View Full Version : NH Proposes Hike Safe Card
A press release says a hike safe card would exempt a person from liability for the cost of a search and rescue response due to a person's negligence. The cards are voluntary to have.
The proposed rules would govern the online purchase and issuance of the cards. The program would become effective on January 1, 2015.
The public hearing is set for Monday, September 8 at 6:30 p.m. at the N.H. Fish and Game Department, 11 Hazen Drive, Concord, N.H.
http://www.mychamplainvalley.com/story/d/story/nh-proposed-hike-safe-card-rule-hearing-set/29708/CISHz5S2106WjchtUHNfFg
Probably similar in nature to Colorado's CORSAR (http://www.coloradotrail.org/corsar.html)
CORSAR is not an insurance card. It is essentially a charitable donation to help defray the costs of SAR work and training. Most of the counties that have the most rescues also happen to have among the smallest tax bases.
So, not to be quarrelsome, but the "Hike safe" card is nothing like a CORSAR card. In fact, from the link you gave:
"The card is not insurance. It does not pay medical transport which includes helicopter flights or ground ambulance."
Colorado SAR folks will NOT charge for search/ rescue regardless of you having a card or not. The ambulance companies (usually private) and airlift is another story however. Note that any search done by aircraft *IS* covered by the CORSAR funds.
http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/DOLA-Main/CBON/1251592090523
rocketsocks
09-08-2014, 20:48
check this one out
http://outdoorindustry.org/membership/insurance.php
rocketsocks
09-08-2014, 20:52
check this one out
http://outdoorindustry.org/membership/insurance.php
...after reading further, not eggsactlly a hiker policy.
So, not to be quarrelsome, but the "Hike safe" card is nothing like a CORSAR card.
I suppose you're right, the only similarities are programs raising funds for SAR.
While prior to last night (I don't know the results) the NH didn't seem particularly well written. For $25 it will cover the cost of rescue for "negligent hikers." What kind of message does that send?
Traveler
09-09-2014, 13:03
More Safer Hiking Card: "This is to certify Melvin Pigbutter is a More Safer Hiker in the State of New Hampshire and in so being, is exempt from the cost of irresponsible acts that cause people great costs and labors to haul his sorry ass to medical attention"
This is equivalent of a card that exempts you from being responsible for costs generated in pursuit of the "Hold my beer and watch this" group.
Not a bad idea to help them with expenses. But we do pay enough in fees & taxes like to see any excess go to trail maintaience.
Another Kevin
09-09-2014, 14:31
I suppose you're right, the only similarities are programs raising funds for SAR.
While prior to last night (I don't know the results) the NH didn't seem particularly well written. For $25 it will cover the cost of rescue for "negligent hikers." What kind of message does that send?
NH already has the idea that if you got into trouble on the trail, you must have been negligent. Look at the way they went after Scott Mason, whose only problem was that he sprained an ankle, and who was up and moving again, and nearly to an evacuation point when they found him. Their argument was that he was negligent because he'd strayed from an established trail, in a way that I'd have described as "bushwhacking around an impassable section." They argued that attempting to continue past the blockage was negligent and he should have just turned around and gone home. Sounds like 20/20 hindsight to me.
Essentially, NH embodies all the attitudes that this article (http://proactiveoutside.wordpress.com/2014/05/29/lets-take-a-deep-breath-about-that-rescue-on-longs-peak/) criticizes:
“Thank goodness he made it alive. He’s so lucky!”
“What an idiot. Only fools climb mountains.”
“Please tell me my tax dollars weren’t wasted on this. Send him the bill.”
together with a willingness to second-guess every decision that led up to an incident.
The message that sends is: "If you're in trouble, you can't afford the rescue, so keep trying to get yourself out until you're in so much trouble that you'll risk many searchers' lives, rather than doing the responsible thing and calling for help early. Because if you call for help early, we're going to bankrupt you."
Traveler
09-09-2014, 15:09
The message that sends is: "If you're in trouble, you can't afford the rescue, so keep trying to get yourself out until you're in so much trouble that you'll risk many searchers' lives, rather than doing the responsible thing and calling for help early. Because if you call for help early, we're going to bankrupt you."
Funny, NH will respond without charge to people burning down houses using friers and frozen turkeys, domestic drunk fights, and hauling people out of cars stalled when trying to cross a river thats flooded over the road. Seems they endorse a lot of stupid at taxpayer support ....
Another Kevin
09-09-2014, 16:10
Funny, NH will respond without charge to people burning down houses using friers and frozen turkeys, domestic drunk fights, and hauling people out of cars stalled when trying to cross a river thats flooded over the road. Seems they endorse a lot of stupid at taxpayer support ....
And you know, I'm perfectly OK with that. We've all done stupid things from time to time. A civilized society has government services like coast guards, fire brigades, and search and rescue teams. What disturbs me is the positively gleeful attitude that certain editorials take when they advance the "no tax dollars should be spent to save people from their own stupidity" theory. Why they want to punish the victim further eludes me - but the language they use certainly feels punitive.
I'm thankful that I live in NY instead of NH. NY state law bars recovery of the cost of public services incurred in responding to a tortfeasor's act, on the grounds that these costs are presumed to have already been borne by the public as a whole through taxation, and to allow the collection of such costs would constitute double recovery for the governmental entity. (An exception is if the cost was incurred specifically to protect government property. One county tried to impute 95% of its fire department response costs in a traffic accident to the cost of protecting the fire truck. The court did not look kindly on that theory.)
I guess "Live Free or Die!" is a literal interpenetration when it comes to SAR in New Hampshire!
Pedaling Fool
09-09-2014, 20:01
I understand the feeling of wanting to make some idiots pay for their rescue after reading some of the things that have happened. However, the problem is coming up with a system that penalize the true idiots without fining the people that make a honest mistake, no matter how dumb a mistake it is; as AK says, we've all done it.
So until I'm satisfied (probably a pipe dream)that there is a system to go after the idiots I'll side with what AK said below.
And you know, I'm perfectly OK with that. We've all done stupid things from time to time. A civilized society has government services like coast guards, fire brigades, and search and rescue teams. What disturbs me is the positively gleeful attitude that certain editorials take when they advance the "no tax dollars should be spent to save people from their own stupidity" theory. Why they want to punish the victim further eludes me - but the language they use certainly feels punitive.
I'm thankful that I live in NY instead of NH. NY state law bars recovery of the cost of public services incurred in responding to a tortfeasor's act, on the grounds that these costs are presumed to have already been borne by the public as a whole through taxation, and to allow the collection of such costs would constitute double recovery for the governmental entity. (An exception is if the cost was incurred specifically to protect government property. One county tried to impute 95% of its fire department response costs in a traffic accident to the cost of protecting the fire truck. The court did not look kindly on that theory.)
colorado_rob
09-09-2014, 21:32
Straight from the mouth of an SAR lady who gave a talk at an AMC hut in NH last week: a person is only billed rescue costs if they were found to be grossly negligent. Fall and break a leg? No charge. Get lost? No charge. Head up Mt. Washington in a blizzard and get lost: Get billed. Those were her examples.
Same deal in Colorado. The COSAR card is basically a small donation. I suspect the NH thing is as well. Money well spent.
If you are really worried about being accused of gross negligence and then being billed for a rescue, you can buy insurance that covers your SAR expenses, even if you are found to be at fault. It works just like car insurance but, it is very inexpensive. Google it. Also buying the "Hike Safe" card helps defray SAR costs for everyone, so that is another way to protect yourself. This is really a non issue.
colorado_rob
09-10-2014, 15:11
If you are really worried about being accused of gross negligence and then being billed for a rescue, you can buy insurance that covers your SAR expenses, even if you are found to be at fault. .... This is really a non issue. Agree, not much of an issue. But why not just avoid being grossly negligent and stay alive? No guarantees or even expectations that SAR will save your butt.
Agree, not much of an issue. But why not just avoid being grossly negligent and stay alive? No guarantees or even expectations that SAR will save your butt.
Insurance is useful because you never know what someone is going to accuse you of. If you have the insurance and are accused, they pay and that is the end of it. You never have to prove you are not at fault.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
rocketsocks
09-10-2014, 16:54
Some polices may not even kick in if you are found to be negligent...hike smarter.
2015 Lady Thru-Hiker
09-10-2014, 17:11
[/QUOTEI'm thankful that I live in NY instead of NH. NY state law bars recovery of the cost of public services incurred in responding to a tortfeasor's act, on the grounds that these costs are presumed to have already been borne by the public as a whole through taxation, and to allow the collection of such costs would constitute double recovery for the governmental entity. (An exception is if the cost was incurred specifically to protect government property. One county tried to impute 95% of its fire department response costs in a traffic accident to the cost of protecting the fire truck. The court did not look kindly on that theory.)[/QUOTE]
Thank goodness I fell and broke my wrist while on the trail in NY then. I hiked out 2 1/2 miles and only called 911 when it started getting dark and I started getting really tired and having trouble with my asthma. I felt it would be negligent of me to wait until there was a real problem and so dark that it would endanger anyone that would have to attempt to get me out if it came to that, so more like a pre-emptive warning about what had happened, what was going on at the moment and that I might need them to come in and get me. As it worked out I hiked out on my own, met with rescue at the bottom of the mountain. They checked me over and made certain I was okay then I drove myself to the hospital afterwards. Never got the first bill for rescue to come out. Actually somehow trouble breathing turned into heart trouble and FOUR ambulances showed. Anyway, great group of folks there in NY
Starchild
09-10-2014, 17:41
Way beyond gross negligence (https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&hs=12B&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=sb&q=negligence&spell=1&sa=X&ei=bMQQVKqkO4u1yASjvoLADw&ved=0CBwQBSgA) in the part of NH and they have forsaken their very purpose for their right to exist when they start charging for what they were created to provide. I do hope they will be slapped down very hard for this, and I do hope that it is not because someone died or got seriously injured because of their policy discouraged someone from calling for legitimate help.
Straight from the mouth of an SAR lady who gave a talk at an AMC hut in NH last week: a person is only billed rescue costs if they were found to be grossly negligent.
I am sure the SAR lady was well intentioned. She might not even realize that "grossly negligent" is different than "negligent" in law.
In the copy of the bill I googled up the standard is "negligent".
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2014/HB0256.pdf
Further, the organization that will be determining what constitutes "negligence" this year, next year and for years to come is the same one that benefits from the funds raised.
Of everything I have ever read on this topic, I have got to say that I have never seen the issue wrapped up so well as by Another Kevin. Very well put.
Tuckahoe
09-10-2014, 20:16
Way beyond gross negligence in the part of NH and they have forsaken their very purpose for their right to exist when they start charging for what they were created to provide. I do hope they will be slapped down very hard for this, and I do hope that it is not because someone died or got seriously injured because of their policy discouraged someone from calling for legitimate help.
NH has not forsaken anything and will not in anyway be slapped down for anything. You will find that it is pretty well settled that the state has no duty to protect you and I am sure that easily includes sending SAR to find you.
imscotty
10-12-2015, 18:53
Just adding some fodder for discussion...
http://www.wmur.com/escape-outside/family-of-four-to-be-billed-for-mountain-rescue/35800902?utm_source=Social&utm_medium=FBPAGE&utm_campaign=WMUR-TV&Content%20Type=Story
Hoping that their bill will not be too large, but this does seem to be a bit of poor planning.
Sarcasm the elf
10-12-2015, 23:39
Just adding some fodder for discussion...
http://www.wmur.com/escape-outside/family-of-four-to-be-billed-for-mountain-rescue/35800902?utm_source=Social&utm_medium=FBPAGE&utm_campaign=WMUR-TV&Content%20Type=Story
Hoping that their bill will not be too large, but this does seem to be a bit of poor planning.
Hikesafe card debate not withstanding, I am just floored to read that laundry list of ridiculous rescues they had to deal with in a single weekend. It sounded like three calls were Medical issues and the rest were lack of preparation and bad decisions.
Sarcasm the elf
10-12-2015, 23:42
The funny thing about the hikesafe card is that while I find the whole concept to be a bit offensive, I also know that if I walked past a fund raising table at a trailhead in the Whites where someone asked me to donate $25 to support the local SAR team I'd gladly give the donation along with my thanks for what they do.
4eyedbuzzard
10-12-2015, 23:47
Hikesafe card debate not withstanding, I am just floored to read that laundry list of ridiculous rescues they had to deal with in a single weekend. It sounded like three calls were Medical issues and the rest were lack of preparation and bad decisions.Which is why the HikeSafe program/policy started. Well over 50% of S&R expenditures were spent on hikers, all funded by taxes on hunting/fishing licenses and boat and ORV registrations. S&R is not funded under general tax appropriations in NH due to state Constitutional law. So the HikeSafe program was started as a kind of "voluntary tax" on hikers, along with charging those deemed negligent, to fund S&R revenue shortfalls.
Traveler
10-13-2015, 06:37
Which is why the HikeSafe program/policy started. Well over 50% of S&R expenditures were spent on hikers, all funded by taxes on hunting/fishing licenses and boat and ORV registrations. S&R is not funded under general tax appropriations in NH due to state Constitutional law. So the HikeSafe program was started as a kind of "voluntary tax" on hikers, along with charging those deemed negligent, to fund S&R revenue shortfalls.
I don't doubt the need for this tax, but I do have a concern with "charging those deemed negligent" and what the criteria for those decisions are. From some of the things I have heard and read on this, Tipi could be considered negligent for winter camping or people wearing light sneakers could be found negligent for foot injuries. The last I looked, there was no published criteria on what constitutes "negligence". The standards of what is considered negligent that are published are subjective and arbitrary in how they can be applied, even if you purchase the card you can be charged. This opens the issue of charging person A for a rescue you didn't charge person B for an identical rescue due to interpretation or for not carrying a GPS for example.
The published standards are fairly broad:
A person acts negligently when he or she acts in such a way that deviates from the way a reasonable person would act under similar circumstances.
A person acts recklessly when he or she engages in highly unreasonable conduct, involving an extreme departure from ordinary care, in a situation where a high degree of danger is apparent.
rocketsocks
10-13-2015, 07:01
I don't doubt the need for this tax, but I do have a concern with "charging those deemed negligent" and what the criteria for those decisions are. From some of the things I have heard and read on this, Tipi could be considered negligent for winter camping or people wearing light sneakers could be found negligent for foot injuries. The last I looked, there was no published criteria on what constitutes "negligence". The standards of what is considered negligent that are published are subjective and arbitrary in how they can be applied, even if you purchase the card you can be charged. This opens the issue of charging person A for a rescue you didn't charge person B for an identical rescue due to interpretation or for not carrying a GPS for example.
The published standards are fairly broad:
A person acts negligently when he or she acts in such a way that deviates from the way a reasonable person would act under similar circumstances.
A person acts recklessly when he or she engages in highly unreasonable conduct, involving an extreme departure from ordinary care, in a situation where a high degree of danger is apparent.
Big difference between negligence and nuts. :D But seriously, winter camping isn't gonna get ya deemed negligence, now that said, being unprepared (food, clothing, shelter) while winter camping might not only get ya found negligent, it might get ya dead.
Traveler
10-13-2015, 07:06
Big difference between negligence and nuts. :D But seriously, winter camping isn't gonna get ya deemed negligence, now that said, being unprepared (food, clothing, shelter) while winter camping might not only get ya found negligent, it might get ya dead.
So who decides who is prepared and who isn't, and how do you charge Person A for that, but not Person B who has the same gear in the same conditions. Again, I don't argue the need for this, just the subjective standards that are stated.
rocketsocks
10-13-2015, 07:20
So who decides who is prepared and who isn't, and how do you charge Person A for that, but not Person B who has the same gear in the same conditions. Again, I don't argue the need for this, just the subjective standards that are stated.Yup, I'd be curious too. I'd think the onus is on the state to prove it's case, but I don't know. After reading the book "Not without Peril" (about mountaineering accidents in hew Hampshire) it always has me thinking just how much of a fine line there is between failure and success of a plan, or lack there of. Many just seem to temporarily forget NOT to take chances and they do something they wouldn't normally do in a million years and it gets em into trouble, like site selection or failure to heed warning signs such as rising or plummeting temperatures, or a creek crossing
during high or rapid water.
peakbagger
10-13-2015, 10:43
So who decides who is prepared and who isn't, and how do you charge Person A for that, but not Person B who has the same gear in the same conditions. Again, I don't argue the need for this, just the subjective standards that are stated.
The head of NH fish and game determines who is liable and who isn't based on set of standards that are somewhat arbitrary. He establishes the bill and its up to the rescued party to pay it or contest it. If someone wants to contest it, they can go to court to argue the fact but they are effectively arguing with a "professional" so its going to be costly to contest as they will need to find another professional to establish that in their opinion the rescued party was not poorly equipped or reckless. To date F&G has tended to go after very obviously unprepared/ reckless hikers (usually under the influence) but the program is fairly new and budgetary pressures make it tempting to shift whatever they can off the budget and onto the hikers who need rescuing.
As for the charges, they are strictly the charges accrued by F&G, its not a fine its a bill. The volunteer groups who make up the majority of the rescues do not charge. High profile winter rescues are generally led by skilled volunteers with F&G providing support as they don't have the training or equipment. The big costs are usually overtime which is almost inevitable and helicopter fees as the NH national guard no longer charges rescues to training. A very high profile rescue in the winter prior to the hike safe card lead to very high costs as the NH guard helicopter was not available so a private one was hired at great expense.
A very important thing that most rescued folks don't realize is that anything they say or do during or after the rescue can and is held against them. If someone is in this situation they best not say anything unless they have a lawyer present.
A somewhat morbid comment is that they don't try to recover costs from those who died at some point during the rescue despite the resources used, so there is no cost way of avoiding receiving a bill but I expect most would elect not to use this method. These was a very high profile unsuccessful rescue last winter on Madison that most likely would have raised issues with a hikers "recklessness" that unfortunately was resolved by the death of the hiker.
As I've said in the past, I will avoid hiking or any outdoor activity in NH. A system that sets up one individual to determine the criteria for transgression, is the investigator, the prosecutor, the judge, the jury, and the accountant who determines damages is an inherently flawed system that is ripe for abuse. Also, there is no appeal, other than a lawsuit, and, by the way, the single individual who makes all the decisions is also the beneficiary of any judgement rendered.
Easier to just avoid NH, PLENTY of other, better hiking to be had in this great country.
4eyedbuzzard
10-13-2015, 11:48
As I've said in the past, I will avoid hiking or any outdoor activity in NH. A system that sets up one individual to determine the criteria for transgression, is the investigator, the prosecutor, the judge, the jury, and the accountant who determines damages is an inherently flawed system that is ripe for abuse. Also, there is no appeal, other than a lawsuit, and, by the way, the single individual who makes all the decisions is also the beneficiary of any judgement rendered.
Easier to just avoid NH, PLENTY of other, better hiking to be had in this great country.Then you might want to do a bit of research before hiking (or skiing) anywhere else (like Maine, Vermont, Oregon, Hawaii, Utah, Idaho, and others), as there are other states that have laws and policies that allow negligent people to be billed - they just haven't received the publicity and notoriety - yet. Many other states with ski resorts have laws that allow "out-of-bounds" skiers to be billed for rescue as well.
As revenues get strained more and more each year by the cost of rescues, there are bills in many states that would allow negligent hikers to be billed for S&R services. There are good arguments on both sides of the issue. But the trend for the future is that people who aren't reasonably prudent in their preparation and decision making are going to get billed.
A good article on the overall situation and trend at: http://www.outsideonline.com/1986496/search-and-rescue-public-service-not-exactly (http://www.outsideonline.com/1986496/search-and-rescue-public-service-not-exactly)
Starchild
10-13-2015, 12:40
A very important thing that most rescued folks don't realize is that anything they say or do during or after the rescue can and is held against them. If someone is in this situation they best not say anything unless they have a lawyer present.
Gets worse all the time, but good info to know, perhaps they should be required to read the person their rights first.
Another Kevin
10-13-2015, 12:44
Big difference between negligence and nuts. :D But seriously, winter camping isn't gonna get ya deemed negligence, now that said, being unprepared (food, clothing, shelter) while winter camping might not only get ya found negligent, it might get ya dead.
That really depends on who's on the jury. I can easily imagine 12 random city folk (from Manchester or Nashua, say) deciding that camping anywhere more remote than the Holiday Inn is recklessly taking your life in your hands.
Another Kevin
10-13-2015, 13:00
To date F&G has tended to go after very obviously unprepared/ reckless hikers (usually under the influence)
Like the Boy Scout who sprained an ankle (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/nh-bills-lost-hikers-for-cost-of-rescue/) and had already self-rescued when they caught up with him? (And he was "obviously" reckless, for bushwhacking around an obstructed trail rather than turning back. Gee, that would make me negligent on almost half my hikes!) Yes, I know that they eventually "graciously waived the penalty."
(Interesting fact: a helicopter rescue - which is usually included in the bill - generally costs the taxpayers precisely nothing. The pilots just fly fewer training hours that month.
And - yes, I'll buy a Hike Safe card if I hike in New Hampshire. (I don't rule that out, I just happen not to have been there in a few years.) If the legislature won't fund SAR, someone has to. I don't expect the card to be worth the paper it's printed on, if God forbid I have an accident. If a prosecutor can convince the jury that I was negligent, he can convince them that I was reckless. And if a ranger says on the stand that in his opinion I was reckless, I won't have a leg to stand on in court. Probably most of the jurors will have come into the courtroom believing that hiking is reckless to begin with.
Redrowen
10-13-2015, 13:14
A lot of people are forgetting that this card is not limited to protecting just hikers, it covers most outdoor activities. I think it's a good way to raise revenue.
4eyedbuzzard
10-13-2015, 13:20
Gets worse all the time, but good info to know, perhaps they should be required to read the person their rights first.Recovery of S&R expenses constitute a civil, not criminal, legal action by the state. The 4th amendment right against self-incrimination typically doesn't apply to civil law. Think about it. There is no crime. Rescuees aren't being arrested. They aren't being put in custody (even though free to leave with a broken leg may be a moot point). So the interrogation isn't covered under Miranda. That said, yeah, be careful what you say or admit to under such circumstances.
Traveler
10-13-2015, 13:41
Like the Boy Scout who sprained an ankle (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/nh-bills-lost-hikers-for-cost-of-rescue/) and had already self-rescued when they caught up with him? (And he was "obviously" reckless, for bushwhacking around an obstructed trail rather than turning back. Gee, that would make me negligent on almost half my hikes!) Yes, I know that they eventually "graciously waived the penalty."
(Interesting fact: a helicopter rescue - which is usually included in the bill - generally costs the taxpayers precisely nothing. The pilots just fly fewer training hours that month.
And - yes, I'll buy a Hike Safe card if I hike in New Hampshire. (I don't rule that out, I just happen not to have been there in a few years.) If the legislature won't fund SAR, someone has to. I don't expect the card to be worth the paper it's printed on, if God forbid I have an accident. If a prosecutor can convince the jury that I was negligent, he can convince them that I was reckless. And if a ranger says on the stand that in his opinion I was reckless, I won't have a leg to stand on in court. Probably most of the jurors will have come into the courtroom believing that hiking is reckless to begin with.
The problem is more in the change of the Statute language, when NH replaced reckless with negligent and created an overly broad criteria to apply it. Few people would argue against a mechanism that could be used if someone were truly reckless
Insurance can be a fairly good hedge against the application of cost recouping. SPOT has a policy that costs only a few dollars with annual purchase of their subscription, the plan provides up to $100,000.00 for SAR reimbursements. The American Alpine Club (AAC) has a benefits package that provides $5,000.00 but the SAR operation or management has to be Global Rescue (a global insurer and crisis management firm). I use the SPOT insurance so I have no dog in this skirmish outside of concern for the overly broad and arbitrary criteria used in NH which economically benefits from the attractions that also cost them money for SAR operations in.
Sarcasm the elf
10-13-2015, 14:02
Which is why the HikeSafe program/policy started. Well over 50% of S&R expenditures were spent on hikers, all funded by taxes on hunting/fishing licenses and boat and ORV registrations. S&R is not funded under general tax appropriations in NH due to state Constitutional law. So the HikeSafe program was started as a kind of "voluntary tax" on hikers, along with charging those deemed negligent, to fund S&R revenue shortfalls.
I certainly understandand sympathize with the situation, what bothers me is how arbitrary the decision to bill seems to be how the amount of the bill can vary greatly and is outside the control of the persons being charged. If there were a fixed fine charged of $500 or $1000 or maybe even more thanI could support that, but to tell someone that they suddenly owe tens of thousands of dollars that they probsbly didn't knowingly consent to spending seem unreasonable.
As an out-of-stater, I see the area around the White mountains as a place that ican be very dangerous to hike in yet heavily promoted as a tourist destination and very easily accessible. This is a toxic combination that basically guarantees that some number of inexperienced hikers, or worse yet "tourists" (non-hiker folk who aren't aware they are expected to be self reliant.) will show up and get themselves into trouble. n principal I feel like the tourist industry who wooed many of these folks to vacation in the mountains should be absorbing some part of the price of rescue simply as a cost of doing business. If be practice of full billing gets enough publicity it may well result in modest but measurable decrease in tourist revenue.
As an example many of my coworkers love Mt. Washington in the rolling couch potato fashion, they stay in hotels, use the cog railway or the auto road and have an easy and fun day taking in the sights. While they've read the warning signs about the mountain being deadly, I don't think they are able to fully comprehend it, especially when the mountain is the center of their pampered vacation trips. If one of them decided to take a short walk on the mountain and lost their way I am sure they would expect help to be available without cost, after all in their minds it is a tourist destination.
That said I also fully acknowledge that I am writing an armchair quarterback comment, so take it as you will.
Offshore
10-13-2015, 14:19
The problem is more in the change of the Statute language, when NH replaced reckless with negligent and created an overly broad criteria to apply it. Few people would argue against a mechanism that could be used if someone were truly reckless
Insurance can be a fairly good hedge against the application of cost recouping. SPOT has a policy that costs only a few dollars with annual purchase of their subscription, the plan provides up to $100,000.00 for SAR reimbursements. The American Alpine Club (AAC) has a benefits package that provides $5,000.00 but the SAR operation or management has to be Global Rescue (a global insurer and crisis management firm). I use the SPOT insurance so I have no dog in this skirmish outside of concern for the overly broad and arbitrary criteria used in NH which economically benefits from the attractions that also cost them money for SAR operations in.
Keeping NH in perspective, they are viewed as the most likely to seek recovery for SAR expenditures, but according to the previously-cited Outside article, NH has recovered only $70K from 60 SAR responses. so the average bill is not as big as the angst in this thread would lead one to believe.
Before we all get ourselves too worked up, this is nothing more than a question of risk mitigation. Try not to be reckless out there and ask yourself if in the event that something happens that requires SAR, can you afford to pay the bill. If you can, then you in effect self-insure against the risk. If not, there are insurance policies that can mitigate these risks. AT Traveler hit it "SPOT-on". For $17.95/year you can add global coverage for SAR onto your SPOT service plan that covers $100K in reimbursement/year at $50K per occurrence. (This is exactly what I did). Be sure to carry the SPOT though, as I believe the SAR has to be initiated via a SPOT SOS to qualify for the rescue benefit.
Sarcasm the elf
10-13-2015, 14:25
Keeping NH in perspective, they are viewed as the most likely to seek recovery for SAR expenditures, but according to the previously-cited Outside article, NH has recovered only $70K from 60 SAR responses. so the average bill is not as big as the angst in this thread would lead one to believe.
Before we all get ourselves too worked up, this is nothing more than a question of risk mitigation. Try not to be reckless out there and and ask yourself if in the event that something happens that requires SAR, can you afford to pay the bill. If you can, then you in effect self-insure against the risk. If not, there are insurance policies that can mitigate these risks. AT Traveler hit it "SPOT-on". For $17.95/year you can add global coverage for SAR onto your SPOT service plan that covers $100K in reimbursement. (This is exactly what I did). Be sure to carry the SPOT though, as I believe the SAR has to be initiated via a SPOT SOS to invoke the rescue benefit.
That is true for informed/experenced hikers who understand the reality of the area, truely undestrand the dangers and are aware of current management practices. What about the thousands of vacationers who show there because it's a popular tourist destination what happens when one of them gets in over their heads due to inexperience?
Offshore
10-13-2015, 14:38
That is true for informed/experenced hikers who understand the reality of the area, truely undestrand the dangers and are aware of current management practices. What about the thousands of vacationers who show there because it's a popular tourist destination what happens when one of them gets in over their heads due to inexperience?
There needs to be a modicum of personal responsibility. If someone doesn't bother learning the risks, that's their decision, isn't it?
If they do run into a problem, they'll (maybe) get rescued and possibly get billed unless they have insurance or a Hike Safe card. It's not exactly a huge financial burden to buy one. And again, looking at the Outside article, NH had billed $70K for 60 SAR responses since 2008, so more of a theoretical rather than a practical problem (or threat to tourism.)
Traveler
10-13-2015, 14:47
Keeping NH in perspective, they are viewed as the most likely to seek recovery for SAR expenditures, but according to the previously-cited Outside article, NH has recovered only $70K from 60 SAR responses. so the average bill is not as big as the angst in this thread would lead one to believe.
Before we all get ourselves too worked up, this is nothing more than a question of risk mitigation. Try not to be reckless out there and and ask yourself if in the event that something happens that requires SAR, can you afford to pay the bill. If you can, then you in effect self-insure against the risk. If not, there are insurance policies that can mitigate these risks. AT Traveler hit it "SPOT-on". For $17.95/year you can add global coverage for SAR onto your SPOT service plan that covers $100K in reimbursement. (This is exactly what I did). Be sure to carry the SPOT though, as I believe the SAR has to be initiated via a SPOT SOS to qualify for the rescue benefit.
All good points if the statute were relative to recklessness. But, NH replaced the word reckless with negligence and provided an overly broad criteria, which changes the game a lot. A recent NH fine/bill cited hiking alone as being negligent. Due to how loosely the statute language was written, the court upheld that.
Again, its not the idea of charging people for their rescue if they are reckless, like taking snowmobiles into wilderness areas and getting stuck. There are good reasons people in the SAR community don't like the concept of charging people for rescue. One of the arguments being if people think they will be charged a significant amount they may defer calling for a rescue until its too late. However, NH has made hiking alone part of the negligence definition, something we all do here periodically and I do perhaps 70% of the time.
4eyedbuzzard
10-13-2015, 14:58
That is true for informed/experenced hikers who understand the reality of the area, truely undestrand the dangers and are aware of current management practices. What about the thousands of vacationers who show there because it's a popular tourist destination what happens when one of them gets in over their heads due to inexperience?
It's not like people aren't warned in advance regarding the possible difficulties, dangers, experience and gear required, and even the possibility of being charged for S&R if they act negligently. If you look at the instances where the state has charged for S&R, the people billed typically made not one, but multiple bad decisions knowing that they were taking risks that rose above the posted warnings. Yes, the concept of "(un)reasonable" is subjective. But all of the rescues I've read about where people were actually billed involved people hiking into known deteriorating weather conditions, with improper equipment and/or lack of physical ability and/or experience, etc. The warnings are everywhere - BE PREPARED, BE READY TO TURN BACK, BE READY TO GET BILLED IF YOU ACT RECKLESSLY.
32290 32291
Offshore
10-13-2015, 15:02
All good points if the statute were relative to recklessness. But, NH replaced the word reckless with negligence and provided an overly broad criteria, which changes the game a lot. A recent NH fine/bill cited hiking alone as being negligent. Due to how loosely the statute language was written, the court upheld that.
Again, its not the idea of charging people for their rescue if they are reckless, like taking snowmobiles into wilderness areas and getting stuck. There are good reasons people in the SAR community don't like the concept of charging people for rescue. One of the arguments being if people think they will be charged a significant amount they may defer calling for a rescue until its too late. However, NH has made hiking alone part of the negligence definition, something we all do here periodically and I do perhaps 70% of the time.
As do I, with my SPOT and my GEOS rescue benefit to mitigate risks.
Offshore
10-13-2015, 15:07
It's not like people aren't warned in advance regarding the possible difficulties, dangers, experience and gear required, and even the possibility of being charged for S&R if they act negligently. If you look at the instances where the state has charged for S&R, the people billed typically made not one, but multiple bad decisions knowing that they were taking risks that rose above the posted warnings. Yes, the concept of "(un)reasonable" is subjective. But all of the rescues I've read about where people were actually billed involved people hiking into known deteriorating weather conditions, with improper equipment and/or lack of physical ability and/or experience, etc. The warnings are everywhere - BE PREPARED, BE READY TO TURN BACK, BE READY TO GET BILLED IF YOU ACT RECKLESSLY.
32290 32291
Thanks for the photos, 4eyed. How much clearer can it get? (A: Not much)
Another Kevin
10-13-2015, 15:09
All good points if the statute were relative to recklessness. But, NH replaced the word reckless with negligence and provided an overly broad criteria, which changes the game a lot. A recent NH fine/bill cited hiking alone as being negligent. Due to how loosely the statute language was written, the court upheld that.
Again, its not the idea of charging people for their rescue if they are reckless, like taking snowmobiles into wilderness areas and getting stuck. There are good reasons people in the SAR community don't like the concept of charging people for rescue. One of the arguments being if people think they will be charged a significant amount they may defer calling for a rescue until its too late. However, NH has made hiking alone part of the negligence definition, something we all do here periodically and I do perhaps 70% of the time.
Right. We're approaching the situation where the rules for eleven-year-old boy scouts become the standards for adult hikers. I suspect that they'd advance the case that a party of fewer than four is negligent, even reckless, because if anything happens you need someone to stay with the injured party while two others go for help. Of course solo hiking is death, so you can't have anyone solo even after a miishap. Of course, having had an accident is prima facie evidence that some conduct leading up to it must have been reckless. I'd not be surprised that if I were ever involved in a slip and fall, someone would raise the issue that I was wearing trail runners rather than boots, or tell me that I was reckless for hiking in the rain.
I have trouble deciding what disturbs me more: the fact that as a society we set our standards of prudent conduct by those of the most timid among us (look at how we're expected to keep our children in a bubble!) - or the vindictive glee that I see among the posters whenever stories about charging for rescue appear on the news sites. "Yeah! They deserve whatever they get! We don't want one penny of our tax money going to that!"
By the way, stories of SAR going after the reckless are newsworthy - because they're vanishingly rare. The ordinary SAR activation is that either a toddler or an old person has wandered away from a farm or campground. The old people are much easier to deal with. The toddlers are so raised on "stranger danger" that they hide from rescuers.
Another Kevin
10-13-2015, 15:19
Thanks for the photos, 4eyed. How much clearer can it get? (A: Not much)
When "proper equipment," "physical fitness," "outdoor skills proficiency," and "familiarity with terrain and weather conditions" are all judged with 20/20 hindsight, it's not clear at all. Am I failing to bring "proper equipment" if I carry a homemade stove rather than a store-bought one, or wear trail runners rather than boots? Am I deficient in physical fitness because I'm a weekender, pushing sixty, who never hikes long enough at a stretch really to get in shape for it? Am I "unfamiliar" with the terrain if I hike to a place that I haven't been before, using map and guidebook? Am I deficient in outdoor skills because I let my WFR certification lapse years ago?
I've been fortunate enough that I've never had an accident from which I or my party couldn't self-rescue. If I did, I have no illusions about being able to defend myself against a charge of recklessness. As I said, the fact that an accident happened is prima facie evidence that some conduct that led up to it was reckless.
Heck, the typical jury would see those signs as being evidence that it's reckless to be up there at all.
Traveler
10-13-2015, 15:25
There needs to be a modicum of personal responsibility. If someone doesn't bother learning the risks, that's their decision, isn't it?
If they do run into a problem, they'll (maybe) get rescued and possibly get billed unless they have insurance or a Hike Safe card. It's not exactly a huge financial burden to buy one. And again, looking at the Outside article, NH had billed $70K for 60 SAR responses since 2008, so more of a theoretical rather than a practical problem (or threat to tourism.)
To follow that logic through, we should charge people for fire response when they try to burn their house down frying a turkey or using life xmas trees near electrical components. Certainly people know those dangers. Governments and contractors used to charge people for fire services, but to avoid that cost people attempted to put out fires on their own with predictable results. Making this service part of the social fabric makes it more likely people will call before the fire gets out of control and affects other property or lives.
By the way, the "Hike Safe" card is not full protection from being charged. As described in the NH Fish and Game site, the card may not protect you from costs per the definition, "A person <with a safe hiker card> may be liable for response expenses if such person recklessly or intentionally creates a situation requiring an emergency response". By this definition, if you do not know a specific trail and how it lays out yet proceed on that trail and become disorientated to the point rescue is needed, you can be charged for that service since you intentionally created the need. The Safe Hiker card is not a "get out of jail free" card. Were it to be one, I would have no problem with it and likely get one myself.
Offshore
10-13-2015, 15:45
When "proper equipment," "physical fitness," "outdoor skills proficiency," and "familiarity with terrain and weather conditions" are all judged with 20/20 hindsight, it's not clear at all. Am I failing to bring "proper equipment" if I carry a homemade stove rather than a store-bought one, or wear trail runners rather than boots? Am I deficient in physical fitness because I'm a weekender, pushing sixty, who never hikes long enough at a stretch really to get in shape for it? Am I "unfamiliar" with the terrain if I hike to a place that I haven't been before, using map and guidebook? Am I deficient in outdoor skills because I let my WFR certification lapse years ago?
I've been fortunate enough that I've never had an accident from which I or my party couldn't self-rescue. If I did, I have no illusions about being able to defend myself against a charge of recklessness. As I said, the fact that an accident happened is prima facie evidence that some conduct that led up to it was reckless.
Heck, the typical jury would see those signs as being evidence that it's reckless to be up there at all.
Sounds like you're looking for 100% certainty/100% indemnity. Good luck with that!
Offshore
10-13-2015, 16:00
To follow that logic through, we should charge people for fire response when they try to burn their house down frying a turkey or using life xmas trees near electrical components. Certainly people know those dangers. Governments and contractors used to charge people for fire services, but to avoid that cost people attempted to put out fires on their own with predictable results. Making this service part of the social fabric makes it more likely people will call before the fire gets out of control and affects other property or lives.
Except that going for a recreational hike is not comparable to everyday life at home and certainly doesn't rise to the point of being part of the social fabric. In your fire example, you actually do wind up paying for your own poor judgement or foolishness. You're left with damage to your house that you'll pay to fix unless you had mitigated risk by purchasing insurance. If you did, you'll find your homeowner's insurance rates will rise (or the policy will be dropped). The fire dept. response may be "free" (notwithstanding the taxes you and all of your neighbors paid to support the fire district, etc.), but the fire itself is not without financial consequence.
Just as a town taxes citizens to support a fire service that is used by all, NH is taking the approach of making SAR supported by the community that uses it - the outdoor enthusiasts.
4eyedbuzzard
10-13-2015, 16:04
...
I have trouble deciding what disturbs me more: the fact that as a society we set our standards of prudent conduct by those of the most timid among us (look at how we're expected to keep our children in a bubble!) - or the vindictive glee that I see among the posters whenever stories about charging for rescue appear on the news sites. "Yeah! They deserve whatever they get! We don't want one penny of our tax money going to that!"
By the way, stories of SAR going after the reckless are newsworthy - because they're vanishingly rare. The ordinary SAR activation is that either a toddler or an old person has wandered away from a farm or campground. The old people are much easier to deal with. The toddlers are so raised on "stranger danger" that they hide from rescuers.
Note that it is NH F&G personnel who make the decision as to whether or not someone has acted negligently - not a bunch of timid unknowledgable couch potatoes in a courtroom office. They know first-hand the situations that even experienced, prepared people can get into at times. That's why they are there - because doo-doo happens. The law isn't there to persecute those who accidentally fall, get lost, etc. It's purpose, ultimately, is to discourage people from acting negligently and taking unreasonable risks. And my guess is that the first question they are probably going to ask themselves when reviewing a rescue is, "Would I, given the experience, equipment, etc. present, have knowingly hiked or continued hiking into this situation and/or these conditions?" If the answer is "No", someone MAY very well get a bill. And as you noted, such determinations are very rare, and generally involve someone doing something that compounds the inherent risk of hiking in the Whites by ignoring generally accepted outdoor practices (practices you may or may not agree with). But they aren't out to bill you because the lugs on your trail runners are worn.
Every decision that I have read that resulted in a hiker being billed involved hiking into deteriorating weather as a factor.
There may be a few that didn't, but they probably didn't get a lot of media attention.
Quoted from this source http://hikesafe.com/index.php?page=liability-statutes
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.
The many dedicated and highly trained volunteers from diverse agencies and organizations are an integral part of New Hampshire's search and rescue missions. As the lead agency in charge of such missions, the New Hampshire Fish and Game Department, handles roughly 150 to 200 search and rescues each year. Of those, only a small number are initiated because of the actions of negligent hikers.
This small number of negligent hikers can present some very difficult, dangerous and expensive search and rescue missions; and it is those hikers who'll be billed for rescues. It is hoped that the prospects of getting a bill will itself act as a deterrent to hikers who may otherwise make incorrect and uneducated decisions.
Traveler
10-13-2015, 16:23
Except that going for a recreational hike is not comparable to everyday life at home and certainly doesn't rise to the point of being part of the social fabric. In your fire example, you actually do wind up paying for your own poor judgement or foolishness. You're left with damage to your house that you'll pay to fix unless you had mitigated risk by purchasing insurance. If you did, you'll find your homeowner's insurance rates will rise (or the policy will be dropped). The fire dept. response may be "free" (notwithstanding the taxes you and all of your neighbors paid to support the fire district, etc.), but the fire itself is not without financial consequence.
Just as a town taxes citizens to support a fire service that is used by all, NH is taking the approach of making SAR supported by the community that uses it - the outdoor enthusiasts.
According to the State Fish and Game site and definitions, the Safe Hiker card does not offer full protection as many tout it.
Since the legislature is not able to muster the horsepower to address this issue at the same time it funds tourist promotion of the very features of the State causing this issue, I agree with the concept that those who use State lands in NH should help pay for these services.
Washington State uses a system that provides revenue for SAR operations and maintenance, which could be successfully used in NH. Charge everyone to park at State Park facilities by either requiring a seasonal tag that costs $20 displayed on the dash, or a $5 fee envelope in a kiosk catcher (much as they do in Washington State and the NPS/NFS uses). Fish and Game wardens could issue tickets for those parking without the required payment and recoup the costs of their patrol in that manner. This would fund a level of service everyone can depend on when they need it, supported by the very people who are using State Park lands, both tourists and residents combined.
Interesting thread.
imscotty
10-13-2015, 17:30
I share the concerns posted above about NH going after the negligent as opposed to the truly reckless. In a state hungry for tax revenue, the pressure will be on to go after increasingly borderline cases. Here is a story of a man who fought his rescue bill and lost...
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/04/30/new-hampshire-court-rules-hiker-must-pay-rescue-bill/2h4znjNs8gQsSpfY8JYCvO/story.html
4eyedbuzzard
10-13-2015, 17:45
I share the concerns posted above about NH going after the negligent as opposed to the truly reckless. In a state hungry for tax revenue, the pressure will be on to go after increasingly borderline cases. Here is a story of a man who fought his rescue bill and lost...
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/04/30/new-hampshire-court-rules-hiker-must-pay-rescue-bill/2h4znjNs8gQsSpfY8JYCvO/story.htmlHe deserved to lose. The only thing borderline was his defense of his actions. See below:
Funny, I know exactly which big rock he got injured on, it's about half way from where the Liberty Springs trail hits the ridge and the summit of Little Haystack. It's basically a big boulder a little over waist high. It can be a bit of a challenge for us "autumn chickens", especially when wet, as you have to either jump your butt up onto it or find a toe hold, but that is the nature of the trail.
From the court papers at http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme/opinions/2015/2015031bacon.pdf
At the time of the hike, the defendant was fifty-nine years old, had undergone four hip surgeries since 2005, and had an artificial hip that had dislocated on five occasions, twice during the prior year. The defendant also had a “bad back” and was taking a variety of medications for multiple ailments. In preparation for his hike, the defendant trained in a city park in Michigan,which had 250-foot hills and some “gravelly” spots..."
Lieutenant James Kneeland visited the defendant in the hospital after his rescue, the defendant explained that he had misread the weather report: he thought the forecast called for 30-40 mph winds with gusts up to 70 mph and heavy rain, instead of the actual forecast of 30-40 mph winds increasing to 70 mph and heavy rain. The defendant also told Kneeland that he had caught his left leg while attempting to jump backward up onto a rock ledge and dislocated his artificial hip when he fell.
The defendant testified to a different version of events at trial. For instance, he testified that he was unaware of the weather conditions on the day of the hike because he did not have his reading glasses with him, and that he did not encounter any significant rain or wind. Additionally, he testified that when he dislocated his hip he had not fallen, as he told Kneeland, but instead had jumped backward over a rock ledge and swung his legs up while perfectly maintaining his left leg to avoid flexion and internal rotation.
Negligent, yeah, I'd have to agree, especially considering considering his medical history, weather conditions, and the weather reports he failed to heed. I'd add that it's very hard to believe testimony that changes after the fact.
Sarcasm the elf
10-13-2015, 18:18
It's not like people aren't warned in advance regarding the possible difficulties, dangers, experience and gear required, and even the possibility of being charged for S&R if they act negligently. If you look at the instances where the state has charged for S&R, the people billed typically made not one, but multiple bad decisions knowing that they were taking risks that rose above the posted warnings. Yes, the concept of "(un)reasonable" is subjective. But all of the rescues I've read about where people were actually billed involved people hiking into known deteriorating weather conditions, with improper equipment and/or lack of physical ability and/or experience, etc. The warnings are everywhere - BE PREPARED, BE READY TO TURN BACK, BE READY TO GET BILLED IF YOU ACT RECKLESSLY.
32290 32291
Yes, I know there are signs, and for people like you and I that's sufficient warning, but that's not what I'm talking about.
The Whites are a popular tourist destination where people with no experience are encouraged to visit and given free range of the place. Letting a bunch of flatlanders mull around and then sending a select few of them a massive bill when they inevitably make a rookie mistake doesn't sound like a very sucessful management strategy.
As for the warning signs, They can put up as many as the want, and most people with hiking experience will understand that they the real deal, but the signs undoubtedly have somewhat less if an impact for the person who has just taken a ride on a whimsical cog railway up to tourist area on the summit of Washington. They can put up as many signs warning of "the worst weather in America" as they want, but it seems reasonable to believe that more than a few of the visitors aren't going to take the signs seriously when they're a few minutes walk from the hamburger stand.
To those who are thinking "why should I care, I bought my hiker card and to heck with those who weren't prepared." The reason is simple, these stories of massive fines, whether accurate or not, directly affect the area's reputation and by extension their tourist trade. If the fear of massive bills, or the dislike of the system end up deterring even 1 or 2 percent of possible visitors from going how much will that cost local businesses in revenue? How many families would need to be discouraged from vacationing in the area before the loss of revenue to surrounding towns outweighs the $70k or so that they have supposedly collected in reimbursement for rescues? A few dozen maybe? My point is that I really think they are short-sightedly biting themselves in the ass.
I'll again remind you of my armchair quarterback status.
Elf, I wonder if there are stats about which class of folks need more help from SAR services -- experienced hikers, or clueless cog-railway rider? I can think of several cases in recent history where it was the supposedly experienced hikers. Including one case that was clearly a suicide, who walked up the mountain under his own power.
4eyedbuzzard
10-13-2015, 18:44
Yes, I know there are signs, and for people like you and I that's sufficient warning, but that's not what I'm talking about.
The Whites are a popular tourist destination where people with no experience are encouraged to visit and given free range of the place. Letting a bunch of flatlanders mull around and then sending a select few of them a massive bill when they inevitably make a rookie mistake doesn't sound like a very sucessful management strategy.
As for the warning signs, They can put up as many as the want, and most people with hiking experience will understand that they the real deal, but the signs undoubtedly have somewhat less if an impact for the person who has just taken a ride on a whimsical cog railway up to tourist area on the summit of Washington. They can put up as many signs warning of "the worst weather in America" as they want, but it seems reasonable to believe that more than a few of the visitors aren't going to take the signs seriously when they're a few minutes walk from the hamburger stand.
To those who are thinking "why should I care, I bought my hiker card and to heck with those who weren't prepared." The reason is simple, these stories of massive fines, whether accurate or not, directly affect the area's reputation and by extension their tourist trade. If the fear of massive bills, or the dislike of the system end up deterring even 1 or 2 percent of possible visitors from going how much will that cost local businesses in revenue? How many families would need to be discouraged from vacationing in the area before the loss of revenue to surrounding towns outweighs the $70k or so that they have supposedly collected in reimbursement for rescues? A few dozen maybe? My point is that I really think they are short-sightedly biting themselves in the ass.
I'll again remind you of my armchair quarterback status.Oh, I agree to some extent. But, then again, I don't completely oppose civil recovery in some cases. Sometimes arrogance and total disregard should be rewarded with a bill. But ultimately, I'd rather see S&R funded out of a combination of tax appropriations, camping/trail parking fees, etc., as opposed to purely added fees on fishing/hunting licenses and boat and ORV registrations and such. But then the hikers that already complain about AMC campground fees will surely complain about that. They'd complain about trail camping fees if they existed. Or even any rules that constrain their freedom to do as they damn well please. Meanwhile the Legislature will spin the costs of any absurdly small added tax revenue to supplement S&R and avoid a PR problem with tourism into a frenzy with the taxpayers. At some point, it's a no win. Both sides refuse to compromise [reminds one of national politics]. I'm just defending the law that was enacted given the realities that exist.
Water Rat
10-13-2015, 19:09
Sadly, many who should be reading the signs are too busy having their picture taken next to the signs to read them. That way they can send them to their friends as if to say "look where I am!" Look how many warning labels are all over everything we buy - It is because of the people who want to be compensated when they do not pay attention/use common sense and then get hurt. The labels are there because someone did it, and these signs are posted because people still think the worst can't happen to them. Unfortunately, many people seem to need to learn the hard way instead of familiarizing themselves before the try something new.
I don't think there are any easy solutions and I have no issues with supporting their hike safe card. I am not likely to need it, but feel that $25.00 is not out of the question for helping to support SAR services. Shoot - Most people spend more than that to go to the movies (I have not set foot in a theater in over 15yrs) and this card is good for a year! That $25.00 buys me a lot of entertainment time in NH! Doesn't mean it is fool-proof (pun absolutely intended), but it helps decrease the likelihood of being billed for a rescue and might even get them to take another look at the case before just willy-nilly billing me. Then again, if I ever put myself in that position I am not about to put a price tag on what my life is worth to me.
This past weekend was no exception in NH... I was sent this link just this morning. Only one group out of these 6 cases is getting billed for their rescue. I think the wife is chalking it up to educational expenses and seriously doubt they will ever make that mistake again.
http://www.wmur.com/escape-outside/family-of-four-to-be-billed-for-mountain-rescue/35800902?utm_source=Social&utm_medium=FBPAGE&utm_campaign=WMUR-TV&Content%20Type=Story
imscotty
10-13-2015, 20:33
To those who are thinking "why should I care, I bought my hiker card and to heck with those who weren't prepared." The reason is simple, these stories of massive fines, whether accurate or not, directly affect the area's reputation and by extension their tourist trade. If the fear of massive bills, or the dislike of the system end up deterring even 1 or 2 percent of possible visitors from going how much will that cost local businesses in revenue? How many families would need to be discouraged from vacationing in the area before the loss of revenue to surrounding towns outweighs the $70k or so that they have supposedly collected in reimbursement for rescues? A few dozen maybe? My point is that I really think they are short-sightedly biting themselves in the ass.
I'll again remind you of my armchair quarterback status.
Could it be that NH is going after more lucrative segments of the tourism market. Lets face it, the families going to 'Santa's Village' are leaving behind more dollars than hikers sleeping in the woods.
One of the fastest growing tourist segments in the North country seems to be the 'Ride the Wilds' ATV riders. This seems to have expanded significantly over the past few years. I don't know if the ATV'ers are being billed for their rescues when they are negligent (read the weekly papers up there, they are filled with stories). But I suppose when things happen on ATV trails, it is pretty easy and inexpensive to pick up the bodies.
Offshore
10-14-2015, 06:54
Could it be that NH is going after more lucrative segments of the tourism market. Lets face it, the families going to 'Santa's Village' are leaving behind more dollars than hikers sleeping in the woods.
That's a great point. I would expect that if the groups that represent the hospitality and tourism industry in NH (or any other state with SAR cost recovery laws) felt that this law would adversely affect tourism, it never would have seen the light of day. Most of the cost of a hiking vacation is probably equipment and transportation to the locale - most of which is not spent at the destination. Once arrived, what is a hiker really spending money on? Some food, a fuel canister or two and maybe a night in a motel. Just not that big of an economic impact. Just look at this site - many of the posts are about how to minimize expenses!
Which is why the HikeSafe program/policy started. Well over 50% of S&R expenditures were spent on hikers, all funded by taxes on hunting/fishing licenses and boat and ORV registrations. S&R is not funded under general tax appropriations in NH due to state Constitutional law. So the HikeSafe program was started as a kind of "voluntary tax" on hikers, along with charging those deemed negligent, to fund S&R revenue shortfalls.
Worth noting that responsible hunters and ORV users are being forced to pay for negligent hunters and fishermen too.
In NH everyone seems to be OK with that.
They are also OK with paying for negligent people in high risk sports (winter mountaineering etc) who cover their financial asses by buying on of these cards.
Very odd when you have you about it.
Sarcasm the elf
10-14-2015, 08:40
Could it be that NH is going after more lucrative segments of the tourism market. Lets face it, the families going to 'Santa's Village' are leaving behind more dollars than hikers sleeping in the woods.
One of the fastest growing tourist segments in the North country seems to be the 'Ride the Wilds' ATV riders. This seems to have expanded significantly over the past few years. I don't know if the ATV'ers are being billed for their rescues when they are negligent (read the weekly papers up there, they are filled with stories). But I suppose when things happen on ATV trails, it is pretty easy and inexpensive to pick up the bodies.
I made the point specifically because of the list of rescues performed over the holiday weekend. The family that was reportedly charged were tourists out for a day hike, as were most of the the people needing assistance. When I've been up there in good weather most of the hikers I see are day hikers who are out having a little adventure as part of their larger vacation. Presumably these folks have a hotel room in town and are probably hitting up the outlet stores and tourist attractions as well.
Traveler
10-14-2015, 09:06
Worth noting that responsible hunters and ORV users are being forced to pay for negligent hunters and fishermen too.
In NH everyone seems to be OK with that.
They are also OK with paying for negligent people in high risk sports (winter mountaineering etc) who cover their financial asses by buying on of these cards.
Very odd when you have you about it.
Unfortunately the Safe Hiker card does not protect one against negligence or recklessness, as stated in the Fish and Game website. For example, the State (or the "professional") has made hiking an act of negligence, which the Safe Hiker card would not protect the owner. This is why it may be a better idea to use an access system much as Washington State or the National Park/Forest systems use that supports SAR efforts and everyone accessing State Park or Forest lands would contribute to annually.
Slo-go'en
10-14-2015, 10:22
It was a busy holiday weekend which resulted in these rescues. Actually, not too many considering the number of people out.
A family who left a trail head at 3 pm last Saturday and had planned to complete the hike that afternoon, but didn't, found out their cell phone wasn't a very good flashlight so they called for help instead. They will be getting a bill for services rendered.
A 24 yr old dropped dead on the trail climbing Lincoln and there were two incidents on the Ammonoosuc trial on Mt Washington. One sprained ankle and a woman who became suddenly ill, but slowly got better and was able to eventually hike down on her own.
Surprisingly, there were no reports of ATV accidents for the holiday weekend. Usually there are 3-4 of those a week around here with people smashing their ATV into a tree and breaking bones.
Unfortunately the Safe Hiker card does not protect one against negligence or recklessness, as stated in the Fish and Game website. For example, the State (or the "professional") has made hiking an act of negligence, which the Safe Hiker card would not protect the owner. This is why it may be a better idea to use an access system much as Washington State or the National Park/Forest systems use that supports SAR efforts and everyone accessing State Park or Forest lands would contribute to annually.
To my reading the Hike Safe Card absolutely does protect one who is "negligent". I expect that "reckless" may be very different in law.
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2014/HB0256.pdf
If I am righ about that, the state has decided that if you were forced to buy a fishing liscence or hunting liscence or register an ORV or buy a "Hike Safe Card" then they are OK with bearing the financial burdon of your negligence.
It seems odd that the state of NH would charge responsible hunters, fishermen and snowmobile riders to pay for the negligence of those who are not.
4eyedbuzzard
10-14-2015, 15:08
Unfortunately the Safe Hiker card does not protect one against negligence or recklessness, as stated in the Fish and Game website. For example, the State (or the "professional") has made hiking an act of negligence, which the Safe Hiker card would not protect the owner. This is why it may be a better idea to use an access system much as Washington State or the National Park/Forest systems use that supports SAR efforts and everyone accessing State Park or Forest lands would contribute to annually.An issue here is that, by law and agreement, all S&R in NH is coordinated and performed by NH Fish and Game, including rescues in White Mountain National Forest, which account for many of the hiker rescues. Most (not all) S&R nationally is done by state and local agencies, even those rescues that occur on federal lands. It's a complicated issue logistically.
While no one wants to discourage people from calling for help, rescues are expensive (especially so when helicopters/aircraft or large search parties are involved), and someone has to pay for those resources. Some think the person taking the risk should pay, either thru fees or recovery; some think that it should always be a cost borne by society in general; others favor a compromise such as NH is trying to establish. So it's a complicated issue politically as well.