The cost of hiking in New Hampshire could be pretty high.

[Offshore]

So the Hike Safe card seems like a good deal. Just like insurance, it covers gross negligence, but not intentional recklessness. It's not real insurance - but for $35 for a family, it's something.

I climb often in the Whites and I will buy it to support SAR readiness. I hope I will never need them, but I like knowing they are there.

When I go, I carry the recommended gear and try to exercise reasonable care. I carry enough gear to effect a self-rescue under expect conditions. If I can't rescue myself, I'd rely on SAR and hope that they would find me well-equipped and properly trained, but just unlucky.

In this specific case, the defendant should have just paid the $9,500 bill as it is also a good deal for the services he got. We are not talking about an astronomical sum - work out a payment plan.

You can also buy insurance policies for a less than $200 a year that cover you in these situations.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

SPOT offers the GEOS member rescue benefit that covers up to 2 responses per year for $50K each ($100K annual limit) as a $17.95 add-on on their service plans. GEOS itself now has a new plan that covers up to $100K per incident with an annual limit of $100K for $24.95, although this is not shown currently on the SPOT web site. It looks as if you can buy this plan directly from GEOS http://www.geosalliance.com/geos-ser...ch-and-rescue/ It's pretty much worldwide coverage with the exception of a few global hot spots like Somalia and Iraq. You need to activate the SAR response via a GEOS approved device or satellite phone, which include SPOT, DeLorme inReach, or Iridium. For under $20, its a no-brainer if you happen to use a SPOT or inReach.

[magneto]

SPOT offers the GEOS member rescue benefit that covers up to 2 responses per year for $50K each ($100K annual limit) as a $17.95 add-on on their service plans. GEOS itself now has a new plan that covers up to $100K per incident with an annual limit of $100K for $24.95, although this is not shown currently on the SPOT web site. It looks as if you can buy this plan directly from GEOS http://www.geosalliance.com/geos-ser...ch-and-rescue/ It's pretty much worldwide coverage with the exception of a few global hot spots like Somalia and Iraq. You need to activate the SAR response via a GEOS approved device or satellite phone, which include SPOT, DeLorme inReach, or Iridium. For under $20, its a no-brainer if you happen to use a SPOT or inReach.

I agree - I have and use an InReach with GEOS service. It's great and it's never failed to work. They have a policy that costs about $90 a year - I'm going to check it out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Offshore]

I agree - I have and use an InReach with GEOS service. It's great and it's never failed to work. They have a policy that costs about $90 a year - I'm going to check it out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

inReach has a 2 claims of $50K/year for $18 plan through GEOS just like SPOT. The higher inReach $99 plan is for medical evacuation in the US ($120 internationally). Personally, the medevac plan strikes me as overkill for domestic use. They aren't going to move you unless you are stable, and for the worst cases, SAR would probably be transporting to the nearest available trauma center anyway. Anything else is pretty run of the mill - its not like choosing a hospital to be treated for cancer. The medevac would be worth considering for foreign adventures, but before signing up, I'd check to see if my credit card would cover this if I used it to buy airline tickets for the trip.

[Lyle]

I realize that the location was a bit inconvenient--about 6 miles from a road--but do you really need 15 employees and 30+ volunteers to make such a rescue? The trail is relatively sheltered (below tree line) approaching from the south, and the trail down from the ridge (past Liberty Springs Campground) was in good condition when I hiked it last year. I realize it would be a PITA to get that person down, but I would think that a team of 6-8 could do it.

This is the real danger in this type of charge. Padding the books to exorbitant levels to make said books look good and to justify a lot of jobs. Doesn't help that this is an easy way for the state to make some money.

It was obviously done a few years ago with the young hiker who got charged $27,000 (or some such number) for the SAR to walk him from Mt. Washington down the mountain - no "rescue" involved, mostly just a lot of bureaucrats charging overtime for the volunteers to do their job.

I will just avoid hiking in NH. Decided that a couple of years ago during that fiasco.

[peakbagger]

Although I expect it wont change any minds, the charges aren't padded. If anyone has ever been pallbearer at a funeral, think of hauling potentally a similar load down a 3 to 4 foot wide trail that is a heck of lot more orugh and rocky then a walk down a church aisle and down a few steps. The litter carriers end up walking in the brush and rocks off to the side of the trail and unlike a casket, the participant is injured and therefore the litter has to be kept somewhat level if at all possible. In order to give folks a rest there are multiple teams sent out for the rescue and they switch off. The more crews, the faster they can haul out the patient. Most are volunteers but NHF&G has to coordinate crews at the trailhead as well as lead the initial search and the litter carry. NH F&G work incredible hours so rescues are typically overtime as they usually have been working all day. Only the actual expenses are billed so the volunteers are not billed. Their aren't a lot of volunteers as they usually get a call late in the evening on a weekend to drop what they are doing and show up not knowing what they are in for. They pay for all their own gear and training.

With respect to the boy scout rescue a few years back, the majority of the costs were for a helicopter. The air national guard used to supply a helicopter for free under a training budget but only if they were available and I have heard that that budget no longer exists. The boy scout went solo hiking in winter like conditions in a high risk area. He may not have gotten on his cell phone and asked for a helicopter but I expect his parents sitting at the base of the mountain did and they probably didn't care what it cost. Thus the majority of the charges were for helicopter time in risky conditions and labor costs. I don't think it appropriate to do a cost benefit analysis to determine the extent of a rescue.

The NH legislature has told NH F&G to bill for rescues and they have complied, they don't have a lot of choice as if the elect to absorb the costs they have to lay off folks, they perpetually run short staffed due to budget costs.

The great part of pay for rescue is that for some folks they decide never to hike in NH again. Its not like we are going to miss them and hikers typically don't spend much money while they are here. Given that the whites are effectively the Boston National Park, the economy will do quite well without a couple of disgruntled posters on an internet site. AMC's huts are basically booked solid by this time of the season and if they doubled the size of the huts they could fill them, I am not a fan of them but many are and they vote with their credit card. The local tourist businesses will take a truck load of ATV folks or snowmachine folks over a bus load of hikers as hikers don't spend much. Both ATVer and snowmachiners pay into the S&R fund as part of their registration fees (which are not cheap) and they spend a heck of a lot more money while in town. On any given weekend every motel in Gorham is full of ATV folks and the parking lots of restaurants have as many ATVs as cars. Thru hikers tend to stay at hostels and go for the AYCE chinese buffet or cook up feast in the kitchen at Hikers Paradise. Hunters and fisherman also pay into the fund. They pay the same room and meals taxes as hikers do. So it comes down to is it fair to ask hikers to pay to play with a hike safe card since the majority of the other outdoor users do? In the scheme of things the typical Boston dayhiker is going to spend as much in gas and post hiker meal and drinks in one trip as the cost of a pass.

[rickb]

Better to charge for all rescues, than just the ones the state (at a given moment of time) finds problematic.

[egilbe]

This is the real danger in this type of charge. Padding the books to exorbitant levels to make said books look good and to justify a lot of jobs. Doesn't help that this is an easy way for the state to make some money.

It was obviously done a few years ago with the young hiker who got charged $27,000 (or some such number) for the SAR to walk him from Mt. Washington down the mountain - no "rescue" involved, mostly just a lot of bureaucrats charging overtime for the volunteers to do their job.

I will just avoid hiking in NH. Decided that a couple of years ago during that fiasco.

Consider it a stupid tax. "Stupidity should be like electricity. A little will hurt you, a lot should kill you"