New Hampshire Fish and Game Dept. Judge Jury, Hangman

[Slo-go'en]

Does anyone know if New Hampshire's signs at the borders say, "tourist are not welcome"?

No, but there are signs at many of the trail heads which adivse you that you will die if not prepared.


SANY0088.JPG

[moldy]

So the tax payers of New Hampshire want all the benefits of a robust tourist industry with billions of dollars generated. They also want to take no responsibility to pay for the infrastructure required to care for them.

[max patch]

Don't forget that we are talking about "negligent" hikers not "any" hiker who needs rescued.

If the Hiker Card bill passes this becomes a moot point anyway.

[4eyedbuzzard]

New Hampshire needs to change its web site which tries to get tourist money. The state clearly encourages people to come there to hunt, hike, fish and so forth. They do not say to come only if you have the special skills needed. Inherent in this invite is that people will sometimes have trouble enjoying nature. They should at least add a warning that should you come and need help then they will charge you extra if they determine you are at fault. I'll bet the income from tourist significantly exceeds the extra expense the tourist cause. Does anyone know if New Hampshire's signs at the borders say, "tourist are not welcome"?

Some other points that arise in this debate:

Regarding NH, is it fair that the entire costs of all S&R, which is mostly spent to rescue hikers who pay no fees, be paid for by only those who pay fees for other sporting licenses (hunting, fishing, boat, off-road vehicle)? Shouldn't hikers somehow pay their fair share as they incur most of the costs?

In general, should society/taxpayers pay for the rescue of those who willfully ignore generally accepted outdoor safety practices when participating in what are considered "high risk activities" (yes, hiking/backpacking is generally considered part of this group)? Shouldn't hikers be responsible for carrying navigation aids (map, compass, GPS, etc.); having gear appropriate to activity and climate; having skill levels appropriate to the activity; choosing to hike alone (especially in winter or in difficult terrain)?

[bfayer]

So the tax payers of New Hampshire want all the benefits of a robust tourist industry with billions of dollars generated. They also want to take no responsibility to pay for the infrastructure required to care for them.

That is not the way I read it. The way I read it is the way it is written: "New Hampshire Fish and Game Department announced that hikers who negligently cause themselves to become lost or injured - resulting in costly and dangerous rescues - may be billed for those rescue services."

The key word above is "negligently". Local tax payers should not have to pay for the actions of negligent people. We are all responsible for our own actions in life, and governments are not insurance companies. Wanting tourists to come to their state is not the same as wanting to accept full and total liability for their stupidity.

NH is a beautiful state and the people there are great. I don't blame them one bit for expecting people to pay for their own mistakes.

[Mags]

Snowmobilers, fisherman, hunters et al pay a license to help maintain the resources they enjoy in most states.

Hikers/climbers/backcountry skiers get off pretty cheap compared to the above. $25 is not only cheap insurance, it does help the SAR groups which are often volunteer based as well. Slightly over $2/month. You probably pay more than that in gas going round trip to and from your home to the trail head.

[Tom Murphy]

No, but there are signs at many of the trail heads which adivse you that you will die if not prepared.


SANY0088.JPG

Note: The sign says turn back now if the weather is bad. It does not says turn back now if the weather is bad and you don't have the proper gear/experience.

Sometimes, you should just not be hiking above treeline PERIOD.

[Don H]

Don't forget that we are talking about "negligent" hikers not "any" hiker who needs rescued.

In the case of the injured hiker that moldy referenced two of the stated causes of negligence were hiking alone and hiking during bad weather. Something just about every thru-hiker does.

[4eyedbuzzard]

In the case of the injured hiker that moldy referenced two of the stated causes of negligence were hiking alone and hiking during bad weather. Something just about every thru-hiker does.

If we are talking about 17 year old Eagle Scout Scott Mason, he attempted a solo Presidential traverse, alone in late winter (April), his family was originally billed for $25,000, which was later settled for a $1000 donation. The case stirred up a lot of debate, and added fuel to the drive for the proposed new Hike Safe Card/Program.

IMO, I don't care if you're an Eagle Scout or a Condor Scout or a Pterodactyl Scout (pick a big flying creature of choice) - if you hike above treeline alone in winter you are asking for trouble should something happen. It's negligent, per se.

[tiptoe]

I was rescued by NH Fish & Game in 2011 when I broke my ankle just south of The Imp shelter, and these folks were very competent, very caring, and very professional as they carried me for 4 hours down to the road, where an ambulance was waiting. When they arrived, one man took out a notebook and asked politely if I minded answering a few questions. I didn't, and he went down the list. I don't remember all the questions, but they were of this general nature: did I carry maps and a compass, was I an experienced hiker, did I have a sleeping bag, warm clothes, and food, etc. I fortunately wasn't in much pain, but I knew I'd never get out of there without help and I could imagine how annoying it must have been for them to climb the mountain, collect me, and schlep me down a post-hurricane-Irene steep path in the dark. All the while, they kept my spirits up, stopping to give me a painkiller when the swelling kicked in, and even tipped me up on the litter so I could see the sunset. Maybe I'm naive, but I can't imagine that the new law will be applied maliciously to stick hikers with huge bills.

[bfayer]

If we are talking about 17 year old Eagle Scout Scott Mason, he attempted a solo Presidential traverse, alone in late winter (April), his family was originally billed for $25,000, which was later settled for a $1000 donation. The case stirred up a lot of debate, and added fuel to the drive for the proposed new Hike Safe Card/Program.

IMO, I don't care if you're an Eagle Scout or a Condor Scout or a Pterodactyl Scout (pick a big flying creature of choice) - if you hike above treeline alone in winter you are asking for trouble should something happen. It's negligent, per se.

As a current scout leader I would also like to point out that you don't have to have much if any real backpacking experience to earn Eagle, and nothing you do in Scouting is solo. What the kid did had nothing to do with scouting, and I can guarantee that scouts taught him not to do exactly what he did.

[Rain Man]

Anything you say to the rescuers or to anyone else can be used to determine your negligence.

Sadly, amusement park employees are trained in this exact art, coming to an injured patron in distress and eliciting comments to be used against him/her later. It was only a matter of time til others formally began doing the same thing in their self-interest.


Rain Man

.

[bamboo bob]

When a couple of "hikers" starts climbing Mt Washington at three in the afternoon in high heels with a can of diet coke and a cell phone on a cloudy day in shorts and halter tops and then get lost in the dark and call for rescue I hope they are required to pay for the responders effort.

[4eyedbuzzard]

As a current scout leader I would also like to point out that you don't have to have much if any real backpacking experience to earn Eagle, and nothing you do in Scouting is solo. What the kid did had nothing to do with scouting, and I can guarantee that scouts taught him not to do exactly what he did.

Oh, I know. But there was an aura during the course of the "litigation" (not truly litigation), that somehow his Eagle Scout status conferred that either he should get some sort of special treatment or that he had skills beyond normal and obviously it was all just bad luck - or something. The truth is that as an Eagle Scout he should have known better than to hike alone above treeline in winter. As to the parents allowing their 17 year old minor child to hike the Presidentials alone in winter, I shall reserve comments other than they rightfully got the bill.

[bfayer]

I'm with ya ... so long as the foot fits both feet. "Governments" can be negligent and if the victim is stuck with all the costs, then the referenced taxpayers get a windfall in the form of a "get out of jail free" card. They should pay for their own mistakes too. I'm okay with negligent hikers getting a bill, so long as it's not a "what's mine is mine and what's yours is mine" protocol protecting guilty parties.

Rain Man

.

I agree, responsibility goes both ways. Sovereign immunity is way over abused at both the state, and federal level.

[Mountain Dog]

Here in the panhandle of Florida we have what is called an "undertow." It'll kill you if you are caught in it and do not know what to do. We have flags on the beaches advising people when the risk of drowning is higher than normal, we make radio and TV announcements to make sure tourist know the dangers, we have lifeguards to advise people, and we have signs all over the place. Still, we rescue NUMEROUS swimmer EVERY DAY in the summer. They do not pay a fee to swim in the Gulf. Are the tourist stupid, you bet. Do we make money on them even though we pay people to look out for them and save their lives, you bet. Do we encourage people to visit our state even though we know some will not be able to safely navigate our waters, you bet. Do some people still die, unfortunately they do. I would not want my area to get into the business of charging to save lives, regardless of who is at fault. Once a fee system is imposed AND activated, it'll take on a life of its own. What is the saying, start a stream of money and stand in the middle to get your share. Of course this last statement comes from my experience down here. I'm sure NH and other states see taxes and fees levied and then taken off at a later time.

[Mags]

Mountain Dog, do they charge admission to these beaches staffed with life guards?

[magneto]

If they pass the Hike Safe law - I'll buy the card. I spend a lot of time in the Whites. $25 is a low price to pay for the high level of services NH F&G provides. If having the Hike Safe card removes the very remote possibility that I will be falsely accused of negligence by a vindictive government agency, all the better.

In any event, I would be very glad to pay for services provided to me that save my life.

A really interesting thing about the government is that while regulations generally suck, individual regulators can be great. During the course of my life, I have at different times encountered the enforcement arms of the IRS, the US Department of Justice, the US Department of Labor, OSHA and the FAA. In all these cases, I worked with very reasonable people and was able to resolve the various issues without a lot of drama (and without any fines or other penalties). I suspect NH F&G is the same way: unless you have done something really obviously stupid, they will leave you alone.

[Mountain Dog]

Mountain Dog, do they charge admission to these beaches staffed with life guards?

NO! Our beaches are public beaches and free to the public. We spend money on parking lots, walkways, lifeguard stands, ATVs etc. We even have robust search and rescue groups to assist (all volunteers). It is seldom that a local needs saving. We know the dangers and how to stay safe. Sure would be nice if we could just collect the extra money (bed taxes, gas taxes, etc) without having to spend money to save lives. Still, we pocket money every year so Y'all come!!
BTW, I love the mountains. I own a place in North Georgia just so I can spend more time walking in the woods. I appreciate the states and volunteers making them available to people like me and not requiring that I be able to bushwhack in a survivors mode like Davy Crockett.

[Dogwood]

This announcement applies to those who exhibit negligence. You should only be concerned if you consider yourself a "negligent" hiker. I feel no animosity towards this announcement and rather - welcome it.