NH search & rescue fees?

[Geoff]

New Hampshire House Bill 1648-FN

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/billtext.aspx?billnumber=HB1648.html

This bill allows the fish and game department to recover the cost of search and rescue responses from persons who negligently require search and rescue services. The department is authorized to suspend the driver’s license and other licenses of a person failing to pay.

Live Free or Die

 

[riverc0il]

I read a newspaper article yesterday on the subject which suggested that the current law is very hard to use against negligent outdoors people. It is so vague and subjective that only the most extreme cases have been acted upon.

I think such laws should be somewhat subjective as no law is going to be able to cover all circumstances. There is a lot of gray area concerning what is reasonable risk versus what is reckless behavior. From what I understand, the law is not meant to be used against people who get hurt while in the outdoors through no fault of their own...i.e. twisting, spraining, breaking something while hiking or doing reasonable activities. The fines are meant to be utilized against those that go out completely unprepared under circumstances that knowledgable/veteran outdoors people would advise against.

Problem with volunteers is there are some services that people can not volunteer such as helicopters. Volunteers may not have all the time, know how, gear, etc. to get the job done. Personally, I feel if we are talking about human life, I would like to see some resources being utilized to assist troubled outdoors people when it becomes apparent they will not likely walk out on their own.

Any ways, I see nothing wrong with the current proposal to make it easier to bill outdoors people for their rescue. Goodness knows if something should happen to me like a broken leg while in the BC (something that this law is not designed to levy a fine for), I like to know that rescue efforts would be made. I would probably offer to assist with rescue payment even without a fine. Someone should pay for rescue efforts, why not the person being rescued pending it was negligence and not a simple accident?

 

[MichaelJ]

Actually, a portion of this law has been around for several years and despite horrid public criticism of it, it's actually been used rather sparingly and reasonably. The recovery methods and tie-to-drivers-license are new.

To my knowledge, those publicized rescue cases where it was going to be applied, almost anyone would agree it was correct to. In a bunch of cases, some like that and some that could be argued either way, the rescued individual has offered to make a donation to F&G and avoided the legal issue altogether.

If you are hiking in the mountains and get lost *because* you don't have map, gps, or compass, then yes, you're negligent for causing a several-thousand-dollar rescue effort to be mounted because you didn't carry a simple, essential item. In your lightning strike case, well, when the bad weather popped up did you turn back or try to get down or were stuck up there, or did you keep going up and intentionally expose yourself? That's where the judgment comes in.

The problem was/is a rash of people heading up into NH with sneakers, jeans, a cell phone, and no preparation. Unfortunate, but I'd still rather a fee for rescue than gates and checkpoints at the trailheads.

The fire dept will put the fire out, but the ambulance will still charge you if you need it. Plus, the majority of hikers in the Whites aren't paying NH taxes.

 

[Marc]

I got in trouble once for intentionally exposing myself.

 

[ctenidae]

The sticky bit is if they define negligence as not taking "all reasonable measures" or "all measures." If it's "all reasonable", then you can still get out on the "shit happens" rule. If it's "all possible," then you're SOL, since if you need to be rescued, you clearly didn't take all possible precautions.

 

[ctenidae]

I got in trouble once for intentionally exposing myself.

Only once?

 

[Marc]

I only got in trouble for it once.

 

[Marc]

The sticky bit is if they define negligence as not taking "all reasonable measures" or "all measures." If it's "all reasonable", then you can still get out on the "shit happens" rule. If it's "all possible," then you're SOL, since if you need to be rescued, you clearly didn't take all possible precautions.

Yeah, with such vague language, this could lead to cases decided by the talent of the lawyers involved and not the intention of the law.

 

[dmc]

I still wonder what they would do if they came to rescue me and I refused...

"ummm... sorry... Still haven't given up getting myself out of this situation... But THANKS for laying tracks out here.."

 

[Marc]

I still wonder what they would do if they came to rescue me and I refused...

"ummm... sorry... Still haven't given up getting myself out of this situation... But THANKS for laying tracks out here.."

My guess is they'd shadow you until you got yourself out or ran out of gas.

 

[powers]

Correct me if I'm wrong...

....But I think in Colorado you can get a hunting license and have your rescue paid for. It think it would be great for NH. 1. The fish cops would get funding they typically would not have, especially since the amount of new licenses has been steadily dropping over the past decade. 2. Stupid people tend to learn better if it ends up costing more money. How much is a tank of jet fuel for a helicopter these days? Think how much it costs to get in to the areas we ski, either by copter or cat. It seems that most of the rescues that have been made this year are because people made bad choices to begin with and were not prepared for the worst, mostly by not watching the weather reports. BC 101. "What is the weather going to do?".

 

[dmc]

My guess is they'd shadow you until you got yourself out or ran out of gas.

I'd be eating power bars.... they make me gassy....

 

[campgottagopee]

I'd be eating power bars.... they make me gassy....

No anal leakage i hope

 

[dmc]

No anal leakage i hope

um... yeah... that would suck.. I carry TP...

 

[campgottagopee]

um... yeah... that would suck.. I carry TP...

See, I knew you were smarter than me....dang

 

[riverc0il]

I got in trouble once for intentionally exposing myself.

I did too a while back... my mom and dad kicked my ass for it. Ten year olds these days :lol:

 

[GrilledSteezeSandwich]

I think the taxpayers should pay for search and rescues..

 

[sledhaulingmedic]

This so subjective .. no description of what would be considered being negligent. I would think anyone getting lost could be considered negligent for not having a compass., GPS or map with them. I guess the decision would fall back on what is "reasonable". How a BC skier who likes the steep stuff and needs rescue will his actions be considered negligent for taking risk that most of the general population would not even consider. How about free climbers? I am hiking and bad weather suddenly pops up in the summer and I am stuck by lightning .. am I negligent for not considering the possible weather conditions before I left for my hike? You can see where i am going with this .. I "love" subjective laws .. someone gets to analyze after the fact what I should have done something different.

OK, there is some subjectivity. Philosophical/rhetorical question: Where do you draw the line?

How about this? The government isn't responsible for finding you if you become lost.

"My wife, whose been having afairs with the mailman, milkman, oildelivery guy and paperboy went hiking yesterday in -20F in spandex shorts and and a sports bra and hasn't come back." The problem with your logic is that yo're assuming that every SAR mission is the result of stupidity or crap luck on the part of the subject/victim. A missing person is considered a criminal matter.

If people want to be volunteers to be rescuers to find lost people that's find but no one should be compelled to do so but if it's in your job description, if the government decided to take on this task, I am already paying for this service through taxes.

The government provides part of this service, as funded by our taxes. The bulk of the grunt level mnpower is provided by volunteers. Vollunteer SAR groups respond only when authorized by the Authority having Juristiction (generally F&G in NH). This volunteer effort keeps our taxes lower.

What's next .. I am stupid and I set my house on fire so someone determines that I could pay out of pocket the fire department expense for putting the fire out. I believe that's why I pay taxes to the town already.

What if it was stupid to the point of criminal negligance? Maybe I'm just hypersensity to the fact that stupidity is my job security, but I don't see a problem with people being held accountable for their actions. As an example, we had a grandparent call 911 today from the upper part of the mountain because his granddaughter was scared.:roll:

I know there's a grey area, but stupid is usually jet black.

 

[Geoff]

I think the taxpayers should pay for search and rescues..

I guess New Hampshire could jack up their toll prices again for out-of-staters. If you have a New Hampshire EZPass transponder, you already get a discount and they could keep that rate the same. New Hampshire doesn't have a state income or sales tax so I don't quite understand where you think the money is coming from.

 

[kickstand]

As an example, we had a grandparent call 911 today from the upper part of the mountain because his granddaughter was scared.

wow.......that's pretty frickin bad......