Hike Safe Program NH

[emerald]

It said wool or synthetic [long pants]...

Merino wool or synthetic long underwear may be acceptible to NH Fish & Game. I often see hikers wearing them with shorts and I've worn merino longs under my rainsuit. I'd want something heavier above my waist.

[wakapak]

so, because you do, everyone should??
and because you're willing to, everyone should be willing to??
you're located in nc. do you have a lesser tolerance to cold than say someone in alaska?
if a person has figured out that they can survive an overnight at say 30 degrees without long pans should they carry them because a gov. agency says they need to?
the U.S. of A. is freedom of choice no??
should we go and retrieve all the tea that was spilled into boston harbor now?
next thing up, the man will be telling you what to wear whilst driving your vehicle, maybe a flame retardant suit, "in case you wind up in a fiery crash"

i never said because i do, everyone should.
second of all, yes i am currently located in nc but i lived 30 of my 34 years up in NH, so i know how the conditions can be at any given time during any given season up there.
and yeah, there is always the freedom to do what you want, however remember that there is always some type of consequences if your choice puts you in a situation gone bad.
i ain't saying it's right, just sayin that its not hard to carry those things, and i for one would rather have them then not in case a situation goes bad.
but it's ultimately up to each and every person what they want to do.

[neighbor dave]

Merino wool or synthetic long underwear may be acceptible to NH Fish & Game. I often see hikers wearing them with shorts and I've worn merino longs under my rainsuit. I'd want something heavier above my waist.

long johns aren't "pants"
if you go out to a formal occasion and the dress code is to wear wool long pants, i'm thinking one would look like an arse wearing long johns. as lyle said, it's vague and unclear.

[emerald]

A hike isn't a formal occasion. You might contribute something constructive by indicating whether you would consider longs adequate in line with what Alligator suggested. Maybe their list should be clarified and we could be of some assistance.

[neighbor dave]

i never said because i do, everyone should.
second of all, yes i am currently located in nc but i lived 30 of my 34 years up in NH, so i know how the conditions can be at any given time during any given season up there.
and yeah, there is always the freedom to do what you want, however remember that there is always some type of consequences if your choice puts you in a situation gone bad.
i ain't saying it's right, just sayin that its not hard to carry those things, and i for one would rather have them then not in case a situation goes bad.
but it's ultimately up to each and every person what they want to do.

and why do you think it's the gov. choice to set the dress code for hikers.
i've been hiking the whites for well over 30 years, all seasons, i started out wearing jeans and wooden snowshoes, and still don't carry all the stuff they require.
i think they're getting a little too close to my bedroom and clothes drawer when they tell me to "wear this or else"!

[wakapak]

and why do you think it's the gov. choice to set the dress code for hikers.
i've been hiking the whites for well over 30 years, all seasons, i started out wearing jeans and wooden snowshoes, and still don't carry all the stuff they require.
i think they're getting a little too close to my bedroom and clothes drawer when they tell me to "wear this or else"!

i'm not agreeing that the gov't should police our clothes. I just happen to think, IN MY OPINION, that there being some type of list out there that could potentially help people who don't know much about hiking, haven't had much experience with it, and may think that because it's 80 degrees at the bottom of the mountain it's the same up top, is a good thing to have.

[emerald]

Okay, so nd would rather argue and with someone else.

[neighbor dave]

that's what books are for, nowadays websites too.
34 years ago we read the white mountain guide to figure out what we could then just went hiking, learned on the way without a gov. agency telling me in no uncertain terms "wear this or pay up"

[emerald]

Isn't HikeSafe a website and aren't people too tight to buy books? Besides, you only need to pay up if you screw up.

[wakapak]

that's what books are for, nowadays websites too.
34 years ago we read the white mountain guide to figure out what we could then just went hiking, learned on the way without a gov. agency telling me in no uncertain terms "wear this or pay up"

ummmm, correct me if i'm wrong, but it looks to me that HikeSafe is website to help people figure out what they need to about hiking. yes, it does mention in the rescue section that if someone needs rescueing and they deemed reckless, then they may have to pay. Isn't that better than not having that info out there at all and then someone saying that they never knew that law existed? it ain't like they police your clothes at the trailhead and fine you if you're not wearing or carrying what they say.

[wakapak]

Wait a minute. Isn't HikeSafe a website and aren't people too tight to buy books? Besides, you only need to pay up if you screw up.

you put it way better than i did, and much more concise too!

[Homer&Marje]

ummmm, correct me if i'm wrong, but it looks to me that HikeSafe is website to help people figure out what they need to about hiking. yes, it does mention in the rescue section that if someone needs rescueing and they deemed reckless, then they may have to pay. Isn't that better than not having that info out there at all and then someone saying that they never knew that law existed? it ain't like they police your clothes at the trailhead and fine you if you're not wearing or carrying what they say.

No they will be deemed negligent. They changed the term, that's why the whole thing is more vague...negligent incorporates many more "possible screw ups" and therefore easier to charge more people as negligent vs. the old term of reckless

[emerald]

Does anyone else hear an echo from an earlier thread, now closed?

[Homer&Marje]

It was closed I believe to lead it to a more proactive direction for the conversation. This is where it is. Mind you we'll have more facts on Tuesday.

[superman]

Does anyone else hear an echo from an earlier thread, now closed?

YupyupYup

[wakapak]

No they will be deemed negligent. They changed the term, that's why the whole thing is more vague...negligent incorporates many more "possible screw ups" and therefore easier to charge more people as negligent vs. the old term of reckless

This is from the HikeSafe website, which is what i was referencing in my post.

"None of these people planned on needing to be rescued—in fact, most didn't plan for emergencies.

These rescues cost thousands of dollars; New Hampshire Fish & Game Department alone spends $260,000 annually. The cost would be even greater if it weren't for the volunteers who assist in rescues, giving generously of their time, using their own equipment and often putting their own lives at risk.

That's why in 1999 a law was passed in New Hampshire that states that hikers who recklessly cause themselves to become lost or injured, resulting in costly and dangerous rescues, may be billed for those rescue services.

Money collected from reckless hikers will support training and purchases of equipment for volunteers of search and rescue organizations who help with rescue missions."

[Homer&Marje]

I read that too. And found it funny due to all the talk of how the law changed to say negligent, yet they leave that off of the HikeSafe web site.

It's contradictory

Here is the new hampshire statute

206:26-bb Search and Rescue Response Expenses; Recovery.

I. Notwithstanding RSA 153-A:24, any person determined by the department to have acted negligently in requiring a search and rescue response by the department shall be liable to the department for the reasonable cost of the department's expenses for such search and rescue response. The executive director shall bill the responsible person for such costs. Payment shall be made to the department within 30 days after the receipt of the bill, or by some other date determined by the executive director. If any person shall fail or refuse to pay the costs by the required date, the department may pursue payment by legal action, or by settlement or compromise, and the responsible person shall be liable for interest from the date that the bill is due and for legal fees and costs incurred by the department in obtaining and enforcing judgment under this paragraph. All amounts recovered, less the costs of collection and any percentage due pursuant to RSA 7:15-a, IV(b), shall be paid into the fish and game search and rescue fund established in RSA 206:42.

II. f any person fails to make payment under paragraph I, the executive director of the fish and game department may:

(a) Order any license, permit, or tag issued by the fish and game department to be suspended or revoked, after due hearing.

(b) Notify the commissioner of the department of health and human services of such nonpayment. The nonpayment shall constitute cause for revocation of any license or certification issued by the commissioner pursuant to RSA 126-A:20 and RSA 151:7.

(c) Notify the director of motor vehicles of such nonpayment and request suspension of the person's driver's license pursuant to RSA 263:56.

[wakapak]

then maybe that is something that should be brought to their attention: the fact they use reckless on the website and negligently in the written law.

When looking up the actual definitions though, they are pretty darn close in what they mean:

Main Entry: reck·less
Pronunciation: \ˈre-kləs\
Function: adjective
Date: before 12th century
1 : marked by lack of proper caution : careless of consequences

Main Entry: neg·li·gent
Pronunciation: \-jənt\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French & Latin; Anglo-French, from Latin neglegent-, neglegens, present participle of neglegere
Date: 14th century
1 a : marked by or given to neglect especially habitually or culpably b : failing to exercise the care expected of a reasonably prudent person in like circumstances

[Homer&Marje]

failing to exercise the care expected of a reasonably prudent person in like circumstances

I think I saw that quoted in one of the articles I read. The problem with this assessment as applied to a person in distress, you cannot predict accurately what any given person would do.

All well and good what people say they will do, much different sometimes in real life practice. Sometimes not, there are plenty of people that make the right choices all the time.

Some of them have posted their opinions here.

Human nature causes people, prepared people too, to make mistakes. Including experienced hiking eagle scouts.

[wakapak]

I think I saw that quoted in one of the articles I read. The problem with this assessment as applied to a person in distress, you cannot predict accurately what any given person would do.

All well and good what people say they will do, much different sometimes in real life practice. Sometimes not, there are plenty of people that make the right choices all the time.

Some of them have posted their opinions here.

Human nature causes people, prepared people too, to make mistakes. Including experienced hiking eagle scouts.

and i was under the impression this thread isn't about that experienced hiking eagle scout but about what we thought of the HikeSafe program and website.