth, but no, you're not allowed to do this. An officer can use discretion and not cite you, but if they do cite you, you'll have no legal defense. https://www.ashtonandprice.com/medical-excuse-speeding/
EDIT: I was wrong, ignore this post. I learned something new today
>In her verdict, United States Magistrate Judge Camille D. Bibles disagreed. Powers, she wrote, “was reckless and negligent in his preparation for a hike of this magnitude from the outset.” He hadn’t packed a GPS device, paper map, or compass, instead relying on a cell phone mapping app that was useless without service. He had failed to bring a headlamp or flashlight, instead relying on his phone’s built-in light.
He went into the wilderness alone without even the most BASIC of supplies. I'm no serious outdoorsman, but I'd never consider doing what he did. That was grossly negligent. He created a problem for himself, and then created a massive problem for everyone else trying to get out of it.
"He went into the wilderness alone without even the most BASIC of supplies."
You mention wilderness. Was the trail he intended to hike also in the wilderness area? This could have an impact on what one brings with them. For example, he might have had cell coverage at the trail he intended to hike. And he did infact bring a lot of equipment, such as camping equipment even though he didn't plan to stay overnight. It's not like he set out without anything. The point here is that any little thing can have people screaming that you were negligent. The bar is that a reasonable person should have known better. Maybe that's true. If it is, then almost anyone can be found negligent when they need to be rescued. That's my point. One thing to point out on this is they mention many hikers underpack their water. If you survey how many hikers of beginner day trip trails pack first aid, proper flashlights, etc I would guess you'd find that many, if not most, don't. Perhaps a reasonable person wouldn't have known to plan for this.
"That was grossly negligent. He created a problem for himself, and then created a massive problem for everyone else trying to get out of it."
I'd say he was reckless in the way he set the fire. I'm not convinced he was negligent in going hiking since he had many pieces of equipment and the recommended amount of water for the expected time (a day hike).
If that doesn't sound negligent to you, well, you're not reading well.
It's easy to use hindsight to say someone was negligent because you would have packed X and they didn't. Yet there are many other people that might call you negligent because you didn't pack everything on their list.
He made mistakes and it almost cost his life. But he took steps to save his life too. That got out of hand too.
But that is the nature of rescues - if everyone did the right thing from the start, we wouldn't need rescues!
Punishing him is unjust. It should be a lesson. The money doesn't matter - that's why we pay taxes, so we have someone to save us if we get into trouble.
There are a lot of people who speed on highways. If you cause damage or hospitalize someone because you are speeding you are still responsible.
>Punishing him is unjust. It should be a lesson. The money doesn't matter - that's why we pay taxes, so we have someone to save us if we get into trouble.
The fine isn't for needing rescue or getting lost, that OK. The fine is for starting a forest fire. We dont pay taxes so that everyone can start forest fires without financial consequences.
Or if you get into a situation like this, you may not take necessary steps to save your life or someone else's life because you may get a $300K fine.
This court ruling puts a chilling effect on staying a life, and could cost more harm and lives.
He was merely an easy 3 miles from his car when he decided to put through exploring the wilderness for a second time, having gotten lost the first. He could easily have walked back to his car. If the fact that he chose to walk somewhere he knew he could not find his way and with no supplies to sustain him is not "creating his own circumstances" I do not know what it is. Mistakes happen etc but here we are talking about a person who, the second day, chose to wander the wilderness totally unprepared instead of essentially getting his ride back home.
I find that most people have no idea that the GPS used by phones for positioning has nothing to do with normal mobile signal, and will still work in the most remote areas of the world.
Mapping apps have a rough map of the world always locally available, and you can download specific areas to use offline. There is no functional difference between this and a dedicated GPS device, as implied by the article (and the verdict?)
Am I wrong?
For /any/ truly off-grid GPS usage, it's well worth the money to just go and buy a proper GPS unit with no dependency on outside connections other than the GPS signals.
I'm not even talking about hiking on some obscure trail in WhereTheHellistan either. Even just driving down the highway out into the countrysides could leave you miserable if all you have is a phone with spotty or no data signal.
Personally, the Rand McNally GPS unit that cost me a pretty penny has more than paid for itself every time it always just worked while phones just derped worthlessly.
This is the way. I have a Garmin watch that has GPS, maps, and a compass built-in. It's also got a several day battery life when all the features are on, and well-over 30 days in a battery saver mode. While the maps aren't the best, a compass + GPS + paper map would let you know where you were.
It's maintained by the same people who created MapsWithMe in 2011, has zero telemetry, zero ads, and is thus one of my favourite maps on Android (though it supports iOS too).
There used to be MotionX GPS but they shut it down
I'd feel confident crossing Africa using Guru, it's rock solid.
Here in Ireland, I find mountain-views.ie a great site to get an idea of what other hikers actually experienced on a trail before I go. I do this and have never got into trouble. On the subject of Garmin GPSMap60 CSX and I found it great. But after one trip, I forgot to take out the AA batteries and bricked it. THAT was stupid. You live and learn (a bit; sometimes).
GPS would have been fine. He wasn't even minimally prepared to use it.
Thats because the forest blocks many of the GPS satellites, and the remaining small number of signals take an awfully long time to collect information about the satellite orbits (which is normally downloaded from the internet with AGPS).
If you didn't know this, you would probably not wait 10 minutes for it to work - you'd just assume it wasn't working.
That fact is made worse by the fact that on android, if you switch away from the map app and then then go back again, this 10 minute process entirely restarts because the GPS gets switched off and forgets any fragments of information it had already collected!
- data transmitted at 50 bits/s
- data frames are 1500 bits long, divided into 5 subframes
- Subframes 1-3 are satellite-specific and subframe 3 contains the high-precision orbit information for the sat you're receiving from. Subframes 4 and 5 contain the almanac that gives you a list of coarse orbit info for the entire constellation.
- The almanac consists of 25 pages of data. Each sequential frame has one page of the almanac.
30 second frames * 25 pages = 12.5 minutes to download the entire almanac once you have a lock on a given satellite. All of the satellites broadcast the almanac at the same time, but they're time synchronized so all of them are broadcasting page 1 at the same time.
A smartphone can partially emulate what a “proper” hiking GPS does, but its general nature makes it less suitable when you’re really out in the wild.
Paper maps make for a great backup, if you know how to navigate in terrain, but many people lack that skill.
A Garmin GPSMap60 CSX for example is an excellent device, basically bulletproof. Just make sure you learn to use it in advance, have the proper maps (OSM) and don't get caught with coordinates in the wrong formats.
OSM is so detailed it's accurately displays mud tracks in remote areas of Vietnam. I thought "this can't possibly be right" but it certainly was.
Dedicated device is best, smartphone is a good backup.
Apple Maps does not. One of my regular drives has an area of no cell service (around 5 miles away from the state capital, so of course that makes sense), and Apple Maps will routinely just display a dot on an empty screen.
I've been hiking plenty, and these mistakes he made are very common (except for going 50 miles off to start... that's wild). Rarely do we bring lighting or GPS beyond our phones. We never bring enough water. Trails are often overgrown and it's tough to tell where one begins and another ends, sometimes you end up on the wrong trail for a bit. Trail ratings are often off. Even on easy trails, a misstep can mean serious injury or death. It is a much more dangerous activity than most think.
I'm glad he didn't end up as another dead hiker.
This is cheaper than planning realistic training, and the unprepared is better training as well.
If you're really that bad at estimating water needs bring 2x as much as you think, dump out the extra half way into the hike.
This is the attitude that causes people to burn down forests in panic mode.
If you're constantly out of water on trail, I heavily recommend taking up another hobby, like crocheting.
Had more than enough for things going good, not enough now.
I apologize, never was a gross exaggeration. I almost always bring enough water. But then there are times you don't... I've obviously never misstepped enough to die or suffer serious dehydration. But for safety you'd need far more than enough, right? If you go off trail suddenly enough becomes half what you need. Or you get hurt and can't move well. This is where the water typically becomes not nearly enough.
We don't typically punish people so harshly when they damage property out of carelessness. This punishment also doesn't work as deterrence. This guy thought he was prepared, after all. He packed an axe and other junk, but that won't do you any good if you lack basic navigation skills. This guy didn't intend to do something immensely stupid. He was just so out of his depth that he didn't even realize he started on the wrong trail.
If someone accidentally kills someone there's a punishment involved, even if they didn't intend to do something immensely stupid. It's one thing to be ignorant, but it's another thing entirely to be ignorant to the point of endangering others.
"Even if a person takes all proper precautions and obtains any locally required permits, whoever started the fire is responsible for suppressions costs should the fire escape." https://dof.virginia.gov/wildland-prescribed-fire/fire-laws/...
yeah, I can't afford to run the risk of something going wrong here, guess I'll keep going and hope I don't die.
Particularly not if I'm almost wholly to blame for being at risk because of my own spectacular level of stupidity.
The monetary cost of a mere $300,000 is a very poor proxy for putting the risk back on the shoulders of the person it rightly belongs on.
When you are dying, I doubt that should matter.
We might as well require every living person to carry multimillion dollar personal liability insurance so the government can actually get their $300k. Isn't that the same logic they use with calls for gun liability insurance? Ensure money is paid as well as make "risky" (unwanted) activities cost prohibitive thereby reducing participation.
The real problem here was how he set the fire. But the case sure does focus on a lot of other stuff.
The case focuses on other stuff because it adds to the recklessness charge. He started a massive forest fire because he got into a bad situation because of recklessness.
I'm not convinced he was reckless in going hiking. He was reckless in how he set the fire. That was the main part of my comment - that almost anyone who needs to be rescued could be found to be reckless or negligent based on the armchair logic that because I would have packed X and you didn't, that makes you reckless. You had a heart attack and had to be flown out of the backcountry. Guess you're reckless for not packing an AED... etc
If it were really so simple to know what you needed, there would be codified equipment requirements for use of public land based on your intended activity. Yet even the private lists of what to being vary wildly.
He made a mistake, and almost paid with his life. That is punishment enough.
1) Starting a fire was already illegal.
2) Recklessness was from the fact that he walked away after setting a goddamn tree on fire, without any thought to prevent the fire from spreading
This particular case is a pretty unusual one where the hiker is saying they were choosing between setting a fire and dying. I doubt they were aware of the law involved, and expect they would have made the same choice regardless.
That's a problem in a life or death situation. You shouldn't think. You should do what is necessary to save a life, yours or someone else's.
It could be done with $3 worth of parts, plus a solar cell or dynamo.
What is with this insane desire to rough it as living without emergency comms is somehow nobler than having them? There’s no reason why every log cabin should not have a HF voice link to anywhere.
I think that in the real old days there were probably tons of people walking everywhere. You just had to sit down in a trail and somebody would walk by. Wild places today would seem deserted by comparison.
A 100’ sloped antenna would do the trick, attached to the chimney of the log cabin. It would not have to be that high off the ground.
You think someone like this is prepared to use a radio morse code link?
> It could be done with $3 worth of parts, plus a solar cell or dynamo.
As an amateur radio operator who does these kinds of things for fun, no, just no. It takes a lot of technical skill and practice to be able to operate these kinds of radios. Morse code also takes a lot of practice to send effectively.
And it's not going to be $3.
The proper technological solution here is a SPOT beacon.
Technically the only word it would have to transmit is “mayday”. Practically you’d need a voice link to make sure it was a real emergency.
I am far from an avid hiker, but if I was going to be doing anything remotely dangerous away from regular cell coverage, I'd take an EPIRB which I believe has some satellites in the loop but sort of works in reverse of GPS. I think the rescue bills might approach what this gentleman is being charged, but sometimes circumstances call for it.
https://www.euspa.europa.eu/european-space/galileo/services/...
It does more than GPS / location determining. I didn't think a commercial provider would be as well known (I've never heard of EPIRB) as this constellation, but yeah I guess few people would know Galileo as more than GNSS
https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-kaufman-sailing...
I don't think it's a commercial system, but there is great cost in diverting a US Navy vessel for a search and rescue operation, though I suppose that is ideally the reason that they're out there in some sense.
After just a touch more reading, it looks like the rescue locator beacon system is piggybacking on GPS and Galileo satellites for some functionality, but includes other satellite and ground based systems too. Pretty cool.
The whole situation reminds me of the early days of long motorcycle races in the southern California desert -- if someone's motorcycle broke down they'd set their tire on fire to signal they needed help and someone would come pick them up.
Of course this was before satellite transponders. And you're a lot less likely to start an out of control fire in the desert.
Typing, I just realised, this is one case where constant higher inflation could help...
Where I am, fines to governmental entities via courts, can often be negotiated as monthly payments, interest free, even if it takes a very, very long time to pay.
EG traffic fines, as an example, being a few hundred, can be paid over years. No interest.
This does change if you do not pay, but otherwise, you can negotiate.
So if the same is true in the US, and it may be, after all, bankruptcy laws does not apply here (and so other concepts, too)... then inflation helps.
If you are going to use a smartphone app, maybe get one good enough to put you within 50 miles of the right trail
But I'm pretty sure that for a typical person from the street, a smartphone and spare battery will be more effective than a compass, map, and emergency flare.
On the other hand, you need pre-downloaded maps that show trails and landmarks, as well as a general sense of the terrain and some basic preparedness.
The fact that they didn't even realize they were on the wrong trail shows an absolute failure to plan ahead and navigate correctly. That is really the larger problem - a 17 mile hike is not a light stroll through the woods. If I were doing such a trail (and I'm hardly a seasoned outdoors enthusiast) I would have pre and post hike arranged check-ins with emergency contacts, backup batteries, suitable clothes, 2 light meals worth of food and water, and a rough mental map of the area. None of these things are hard to do or require spending tons of money at sporting goods stores, they are just common sense.
Download the maps so you can use them offline. Have a backup battery so you can charge your phone if it dies. Keep your phone in a waterproof case or ziplock bag. Either be in a group with multiple phones (what's the chance that in a 3 person group everyone loses or breaks their phone?) or carry a paper map backup. This guy broke at least 2 of those rules.
The points the guide made that convinced me were: 1. You're already carrying the phone, it's silly not to utilize it. 2. Phone gps is so much easier to use than a map that you're much likelier to check it on a regular basis and therefore notice something is wrong earlier than if you are relying solely on a paper map. 3. Paper maps are great in some cases but they really suck on low visibility or dense trees. There are techniques for navigating in those situations but they aren't very precise.
Now, you do still have to have some level of competence and preparation. The trail this guy did was on altrails. I would've studied the trail there. I would've studied the route on caltopo. I would've consulted a paper map or guide book. I would've looked at the area on Google maps. I would've made sure everything seemed consistent between those different sources (if he had done that, he wouldn't have ended up on the wrong trail). But ultimately, I would've used caltopo to generate a PDF map of the area, loaded that map into avenza maps, and used that as my primary means of navigation.
I've just heard of cases where people died of dehydration with water sources nearby and think it's important that people are aware of the fact that they can drink untreated water in most cases (I say most because toxic algae can kill you pretty fast so know your local situation there). I wouldn't suggest doing it regularly but it can be a reasonable risk to take in an emergency situation.
Chance favors the prepared mind and all that. Also, one of my major life goals is to not die of something preventable, due to my own stupidity. :)
He feared that he'd be fired, but his boss effectively said, "We just learned a quarter million dollar lesson, why would we fire you?"
This judge should use this as a moment for public education, and an opportunity to update and clarify trail guides. Instead, it's a vindictive and punitive judgement.
$1k fine and do a PSA about hiking safety -- that's plenty fair. The guy had rhambo for crying out loud, he had legitimate reason to fear for his life.
But with this, the lesson learned is "if you ever get lost, remember, it's your fault for not preparing enough, and it might be better to just die".
But I feel the lesson that will be learned is like you said "I don't want a fine, even if I feel like I'm dying, I'd rather not take the chance!"
I'm super curious what his level of experience is. It makes a difference of he was just some novice who wanted to take a walk on a sunny day or if he really thought he was prepared.
That bill seems huge untill you see the scale of damage. Over 200 square acres is just incredible to me.
Also, an experienced hiker knows that if you drink half your water but you aren't yet halfway done the trail, you should turn around and go back. You can estimate this based on elapsed time if necessary.
37+ degrees C though I feel I would need or at least want far more than just 3-4 Liters of water! Far more than a machete on a day like that anyway.
I am not that experienced a hiker though to be fair.
You need to learn the trail blazes BEFORE you set off, and most official trail maps have the blazes printed on them so you know you are on the right track. Buying an official trail maps also supports the trail maintainers.
The editorialized version makes it sound like some gadget started a wildfire and he's on the hook for it.
He certainly put too many eggs in the phone basket, relying on it entirely for navigation and illumination. But the other things he packed on a contingency of having to bivouac is not something the average unprepared hiker does. He did save some on his weight budget to pack those things on the assumption that the hike was going to be “easy-to-moderate”. I think the judge is viewing this too much through the perfect lens of hindsight and she likely would have made some of the same (or worse) errors given the same prior information.
Agreed, it very much seems like that. As the article mentions, many hikers fail to bring enough water.
He made a mistake, no doubt, and almost paid with his life. But that should be his punishment.
I might be able to climb out of a $300K hole with a lot of effort but it would take many years and probably ruin my life in the processes. I also wouldn't do what this guy did but that's beside the point, it just feels like fines should really be scaled to the person/companies income/revenue/etc instead of how it currently works. Same deal with something like speeding fines.
In Bolivia farmers "chakean" so that sugar cane can grow every season.
There are so many things companies and others do that impose costs on others that singling out only those which meet a threshold that make it worth taking to court creates a discontinuity in outcomes which makes it seem punitive here.
I also hope the fine here is proportional to his ability to pay. Bankrupting poor people for mistakes in the outdoors, where the same penalty is expensive but manageable for the rich, also doesn't seem just.
Certainly there are problems with corporations not bearing the costs of the problems / issues they create. But that means we need better laws to capture that, not that this guy was unjustly punished.
The government cares more about corporations than people. We live in a corpocracy, not a democracy.
How can one come to this conclusion given the trends in people’s weights?
Cigarettes come to mind. You’re fine with penalizing this guy $300,000 for doing something stupid and penalizing society hundreds of millions of dollars for the maliciousness of RJR Nabisco, Philip Morris, etc.
If it's truly "die vs. do this and live the rest of my life in debt," yeah. It's worth it to take on the debt.
But it'll force another level of creativity out of you before you decide the only way to save your life is to light a whole dead tree on fire and hope for the best.
it's been my experience that if I push it all the way to the last resort to save my life I am
1. not in a good state to make that decision
2. not in a good state to do the necessary steps to make the last resort work correctly.
It'll be hanging over you when you're out, as things get worse and worse. You'll start thinking of alternatives much earlier, because the potential of living the rest of your life in debt if you only find a destructive way to stay alive won't let you wait as long to be thinking about solutions.
Nobody's reading this article from a place where they're already at "light a forest fire or die" danger level. This only works as a deterrent and a cautionary tale because people are finding out about it before they're in dire trouble.
The point of bankruptcy is to allow you to give up all your possessions in return for being able to shed all debt. It's a simple trade, and lets you 'start afresh'.
And it's kinda an even better deal than it appears - you get to keep your knowledge, your friends and your qualifications - so in your 2nd start, you will probably achieve a much better trajectory than the first.
He made mistakes, and almost lost his life. That's the punishment, not a fine that he'll never be able to pay and will ruin the rest of his life.
It will also affect how others handle the situation, potentially causing more harm to or loss of life.
One of the worst wildfires in San Diego county history occured for this same reason. Decades later the landscape is still a blackened scar.
Instead of fire starting equipment, maybe he should have brought a GPS? Extra batteries? Solar charger? This is crimnal neglegence, nothing less.
This thread is also a poster child for the ineffective HN comments feature.
After some moron burns up the countryside, all the discussion here is about how different places have similar names?
Pathetic...
So he walked an easy 3 miles path to the cabin, then wandered around lost and went back to the cabin? And then instead of walking these 3 miles back to his car he decided to push through again, even if he was out of water, having no map, and a useless phone that he could do nothing with because he had not downloaded any maps beforehand, and knowing he had difficulty in finding the trail? Am I missing something here that leads to all this making sense, or this person is as an utter idiot as it sounds? No circumstances seem to have forced him to push through blindly hiking into the wilderness and get lost, the court is absolutely right. This is all absurd.
Offline maps with a solar powered charger or power-pack?
For a guaranteed failsafe fallback: A good old compass and paper maps of the area and knowing how to use them.
No doubt, satellite communication devices are useful but people have been hiking and surviving outdoors for millennia without them.
Though yes, when I saw the headline, I was trying to figure out how his InReach managed to spark a forest fire...then I saw that he literally was TRYING to set a whole tree on fire.
This is just plain stupid. He got his life rescued, and his lesson.