NH , new laws regarding incompetent hikers

[MOWGLI]

How many lost hikers or SAR responders can dance on the head of a pin?

[woodsy]

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

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


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

-- by The Associated Press

Looks like they brought some dry kindling part way to the cabin but dumped it and other gear to lighten their loads

[The Scribe]

That sounds like the residents of New Hampshire. They pay taxes for a service they may never need. If they don't like it, they're free to leave.

New Hampshire = Live Free or Die.

Or at this time of the year, "Live, Freeze, or Die"

Spoken as a native.

[4eyedbuzzard]

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

Call it what you will. When a court orders you to pay a Reimbursement for Public Agency Response Services, it's a punitive fine in my book.

TITLE XII
PUBLIC SAFETY AND WELFARE

CHAPTER 153-A
EMERGENCY MEDICAL AND TRAUMA SERVICES

Reimbursement for Public Agency Response Services

Section 153-A:24

153-A:24 Responsibility for Public Agency Response Services. –
I. A person shall be liable for response expenses if, in the judgment of the court, such person:
(a) Negligently operates a motor vehicle, boat, off highway recreational vehicle, or aircraft while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage or controlled drug and thereby proximately causes any incident resulting in a public agency response;
(b) Takes another person or persons hostage or threatens to harm himself or another person, thereby proximately causing any incident resulting in an appropriate public agency response; or
(c) Recklessly or intentionally creates a situation requiring an emergency response.
II. A person's liability under this subdivision for response expenses shall not exceed $10,000 for any single public agency response incident.
Source. 1999, 345:6, eff. July 1, 1999.

[Wise Old Owl]

I knew someone would find it.

[Sly]

About 300 yards up the trail, the two realized they were carrying too much gear and dumped lightweight sleeping bags, kindling and other gear on the trail.


They made it to the cabin at about 3 p.m., "surprised to find that the cabin was not equipped with blankets or other amenities," even though the forest service Web site describes the cabin as "rustic," with those who use it expected to carry in their own bedding, food and water.


The teens were unable to get a fire started in the woodstove and cold and wet, they called for help at about 6 p.m.

LOL... too funny.

[rickb]

A transcript of the 911 call would probably be a real hoot.

The folks at SmokingGun probably do do NH, though.

[woodsy]

In summary:

I hope those who are more informed about rules and regs will take a closer look at their skills before they go out if they don't want to risk a costly rescue.

You do something stupid, you cannot "expect" society to pay for your blunder. Choices equal consequences. Choose bad, pay up.



If they want help bad enough, they'll pay for it. Maybe, if this were tried for a while, one might see wiser choices, less "help me I made a stupid choice"..."bail me out, out of the kindness of our nations/states/counties already limited resources".

.

It needs to be socially unacceptable to go out at 230PM, then punch 911 because it gets dark.

TSome folks have raised stupid to an art form. Yes, it is a matter of cost. The number of easily prevented rescues has increased while the cost of each rescue has increased. Something had to be done...NH was forced into this action. I'd like to see a lot more public awareness go with this change. I'd like people to know in advance that “stupid” will cost them. This change does not impact at all on prepared "**** happens" rescues.

With the new NH law, people will be much less likely to call 911, even if they need help. And that's a good thing. NH is trying to encourage people to be both more prepared and more self reliant. Many people that call for help are in situations that they can get out of without assistance.

Hopefully with this new law, people will only call 911 when they are in a truly life-threatening situation. Having to spend an unplanned night sleeping outside is NOT an emergency. Its inconvenient and uncomfortable.

As a resident of New Hampshire, I think this new rule is great.

In life, actions have consequences, and one pays for mistakes, especially stupid ones.

This should include stupid mistakes and decisions made while hiking.

Do something stupid and need a rescue and you're going to get fined. Don't pay and you're going to lose your license. What's so unreasonable about that?

Why should a person who doesn't assume the risk of the outdoors be forced to pay for anyone, whether they be prepared or not, who does? Climbing Mt Washington in the Winter is inherently dangerous.



And most certainly, why should we pay to help out our neighbor who is so stupid as to get lost in the woods due to no fault but his own!

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.

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

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.

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

There's no substitute for proper gear and the knowledge of how to use it.

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

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

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

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

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

But as other's have noted, getting into an emergency situation because you were reckless, and that may include grossly unprepared, or thought all you needed to hike was sneakers and a cell phone, is now likely to get you a fine.

.

The rational majority have spoken...
spread the word...

[woodsy]

woops, deleted duplicate post.

[makoboy]

In Colorado you are pretty much responsible for the cost of your S&R regardless of how prepared / unprepared or responsible / negilgent you were in getting yourself into a bad situation. Easy way around this is the S&R Fund system that CO has set up. You pay into the fund and become eligible for it to reimburse your S&R costs with every fishing or hunting license, snowmobile, boat or off road registration, you buy, or you can get it seperately (only $10.25).

[Sly]

In Colorado you are pretty much responsible for the cost of your S&R regardless of how prepared / unprepared or responsible / negilgent you were in getting yourself into a bad situation. Easy way around this is the S&R Fund system that CO has set up. You pay into the fund and become eligible for it to reimburse your S&R costs with every fishing or hunting license, snowmobile, boat or off road registration, you buy, or you can get it seperately (only $10.25).

Actually, CORSAR is only $3 a year but more like $5 when you buy it through an outfitter. They get $2 for signing you up.

http://dola.colorado.gov/dlg/fa/sar/sar_purchase.html

[makoboy]

Actually, CORSAR is only $3 a year but more like $5 when you buy it through an outfitter. They get $2 for signing you up.

http://dola.colorado.gov/dlg/fa/sar/sar_purchase.html

Your right, i quoted the cost of the Habitat Stamp by accident, which also includes S&R. But the point remains that the CO has developed a system that takes the burden of the expense off the shoulders of the public and puts it on those who are at risk of needing rescue, and for a small cost.

[JAK]

The problem is, we encourage reckless consumers, not competent citizens.

[emerald]

Maybe things are changing for the better. Everyone hike safe, okay? Ya'll hike safe down yonder too, ya heear? It's your responsibility.

www.hikesafe.com

[Sly]

Your right, i quoted the cost of the Habitat Stamp by accident, which also includes S&R. But the point remains that the CO has developed a system that takes the burden of the expense off the shoulders of the public and puts it on those who are at risk of needing rescue, and for a small cost.

Yup, it's a great program. I'm surprised more states don't implement it. However, under the guidelines it doesn't pay for medical transport. It would be nice if there was a separate program for that.

[Doctari]

My favorite stupid "Hiker" story, sorry if i don't have all the details exact:

A few years ago a couple was 'Mountain climbing" in a western state, They had an early version of a GPS, (the ones that just told you coordnates) & a cell phone. No map or clue.

Time passes.

Then they got tired / lost, called the local ranger station "we are tired & lost, how do we get to the top of the mountain from where we are?" they were given directions as best the ranger could based on minimal info & the GPS cords.

Time passes.

Them: "We are tired & lost come rescue us"
Ranger: "The summit is just a few hundred yards west or; Just turn around & follow the trail back down the way you came."
Them: "But we are tired, come rescue us!"
Ranger: "Just turn around & follow the trail back down the way you came. We don't do rescues for people just tired."
Them: "But we are tired, come rescue us! If you don't we will sue you!!!!!!!"
SO, at great expense, a helecoptor was sent to "rescue them", about 30 seconds after lifting off with the "Victims" they saw that they were indeed just a few yards from the summit & DEMANDED to be set down on it, THEN flew down the mountain. When the rescue drew refused they started screaming that the rescue crew was kidnapping them.
Needless to say the crew did not put them down on the mountain, & I do believe they were sent a bill for the full amount of the rescue. I never heard what became of that, but I do know that false accusations against a federal official carries a rather heavy penalty.

Having been on quite a few "bogus" 911 calls, I agree that those that enter the wilderness unprepared, especally like those mentioned above, should EXPECT to pay for a rescue.

Many voluteer rescue squads & members pay out of their own pockets to rescue usually ungrateful people. In 27 years as a firefighter / paramedic, I can count without taking my shoes off: the number of times I have been thanked for a rescue or 911 call. About 10 of those years were as a volunteer. Yet if I didn't do it (volunteer), some would have died. LW, do you REALLY want us to stop volunteering? I suspect not!

[sheepdog]

My favorite stupid "Hiker" story, sorry if i don't have all the details exact:

A few years ago a couple was 'Mountain climbing" in a western state, They had an early version of a GPS, (the ones that just told you coordnates) & a cell phone. No map or clue.

Time passes.

Then they got tired / lost, called the local ranger station "we are tired & lost, how do we get to the top of the mountain from where we are?" they were given directions as best the ranger could based on minimal info & the GPS cords.

Time passes.

Them: "We are tired & lost come rescue us"
Ranger: "The summit is just a few hundred yards west or; Just turn around & follow the trail back down the way you came."
Them: "But we are tired, come rescue us!"
Ranger: "Just turn around & follow the trail back down the way you came. We don't do rescues for people just tired."
Them: "But we are tired, come rescue us! If you don't we will sue you!!!!!!!"
SO, at great expense, a helecoptor was sent to "rescue them", about 30 seconds after lifting off with the "Victims" they saw that they were indeed just a few yards from the summit & DEMANDED to be set down on it, THEN flew down the mountain. When the rescue drew refused they started screaming that the rescue crew was kidnapping them.
Needless to say the crew did not put them down on the mountain, & I do believe they were sent a bill for the full amount of the rescue. I never heard what became of that, but I do know that false accusations against a federal official carries a rather heavy penalty.

Having been on quite a few "bogus" 911 calls, I agree that those that enter the wilderness unprepared, especally like those mentioned above, should EXPECT to pay for a rescue.

Many voluteer rescue squads & members pay out of their own pockets to rescue usually ungrateful people. In 27 years as a firefighter / paramedic, I can count without taking my shoes off: the number of times I have been thanked for a rescue or 911 call. About 10 of those years were as a volunteer. Yet if I didn't do it (volunteer), some would have died. LW, do you REALLY want us to stop volunteering? I suspect not!

Should have asked for a pizza too. Nothing helps a good rescue out like a nice pie and garlic bread. Maybe a couple cupichinos.

[JAK]

Maybe things are changing for the better. Everyone hike safe, okay? Ya'll hike safe down yonder too, ya heear? It's your responsibility.

www.hikesafe.com

That's a great link. Their gear list is good and their 10 essentials list is one of the more sensible variants I've seen...
http://www.hikesafe.com/index.php/pl...full_gear_list

I really like their Learn to Rescue Yourself approach...
http://www.hikesafe.com/index.php/pl..._to_do_if_lost

[Mags]

In Colorado you are pretty much responsible for the cost of your S&R regardless of how prepared / unprepared or responsible / negilgent you were in getting yourself into a bad situation

That is incorrect.

Much like NH, the Colorado authorities will generally not charge for you SAR *unless* you were negligent. Even them, the definition is pretty loose.

A friend of mine suffered from altitude sickness on a hut trip. (Can happen even to people used to altitude). He had to medivaced out. The guard unit who did the evac did not charge my friend because they have to get in so many training hours per year AND my friend was in this situation through no fault his own.

Finally, the CORSAR card is NOT insurance. This is the biggest misconception about the card.


From what I wrote earlier

Fro the CORSAR website:

The CORSAR Card Is Not Insurance

The card is not insurance and does not reimburse individuals nor does it pay for medical transport. Medical transport includes helicopter flights or ground ambulance. If aircraft are used as a search vehicle, those costs are reimbursed by the fund. If the aircraft becomes a medical transport due to a medical emergency, the medical portion of the transport is not covered.


SO..again, The CORSAR Card Is Not Insurance

Basically, it helps fund the rescues. The areas that get the most rescues also tend to also have the lowest taxe base and pay a higher percentage of their income for rescues than a wealthier county. The CORSAR funds helps fund the trainining, equipment and rescues from a general fund.

Think of it as a charitable donation card.

Basically, you will not get charged for an SAR *UNLESS* you did a bone-headed thing due to you not being prepared. I suspect there is more to his story than the article is saying.

When a friend of mine suffered from massive altitude sickness and had to be helicoptered out, he was not charged a dime. The local authorities have to get X amount of hours of training in per year and put the SAR towards that.

If my friend had worn blue jeans, did not have equipment, etc. he may have been charged. I believe New Hampshire works the same way now.

See http://www.dola.state.co.us/dlg/fa/s..._purchase.html for more details.

[Homer&Marje]

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



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

I have never whined, and never will complain about what I get charged to get permits, stay at a campground, campsite, shelter or hut.

As for me living in New Hampshire, I don't. Consider yourself lucky that you do. It's one of my absolute favorite places to go because it has done a good job of keeping many places pristine the way they should be. All's I was saying is that some amount of budgetary assessment should be done to allocate funds collected to fund S+R.

S+R comes with the territory of backcountry hiking, skiing, snowmobiling etc.... When you buy a house or a car, you get insurance. You may never use it, but you assume that your money is going to get you covered in the eventuality that something happens correct?