N.H. toughens up its negligent hiker laws

[Don Rearic]

To lighten the mood around here (though I have found this discussion to be very interesting), I would like to point out that Don Rearic, normally a bastion of traditionalism, has given us a parable about a bling pig.


All the best,

- Mike

Mike, I'm innocent! I only conveyed the message from my Brother! Innocent I say!

 

[j williams]

There is a flight service here that did something to help defray the cost of people who abuse their service and dont pay.

They sell memberships to their service. A monthly fee, that to its members, should they need the service, it is free. Might be a way to do this, have memberships to SAR service. We spend ALOT of money on gear, why not on something like this. If you are an avid outdoorsman, I can see this as a good idea, and if you never need the srvice, then all the monthly fees will help defray costs of those who did need the service, legitimate or not, and didnt pay.

I think all people in SAR, fire, Law, and EMS, should be paid. You are paying them for a skill that they a have spent alot of time and money aquiring. Volunteers are angels, whether they are glory hounds not. They are out doing what they love, when they are sick, or around someone elses schedule. Think about it. They drop everything in their personal life to awnser a call. Just my opinion, from someone who hauls dumbasses to the hospital who have no medicaid, or insurance, and will never pay the bill, yet are always THE FIRST to call for help. It gets frustating on our end.

 

[Don Rearic]

There is a flight service here that did something to help defray the cost of people who abuse their service and dont pay.

They sell memberships to their service. A monthly fee, that to its members, should they need the service, it is free. Might be a way to do this, have memberships to SAR service. We spend ALOT of money on gear, why not on something like this. If you are an avid outdoorsman, I can see this as a good idea, and if you never need the srvice, then all the monthly fees will help defray costs of those who did need the service, legitimate or not, and didnt pay.

That's actually a cool idea.

I think all people in SAR, fire, Law, and EMS, should be paid. You are paying them for a skill that they a have spent alot of time and money aquiring. Volunteers are angels, whether they are glory hounds not. They are out doing what they love, when they are sick, or around someone elses schedule. Think about it. They drop everything in their personal life to awnser a call. Just my opinion, from someone who hauls dumbasses to the hospital who have no medicaid, or insurance, and will never pay the bill, yet are always THE FIRST to call for help. It gets frustating on our end.

I don't care why a person becomes SAR Personnel. I don't care if they want the adulation and whatever "cool factor" or "glamor" or "glory" comes from it. I don't care if they want the adrenaline rush. I do find it telling when someone says they are in it for the altruistic aspects of it and state they are not in it for the "prestige" or whatever certain cache it holds for them but then goes on to say that most people they rescue are stupid and even abusive. Seems sort of screwy to me. If you're in it to help people then you have to take the bad with the good and when the bad outweighs the good, YOU QUIT. If it's truly altruism you want to involve yourself in, go work in a soup kitchen and dole out food and toiletries to the homeless! But that isn't cool, is it?

 

[timcsaw]

We got enough crap going on without people advocating confiscation of houses for this sort of thing.

As for heat with timcsaw, like I posted, when I told him to go shit in his hat, I was laughing, not screaming at him.

Again, as far as I am aware, no one's house has ever been in jeopardy under the laws old standard of "recklessness". As noted in one of my previous posts;

"In the past decade, more than $1 million has been spent on rescues but only about $25,000 has been recovered from reckless hikers."

The old standard (IMO) was correct. The new standard of "negligent" is not.

Even now that the law has changed it's standard (again, I disagree with the new standard), it seems that the state is not being unreasonable with it's charges... is not trying to take peoples houses... no debtor's prison... no "tag(ing) anyone they want with an astronomical bill."... no Draconian response... no evidence that they are "milking it like a cow".

Four cases are being reviewed under the new standard (which may or may not end in fee's being payed by the victim). Under the old standard of "reckless" some of these four might have also met that standard.

The cases being reviewed include:
--Nicola Taylor of Milford, a 45-year-old who allegedly was "highly intoxicated," officials said, when she walked away from her site at the Dry River Campground in Crawford Notch State Park Aug. 1. Cost to the state: $607.75.

--Michael Castiello and Dane Izzo Jr., both 20, of Massachusetts. Authorities said they were intoxicated and wandered away from their Hidden Valley Campground site in Derry on Sept. 21. They used their cell phone to call 911. Cost to the state: $377.07.

--Nan Yang, 30, and Christine Hou, 35, of Massachusetts had to be rescued Oct. 4 off the Liberty Spring Trail in Franconia Notch after they separated from their party, had no lights or equipment and used their cell phones to call for help, said Garabedian. Cost to the state: $197.38.

--On Nov. 2, Charson Lin, 32, of New York City, and Ying Yu, 25 of Cambridge, Mass. were near Mount Cardigan with no gear, no flashlight but had a cell phone. Cost to the state: $510.33.

Does all of the information above ensure that the state will always exercise the same kind of restraint under the new standard in the future?

No. To me that IS the problem... the law should have been left alone. The old standard of "reckless" was sufficient.

As for heat with timcsaw, like I posted, when I told him to go shit in his hat, I was laughing, not screaming at him.

It is regrettable that Don Rearic got "heat"ed up over this. It was never my intent to anger him so.

 

[j williams]

That's actually a cool idea.



I don't care why a person becomes SAR Personnel. I don't care if they want the adulation and whatever "cool factor" or "glamor" or "glory" comes from it. I don't care if they want the adrenaline rush. I do find it telling when someone says they are in it for the altruistic aspects of it and state they are not in it for the "prestige" or whatever certain cache it holds for them but then goes on to say that most people they rescue are stupid and even abusive. Seems sort of screwy to me. If you're in it to help people then you have to take the bad with the good and when the bad outweighs the good, YOU QUIT. If it's truly altruism you want to involve yourself in, go work in a soup kitchen and dole out food and toiletries to the homeless! But that isn't cool, is it?

I agree man, that is a factor in this line of work, regardless of what people say. I bitch about stupid people all the time though, just because I have to take the good with the bad, doesnt mean I have to be happy about it.

 

[Don Rearic]

Again, as far as I am aware, no one's house has ever been in jeopardy under the laws old standard of "recklessness".

Sylvan Learning Center...

It is regrettable that Don Rearic got "heat"ed up over this. It was never my intent to anger him so.

Tim, see a therapist.

 

[Thomas Linton]

OK, This is making no sense.

I believe laws such as this are restrictive, subjective and do nothing to prevent an idiot from requiring assistance.

Of course, many (most?) laws are "restrictive." They attempt to control behavior in some fashion. (And not just in obvious ways. They may also restrict behavior in untargeted ways. $$ paid to the G for fines [or taxes] restricts spending it on other things.).

In this case, requiring reimbursement of F&G rescue costs after the fact -- standing alone -- does not seem to be a well-crafted method of changing "negligent" behavior, any more than the death penalty seems designed to restrict murderous behavior. The clueless will still be the clueless.

Requiring folks to pass some "test" to enter the wilderness (Not sure how that could be done.) would be far more "restrictive," like the federal land use fees that have been in place for over thirty years. (1968: "I have to pay to use the Park?")

This law seems a straightforward design to recover money, like all the other rescue cost-recovery regulations already in place for years. And most of those are no-fault. (You needed the heli ride; you pay.)

Subjective? Sure. Many (most?) laws are subjective in some way. "Negligence" in civil law or a criminal statute usually has an element of subjectivity. "Reasonable" = ? "Good faith effort" = ? "Knowingly" usually means getting inside your head to determine unexpressed thoughts. Still, you probably want the right to sue the guy who lost control on the ice, went LOC, and broke thirty-seven bones in your bod.

As for laws accomplishing a goal of preventing idiotic behavior, good luck. But still, society tries -- or pretends to try.

What really troubles me is the notion that the Director of F&G will be making these decisions. (That would be like selecting 6 or 8 or 12 people off the street at random to decide if I was "negligently" driving a car. Oh, that's right. It's called a "jury." Actually, it's worse. The Director is certain to be not a "disinterested" person. The $$ go into his coffers at F&G.) And no provision for appeal that I can find.

A question. Do those who feel society should not pass along the costs of rescue on a usage-senstive basis (vs. set fines) feel that society has a duty of rescue?

And Don, not sure if you were being ironic, but life, of course, has a price. Otherwise, we would still have a 55 mph speed limit (10,000 lives/year) - and rubber cars. That's a thing government does - weighs lives vs. costs.

 

[Don Rearic]

...any more than the death penalty seems designed to restrict murderous behavior. The clueless will still be the clueless.

That's true, but at the very least capital punishment is a specific deterrent. The person executed doesn't do it again.

And Don, not sure if you were being ironic, but life, of course, has a price. Otherwise, we would still have a 55 mph speed limit (10,000 lives/year) - and rubber cars. That's a thing government does - weighs lives vs. costs.

I know for some time Montana and Nevada (IIRC) had areas that were like the Autobahn, speed dictated by driving conditions, weather, etc. I don't know if they still have it. As for the rest of the country, it's 60, 65 and 70. I'm sure some areas might be different but that is what I have observed in Maryland, Virginia and West Virginia and at those speeds, it doesn't really make that much difference. While we're not likely to see rubber cars ( ) even a head-on crash with both vehicles traveling at the low speed of 25MPH is like one of the vehicles hitting something solid at 50MPH...

We have been all over the place in this thread with comparisons to drunk driving and speeding and the rest of it. I think the bulletin board is a good idea along with the pamphlets that most parks have printed. Perhaps right along with the Poison Sumac, Ivy and Oak warnings, snake warnings and the list of prohibited items there should be a list of things prudent people should carry, etc. I think that's a good idea.

 

[Thomas Linton]

That's true, but at the very least capital punishment is a specific deterrent. The person executed doesn't do it again.

I have pointed that fact out as well. 0% recidivism amongst the executed. But we know it's revenge. CP is not cost-effective even compared to life in solitary confinement.

As for driving offenses, I merely wanted to respond to your suggestion -- again perhaps ironic -- that life is beyond price.

I also like education as a tool. Thus Scouting, a federally-chartered educational program.

 

[timcsaw]

Sylvan Learning Center...

Not required... My authorship of 7 published books so far in my life might satisfy most literates, that reading, writing and comprehension are not a problem for me.

Tim, see a therapist.

Why? Because you've seemed to become angry again? Let it go Don.... I have.

 

[Bastid]

If you are unable to make a point without getting personal, maybe you should not post.
(Take the hint, or ignore it. The consequences are up to you.)

 

[timcsaw]

There is a flight service here that did something to help defray the cost of people who abuse their service and dont pay.

They sell memberships to their service. A monthly fee, that to its members, should they need the service, it is free. Might be a way to do this, have memberships to SAR service. We spend ALOT of money on gear, why not on something like this. If you are an avid outdoorsman, I can see this as a good idea, and if you never need the srvice, then all the monthly fees will help defray costs of those who did need the service, legitimate or not, and didnt pay.

I think all people in SAR, fire, Law, and EMS, should be paid. You are paying them for a skill that they a have spent alot of time and money aquiring. Volunteers are angels, whether they are glory hounds not. They are out doing what they love, when they are sick, or around someone elses schedule. Think about it. They drop everything in their personal life to awnser a call. Just my opinion, from someone who hauls dumbasses to the hospital who have no medicaid, or insurance, and will never pay the bill, yet are always THE FIRST to call for help. It gets frustating on our end.

A bit of "googleing" turned up something that might have merit... Some places offer "hiker's insurance" that can be bought for a reasonable price that would offset some of the SAR charges that someone might incur. Even insurance like this though seems to have some down sides... There is the fear that those who buy insurance will be more likely to act negligently. "Insured" hikers/climbers may have higher expectations of SAR because they feel they've already paid for their rescue... they would expect SAR to respond no matter what the conditions.

I also found (to my surprise), that more than a few Search and Rescue organizations do expect some level of payment IF gross negligence or illegal activity are involved.

It is comforting to find though, that NO SAR (I could find), makes it routine policy to charge for their services (that is, they don't have a fee schedule, nor do they want one).

This is an old debate... and I suspect it isn't going away any time soon.

 

[j williams]

Are those through private insurance companies, or do the premiums go to the orginization? Ive never heard of hikers insurane...

You are right, however I feel there is that self entitlement no matter what. We had to ground our ambulances during a horrible snow storm a few years ago, and you should have heard what people were saying. They were really mad that we woudnt get out in it to attend to their "Ive been sick for 3 days" BS. People think I have a magic wand that clears the weather just for my truck. If I had a nickel for every time Ive heard "I dont have gas money, so I called you" I would be a rich man!!

 

[timcsaw]

Are those through private insurance companies, or do the premiums go to the orginization? Ive never heard of hikers insurane...

You are right, however I feel there is that self entitlement no matter what. We had to ground our ambulances during a horrible snow storm a few years ago, and you should have heard what people were saying. They were really mad that we woudnt get out in it to attend to their "Ive been sick for 3 days" BS. People think I have a magic wand that clears the weather just for my truck. If I had a nickel for every time Ive heard "I dont have gas money, so I called you" I would be a rich man!!

It seems that most of the insurance for sale is from private companies... I did find one, the local rescue squad in Pagosa Springs CO, that sold hiking insurance recognized state wide for $5 for two years. It covered the costs of all ground based SAR and the first $3000 of a helicopter extraction.

 

[j williams]

Very neat idea.:thumbup:

 

[Ramm9]

The law states "reasonable costs" will be billed as determined by the department.

What I don't want to see is people like my Wife being denied access .... who will decide? Bureaucrats will, it won't be us and quite frankly after reading some people's thoughts on the subject at hand, I'm glad!

What really troubles me is the notion that the Director of F&G will be making these decisions. And no provision for appeal that I can find.

Most of us are beginning to read from the same page.

The charges and intentions of F&G seem reasonable...now.

Unfortunately should less level headed Bureaucrats take control anything is possible. Maybe a few test cases at reasonable cost to establish precedent and it's off to the races with really big costs.

This is an old debate... and I suspect it isn't going away any time soon.

Isn't that the truth!

The reality we may all be missing is that the NH law may not be "aimed" at hikers. The real intent may be to make it easier to recover costs from ski resorts for failing to police "off piste skiing", company's/organizations leading wilderness expeditions and the mountaineers....

 

[timcsaw]

Very neat idea.:thumbup:

Maybe they could pull all of those old Flight Insurance boxes out of the airports and install them at trail heads.

 

[Ramm9]

It seems that most of the insurance for sale is from private companies... I did find one, the local rescue squad in Pagosa Springs CO, that sold hiking insurance recognized state wide for $5 for two years. It covered the costs of all ground based SAR and the first $3000 of a helicopter extraction.

Sign me up!

There are also some reinsurance companies that specialize in "scuba", one of them starts at $70. I like $5 but not $70.

 

[j williams]

Maybe they could pull all of those old Flight Insurance boxes out of the airports and install them at trail heads.

:thumbup:

 

[Ramm9]

Maybe they could pull all of those old Flight Insurance boxes out of the airports and install them at trail heads.

Wow, I forgot all about those boxes...do they still exist?