NH , new laws regarding incompetent hikers

[superman]

For the most part, we in NH agree to collectively pay for reasonable search and rescues. We choose not to pay for unreasonable search and rescues. We can do this because it's our money that is being spent. The other side of this is the risk to our citizens who perform the search and rescue. There is a risk factor for each search and rescue event and we do not want them to accept more risk than they need to.

[emerald]

I was the one on the thread who supplied the legal alternative to taking your chances in the campground.

Whether the alternative provided is legal won't be determined by the person who proposed it but rather by authorities in Pennsylvania charged with its enforcement. There may be room for interpretation by LEOs in the field and there are quite a number of regulations which apply.

Campers who respect the rules which apply in the campground aren't taking chances.

I would add all such references might be deleted as they have nothing whatsoever to do with this thread or New Hampshire. It's nothing more than the typical off-topic, off-thread, undisciplined discussion which detracts from the intended topic.

[zoidfu]

It's appears NH believes if you get in trouble due to no fault of your own, they'll pay the tab for the rescue, unlike if you wander drunk or unprepared into the woods.

Your alternative to not drinking in Pine Grove Furnace, was to either walked 3.7 miles or drive while drinking. That's reasonable? Maybe in your world.

No fault of your own? Like, if you get dropped off by kidnappers in the middle of the woods? It simply isn't logical.

I'm a hiker. 3.7 is an hour for me. I've walked further for Doyle fries. And driving from the gathering back to the campsite is obviously what I was getting at. Stay the night there, sleep it off and then meet up the next day. I thought that was pretty obvious... You're starting to piss me off.

[Ender]

No really, if I'm not mistaken, now all states have reciprocal laws concerning drivers licenses and such. For instance, you lose your license in MA you can't moved to NH to get one.

Huh... didn't know that. So, if NH pulls your liscense, MA (or CT or CA) would have to pull it on you? It could be that way, I just don't know the law well enough.

[zoidfu]

Whether the option offerred is legal won't be determined by the person who proposed it but rather by authorities in Pennsylvania charged with its enforcement. There is quite a bit of room for interpretation by LEOs in the field.

I would add all such references might be deleted as they have nothing whatsoever to do with this thread or New Hampshire. It's nothing more than the typical off-topic, off-thread WhiteBlaze baiting.

Go back and look at the laws. The only problem I see is the staying for more than one night. There is no ban on alcohol.

[zoidfu]

Whether the option offerred is legal won't be determined by the person who proposed it but rather by authorities in Pennsylvania charged with its enforcement. There is quite a bit of room for interpretation by LEOs in the field.

I would add all such references might be deleted as they have nothing whatsoever to do with this thread or New Hampshire. It's nothing more than the typical off-topic, off-thread WhiteBlaze baiting.

Tell it to the mod.

[Ender]

All the more reason they ought to know them and act accordingly.

Agreed!

[emerald]

Tell it to the mod.

I believe I just did and you repeated my original post twice.

[superman]

Huh... didn't know that. So, if NH pulls your liscense, MA (or CT or CA) would have to pull it on you? It could be that way, I just don't know the law well enough.

There used to be a tri state law that only apllied to three NE states but now it's been expanded greatly. I don't think it covers all states and all laws. It was spear headed for nabbing dead beat parents and DUIs but I believe it has gone much further. Since people are so mobile in this country the states have found that they need to work collectively on many issues.

[zoidfu]

I believe I just did.

Sorry, I thought that was directed at me too.

[Skyline]

In principle, I think the NH law is a good thing.

What I do not understand is how it is decided what was a "justified" S+R that will not involve a fee, and what is a "reckless" chargeable event? Who gets to decide? Is there a set of precise criteria being used, or is it up to individuals' whims on any given day?

There are certainly some obvious examples of each extreme. What about those that are in a gray area?

[rickb]

Not long ago sending your young kids out the back door to play in the woods with instructions to be back before dinner was good parenting.

Now the State would take those kids away from you for being so reckless with regard to their safety.

I am not so concerned about what criteria the Authorities might apply this year, but who knows how that criteria might evolve over time.

Some people think hiking alone is dangerous now.

[Slo-go'en]

In principle, I think the NH law is a good thing.

What I do not understand is how it is decided what was a "justified" S+R that will not involve a fee, and what is a "reckless" chargeable event?

Read the article. Getting drunk and then getting lost in the woods is considered reckless. Pushing on when you should have turned back is considered reckless. Putting yourself and others in danger for no good reason is reckless. Basically, its the tourists who leave thier brain and common sense at home which case the problem.

[Pokey2006]

In principle, I think the NH law is a good thing.

What I do not understand is how it is decided what was a "justified" S+R that will not involve a fee, and what is a "reckless" chargeable event? Who gets to decide? Is there a set of precise criteria being used, or is it up to individuals' whims on any given day?

There are certainly some obvious examples of each extreme. What about those that are in a gray area?

That's my big problem with this. There can be a fine line between "reasonable" and "unreasonable." What's reasonable to me may unreasonable to you.

Hypocritical of NH, which goes out of its way to attract unprepared tourists to its mountains, then complains when said unprepared tourists get into trouble. Eliminate the huts and you'll eliminate 95 percent of the morons out there in the mountains.

[Jack Tarlin]

Actually, Pokey, if you're talking about the AMC, if you look at ANY of their publications or guidebooks, especially regarding their huts and campsites, they very strongly suggest that folks carry maps and other essential items.

If people choose to ignore this, that's hardly the fault of the hiking clubs or groups in question.

[Pokey2006]

I'm not laying blame anywhere. I'm just sayin' that if you have a place that tries its darndest to attract people from all walks of life into the woods, then they need to be prepared for the consequences.

Now, I'm off to do something stupid of my own -- go hiking in the dark in the freezing cold. Hope I don't need to be rescued...oh, that's right, I'll be in Georgia, not NH...

Happy New Year!

[mudhead]

Interesting how this issue breaks down. Residents seem in favor.

When Maine decides to join the current century, I hope we have SAR payment plans. I won't mind paying for a valued service, should I need it.

[zoidfu]

What about the person who is "prepared" but still, due to idiocy or whatever, gets lost? It needs to be enforced across the board, no exceptions.

[zoidfu]

Actually, Pokey, if you're talking about the AMC, if you look at ANY of their publications or guidebooks, especially regarding their huts and campsites, they very strongly suggest that folks carry maps and other essential items.

If people choose to ignore this, that's hardly the fault of the hiking clubs or groups in question.

Carrying a map doesn't mean you know how to use it. You can carry a 100lbs survival kit- doesn't mean you won't get yourself into trouble. I've seen it, I'm sure you have.

At the risk of beating a dead horse, enforce it across the board. The "responsible" ones are the people who are costing the most money, anyway.

[superman]

What about the person who is "prepared" but still, due to idiocy or whatever, gets lost? It needs to be enforced across the board, no exceptions.

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