NH , new laws regarding incompetent hikers

[zoidfu]

I have every confidence that the New Hampshire authorities will handle these matters in a fair and just way...even if you're a silly person from Massachusetts or Pennsylvania.

I have no such confidence in the "authorities." Fair and just is a fluid idea.

[WalkingStick75]

When I sectioned the Whites I went out with the hut master from Gale Head hut looking for a lost hiker and was just about to leave looking for another when they located the hiker. Both were hikers with little or no experience.

I hiked in the Alps this last fall, there if you need assistance you get a bill. Same in Canada. I joined the Alpine Club while in the Alps, this membership comes with rescue insurance.

[boarstone]

I'm so glad I'm here in Maine...in an area where no matter...if your in trouble and can get notice of such to SOMEONE, SOMEONE will respond and not bitch a bit about it...be he/she rescue personnel or the ear on the other end of the phone or the car passing by....and there are those of you who have been the recepient of said rescue, ( I took you back to your bail out point the next year) yet I understand the NH stand...more people, more area with more chances of needless chance taking, novice decisions etc....remember..this is NOT always an AT issue...

[emerald]

I have no such confidence in the "authorities." Fair and just is a fluid idea.

Sure it is, but that doesn't mean there can be laws and regulations to accomodate the wishes of everyone or that individuals have the right to modify them according to their own whims when they don't like them.

[Old Hillwalker]

Cranston men rescued while hiking in New Hampshire
11:54 AM Wed, Dec 31, 2008

CONCORD, N.H. (AP) -- Two Rhode Island hikers have been rescued from a Black Mountain cabin in Jackson, N.H., after fearing one had frostbite from wearing improper gear.

Pasquale Digiovangiacomo (di-gee-oh-VAN-gee-i-COH-moh) and Dean Cooper, both 18 and originally from Cranston, hiked to a cabin they had reserved for the weekend Tuesday afternoon. The men had trouble getting the wood stove started and once it was lit, it gave little heat.

New Hampshire Fish and Game officer Brian Adams said the men were wearing light boots and their sleeping bags were not heavy enough to protect them from the cold. Fearing one had frost bite, the men called for help on a cell phone.

Fish and Game officers brought them better footwear and the men hiked out of the woods around 11 p.m.

Adams said the men will likely be charged for the rescue.

-- by The Associated Press

[Wise Old Owl]

Thanks Hillwalker, good find. Keep in mind folks that during that phone call they were most likely informed of their rules and the ramifications of the Fish & Game coming out.

What is missing from the thread is the knowledge that the public living in NH are plum tired of paying for rescues in their taxes and in their hunting,fishing licenses as they go up every year. There isn't a popular way to put a license on hiking or walking, so a fine is needed for unprepared dummies, if you read enough of WB it will make you smart enough to avoid calling for help!

[Skyline]

I have every confidence that the New Hampshire authorities will handle these matters in a fair and just way...even if you're a silly person from Massachusetts or Pennsylvania.

In a perfect world.



My questions were, and are:

Does NH have a written definition of precisely what will be a billable "offense?"

If not, then who gets to decide which hiker has been "responsible" and which hiker has been "irresponsible"? Is there any kind of consistency here?

Again, the principle is a good one. Its implementation hasn't been adequately explained here. Hopefully NH (or whatever other states plan to do something similar) dots all its i's and crossed all its t's before putting such a plan into effect. Anyone know?

[Tinker]

Cranston men rescued while hiking in New Hampshire
11:54 AM Wed, Dec 31, 2008

CONCORD, N.H. (AP) -- Two Rhode Island hikers have been rescued from a Black Mountain cabin in Jackson, N.H., after fearing one had frostbite from wearing improper gear.

Pasquale Digiovangiacomo (di-gee-oh-VAN-gee-i-COH-moh) and Dean Cooper, both 18 and originally from Cranston, hiked to a cabin they had reserved for the weekend Tuesday afternoon. The men had trouble getting the wood stove started and once it was lit, it gave little heat.

New Hampshire Fish and Game officer Brian Adams said the men were wearing light boots and their sleeping bags were not heavy enough to protect them from the cold. Fearing one had frost bite, the men called for help on a cell phone.

Fish and Game officers brought them better footwear and the men hiked out of the woods around 11 p.m.

Adams said the men will likely be charged for the rescue.

-- by The Associated Press

Gotta love the Ocean State (home of the movie Dumb and Dumber).

On this one, you have two city kids (I know 18 is the legal age where a boy becomes a man ) who depended upon a cabin keeping them warm and didn't bring sleeping bags warm enough.
There's no substitute for proper gear and the knowledge of how to use it.
Your body is the only source of heat that you can count on (only if you feed and water it properly and keep it dry). Insulation for that meager furnace is vital for survival in the winter.

[rickb]

Here is a bit more info:

http://www.wildnh.com/Newsroom/News_...rs_123108.html

My only question is whether or not EMS will bill them for the boot rental?

[Frosty]

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.

You have it backwards.

How about this: people who need rescue because of their negligence will pay for pay for their rescue. If you don't like it you are free not to come to NH to hike.

[Frosty]

In a perfect world.



My questions were, and are:

Does NH have a written definition of precisely what will be a billable "offense?"

If not, then who gets to decide which hiker has been "responsible" and which hiker has been "irresponsible"? Is there any kind of consistency here?

Again, the principle is a good one. Its implementation hasn't been adequately explained here. Hopefully NH (or whatever other states plan to do something similar) dots all its i's and crossed all its t's before putting such a plan into effect. Anyone know?

You are just learning of this. The policy has been in effect for a long time, just not enforced.

You should spend less time worrying about minute points of law and more about being prepared when you hike.

If you get charged and don't like it, take the state to court over it. The courts will decide it is right. Courts decide on negligence cases all the time.

No one is charged for getting hurt and needing rescued. That is not the problem. The problem is people who do not have the gear or knowledge to take care of themselves.

The alternative is charging everyone a big fee for hiking. To me that is worse. WHy should hikers who are prepared pay for those who are not?

The fact is that someone is going to pay for the rescue. It isn't free. Someone will pay.

The question is should it be:
a) all, hikers, including who did not need rescue (hiker fees)
b) townsfolk who happen to live in the vicinity
c) the person who went into the woods unprepared

So who should pay?

[rickb]

Who should pay for the person who elects to ride a motorcycle and gets into a debilitating accident, Frosty?

Right now taxpayers will pay for his nursing home care and provide SSI.

Riding a bike is inherently dangerous. More so in NH where so many don't wear a helmet.

Why should I have to pay anything?

Answer: Its the right thing to do.

[zoidfu]

You have it backwards.

How about this: people who need rescue because of their negligence will pay for pay for their rescue. If you don't like it you are free not to come to NH to hike.

Duh.

You don't even know what the issue is here. They have no definition of what negligence entails except drinking, which is a gimme. Technically, anyone who get's themself in trouble is negligent in some manner. They're playing fast and loose with the law and it doesn't make sense to limit it to "negligent" people.

[zoidfu]

You are just learning of this. The policy has been in effect for a long time, just not enforced.

You should spend less time worrying about minute points of law and more about being prepared when you hike.

If you get charged and don't like it, take the state to court over it. The courts will decide it is right. Courts decide on negligence cases all the time.

No one is charged for getting hurt and needing rescued. That is not the problem. The problem is people who do not have the gear or knowledge to take care of themselves.

The alternative is charging everyone a big fee for hiking. To me that is worse. WHy should hikers who are prepared pay for those who are not?

The fact is that someone is going to pay for the rescue. It isn't free. Someone will pay.

The question is should it be:
a) all, hikers, including who did not need rescue (hiker fees)
b) townsfolk who happen to live in the vicinity
c) the person who went into the woods unprepared

So who should pay?

lol yeah, shelling out $600 or more to a lawyer to fight a $150 ticket. Sure.

[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.

[emerald]

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

Where might those areas be? I thought hiking on the A.T. was free. If you are refering to AMC's huts, I wasn't aware hikers are required to stay there.

I don't think S+R should be charged to anyone, but those who misuse the system should somehow have to repay the inconvenience.

Where there are costs, they must be borne by someone. I find it interesting those who seem to be whining the most aren't from New Hampshire.

[Bearpaw]

I see enforcing the law as an attempt at convincing hikers to take responsibility for themselves. Most hikers do, and they use common sense.

It's the 5% of knuckleheads that muck up pretty much any place they go in society that are going to be most affected.

[4eyedbuzzard]

Very few people have been charged over the years, and there is no plan according to statements by S&R to go off half-cocked and start charging people who have accidents in the wilderness. But as other's have noted, getting into an emergency situation because you were reckless, and that may include grossly unprepared, or thought all you needed to hike was sneakers and a cell phone, is now likely to get you a fine.

If anything, I'll bet the authorities error on the side of giving those rescued the benefit of the doubt. This isn't a plan to generate large revenues, just to offset expenses incurred on rescues that should never happen if reasonable behavior and practice are followed.

[emerald]

... now likely to get you a fine.

Fines are punitive, aren't they? Isn't this really more like reimbursement for services performed which are requested by individuals who fail to prepare themselves for what might be anticipated?

[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.