NH , new laws regarding incompetent hikers

[woodsy]

People needing rescue and found negligent need to pay up or lose driver license, possibly other licenses.
More than 1 million has been spent on rescues in the last decade with only $25,000 recouped.
Needless to say, the situation has gotten out of control and costly.

story here

[Pokey2006]

Sure, some of the 911 calls are needless. And there are a lot of unprepared hikers out there. But doing something like this is only going to discourage people from calling for help, even if they really need it.

There has to be a better way.

[jrwiesz]

There has to be a better way.

Leave them out there, survival of the fittest.

All S&R that is "requested" should have a minimum service charge, nation wide.
Require community service time if they are unable to pay.
Jail them if they don't pay, charge them for jail time also.
Funny how persons jailed for failure to pay child support, suddenly find the monies to pay that arrearage.

[warraghiyagey]

If you need to be rescued in NH just tell them your trail name is Woodsy.

[zoidfu]

Leave them out there, survival of the fittest.

All S&R that is "requested" should have a minimum service charge, nation wide.
Require community service time if they are unable to pay.
Jail them if they don't pay, charge them for jail time also.
Funny how persons jailed for failure to pay child support, suddenly find the monies to pay that arrearage.

pfffft Some people know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

[Pokey2006]

I don't disagree when it comes to truly bogus calls. Calling 911 and saying I'm lost and launching a massive search. But who decides what's bogus and what's legitimate? Where do you draw the line?

My concern is the effect it would have in cases where help is legitimately needed. I'd hate to have someone hesitate to call for help when it's needed just because they're worried about the tougher new laws.

And if you think ALL calls should come with a charge, well, that's like saying people should be charged for calling the fire department when their house is on fire. People do dumb things to set their own houses on fire all the time, most are cases of real negligence and stupidity, and you don't see them being charged for the fire department's services.

[jrwiesz]

And if you think ALL calls should come with a charge, well, that's like saying people should be charged for calling the fire department when their house is on fire.

I was talking about S&R calls.

Citizens that own "real property" in a municipality pay, through assessed property taxes, a fee for such services [fire, police, etc.], should the need arise. If, I never need these services, I am still required to pay for the likelyhood that I may need them.

[zoidfu]

I was talking about S&R calls.

Citizens that own "real property" in a municipality pay, through assessed property taxes, a fee for such services [fire, police, etc.], should the need arise. If, I never need these services, I am still required to pay for the likelyhood that I may need them.

That sounds like the residents of New Hampshire. They pay taxes for a service they may never need. If they don't like it, they're free to leave.

[Pokey2006]

I was talking about S&R calls.

Citizens that own "real property" in a municipality pay, through assessed property taxes, a fee for such services [fire, police, etc.], should the need arise. If, I never need these services, I am still required to pay for the likelyhood that I may need them.

Then maybe the solution is to charge a "hiker tax." Actually, someone on WB has mentioned that before, I guess some places out west do it? I just don't think this "let's get tough" attitude is the right way to approach the issue.

And I don't see how S&R calls are all that different from calling your local police and fire departments for help. Granted, funded in different ways, but still the same basic thing. When someone needs help, they need help. They shouldn't have to worry about how they're going to pay for it.

[Homer&Marje]

I was talking about S&R calls.

Citizens that own "real property" in a municipality pay, through assessed property taxes, a fee for such services [fire, police, etc.], should the need arise. If, I never need these services, I am still required to pay for the likelyhood that I may need them.

Should not the fees we are charged to hike in some areas (some quite exorbitant) cover then for those eventualities of distress?

I've never had to be rescued thankfully. I don't think S+R should be charged to anyone, but those who misuse the system should some how have to repay the inconvenience. I liked the community service idea.

[yaduck9]

I don't disagree when it comes to truly bogus calls. Calling 911 and saying I'm lost and launching a massive search. But who decides what's bogus and what's legitimate? Where do you draw the line?

My concern is the effect it would have in cases where help is legitimately needed. I'd hate to have someone hesitate to call for help when it's needed just because they're worried about the tougher new laws.

And if you think ALL calls should come with a charge, well, that's like saying people should be charged for calling the fire department when their house is on fire. People do dumb things to set their own houses on fire all the time, most are cases of real negligence and stupidity, and you don't see them being charged for the fire department's services.

It would be interesting to determine if most rescues are for out of towners or tourists. Folks who are not fully aware of what they are getting into. Just wondering because those folks bring money into the local economy and a solution could be created based on that. just my 2 pennies.

[Toolshed]

It would be interesting to determine if most rescues are for out of towners or tourists. Folks who are not fully aware of what they are getting into. Just wondering because those folks bring money into the local economy and a solution could be created based on that. just my 2 pennies.

Mostly Massholes.

[celt]

Sure, some of the 911 calls are needless. And there are a lot of unprepared hikers out there. But doing something like this is only going to discourage people from calling for help, even if they really need it.

There has to be a better way.

I think the average person who tends to get in over their heads won't even know the laws have been beefed up.

I hope those who are more informed about rules and regs will take a closer look at their skills before they go out if they don't want to risk a costly rescue.

[Feral Bill]

Has anyone out there never done anything stupid that could have resulted in a rescue?

[woodsy]

Its about money sure but lets not forget the human element.

The $1 million does not include close to 20,000 hours of volunteer work by 13 affiliated search and rescue teams in the state, who work with the department through the New Hampshire Outdoor Council

These selfless volunteers are giving their time and all hours of the day and night and taking risks because of sometimes incompetent adventurers seekers.
I would have to believe that these people are getting pretty put out by some of the calls they are sent out on too... getting out of a warm bed in the middle of the night to go look for someone(s) who is in the mountains with little to no gear except a cell phone.

[Lone Wolf]

I would have to believe that these people are getting pretty put out by some of the calls they are sent out on too... getting out of a warm bed in the middle of the night to go look for someone(s) who is in the mountains with little to no gear except a cell phone.

they shouldn't be in the volunteer business then

[Two Speed]

True, but there are folks that really shouldn't be in the hiker business, either.

[woodsy]

they shouldn't be in the volunteer business then

Those that volunteer in the White Mountains area are probably starting to feel that way too.!

[superman]

This issue was hotly debated before making these changes. The problem is that people have come to mistake carrying a cell phone for being prepared. Some folks have raised stupid to an art form. Yes, it is a matter of cost. The number of easily prevented rescues has increased while the cost of each rescue has increased. Something had to be done...NH was forced into this action. I'd like to see a lot more public awareness go with this change. I'd like people to know in advance that “stupid” will cost them. This change does not impact at all on prepared "**** happens" rescues.

[Tin Man]

I would be interested in the accounting. It costs money NOT to go on calls too. And if they didn't have calls, they would just have more time to do drills, which cost money. The real cost is the delta between the cost to have the service available and the incremental cost to go search. Just saying not all quoted costs are the real costs.