> 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.
Sure, I’m not saying it was impossible to mix them up, just that naming them like that isn’t criminal negligence. There are lots of places that are close together and have similar names.
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.
If you "plan" an entire trip in wildlife with a single "hey google..." I'd say that you are personally very irresponsible and should or could be charged for any rescue operation.
why would I expect my phone to get that right on the first try and not verify it? how lazy have tech people gotten that they blindly trust terrible tech?
I would sure as shit double check. Google Maps is awful at locating any trail except the most well-trodden. You'd be a complete fool not to double check, as the person in OP demonstrated.
That would be just a step short of driving onto the railroad tracks because your phone told you to turn right.
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.
Indeed -- much like with roads that have the same name with a different ending; ie, Maple St. and Maple Ave., found in the same town.
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.
The one that gets me every time is Parkmoore and Moorepark on opposite sides of 280 in San Jose. I be someone thought they were being clever when they named them.
In Chicago, Wacker Drive has an Upper and Lower, goes North, South, East, and West, and crosses itself 6 times. Confusing for people who aren't familiar with it!
Boston has at least two Glen Roads, differentiated only by neighborhood and ZIP code. I found this out when a friend drove up to visit, called, and asked: "Do you live in some kind of gated community?!"
You think that's bad, 20 years ago I was on a train from London (I forget which station) to Liverpool Lime St station, and somewhere around Nottingham — over an hour into the trip — another passenger asked me if we were going to get to Liverpool Street Station soon.
Liverpool Street Station is in London. Liverpool Lime Street is in Liverpool.
People who land at Newark airport in New Jersey and want to use the trains to get to New York City have to figure out the difference between Newark Penn Station and New York Penn station. Must be awful for people who do not use English as their primary language.
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.
My wife once purchased a ticket over the phone for the Acela line from the Penn Station in New York, but they misheard it as the one in Newark. So it's even hard for Amtrak!
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.
That's also why many cities (DC, LA, St. Louis for example) have a "Union Station": that indicates a station that was specifically built for multiple railways to have access to, hence "uniting" their tracks.
Tangent, but Conquering Gotham is an interesting history of how New York Penn Station came to be and its eventual, uh replacement, with the current structure.
Turns out, before the Pennsylvania Railroad built the tunnels under the river , you had to take a ferry from New Jersey.
I don't know if it's still the same, but from Stansted airport you had a choice of taking either the train to Liverpool St or Liverpool Lime St. Fun times for tired travellers.
I remember reading a news item about a guy who rushed through the airport (I think LAX) to catch his flight to Oakland, ended up on a flight to Aukland instead. Realized something was wrong 4 hours later and they hadn't arrived. This was in the 1990s.
This response is what many non-Americans (at least my european bubble) pityingly look down at. "I heard in America they have to put a warning on the microwave ovens to not put any live animals inside" followed by some hearsay about people microwaving their dog "to dry them" and then winning millions in court.
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"?
>In any case, this reasoning shows a worrying lack of personal responsibility. Often ascribed to US.
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.
> The real issue is the lack of soft unwritten societal rules that exists in most other countries,
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.
I would hope they don't win if the information is correct and the names are just confusing. The map doesn't set the names, just renders a representation of what legally exists.
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?
For a while during covid NSW was closed, and a few people who had taken a road trip from Victoria to Queensland tried to drive home through NT and SA. The authorities spent a while rescuing people who weren't prepared for 100s of kilometres of dirt road between stops.
Yes, the USS a very litigious Society at the moment and people do win court cases. The wins are rare but I wonder if it is the severity of the penalties which is the issue.
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.
not really any downside that I am aware of. You might be out your legal fees, but if your lawyer works for contingent (gets part of the settlement) or are one yourself, this is lower.
What the hell kind of lawyer is going to take a case where you microwaved your own cat... let alone on contingency? Some of the hypotheticals I see here, which people use to justify their outlooks, are so deranged and distant from reality that it makes me wonder. There is a constant emphasis on what is technically possible (such a lawsuit) while rejecting the reality wherein the other factors enabling such an occurrence don't exist. It's as if certain individuals here have no concept of what is reasonable or not.
I think you are reading too much into a thought experiment. Of course they won't take the case with the cat. It is a hyperbolic placeholder in a greater discussion. The question is what the downside risk is for X case with low chance of success.
Minimal, clearly, given your ridiculous hypos, yet you are here pushing them anyway as if they add anything to the conversations besides being misleading in their absolute ridiculousness and inapplicability to the real world
It seems like you're the one that has the problem and I'm not sure why. You know it's ridiculous so that's clearly not the problem. The answer is the same if it wasn't a ridiculous hypo, so that's not the problem either. I'll also point out that I wasn't the one posing the ridiculous hypo, I was giving the answer that is applicable to both ridiculous and realistic hypos.
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.
It must really be a US thing. I am really perplexed that people even consider seriously that the ones who named the trails are responsible and not this person. And they were 50 miles apart ffs. It is not that they were crossing each other or whatever, used the same colours or whatnot.
the "mixup" happened because someone was an idiot and then started a fire.
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.
What's the point of sending him to jail and make a ward of the state?
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.
For trails, this is the equivalent
of typing in "Main Street" and presuming the first result is unique and/or the result you're looking for, without considering city, county, or even state.
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.
I think this is an example of what are normally externalities being arbitrarily imposed on an individual though.
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.
“Makes it seem punitive” um… are you concerned about that? It’s the whole point to be punitive. And there are supposed to be life altering consequences for actions we take.
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.
Best take right here. Yeah, the guy was an idiot, but was he Norfolk Southern criminal? Ad will Norfolk Southern go bankrupt from poisoning a town? Nope. What about Wells Fargo? I cold go on and on.
The government cares more about corporations than people. We live in a corpocracy, not a democracy.
Wildfires are also naturally occurring and rely on a supply of dried fuel to burn. This dumbass starting a fire means that we skip a naturally occurring one because this fire consumed the fuel. It's not exactly that cut and dry but the point is it's not all cost.
$300,000 for the average person, isn’t a lesson. It’s an albatross around their neck that will be their for perhaps their whole life and cause huge problems for at the very least decades. May as well make it $300,000,000. I don’t think of that as “justice” so much as “justice porn” so those of us who weren’t fined $300,000 can look and say, “What a great job the system did.”
Right but alternative is making people pay for stupidity of some randoms. I don't have problems with socialized healthcare, it's mostly not person's fault they happened to have worse health than others, but this is just compounded effect of multiple stupid decisions in a row
How can you not, knowing how corporations literally spend billions of dollars a year to make sure people consume whatever unhealthy thing they are making this year? Like, yeah, it's my personal fault for drinking that can of coke, but let's not pretend that billions that Coca-Cola corporation spends on ads and marketing had absolutely nothing to do with it either.
Most people (except Christian Bale) don't make a conscious decision to become overweight. As far as I know, there isn't even a consensus why people are getting bigger every decade.
> it's mostly not person's fault they happened to have worse health than others
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.
I think the question it's meant to make people consider is, "Is this action I'm about to take really the last resort to save my life?"
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.
I was actually making a comment that was meant not to be applied just to me but to make people consider huh, yeah if I was actually at the point of last resort that's got to be pretty extreme and I too would not be operating at peak efficiency therefore it would be best to start the process of saving my life before it was the last resort or I die, but evidently I have once again been too vague in my preferred communication style.
No you were not, you made a great point. Some people just want to do mob justice and punish people so harshly, that they can't even understand that if they were in that situation, they'd likely feel the same as you.
But the point is that you're finding out about this potential consequence now, from the safety of your own home.
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.
You likely won't be thinking creativity if you have mental limitations due to medical state. Heat injuries, dehydration, etc can cause mental impairment. My guess is that's why they are focusing so much on him creating his own emergency and focusing on inconsequential things like lack of first aid kits or flashlights - so they rule out a temporary insanity plea.
Bankruptcy is a feature of nearly all modern legal systems to avoid exactly this.
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.
Even this is ambiguous though, or at least, I didn't get it when reading the headline in the article either. Smoke signals just don't even come to mind when someone says signal, it's like having to think of network cable when someone says "dog strangled by cat", to me at least!
Americans are certainly known for their gung-ho attitude and optimism, but I think you’re making a huge leap to being unprepared for wilderness—that’s a universal issue with most modern people unaccustomed to being away from their full-featured support environment. A quick Google turns up plenty of British people getting themselves into the same predicament.
> Taking two knives (machete and a cutting knife), as though they are out to fight nature.
Isn't that reasonable? If you want to cut food, or do something that requires precision, you don't want to use a machete. If you need to bushwhack and clear some brush, you don't want to use a small cutting knife.
As an European outdoor enthusiast ... I have never been in a situation where I needed a machete instead of just going a slightly different path. Are American forests darker versions of Fangorn?
Obviously, if you're a visitor on a public trail, you shouldn't have a machete.
But there are corners of my property where a machete wouldn't hurt. Sure, New England forests often have open understories. But if sunlight can reach the ground, they can also be nearly impassible.
Seems to me, if you're choosing a route through Fangorn that's so overgrown, it requires a machete (!) to clear, you're about to get really, REALLY lost.
Weight of machete on hike >>> equivalent weight of water on hike, seems like a much better idea.
While there are places in the world where you need to have a machete to actually hike, they are very few and far between, and certainly not something for casual and amateur hikers. 99+% of people who bring a machete hiking absolutely don't need it and if they even use it, it is only hack randomly and pointlessly destroy vegetation.
You bring knives to short marked managed trail hikes because you want to LARP or are just that stupid, not because there is any expectation of using it.
The only time I bother to bring a knife is if I'm doing multi day backpacking in bear country. Of course I have bear spray and bells and everything else you should have to deter a bear in the first place, but the last resort option feels nice to have.
I suspect it may be more a reflection of how easily Americans can get FAR from civilisation compared to most Europeans/Brits, and how hostile those places can be compared to our overall pretty mild climate.
Even with the comparatively small distances involved, there are plenty of Brits (and I assume Europeans more generally) who set off for an ill-prepared hike and end up getting saved by mountain rescue because they decided to walk up a mountain in clothing more suited for a walk to the shops.
Yea and that's the funny side, in UK you will find people trying to walk up mountains in trainers or crocs.
However in the UK you are less likely to find someone hiking with a crossbow, flares, military rations and some vitamin pills, and still get lost at the car park.
Lol, too funny, but you're both right. I'm still surprised at how many people die each year on the Nevis range. And I have personally seen people (Londoners, natch) on a hike up Ben Lomond in cycling shorts and a t-shirt, just as the weather started to set in...
I suspect, that you are right. Anywhere in Europe a helicopter will be with you in less than an hour, cell phone reception is pretty common in the mountains, everybody is looking after „newcomers“. Even finding a 50 mile hike would be a challenge.
In America, like you said, far more danger await the unsuspecting and distances are generally far greater.
How many places in the UK can you truly end up in shitcreek with no paddle? Brecon beacons? Americans just have way easier access to dangerous areas (and snakes, bears, mountain lions)
Anti American sentiment is getting a bit old (saying this as a Belgian)
That did strike me too. Setting out into 100F with less than a (US) gallon of water, but a selection of knives ..
Although if he was 50 miles away from the trail he was planning on, I'm not sure how much he was really relying on the phone either.
It does smell to me more of something I see a lot "outdoors" that isn't uniquely American though - the idea that you just need more kit to solve problems. Knowing how to use it is unimportant, planning ahead is unimportant, being more prepared simply means buying more Stuff.
Each have their downsides, and both have some level of skill/knowledge to use effectively.
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.
The smartphone is definitely better than equipment that an average person has no idea how to use, yes.
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.
There's nothing wrong with smart phone apps for hiking if used correctly. I used to be skeptical of them but had a conversation with a professional guide about them and he sold me.
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'd also like to mention that this guy's situation isn't really related to his phone. He was on trail (albeit the wrong trail) and sounds like he was panicking due to dehydration (he tried drinking his piss) meanwhile he's right beside a creek. If you're doing 18 mile hikes, bring a water filter or some other water treatment method. If you happen to find yourself in a situation without water treatment, drinking directly from a stream is usually a far better option than drinking your piss or risking dehydration. Yes, there's the risk of microbial diseases but those will generally take a while to kick in and you can hopefully get back to your car by then and go to the doctor if that happens.
Gotcha. Yeah, I haven't spent much time in Arizona and just took a cursory look at the map. Satellite images definitely show a dry creek bed. In the case of hiking in that arid of regions, being prepared with enough water is incredibly important.
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.
It works quite well actually as long as one spends the necessary effort beforehand to prepare with downloading offline maps, checking the paths around to have an overall idea of the place etc. There is nothing that complicated nowadays actually. If one depends on phone signal and internet, that is definitely a problem.
I'm not sold on this guy's conviction. I know the internet loves seeing people punished, but this guy needed his life saved.
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.
If it wasn't for the unprepared going off and getting lost, search and rescue teams would have to pay people to get lost. Airplanes sometimes crash and other things that are not the fault of the unprepared, so we need those teams and we need them practiced.
This is cheaper than planning realistic training, and the unprepared is better training as well.
Not a mistake I can see a hiker regularly making. It's like a driver who regularly runs out of gas and is stranded on the freeway every week. Something is really wrong with their self-assessments if this is an activity they've done "plenty of times."
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.
Tone is not really necessary, I am mostly arguing with the point that it is not a common mistake. It is pretty obvious if you run out of water that it is a mistake.
The amount of water required for a 17 mile easy/moderate hike and an 18 mile or more much harder hike that includes getting lost may be quite different.
I agree that it's not a regular mistake, and I sort of think that the context of the comment we never bring enough water was hyperbole, but it's I think a common enough mistake WHEN things turn problematic to find out oh damn, I don't have enough water for this problematic situation.
Had more than enough for things going good, not enough now.
Is hyperbole something nobody on HN can understand? Are we really so tech brained?
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.
I'm going to disagree here. He started a signal fire which he left unattended in the desert which ignited a 230-acre blaze. Hiking in the desert is quite dangerous and his actions could have easily endangered others. He's lucky that no one else died as a result of his actions and I can easily see why this kind of penalty would be made in this case.
It was "100°F and bone-dry", according to the article. He had no chance of putting the fire out. And he would have died if he hadn't started the fire.
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.
I don't think ignorance is that excusable in this case. I grew up in the desert and in cases where it's "100°F and bone-dry" it's extremely dangerous to undertake a long hike without proper preparation, especially if you don't even know where you are.
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.
I was thinking Galileo was an analog of GPS which wouldn't do much good for someone who wanted a rescue. Knowing exactly where you are doesn't help much if you can't tell anyone.
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.
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
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.
I was also confused by this until reading further.
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.
Would it kill them to put a radio morse code link in the cabin?
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.
HF transmission is highly dependent on atmospheric effects to get any reception at all. That is if anyone is even listening. Retuning to a different band requires running the antenna etc... not that easy for dummies who can't even see the benefit of a map, compass and water.
> 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. While he had brought two large knives, he hadn’t brought a first-aid kit or any method of signaling for help in an emergency. 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.
You think someone like this is prepared to use a radio morse code link?
> Would it kill them to put a radio morse code link in the cabin?
> 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.
Before reading the article i actually was thinking that sounds bizarre. After reading it though it's clear this guy really messed up. Even burning the tree for a signal would not have been the last resort.. there are so many things he could have done even after leaving unprepared.
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.
Yeah i guess am hiking incredibly unprepared all the time and would hazard most others are too. 14 mile out and back should take a day, he got lost and things went bad. Doesn’t feel like justice to me but will make me rethink my packing list next time I hit the trail.
In backpacking, bringing too much stuff (especially the wrong kind of stuff) is a beginner mistake. If he hadn't brought 3 pounds for the large knife and machete and made similar reduction in equipment elsewhere, he would have exerted himself less.
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.
Yes, this. Also, if you're out of water, hike in the dark, not in the sun. Oh wait ... no headlamp? Never go anywhere without a headlamp. Not even to the store. After a few mishaps I'm a bit OCD about my headlamp.
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?)
The issue you're missing is most "GPS Apps" use information gathered from the internet, and most people don't download "offline maps" which I used to do, which would allow you to GPS as you suggest without data since all the location information is now locally stored.
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.
There are also dedicated offline map apps you can use. My current one is OSMAND that works off Open Street Map data and can do turn by turn directions without a cell connection. It's a couple gigabytes to have a complete map of the US that's at least up to date enough to navigate out of the back country.
> 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.
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.
I have hiked plenty with basic, free gps apps with pre-downloaded maps plenty times. While manually disabling phone signal for conserving battery. Never had an issue. It is really really simple actually. The person in question was totally unprepared. One should never assume that they are going to have signal in the wilderness and they should definitely not depend on that to navigate themselves while hiking.
Also, maps.me uses openstreetmaps, which has very comprehensive and surprisingly accurate trail maps, and the entire world (or whichever sections of it you desire) can be downloaded for offline use. It's been my go-to for years.
Let me plug Organic Maps here, which is a fork of MAPS.ME before it turned into that weird thing with a Web3 wallet and token and kitchen sink.
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).
I use Organic Maps extensivly while hiking. It works amazingly well overall without any sort of signal. Download the maps beforehand, verify the trails you want to hike and off you go! Verifying is key, as Organic Maps doesn't really differentiate between "major hiking trail" and "random little trail that's more like bushwhacking than hiking". It even works great as a turn by turn navigator. I like going to Andorra, and one of the downsides there is no free roaming like in the EU, so it comes in handy even just for directions and finding businesses when walking around a city.
Apropos tips for inexperienced hikers (I do quite a bit of solo hill-walking and mountain biking). One thing I do at an unfamilar site is mark my parked car's location on OSMAND - OpenStreetMaps on Android. I don't need any cell satellite signal to verify it - turning on location helps - and then I know where to return to in an emergency or point someone to. Zooming out gives me geographical context. Also, I always carry a paper map and compass and know how to use them If you don't, don't go. Simples. Also for a nooby hiker, printing out a paper copy of the proposed trail and wrap it in cling film is a good idea.
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).
Accurate and stable are relative. He wasn't geocaching or even trying to figure out which of two streets a few dozen meters apart to turn on. He needed to know which direction to go to get back to his car miles away. Any GPS fix would work, even if it was very rough and 50m off which it probably wouldn't be since he was out in the open with only some hills to deal with.
GPS would have been fine. He wasn't even minimally prepared to use it.
No, you're right. I believe there should be some mapping apps dedicated to hikers, but I think just downloading a map in two different mapping apps (just in case) should be sufficient.
That's nice and useful in many circumstances, but a phone - and an SOS signal - serve a different purpose: To save your life when you can't save yourself, e.g. if you are trapped or your leg is broken on the trail.
Yes, this was true already before smartphones! I hiked with a sony erikkson, that had a GPS with a downloaded map that help me find my exact spot in a PAPER map. But this guy was on the weong trail from the start.
Google maps offline feature is not very reliable in my experience. Multiple times the satellite layer didn't work or was at a much lower resolution than wehn the map was saved.
Many phone GPS's work near instantly when you have an internet connection, but if you use them in a forest with no internet, you might well be waiting up to 10 minutes to get a position.
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!
Technically 12.5 minutes :). Here's a bit of fun (to me) info about the GPS constellations and the wild speed of it:
- 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.
In some ways, a good navigation app with proper hiking maps, downloaded before is functionally equivalent. But hiking GPS devices are optimized for outdoor usage, more resilient and have substantially longer battery life. They often work of AA batteries, so you can bring spares.
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.
A 20 mile loop trail in rough terrain can be a 10+ hour hike, depending on your skill and fitness. If things work out, you’ll be fine with a smartphone, maybe with a powerbank to recharge. If shit hits the fan, you’ll be in trouble. So it depends. Do I need to hike with my smartphone only? Certainly, in places where there’s a significant likelihood of encountering other people. I’m not taking a GPS to the woods out of town. Would I go on a trip somewhere less populated with my smartphone only? No, definitely not.
Paper maps make for a great backup, if you know how to navigate in terrain, but many people lack that skill.
I haven't tried recently, but last time I tried using google maps while on holiday with data switched off it just showed me being in the middle of a gray screen.
I occasionally fire it up while on a plane (not connected to wifi or cellular - only GPS satellites) and take a look at what I'm flying over. It takes a while to connect to satellites, but it's cool to zoom in and see yourself hauling ass across the land.
I'd feel more confident using a dedicated GPS, if only for the fact it runs on AA batteries and you wouldn't get stuck with annoying smartphone behavior or apps crashing.
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.
> Mapping apps have a rough map of the world always locally available
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.
In Virginia, suppression costs of the fire are the responsibility of the fire starter even if they take all proper precautions and there is no negligence involved. It's a good law. It protects our national forests. Stories like these make one think twice before starting a fire.
I worked at a summer camp in college. We had some campers and staff build a fire near the river and neglect to fully douse the embers. Hours later there was an "all hands" call on the radio. The fire had spread in about a 10 foot radius by the time we got to it. Since the soil was so loose and sandy, it had caught the roots on fire. Took hours of digging to put it out. Could not have been controlled without a team, equipment, and a quick response.
How about considering the danger that starting that fire and walking away from it stands to expose other people to? Maybe we look at things differently, but saving my own life is not worth risking the lives of a bunch of firefighters or regular folks.
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.
Or why even leave the house and participate in any activity if there are lifelong legal risks to everything?
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.
There aren't many things an average human can do that is quite as destructive as causing a 200 acre forest fire. I'm really trying to figure out anything that could cause that much widespread damage, but nothing is coming up.
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.
The damages are only $300k. It's very easy to cause that much damage or more doing a bunch of things, like injuring or killing someone, buring down a house or business, etc.
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.
I'm sure that the same people who start illegal fires in panic in forests are the same people who are in shape enough to attempt to outrun the forest fire they started.
That just sounds punitive, though. Anyone sensible enough to understand and follow the law probably wouldn't break it in the first place, and ruining someone's life to the extent that they may no longer even be a functioning member of society is actually harmful to us all as it means they'll no longer be able to contribute.
This is an appropriate strategy for a climate like VA where there's plenty of rain and wildfires aren't part of how the ecosystem evolved to work. On the other hand, places like this part of CA historically burned, and each year accumulate more dead flammable biomass. Applying the same sort of law in the West means companies put in inordinate amounts of work to decrease the odds that when a fire starts it gets counted as their fault: https://www.jefftk.com/p/fire-law-incentives
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.
Borrowing? This is a fine, but it brings up a point.
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.
In my opinion if you go hiking where you suspect that there's no phone signal you should have one. I agree that perhaps always having them is too much (even if once you have one they don't add much weight to your pack).
They're a lot more widely used amongst long distance backpackers, particularly on multi day or week section or thru hikes. This guy set out on what sounds like it would have been a day hike (I'd expect, given the distance, and the <gallon of water he brought). Given that he was setting out for what he thought was a moderate trail, I'm not in the slightest surprised he didn't have one.
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.
Using the logic in this case, wouldn't almost anyone who needs to be rescued have created their own emergency out of negligence or recklessness? I mean, being unprepared for either the conditions or the emergency is pretty much the definition creating your own emergency. Also, WTF does not having a first aid kit have to do with this? It doesn't seem like it would have helped anything in this scenario.
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?
"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."
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.
I think the question the court was trying to answer was "did he act negligently?". If he did, he's responsible for the result. That he didn't bring a first aid kit is further evidence that he wasn't prepared for the hike, so I think it's relevant.
Yet it would make no difference in this scenario. He brought a bunch of other equipment, like camping gear and the recommended amount of water for the time he expected to be on a beginner trail. That seems to be equally relevant, if not more so since those are things he actually used.
He burned down 230 acres of forest after lighting a tree on fire purposefully and walking away.
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 saved his life, I think that's worth more than a forest fire. He also likely had no idea it would be so large, especially in his reduced mental state.
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.
Or it may help people realise they should go on hikes more prepared, and if shit happens they should consider going back instead pushing forward like the person did the second day, esp if they somehow think that in the worst case they will light a fire and they will be rescued.
Yeah, I'm not saying the court's decision or the amount is wrong. I am questioning how they got to part of the decision, which may be likely to be used as case law against others. They are focusing a lot on the part about creating his own emergency with inconsequential stuff about not having a first aid kit. The pertinent part is how he lit up a tree an walked away.
The fact that he's fighting it shows he's not that willing to pay.
> 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.
Can you link to the facts of that case? It seems like you're very emotional and may be overstating things since forest fires don't cause "irreversible damage" to an ecosystem. They are a natural part of the ecosystem and man is trying to tame them so we can live there, etc. I'm also unfamiliar with the case in question of whether or not the person took reasonable precautions, but it seems the court may have agreed based on dismissing it on appeal.
> forest fires don't cause "irreversible damage" to an ecosystem
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.
Just because they aren't common doesn't mean they don't naturally happen. If you have an environment that has all the conditions to have a fire like that, they will also naturally occur. Even if it's at a slower rate.
He was reckless going out unequipped. Then he was reckless not clearing the area around the fire. Then he was reckless walking away from a tree he set on fire in a desert. The whole situation is closer to drunk driving than a quotidian oopsie.
> 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.
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
This disagrees (not with the link you provided but with how you are interpreting it). Your link is about labor, which it states is not a true emergency. Thwy also reccomend calling an ambulance for emergencies but don't address what happens if you choose the other option. A true emergency can use the necessity defense.
>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.
What does the flashlight or headlamp have to do with the circumstances of this case? What about the first aid kit they mentioned? I don't see those changing anything in this case.
"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).
Was the trail he intended to hike a wilderness trail as well? This can influence what one brings. I'm not bringing a flashlight on a day hike just to carry extra weight if I have one on my phone. A map is good, but shouldn't really be necessary on a well established beginner trail for a day hike. He turned around after he was lost. The real issue is one mistake of choosing the wrong trail due to a name mix up leading to everything else, and then being reckless about the fire.
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.
Exactly. The question is what would a reasonable person did, and as mentioned in the article, many reasonable people fail to take enough water.
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.
I don't think that "everybody does it" is a reasonable excuse when the risks you knowingly or unknowingly undertake materialize.
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.
> The trail was well-marked at first, and he made it to Taylor Cabin without any issue. A few miles beyond that, however, the trail became rough and overgrown, and Powers soon realized he was lost. For about a half-hour to 40 minutes, he attempted to pick up the trail again before giving up and doubling back to the cabin, arriving there at roughly 6 p.m.
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.
Where do you see this stuff? It's not in the article. Based on the quote you posted, he got lost for 40 minutes and decided to turn around. Wasn't he staying at the cabin due to leg cramps?
Aren't wildfires very good for forests? There's a bunch of dead matter on top soil and fires clear all that stuff away and let green grow again. I think I read that somewhere.
In Bolivia farmers "chakean" so that sugar cane can grow every season.
i never hiked or walked 14 miles but assuming he is few miles in to 14 miles way back, is it difficult to walk back say 10 miles without having to give up?
What’s the next best smartphone or non-smartphone based option to try and navigate if you get lost and don’t have something like a satellite phone or satellite enabled smartphone like those new iPhones?
Offline maps with a solar powered charger or power-pack?
As a hiker, and casual observer of patterns in the US court system, the man is being made an example of. “If you fuck up your life hiking, please fix it without starting a forest fire, or just die, well fuck up your life for you when you’re back.” I haven’t hiked Arizona, the bit about picking the wrong trail is suss, but I feel like I easily could have stumbled into the same predicament
As an avid hiker, who gets lost on trails ALL the time, even trails I hike regularly, I (and everyone should) never leave home without a trail map, compass, and offline maps of the area on your phone. The phone maps can help you pinpoint where on the physical map you are once you find yourself lost.
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.
I remember reading an article about a young engineer that deleted a production database on his first day.
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".
All great points. It's a great lesson for public education. We can learn from this - just like a standard retro. But we don't blame people in them, just like this. A small fine and a PSA about hiking safety is fair.
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!"
296 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 257 ms ] thread> 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.
¹ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/the-microwaved-pet/
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...
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.
The editorialized version makes it sound like some gadget started a wildfire and he's on the hook for it.
Isn't that reasonable? If you want to cut food, or do something that requires precision, you don't want to use a machete. If you need to bushwhack and clear some brush, you don't want to use a small cutting knife.
Obviously, if you're a visitor on a public trail, you shouldn't have a machete.
But there are corners of my property where a machete wouldn't hurt. Sure, New England forests often have open understories. But if sunlight can reach the ground, they can also be nearly impassible.
Weight of machete on hike >>> equivalent weight of water on hike, seems like a much better idea.
The only time I bother to bring a knife is if I'm doing multi day backpacking in bear country. Of course I have bear spray and bells and everything else you should have to deter a bear in the first place, but the last resort option feels nice to have.
Even with the comparatively small distances involved, there are plenty of Brits (and I assume Europeans more generally) who set off for an ill-prepared hike and end up getting saved by mountain rescue because they decided to walk up a mountain in clothing more suited for a walk to the shops.
However in the UK you are less likely to find someone hiking with a crossbow, flares, military rations and some vitamin pills, and still get lost at the car park.
Lol, too funny, but you're both right. I'm still surprised at how many people die each year on the Nevis range. And I have personally seen people (Londoners, natch) on a hike up Ben Lomond in cycling shorts and a t-shirt, just as the weather started to set in...
In America, like you said, far more danger await the unsuspecting and distances are generally far greater.
Anti American sentiment is getting a bit old (saying this as a Belgian)
Although if he was 50 miles away from the trail he was planning on, I'm not sure how much he was really relying on the phone either.
It does smell to me more of something I see a lot "outdoors" that isn't uniquely American though - the idea that you just need more kit to solve problems. Knowing how to use it is unimportant, planning ahead is unimportant, being more prepared simply means buying more Stuff.
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. :)
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.
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.
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'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.
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).
https://organicmaps.app/
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.
"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.
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.
https://www.rei.com/c/plbs-and-satellite-messengers
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.
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
https://www.justia.com/criminal/defenses/necessity/
>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.
In Bolivia farmers "chakean" so that sugar cane can grow every season.
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.
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.
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!"