Yes, I am a moron for wasting time replying to you.

Do note- New Hampshire is a libertarian paradise in the sense of not having sales or income taxes.

Do note- as per Wikipedia some 92% or more of New Hampshire is undeveloped land. Doesn't make for a huge property tax base, I would think.

Do note- you, libertarian, are demanding a government service as a right, and you, libertarian, are not addressing of how to pay for the service, and who should pay for it, and why.

Do note- New Hampshire has set up a website with guidelines for safe hiking: http://www.hikesafe.com/ You can go through it and see how many guidelines Scott Mason broke.

Do note- Now that you've established that you do favor your taxes in your Southern State going towards a government function of rescuing for free clueless people who get themselves in trouble in the wilderness, don't go around quoting approvingly "All government is evil....".

I personally think that search and rescue is an excellent use of my taxes. But your libertarian hypocrisy grates so.

I am not surprised, but when push comes to shove, your libertarian principles go out the window. If you expect to maintain a small government and low taxes, then the individual must pay for rescue services. How else could it work?

By the way, the hit on the credibility of the lawyer you don't even know due to my own choice of words is priceless --- and normal for you. It is a great tactic for those who only care about "winning" -- but in a nice "humanitarian" way.

The hit on NH Fish and Game and the other search and rescue teams you don't even know is priceless. If this is really a case of a poor helpless child, why was he hiking alone? Where were his parents?

The charge comes from the cost of rescue. Three days, 20+ rescuers, winter rescue, helicopter (which by itself is pushing $1000 per hour). That's the cost, $25,000. The decision made is whether or not to assess it to the family of the child (as you point out, the hiker is a child, so the bill goes to his parents). That's the decision made, not how much to charge which is just the cost of the rescue operation. It's based on whether the behavior was negligent. The only fines I've ever seen charged in the WMNF are for violating the rules in a restricted use area (environmentally sensitive area where you cannot build fires or camp except on designated campsites).

Summer rescues are typically much cheaper, although they can be very expensive, too. They can rely much more on volunteers. You don't send too many volunteers in after someone in the Great Gulf in the winter/spring. The volunteers will all be up at the top, where you can walk. It's called not bringing another victim to the scene.

I'm sorry, but this one isn't a good example of big gummint. It's been like this since I was a teenager, like I said. The rescue gets initiated and proceeds until the person is found and talked to, at least. In the old days before the helicopters, it took 20 people to carry the person out if necessary. And there are crosses up there above treeline where people died. Big crosses, to remind people of what happen's up there.

Just to be totally sure you understand what happened, the kid sprained his ankle on Mt. Washington, he was over on Mt. Jefferson when he went off the trail. Miles away. There are people at Mt. Washington Observatory 24/7, 365 days of the year. They work there. He passed them on his way over to Jefferson, after he hurt is ankle.

Sorry Eucalyptus, but I don't like being told something so basic as charging for a rescue is an example of big gummint. That's just propaganda. Who exactly is supposed to pay for these rescues? The same people that complain about the charges also complain about paying taxes. And I happen to know that whether or not Walter Cronkite had covered this story, searches and rescues in the White Mountains get covered by the press in 3/4 bullshit, 1/4 truth mode. Always have.

Must respond to this, as I live in Boise (pronounced with an S rather than a Z, if you're a native), Idaho.

I have been to Boysie in Idaho and it is heavenly place where there are no ducks and nobody ducks either.

Not really sure what you're on about, but there are plenty of ducks here--and a remarkable number of Canada Geese. One has to traverse certain public areas with very careful navigation (okay, I'll be blunt--a lot of goose shit here abouts).

But all in all, it's a lovely place to live and I am most grateful--entirely grateful--to have the good fortune to live here.

All I can say is wow.

A child is charged 25,000 dollars for having trouble on a hike and all you have is "blame it on libertarians"? You are troubled my friend, deeply troubled.

If a guy can watch a human child get charged 25,000 dollars when adults normally get charged a few hundred dollars and you like it, then there is something missing in your soul.

But then, a fellow would likes to see people in [guess the name], get bombed, is already known to be less than concerned about "the little people".

Whatever.

Maybe NH can license an insurance company to sell parents insurance against the stupidity of the kids. And, if the parents have a really stupid kid, a different insurance company can sell the parents insurance on the stupid-kid insurance. Ought to work sort of like credit default swaps. ;-)

whatever -

whatever!

The hit on NH Fish and Game and the other search and rescue teams you don't even know is priceless. If this is really a case of a poor helpless child, why was he hiking alone? Where were his parents?

The money grubbing bastards charged a child 25 large for a rescue. They charge others a few hundred. That is evil. Pure evil.

Who should pay? There should be no rescues unless you sign up first and pay an "insurance" amount. Otherwise, you are on your own --- my ancestors survived in the mountains without the state coming after them. (well, the state did come after them but for other, more liquid, reasons)