PDA

View Full Version : New Hampshire Fish and Game Dept. Judge Jury, Hangman



moldy
02-06-2014, 00:08
"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.

Under the current law, which is supported by the Fish and Game Commission, the Department reviews each search and rescue mission to determine whether a bill should be sent to those involved. Hikers who may be billed include those who are poorly equipped for terrain or weather and/or lack reasonable skills or stamina to handle the hike without getting lost or injured."

If you are rescued while hiking in New Hampshire it is not a good idea to say very much to your rescuers. The department will review you rescue to determine if you acted negligently. If the department determines that you did, then the fine (bill) could be many thousands of dollars. They are under no obligation to tell you that the information you give them could be used against you in determining the outcome of your case.
They are judge, jury and hangman, you have no input into the proceedings. Speak to an attorney prior to making any statements to your rescuers.

MuddyWaters
02-06-2014, 00:39
Anyone, can bill almost anyone, for anything.
Making them pay is a different story alltogether.

Guy I used to know was pissed at his knee doctor, he had to wait an hr or so past his appt time before he went to the back, and another 45 min before he finally saw the dr.
He sent the Dr a bill for his time wasted, @ $125 per hr. Since he had an agreement in writing, that he had an appt at X time, that the Dr failed to keep. The door swings both ways.

Prime Time
02-06-2014, 01:02
This law has been on the books for almost 20 years now and unfortunately is rarely applied. I live in northern NH and am amazed at the constant parade of morons who need to be "rescued" because they ignore every piece of advice and warning that they are inundated with before setting out on their misadventure. The local newspaper is full of these stories and the details are often hilarious. What's not hilarious is the huge cost to the state and the tremendous inconvenience to the search and rescue personnel dispatched at all hours to go get these clowns.

4eyedbuzzard
02-06-2014, 04:56
"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.

Under the current law, which is supported by the Fish and Game Commission, the Department reviews each search and rescue mission to determine whether a bill should be sent to those involved. Hikers who may be billed include those who are poorly equipped for terrain or weather and/or lack reasonable skills or stamina to handle the hike without getting lost or injured."

If you are rescued while hiking in New Hampshire it is not a good idea to say very much to your rescuers. The department will review you rescue to determine if you acted negligently. If the department determines that you did, then the fine (bill) could be many thousands of dollars. They are under no obligation to tell you that the information you give them could be used against you in determining the outcome of your case.
They are judge, jury and hangman, you have no input into the proceedings. Speak to an attorney prior to making any statements to your rescuers.

Have you done much research regarding what you are talking about? Have you been rescued by NH F&G and received a bill? You seem very upset by the fact that negligent behavior carries consequences.

From my prior reply to you regarding this very same subject several weeks ago (the current law vs. the new proposed law and Hike Safe card):

NH Fish & Game is mandated by the current law (and by agreement with WMNF) to perform ALL S&R in NH regardless of where an incident occurs, including on Federal lands. All S&R activities are currently funded by state sporting license revenues only, not federal tax dollars. NH has spent approximately $1.5 million over the past 5 years performing rescues, billed those determined negligent by current law(requires finding by F&G AND also Attorney General review) about $83K, and collected about $55K of that. 54% of all rescues are for hikers/climbers who pay nothing, but the entire S&R costs are borne by fishing, hunting, boat, snowmobile licensees who represent only 14% of rescues. S&R revenue shortfalls are approximately $200K per year and increasing every year.

You asked, "What about the other 13 states [the AT goes through]?"




Vermont, Maine, and Georgia also have provisions in their laws and/or civil codes that can allow S&R costs to be recouped, though to my knowledge they have yet to be used. There may be others as well - I just don't know. We have a bit more of a problem with lost and unprepared hikers here in New Hampshire than most states do though due to the popularity of our extensive trail system, ruggedness of our terrain, and our unique weather conditions. Other non-AT states that have laws allowing fines/recoup of costs for S&R are CA, OR, WY, ID, HI to name a few. S&R is overwhelmed and underfunded in many states/areas, and many voters/taxpayers don't feel they should have to foot the bill for a rescue during "high risk" activities of those who choose to engage in them.

You said, "It looks like they are targeting out of state hikers with all the disclaimers for locals."




The proposed law applies equally to residents and non-residents (as does the current law). There are no disclaimers for locals, only disclaimers for those who have purchased sporting licenses, which are available to both residents and non-residents.

You said, "New Hampshire the 'pay up or die' state.

No one is forcing anyone to pay. And no one is going to be left to die. Should the new Hike Safe law even pass (it still requires State Senate passage and the Governor's signature first, which isn't a done deal especially as written) a person will receive the same incredibly fine and professional S&R effort from F&G and possibly along with some money hungry volunteer rescuers from AMC, RMC, DOC, and others if they need it - whether they pay in advance for the "Hike Safe" card or not. If they don't, they will be billed a flat fee representing somewhere between 35% and 60% of the F&G S&R cost, but in no case to exceed $1000 - basically no finding of fault, just a bill for services rendered if you don't have a card. Most responsible well-prepared hikers, such as all of us here on WB, will probably never need the services of S&R, so I really don't see a huge problem with the experienced hiker community. But we spend a lot of time and money and put rescue people at risk far too often simply because of negligent people who go off into the outdoors unprepared. The law and the Hike-Safe allows NH to generate revenue for S&R and recoup some of the cost if necessary, but more importantly it sends a strong message to those who might ignore preparedness warnings and act in a negligent fashion.

riff raff
02-06-2014, 05:10
I think I'll spend my hiking dollars in another state.

4eyedbuzzard
02-06-2014, 05:51
I think I'll spend my hiking dollars in another state.That's okay. You're not missing anything. Our NH trails suck.

jdc5294
02-06-2014, 07:12
That's okay. You're not missing anything. Our NH trails suck.
When I was there I didn't really see any sights or views that were worth it.

Joking aside, everyone has to complain about something. I read about this a couple times (on here once before I think), and the a parade of people who I'll choose to trust and who are tapped into what goes on up there shared anecdotes about just how stupid most of the people being rescued have been. It's obviously not made public whether they were billed, but every one of them deserved to be. Lastly, not the smartest thing to do to be tight-lipped as you're being rescued with hypothermia from the side of a mountain. They're there to help you and get you home safe, not steal your money. The ignorance from the OP here is a little ridiculous to be honest.

nitewalker
02-06-2014, 07:27
if you are rescued then you should pay some type of fee. if rescued due to negligence then the fee should be multiplied by ten or more. we already have too many free riders in this country. they say stupidity cant be fixed but a hefty fine or bill may get you to think differently.... :)

nitewalker
02-06-2014, 07:30
should i apply for a hiking license? :confused:

Tuckahoe
02-06-2014, 07:41
Have you done much research regarding what you are talking about? Have you been rescued by NH F&G and received a bill? You seem very upset by the fact that negligent behavior carries consequences.

From my prior reply to you regarding this very same subject several weeks ago (the current law vs. the new proposed law and Hike Safe card):

NH Fish & Game is mandated by the current law (and by agreement with WMNF) to perform ALL S&R in NH regardless of where an incident occurs, including on Federal lands. All S&R activities are currently funded by state sporting license revenues only, not federal tax dollars. NH has spent approximately $1.5 million over the past 5 years performing rescues, billed those determined negligent by current law(requires finding by F&G AND also Attorney General review) about $83K, and collected about $55K of that. 54% of all rescues are for hikers/climbers who pay nothing, but the entire S&R costs are borne by fishing, hunting, boat, snowmobile licensees who represent only 14% of rescues. S&R revenue shortfalls are approximately $200K per year and increasing every year.

You asked, "What about the other 13 states [the AT goes through]?"




Vermont, Maine, and Georgia also have provisions in their laws and/or civil codes that can allow S&R costs to be recouped, though to my knowledge they have yet to be used. There may be others as well - I just don't know. We have a bit more of a problem with lost and unprepared hikers here in New Hampshire than most states do though due to the popularity of our extensive trail system, ruggedness of our terrain, and our unique weather conditions. Other non-AT states that have laws allowing fines/recoup of costs for S&R are CA, OR, WY, ID, HI to name a few. S&R is overwhelmed and underfunded in many states/areas, and many voters/taxpayers don't feel they should have to foot the bill for a rescue during "high risk" activities of those who choose to engage in them.

You said, "It looks like they are targeting out of state hikers with all the disclaimers for locals."




The proposed law applies equally to residents and non-residents (as does the current law). There are no disclaimers for locals, only disclaimers for those who have purchased sporting licenses, which are available to both residents and non-residents.

You said, "New Hampshire the 'pay up or die' state.

No one is forcing anyone to pay. And no one is going to be left to die. Should the new Hike Safe law even pass (it still requires State Senate passage and the Governor's signature first, which isn't a done deal especially as written) a person will receive the same incredibly fine and professional S&R effort from F&G and possibly along with some money hungry volunteer rescuers from AMC, RMC, DOC, and others if they need it - whether they pay in advance for the "Hike Safe" card or not. If they don't, they will be billed a flat fee representing somewhere between 35% and 60% of the F&G S&R cost, but in no case to exceed $1000 - basically no finding of fault, just a bill for services rendered if you don't have a card. Most responsible well-prepared hikers, such as all of us here on WB, will probably never need the services of S&R, so I really don't see a huge problem with the experienced hiker community. But we spend a lot of time and money and put rescue people at risk far too often simply because of negligent people who go off into the outdoors unprepared. The law and the Hike-Safe allows NH to generate revenue for S&R and recoup some of the cost if necessary, but more importantly it sends a strong message to those who might ignore preparedness warnings and act in a negligent fashion.


I think I'll spend my hiking dollars in another state.

Those not familiar with this subject need to read, re-read, and then read again 4eyedbuzzard's response, especially before commenting. Modly is just a $hit stirrer and by failing to include the information that 4eyedbuzzard has made clear, moldy is being intellectually dishonest. An omission of facts is frankly a lie.

peakbagger
02-06-2014, 07:48
I am not a fan of the tone of the original post but the basics are true. Get lost or hurt in NH , need rescue they rescue you then decide if you were negligent and bill you for the rescue costs they incurred. Anything you say to the rescuers or to anyone else can be used to determine your negligence. If you are charged, this is a not a criminal offense thus you cant be arrested for non payment of fine but you can be sued. If you are a NH resident they can extract it in any number of ways. A big change is that previously helicopter searches were paid for by a NH NG training budget but of late these funds are lacking thus if F&G decides a copter is needed the costs can run up quite high.

A major point of contention is that the definition of negligent is not established, its ultimately the F&G directors call with no formal appeal or oversight. In recent months statements have been made in the press by the F&G that hiking solo is inherently negligent. There is a NH hikesafe website that gives recommended gear for various seasons which appear to be a baseline used for proper equipment.

This is political battle in NH, F&G is self supported by fees and the legislature is supposed to fund their rescue funds as needed by appropriation but the normal response to asking for more funding is to force them to cut services, thus F&G has resorted to this approach to get attention and get some compensation for rescues. Currently the state is discussing that there will be a voluntary rescue card available for sale that will waive a hiker of any responsibility to pay the bill. Unfortunately the current version appears to exclude costs for rescues due to negligence so it is questionable if its of much use unless the bar is set for negligence.

Do note that much of the actual rescues are done by volunteers who do not charge or receive compensation they unfortunately are pulled into this mess. By law F&G is responsible for rescues in NH and any rescuers fall under their control whether they are paid or unpaid so anything said to the volunteers can also be included in the decision to bill.

moldy
02-06-2014, 08:49
In a court of law I have the opportunity to prove or disprove my negligence to a jury, there are rules, I have rights. In the recent court case involving the hiker rescued in the Whites, now with the 9,000 dollar bill. Almost all of the evidence for judging him negligent was just handed over by the hiker. F&G would not have known his previous medical problems. The point here is that Fish and Game is allowed to issue arbitrary punishment without any form of "due process". The state contends that it is not punishment, just a simple bill for services rendered to a negligent hiker. The method of determining who is "Negligent"? The great gods of Fish and Game just decree it, then send out a bill, then a press statement. Sounds a bit un American.

Abatis1948
02-06-2014, 08:57
What is the deal? If I am ever on the trail dying of hypothermiaor have broken both my legs, come and rescue me. I will find a way to pay for it.

Starchild
02-06-2014, 09:32
I assisted in a rescue of an injured hiker from Huntington Ravine during my 2013 thru. I worked alongside 6 NH Fish and Game rescue personnel as well about 20 or so AMC volunteers. It was great to work with those guys and (1) gal as well as see the AMC staff's ability and obvious training. Short summery, we started back up at 6pm, reached the injured hiker at 8pm, began moving him down by 9pm, got him to Pinkham at 2:30am. We also used low angle rescue methods (ropes to help lower the 'litter' basket to which the injured hiker was secured.)

As a volunteer firefighter, also trained in low angle rescue, these hours for such a emergency call are not unusual, it is part of the job. I did not notice anything out of the ordinary that the NH F&G used that would cause any unneeded expense for this operation except some first aid consumables, with perhaps the damage to a ATV that one of them attempted to drive up the Tuckerman's Ravine Ski trail and had to abandon the ATV as it was too rocky. If the ATV was damaged, or expensive to recover, and it was a reasonable act to take that ATV on that trail I could see them wanting the rescued hiker to reimburse them for it, but IMHO such a attempt could not work due to the conditions of the trail and it was not reasonable to try.

The helicopter was not part of the NH F&G, so that expense is out too.

So the issue I see is what is their expense outside what they are suppose to do as part of their service to the public? Also if you would like to charge them for the hours/overtime, why enlist so many volunteers? Something does not seem right in that situation.

Add to that last statement, I personally suffered some loss, sort of, one of my trekking poles got irreparable damaged. I was not offered to list that expense on this guy's rescue bill (if one was sent), though if they did bill him I should have been able to claim it. To be fair REI was more then happy to replace it and AMC loaned me a set of their treking poles at Pinkham till mine came in. They (AMC) also put me and Splash up for the night at Pinkham's Lodge.

Prime Time
02-06-2014, 09:41
I assisted in a rescue of an injured hiker from Huntington Ravine during my 2013 thru. I worked alongside 6 NH Fish and Game rescue personnel as well about 20 or so AMC volunteers. It was great to work with those guys and (1) gal as well as see the AMC staff's ability and obvious training. Short summery, we started back up at 6pm, reached the injured hiker at 8pm, began moving him down by 9pm, got him to Pinkham at 2:30am. We also used low angle rescue methods (ropes to help lower the 'litter' basket to which the injured hiker was secured.)

As a volunteer firefighter, also trained in low angle rescue, these hours for such a emergency call are not unusual, it is part of the job. I did not notice anything out of the ordinary that the NH F&G used that would cause any unneeded expense for this operation except some first aid consumables, with perhaps the damage to a ATV that one of them attempted to drive up the Tuckerman's Ravine Ski trail and had to abandon the ATV as it was too rocky. If the ATV was damaged, or expensive to recover, and it was a reasonable act to take that ATV on that trail I could see them wanting the rescued hiker to reimburse them for it, but IMHO such a attempt could not work due to the conditions of the trail and it was not reasonable to try.

The helicopter was not part of the NH F&G, so that expense is out too.

So the issue I see is what is their expense outside what they are suppose to do as part of their service to the public? Also if you would like to charge them for the hours/overtime, why enlist so many volunteers? Something does not seem right in that situation.

Add to that last statement, I personally suffered some loss, sort of, one of my trekking poles got irreparable damaged. I was not offered to list that expense on this guy's rescue bill (if one was sent), though if they did bill him I should have been able to claim it. To be fair REI was more then happy to replace it and AMC loaned me a set of their treking poles at Pinkham till mine came in. They (AMC) also put me and Splash up for the night at Pinkham's Lodge.
So was the guy ever charged?

Alleghanian Orogeny
02-06-2014, 09:45
.........an arm of the government billing you for services, or mere availability of services, which you might otherwise choose not to purchase, be it an actual rescue or a Hiker Card.......wonder if there is legal precedent for that?

Oh, wait, there is. In June 2012 the US Supreme Court said that such billings are a form of excise tax and the government has every right to bill excise taxes in such a manner. The common name for the situation where this is applied is ObamaCare. Due process is not required, according to The Supremes.

It's pretty simple, really. The semantics of why, how, or can they do this are meaningless in the face of a simple set of truths: The $25 cost of the hiker card is a drop in the bucket of costs associated with being on any trail, anywhere. Just get the card, use some elementary common sense, be accountable for your own actions, and stop assuming the Gummint should be financially responsible for your failure to act responsibly.

AO

Sly
02-06-2014, 11:16
If you are rescued while hiking in New Hampshire it is not a good idea to say very much to your rescuers. The department will review you rescue to determine if you acted negligently. If the department determines that you did, then the fine (bill) could be many thousands of dollars. They are under no obligation to tell you that the information you give them could be used against you in determining the outcome of your case.
They are judge, jury and hangman, you have no input into the proceedings. Speak to an attorney prior to making any statements to your rescuers.

Dishing out legal advice? I'd certainly be pleasant, cordial and appreciative of my rescuers. A little bit of honey would go further than, "I'm not saying anything until I talk to my lawyer."

Starchild
02-06-2014, 11:36
So was the guy ever charged?

I don't know, and as I read this that would not be determined till some times after the event, not that night.

I do know that they guy was flown from their to Darthmouth then Darthmouth to Boston and expected to make a full recovery after breaking both wrists and having a concussion.

Slo-go'en
02-06-2014, 12:08
It's really not that hard to tell the difference between who had a simple accident which could have happend to anyone and who was being irresponsable.

Mountain Dog
02-06-2014, 12:35
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"?

Slo-go'en
02-06-2014, 12:41
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.


25831

moldy
02-06-2014, 12:57
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
02-06-2014, 13:05
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
02-06-2014, 13:10
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
02-06-2014, 13:12
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
02-06-2014, 13:44
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
02-06-2014, 13:55
No, but there are signs at many of the trail heads which adivse you that you will die if not prepared.


25831

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
02-06-2014, 14:01
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
02-06-2014, 14:11
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
02-06-2014, 14:35
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
02-06-2014, 14:43
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
02-06-2014, 15:12
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
02-06-2014, 15:18
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
02-06-2014, 15:27
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
02-06-2014, 15:29
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
02-06-2014, 15:51
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
02-06-2014, 16:00
Mountain Dog, do they charge admission to these beaches staffed with life guards?

magneto
02-06-2014, 16:05
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
02-06-2014, 16:17
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
02-06-2014, 16:21
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.

bfayer
02-06-2014, 16:32
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.

A couple of points. Hikers do not spend the kind of money locally in NH that people on vacation in Florida do, so the funding stream is not there to cover the costs. If a rescue in Florida starts to get expensive they call the Coast Guard who spend the big bucks to conduct the rescue, not the locals. The Coast Guard does not charge anyone for search and rescue so the local Governments make liberal use of them on a daily basis. If the Coast Guard was not there, trust me the local governments would seriously consider charging. The lifeguards are there because of the liability costs if they were not. It's cheaper to hire lifeguards than to pay settlements in law suits.

I guess what I am saying is it's an apples/oranges comparison. Very different dynamics at play.

imscotty
02-06-2014, 16:42
Does anyone know if New Hampshire's signs at the borders say, "tourist are not welcome"?

The signs say "Bienvenue, Welcome to New Hampshire"

Prime Time
02-06-2014, 17:03
135 people have died on Mt. Washington alone and countless others have narrowly escaped with their lives. The place is dangerous yet people ignore the flood of warnings and continue to do indescribably stupid things. On my thru hike last year I spent nearly 6 months in the woods with hikers of all sorts. The vast majority were prudent, sensible, conscientious people who would understand and approve of these measures taken by the New Hampshire Fish and Game Department. A few would not. These folks wanted to take no responsibility for their actions and felt some odd sense of entitlement to think and act in any irresponsible way they felt like and not just wanted, but expected others to be there to clean up after them or bail them out if they got in trouble. There's no changing them, they just need to grow up.

Dogwood
02-06-2014, 17:07
Not that I disagree with you Mountain Dog but different conditions exist in different states which reflect how authorities devise polices and approach the state's budget and finances. For example, in states like Florida or here in Hawaii tourism are primary components of the state's economy. Policies are balanced by authorities in such ways that they don't have a hugely negative impact on those tourism dollars.

The beaches in Hawaii and Florida(Gulf, Atlantic, Pacific) for example largely don't charge a fee to go on the beach, park vehicles, etc while in New Jersey it is more regulated........$ is more often involved in taking a swim in the Atlantic Ocean.

Ever hear the Sheryl Crowe line, "I'm going to soak up the sun while it's still free?"

Don H
02-06-2014, 17:46
If we are talking about 17 year old Eagle Scout

No, I'm talking about the old guy with the bad hip. But it doesn't matter who you are, if you answer the question wrong that tiptoe said he was asked (did I carry maps and a compass, was I an experienced hiker, did I have a sleeping bag, warm clothes, and food) or you're hiking alone or in bad weather it sounds like they might have grounds to charge you. At least that's what their looking for. I would not answer those questions.

I don't have a problem with them charging for rescue if it's a result of gross negligence. I think the maximum is $1000. They would be better off billing the health insurance company for everyone they transport than trying to fine people. The local all volunteer ambulance companies around here make a killing on it.

Mountain Dog
02-06-2014, 18:02
A couple of points. Hikers do not spend the kind of money locally in NH that people on vacation in Florida do, so the funding stream is not there to cover the costs. If a rescue in Florida starts to get expensive they call the Coast Guard who spend the big bucks to conduct the rescue, not the locals. The Coast Guard does not charge anyone for search and rescue so the local Governments make liberal use of them on a daily basis. If the Coast Guard was not there, trust me the local governments would seriously consider charging. The lifeguards are there because of the liability costs if they were not. It's cheaper to hire lifeguards than to pay settlements in law suits.

I guess what I am saying is it's an apples/oranges comparison. Very different dynamics at play.

Of course you are wrong. Most of the beaches in Florida do not have lifeguards and I've never heard of a suit when someone drowned there. We have lifeguards to protect stupid tourist that use our most popular beaches. I lived in Virginia three different times so I can address this issue from your state and mine pretty well. The Coast Guard is used by a lot of states. This discussion has nothing to do with their roles. Down here, they are not at the beck and call of locals. They perform their functions when needed. Our local people do almost everything not associated with deep water rescue. We spend a lot of money every year trying to protect and save the public, at no cost. In this county alone, we have two helicopters, two separate volunteer SAR teams with dogs, boats, and horses, and all the lifeguards I referred to before. It is common for our SAR teams and Paid people to spend a week looking for lost people, both in the water and in the swamps. We have state and national forest and the problems associated with them and hunters/hikers. I would guess 20 or so life guards on the payroll 18 hours a day 7 days a week (This county only) will match up quiet well with the expenses any NH county experiences with lost hikers. As to hikers not spending the money, not so fast. I've done my share of hiking in Virginia and it is not cheap. I do not think I have ever voted for a tax. But, I'd hate to charge someone for saving their stupid life. Now I would support a law that outlawed stupidity as long as I could be the judge and get my share of the fines.

Sly
02-06-2014, 18:46
Talk about entitlement mentality. Negligent or not, how can anyone expect to be rescued for free?

Dogwood
02-06-2014, 19:00
'Now I would support a law that outlawed stupidity as long as I could be the judge and get my share of the fines.'

I'll go along with that as long as I can be the judge of how much and how your "share" of the fines is distributed to you. :D

bfayer
02-06-2014, 19:22
Of course you are wrong. Most of the beaches in Florida do not have lifeguards and I've never heard of a suit when someone drowned there. We have lifeguards to protect stupid tourist that use our most popular beaches. I lived in Virginia three different times so I can address this issue from your state and mine pretty well. The Coast Guard is used by a lot of states. This discussion has nothing to do with their roles. Down here, they are not at the beck and call of locals. They perform their functions when needed. Our local people do almost everything not associated with deep water rescue. We spend a lot of money every year trying to protect and save the public, at no cost. In this county alone, we have two helicopters, two separate volunteer SAR teams with dogs, boats, and horses, and all the lifeguards I referred to before. It is common for our SAR teams and Paid people to spend a week looking for lost people, both in the water and in the swamps. We have state and national forest and the problems associated with them and hunters/hikers. I would guess 20 or so life guards on the payroll 18 hours a day 7 days a week (This county only) will match up quiet well with the expenses any NH county experiences with lost hikers. As to hikers not spending the money, not so fast. I've done my share of hiking in Virginia and it is not cheap. I do not think I have ever voted for a tax. But, I'd hate to charge someone for saving their stupid life. Now I would support a law that outlawed stupidity as long as I could be the judge and get my share of the fines.

I have been on active duty in the Coast Guard for 30 years and seven of those were spent doing Search and Rescue and law enforcement in Florida. You can trust me when I say the locals use the crap out of the Coast Guard. It was normal for my station to conduct ~600 SAR cases a year, the majority of which were in state waters and within sight of land, not offshore in deepwater. That was just one station out of well over a dozen in the state, and that does not include the air stations, and cutters. If the Coast Guard stopped conducting SAR in Florida state waters, the state of Florida would be hard pressed to come up with the money to do it themselves. As for the law suits, I have testified in civil court in Florida in cases where people died.

We don't have a lot of stations in the mountains of NH, but if we did, they would use the crap out of us too. As for the cost of hiking in VA, just about all of it is free, so I don't know where you are going with that. The only place I have ever paid to hike is SNP and that goes to the federal government, not Virginia, and that is only if you drive into the park. Hiker hotels in VA are dirt cheap compared to anything near the beach in FL.

Dogwood
02-06-2014, 19:37
I missed reading your #41 post Bfayer. What you said in some detail in that post was what I was getting at in my #44 post. You said it well, "...it's an apples/oranges comparison. Very different dynamics at play."

bfayer
02-06-2014, 19:46
I missed reading your #41 post Bfayer. What you said in some detail in that post was what I was getting at in my #44 post. You said it well, "...it's an apples/oranges comparison. Very different dynamics at play."

The economics factors alone make a huge difference, and that's not getting into the weather, and geography. having said that if Florida wanted to start billing folks for doing stupid stuff, I would support that too. Government is not an insurance company.

Tuckahoe
02-06-2014, 20:02
Just a couple interesting articles on the costs of S&R

http://adventure.howstuffworks.com/pay-for-search-and-rescue.htm

http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1892621,00.html

MuddyWaters
02-06-2014, 20:08
39% of the NH state budget, or 2 billion dollars, is spent on health and social services.

And people worry about charging a few people per year to be rescued.

Maybe thats the reason they need to.

Not that they are much different from other states...

riff raff
02-06-2014, 20:45
No Fees??? I just paid 20 some odd dollars for an annual parking permit.

Mags
02-06-2014, 22:25
No Fees??? I just paid 20 some odd dollars for an annual parking permit.

Federal or state fee?

rickb
02-06-2014, 22:57
I am a negligent hiker, I suppose.

i rarely carry a cell phone, always wear cotton undies. I tend to hike in sneakers, and have never carried a shelter or sleeping bag on the non-demanding day hikes I am inclined to take with my wife. Whether camping or hiking out of a B&B we never tell anyone where we are going. We walk across frozen ponds and drink unfiltered water. I am overweight at an age that makes me a prime MI candidate, but will push myself like I was 25. I sometimes forget to take a flashlight.

In other words, I am like most any schmuck out there. If NH ever wants to come for me, they can walk into the woods as far as my accrued 9% hotel and meal tax contributions take them, and them they are welcome to turn around and go back to their pressing duties. I value life, though, so I would ask that they call one of the volunteer groups that do so much of the heavy lifting (I'll pay for the call) and take my chances.

bfayer
02-06-2014, 23:09
I am a negligent hiker, I suppose.

i rarely carry a cell phone, always wear cotton undies. I tend to hike in sneakers, and have never carried a shelter or sleeping bag on the non-demanding day hikes I am inclined to take with my wife. Whether camping or hiking out of a B&B we never tell anyone where we are going. We walk across frozen ponds and drink unfiltered water. I am overweight at an age that makes me a prime MI candidate, but will push myself like I was 25. I sometimes forget to take a flashlight.

In other words, I am like most any schmuck out there. If NH ever wants to come for me, they can walk into the woods as far as my accrued 9% hotel and meal tax contributions take them, and them they are welcome to turn around and go back to their pressing duties. I value life, though, so I would ask that they call one of the volunteer groups that do so much of the heavy lifting (I'll pay for the call) and take my chances.

rickb, I don't think people like you are the issue, you make reasonable decisions based on your knowledge and experience and have no expectation of getting bailed out if you stub your toe. If you need assistance it is probably because something serious happened and there is no way you can get out yourself.

The people NH is talking about charging are (for the most part) the city folks that hike out at 3 in the afternoon, get lost in the dark and call for help because they will miss their dinner reservations at the club. Even then, if they break a leg or have a heart attack, they are not going to get a bill.

On the other hand if you try to climb Mt Washington in the winter wearing jeans and a windbreaker, you deserve a bill :)