Lost and Fined

A new trend has made itself known in the news recently for New Hampshire. It became more well-known when a Massachusetts eagle scout was lost for three days at Pinkham Notch, but when they found him, the situation turned from jubilant back to worry.

You see they fined the kid $25,000 for the search efforts for him. Some other states do charge for the search but, according to this USA Today article, places like Oregon cap their charge at $500. Many other states don’t even charge the rescued.

Should this change in NH? I'm going to go with yes, and here is why. People don’t want to be lost, if they could help it, they would know where they are at all times relative to everyone else. The fine makes matters worse, after a while people may not even want to be found.

If they survive in the wilderness for a few days and know they have accrued a certain total to pay back to the state, they may not even want to be found. They may not have the funds or children may be so worried about the charges brought on their parents they would rather go on hiding when a search party comes around, unless the will to survive is at the breaking point of course.

But I think this would add so much more stress on the party that has lost someone. A mother is worried sick when her son doesn’t return from a hike with his friends. She spends days worrying about his safety; often times thinking maybe he is not coming back. Then the day comes, he is found, the stress the family has been under for the past few days doesn’t stop. Now they have to pay a fine of $25,000 or so. There goes the family’s nest egg and the last shred of composure they have.

So I say reduce the fine to a payable amount, one that won’t tare a family apart when the lost party is found, or get rid of it all together. Someone shouldn’t get fined for something they can’t help; getting lost doesn’t always mean they wondered off on purpose.

Anyone else have any arguments for either side of this?