- Joined
- Mar 18, 2008
- Messages
- 9,491
You must read his post before the Rye and Coke catches up to him
That or the rye and coke allready caught up to youCheers:thumbup:
N.H. toughens up its negligent hiker laws
- Thread starter ilten
- Start date
You must read his post before the Rye and Coke catches up to him
That or the rye and coke allready caught up to youCheers:thumbup:
This is a typical scenario here in Vancouver. we live next to the most beautiful mountains around, 20 minutes from the city core. Easy access, go skiing/boarding in deep powder, come back down to sunny dry no snow streets. Or zip up to the mountains for the day to go hiking in the spring/summer/fall. Lotsa trails to wander down.
Your typical person will park the car, grab the water bottle and hit the trail in their light breezy summer clothes. 1 out of 100 will be prepared for an overnight stay/emergency/inclement weather. The rest Tralalalalalalalalala up the trails, texting or gabbing on their cancer boxes, or tuning out nature with their iThis or iThat shiny shiny thing. Completely oblivious to the time or the weather changes. It gets dark, they have no lights, they cant find their way back down the (often wide, marked and well trod trails). Out comes the cell phone, they dial the 911 wilderness taxi service to come and get them, or their families report them overdue but have NO clue what their wearing, or where they are (he's on the Mount Seymour, dont you guys know where that is?) or what gear they have......
Tim Jones and the NSS&R volunteers and Police mobilize on scene and set up the Command Post.........the Call Out happens and the SAR volunteers trickle in from their Jobs, their homes, their families.
Joe the welder, his beeper goes off, its a call out for a SAR. He has to leave work, losing hours and hours of pay. He puts wear and tear onto his own vehicle to get to the SAR Command Post. Joe the welder, and volunteer SAR tech, calls his family "honey, i wont be home for dinner, kiss the kids for me, i love you too".
Joe and the SAR Team search the entire night (keep in mind Joe and the others have been at work all day prior....they have been up 24 hours now....) for the lost hiker. They find him eventually, he has been trying to find his way out in the dark instead of staying out. SAR team has been going in circles following the hikers sneaker prints in the mud. Several SAR members have almost plunged over the cliffs into the river as a result. The lost hiker is found, freezing cold in his cotton gym shorts, socks and tank top. He is grateful to be found, but starts giving the SAR team attitude when questioned about his lack of preparedness. Still, they bundle him up in a warm sleeping bag with hot packs, adminster any first aid needed and give him a hot chocolate drink. Then the 911 Wilderness Taxi team carries the hiker out back to the Command Post, where he is checked over by BC Ambulance techs, who have been on standby for 12 hours (taking a much needed Ambulance off the road form other emergencies). The local police interview the hiker, he gets pissy with them too and flips the bird at everyone as he leaves. The SAR Team debriefs, the SAR techs drive home (after being up for 24+ hours exhausted). Often the Volunteers will be going directly from the Command Post back to their own jobs, with lack of sleep.
and so it continues.....on and on, idiot after idiot after idiot after idiot after idiot, going into the woods unprepared. Same scenario repeated over and over and over and over.
I have not mentioned names here, but this is a COMMON search scenario, including the crappy attitude by the rescued person. Most are grateful, some are full of attitude. 80% are completely unprepared to be anywhere near the woods or ski hills.
Average cost here per rescue, paid by Joe taxpayer: Starts at around $5000 and goes up. God forbid if a Chopper is needed, or the Thermal Imaging Camera on the Police chopper. Let alone snowmobiles, atvs etc etc etc etc etc etc.
Idiots need to pay. big time.
this is the kind of deep gully, avalanche prone, thick woods with massively steep inclines, that our SAR techs have to venture into, everytime some idiot goes Out Of Bounds on the ski areas, or gets stuck on the MANY trails that cover the North Shore Mountains. FYI there is close to 6 feet of snow on the upper mountains right now, do the math on what kind of risk people go thru to rescue idiots......
edit #2 sorry, i know i do not reside in NH USA, but locally here we have the same problems...........hence my vocalness on the subject.
Your typical person will park the car, grab the water bottle and hit the trail in their light breezy summer clothes. 1 out of 100 will be prepared for an overnight stay/emergency/inclement weather. The rest Tralalalalalalalalala up the trails, texting or gabbing on their cancer boxes, or tuning out nature with their iThis or iThat shiny shiny thing. Completely oblivious to the time or the weather changes. It gets dark, they have no lights, they cant find their way back down the (often wide, marked and well trod trails). Out comes the cell phone, they dial the 911 wilderness taxi service to come and get them, or their families report them overdue but have NO clue what their wearing, or where they are (he's on the Mount Seymour, dont you guys know where that is?) or what gear they have......
Tim Jones and the NSS&R volunteers and Police mobilize on scene and set up the Command Post.........the Call Out happens and the SAR volunteers trickle in from their Jobs, their homes, their families.
Joe the welder, his beeper goes off, its a call out for a SAR. He has to leave work, losing hours and hours of pay. He puts wear and tear onto his own vehicle to get to the SAR Command Post. Joe the welder, and volunteer SAR tech, calls his family "honey, i wont be home for dinner, kiss the kids for me, i love you too".
Joe and the SAR Team search the entire night (keep in mind Joe and the others have been at work all day prior....they have been up 24 hours now....) for the lost hiker. They find him eventually, he has been trying to find his way out in the dark instead of staying out. SAR team has been going in circles following the hikers sneaker prints in the mud. Several SAR members have almost plunged over the cliffs into the river as a result. The lost hiker is found, freezing cold in his cotton gym shorts, socks and tank top. He is grateful to be found, but starts giving the SAR team attitude when questioned about his lack of preparedness. Still, they bundle him up in a warm sleeping bag with hot packs, adminster any first aid needed and give him a hot chocolate drink. Then the 911 Wilderness Taxi team carries the hiker out back to the Command Post, where he is checked over by BC Ambulance techs, who have been on standby for 12 hours (taking a much needed Ambulance off the road form other emergencies). The local police interview the hiker, he gets pissy with them too and flips the bird at everyone as he leaves. The SAR Team debriefs, the SAR techs drive home (after being up for 24+ hours exhausted). Often the Volunteers will be going directly from the Command Post back to their own jobs, with lack of sleep.
and so it continues.....on and on, idiot after idiot after idiot after idiot after idiot, going into the woods unprepared. Same scenario repeated over and over and over and over.
I have not mentioned names here, but this is a COMMON search scenario, including the crappy attitude by the rescued person. Most are grateful, some are full of attitude. 80% are completely unprepared to be anywhere near the woods or ski hills.
Average cost here per rescue, paid by Joe taxpayer: Starts at around $5000 and goes up. God forbid if a Chopper is needed, or the Thermal Imaging Camera on the Police chopper. Let alone snowmobiles, atvs etc etc etc etc etc etc.
Idiots need to pay. big time.
this is the kind of deep gully, avalanche prone, thick woods with massively steep inclines, that our SAR techs have to venture into, everytime some idiot goes Out Of Bounds on the ski areas, or gets stuck on the MANY trails that cover the North Shore Mountains. FYI there is close to 6 feet of snow on the upper mountains right now, do the math on what kind of risk people go thru to rescue idiots......
edit #2 sorry, i know i do not reside in NH USA, but locally here we have the same problems...........hence my vocalness on the subject.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2006
- Messages
- 7,035
What the guys who seemingly think this is horrible legislation don't seem to understand, is that there isn't a fine line between the negligent person and the properly prepared person. It's a GLARING difference.
Most major trailheads will have lists of what someone should have, warnings about weather conditions, rapidity of change, mudslide/avalanche/rock fall risks, etc.
Someone who goes up a lot of these trails with their bottle of Evian, cell phone and iPod, are exactly what the legislation calls them: negligent.
They aren't talking about charging someone who has appropriate clothing or other equipment that is suggested and takes a spill and breaks a leg. They're talking about the guy Bushman5 described.
BTW, the guy Bushman5 described is what I usually run into that style themselves "ultralight hikers", which is probably why I have such a kneejerk negative reaction to the term.
Most major trailheads will have lists of what someone should have, warnings about weather conditions, rapidity of change, mudslide/avalanche/rock fall risks, etc.
Someone who goes up a lot of these trails with their bottle of Evian, cell phone and iPod, are exactly what the legislation calls them: negligent.
They aren't talking about charging someone who has appropriate clothing or other equipment that is suggested and takes a spill and breaks a leg. They're talking about the guy Bushman5 described.
BTW, the guy Bushman5 described is what I usually run into that style themselves "ultralight hikers", which is probably why I have such a kneejerk negative reaction to the term.
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2008
- Messages
- 1,397
Sounds like BEEEE SSSSS, do all of us need to go through a check up to see if we are in good enough shape? well you have a weak leg and little fat. and the sprained your ankel, you should know better. that's 2 grand.
Will there be patrol on the trail to see/ check if everyone is properly equipped? then fined 50 bucks and sent home?
The safety beacon idea is good.... but it was very nice when I left the house. . . . . . I have seen the temp drop 90 degrees in a day when an early winter storm came through Missouri. It went 80 or 90 to -10 to 0 with rain snow sleet slush ice and crap. I was out hiking, I was on the farm in mid calving season. I remember that night on the news/weather it set the record for the biggest recorded temp drop in a day up in Dakotas/Nebraska, the temp went from 90's -30/-20's a 120 degree drop, it happens, glad I wasn't out hiking cause the days before I was out in a T shirt and sneakers.
Probally more folks get hurt / killed in car wrecks talking on their phone than a few tourist hikers do.
What ever happens I still don't think you can protect people from them selves
A little common sense is rather uncommon. Pat
Will there be patrol on the trail to see/ check if everyone is properly equipped? then fined 50 bucks and sent home?
The safety beacon idea is good.... but it was very nice when I left the house. . . . . . I have seen the temp drop 90 degrees in a day when an early winter storm came through Missouri. It went 80 or 90 to -10 to 0 with rain snow sleet slush ice and crap. I was out hiking, I was on the farm in mid calving season. I remember that night on the news/weather it set the record for the biggest recorded temp drop in a day up in Dakotas/Nebraska, the temp went from 90's -30/-20's a 120 degree drop, it happens, glad I wasn't out hiking cause the days before I was out in a T shirt and sneakers.
Probally more folks get hurt / killed in car wrecks talking on their phone than a few tourist hikers do.
What ever happens I still don't think you can protect people from them selves
A little common sense is rather uncommon. Pat
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2007
- Messages
- 1,531
I'm struggling with both sides of the issue to have rescue costs re-reimbursed. Since the discussion is specific to New Hampshire does anyone have a link (I will start looking for one)to the actual law?
Is it fact or wishful thinking on our parts that the law is actually directed at the guy Bushman5 is describing?
My thoughts are that before charges are leveled on outdoor participants the option for education should be available. The results from hunter and boater safety programs seem to be positive.
How about a "Wilderness Permit"? Not a license, but a certification received after successfully completing something as simple as an interactive on-line course.
Yes, but what does the "law" consider to be legitimately negligent. I'm going to be interested in seeing what exactly those 40 cases are that would warrant charges.
Is it fact or wishful thinking on our parts that the law is actually directed at the guy Bushman5 is describing?
My thoughts are that before charges are leveled on outdoor participants the option for education should be available. The results from hunter and boater safety programs seem to be positive.
How about a "Wilderness Permit"? Not a license, but a certification received after successfully completing something as simple as an interactive on-line course.
Edumaction is available anywhere, be it local hiking groups, Mountaineering Associations, Parks Boards, sheriff offices etc etc etc etc etc. Its up to the INDIVIDUAL to go out and learn, shouldn't be the responsibility of everyone else to seek said individual out and teach them.
Ahhhh. Ok, I see what you're saying. And I agree, the Gov trying to impose more restrictive 'laws' is what corrals us. Anthromorphizing inanimate obects into 'evil' things drives me crazy. The mind is the weapon, not the gun, knife or golf club used to do harm.
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2007
- Messages
- 2,304
It is FACT that the law is directed as Bushman5 describes, THAT is how it is written. It wasn't written to deprive anyone of anything, thou some posting want to put it in that light.
The truth of the matter is that we as a State can not afford to pay for people who refuse to take resposibility for themselves. Nor do we care too. Don't like it, cool, go somewhere else. While we would like people to come and enjoy our State Parks, we'd rather spend the money on our schools, our roads, and other things that are falling behind, then spend it on morons who couldn't care less who they put in harms way because they couldnt be bothered to read a map, take a compass, a emergency blanet, a pocket knife.
it is that simple. if you aren't going to properly prepare yourself, and you don't like the idea of having to pay for your stupidity, go somewhere else.
The truth of the matter is that we as a State can not afford to pay for people who refuse to take resposibility for themselves. Nor do we care too. Don't like it, cool, go somewhere else. While we would like people to come and enjoy our State Parks, we'd rather spend the money on our schools, our roads, and other things that are falling behind, then spend it on morons who couldn't care less who they put in harms way because they couldnt be bothered to read a map, take a compass, a emergency blanet, a pocket knife.
it is that simple. if you aren't going to properly prepare yourself, and you don't like the idea of having to pay for your stupidity, go somewhere else.
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2007
- Messages
- 1,531
It's up to the individual but incentive to do it goes a long way.
In the case of boating or hunting (in some U.S. states) not having the permit means limitations or no license so that's pretty strong incentive.
The incentive, in let's say New Hampshire, would be a hiker/skier/mountaineer/hunter would be considered "negligent" for not having the recommended certification and therefore have greater exposure to being charged for SAR related costs.
Amen, preach it Brother MR-Coffee! hear the word of the wise ones, people! Thou Shall NOT go doust into thou woods, unprepared in the mind, nor unprepared with the gear!
THOU SHALT obey the wise Elder ones, and seek out higher knowledge, before proceeding into thy woods nearest them! Only a fool ventures forth unprepared my brothers and sisters, and said Fool will reap what he has sown, in the burning fire lakes of hell he does! Hear me Brothers and Sisters, a Wise man will learn and equip properly, and therefore not be, a burden, on his fellow man.
Only the FOOL will venture forth into the wilds of God's earthly beauty, unprepared in the mind and gear, expecting his fellow mankind to jump to his aid when he cries!
The good Father wants his flock prepared, For He despises FOOLS.
Are you prepared my Bretheren? Prepared to make shelter and fire, prepared to shield ones self from the fury of the rain and the wind and the snows? Are YE prepared to embrace the wild with your learned knowdledge and the good Lord in your heart?
EDIT: some did'nt get this post, it was some light hearted HUMOUR
THOU SHALT obey the wise Elder ones, and seek out higher knowledge, before proceeding into thy woods nearest them! Only a fool ventures forth unprepared my brothers and sisters, and said Fool will reap what he has sown, in the burning fire lakes of hell he does! Hear me Brothers and Sisters, a Wise man will learn and equip properly, and therefore not be, a burden, on his fellow man.
Only the FOOL will venture forth into the wilds of God's earthly beauty, unprepared in the mind and gear, expecting his fellow mankind to jump to his aid when he cries!
The good Father wants his flock prepared, For He despises FOOLS.
Are you prepared my Bretheren? Prepared to make shelter and fire, prepared to shield ones self from the fury of the rain and the wind and the snows? Are YE prepared to embrace the wild with your learned knowdledge and the good Lord in your heart?
EDIT: some did'nt get this post, it was some light hearted HUMOUR
Last edited:
Well, as someone who has had to explain negligence to a jury maybe you could tell me because this seems to be a question both I and they have wrestled with.
Why not. Isn't it negligent to go out into the wilderness without a means of communicating in case you do break your leg? This is the massive slippery slope that this legislation creates, especially considering that odds are you won't have outdoors people on the jury.
IMO, this legislation is incredibly poor and a hamper on individual freedom. Everyone who pays their taxes already pays for this rescue service so the money is not an issue. As an american its my right to act stupidly as long as I'm not breaking the law. If I want to be an ultralight hiker (another word for he who is too weak to hump a ruck) thats my business, not the governments.
Instituting this law is no different than your insurance company refusing to repair your car even though you have paid your premiums because you shared fault in the accident. Thats not how the system works. My taxes pay the salary and budget for SAR teams, and those people have voluntarily chosen to rescue folks in need regardless of fault.
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2007
- Messages
- 1,531
Laws are open to multiple interpretations in most cases. I did not find the law as yet so could you post a link to the actual law so we can all see how it is written.
Huh?
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2008
- Messages
- 596
I cant see why so many people take issue with this. We have to pay for a ride in an ambulance, even though we pay taxes for health care, and I whole heartedly agree with it. Too many idiots who abuse the service, ambulances arent taxi's and SAR workers arent chauffeurs.
In fact, SAR should charge everyone by default and it should be at their discretion whether you have to foot your bill, they can judge best whether you're a victim of unforseen circumstances or of your own stupidity.
There's been so much hyperbole and a lack of common sense in this thread, comparing being prepared for something uncommon and unforeseeable as a broken leg--which could happen to anyone in the bush or in the city regardless of how well prepared you are, but seldom does--to being prepared for the most obvious things which happen like clockwork no less, such as GETTING DARK AT NIGHT or changes in temperature.
The claims that this is an attack on liberties and "corralling" people into their homes is a joke, more personal responsibility=less liberty? Give me a break. The fact is the wilderness isn't a supervised playground, it's harsh and indifferent and if you cant be bothered to respect that and show some indication of self perseverance you should just stay home. Not giving negligent people a free bail doesnt affect their liberty, but doing so does impose on everyone else who has to pick up their tab.
In fact, SAR should charge everyone by default and it should be at their discretion whether you have to foot your bill, they can judge best whether you're a victim of unforseen circumstances or of your own stupidity.
There's been so much hyperbole and a lack of common sense in this thread, comparing being prepared for something uncommon and unforeseeable as a broken leg--which could happen to anyone in the bush or in the city regardless of how well prepared you are, but seldom does--to being prepared for the most obvious things which happen like clockwork no less, such as GETTING DARK AT NIGHT or changes in temperature.
The claims that this is an attack on liberties and "corralling" people into their homes is a joke, more personal responsibility=less liberty? Give me a break. The fact is the wilderness isn't a supervised playground, it's harsh and indifferent and if you cant be bothered to respect that and show some indication of self perseverance you should just stay home. Not giving negligent people a free bail doesnt affect their liberty, but doing so does impose on everyone else who has to pick up their tab.
Yes, possibly, when the government decides what your level of personal responsibility should be, and not you.
It sounds like NH is simply trying to find more ways to put the squeeze on folks. The new laws would allow the State to collect from 29% of the rescues rather than 21%. Not really a huge jump. The majority of the rescues are still "legitimate". To me, this sounds akin to changing the yellow traffic light duration from four seconds to two seconds, so that the cops could write more tickets and generate more revenue.
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2008
- Messages
- 596
Which isnt the case. No one's stopping anyone from going into the woods how ever prepared they choose to be. SAR is not a liberty or freedom, it's a luxurious public service and voluntarily disqualifying yourself from having it free of charge doesn't affect your liberty anymore than disqualifying yourself from welfare by having a job.
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2003
- Messages
- 20,195
I have great respect for most safety forces personnel, but:
Police are rarely present to stop you from being a victim of crime.
Firemen rarely prevent fires.
Both try to do what can be done after the fact -- "solve" crimes and fight fires.
You are best off by taking responsibity for your pwn safety. If you choose not to do so . . .
Sorta' a "stupid tax."
(If you go by climbing standards, a bowline is not a very secure knot unless seized off or doubled. That has not penetrated Scouting. Skills learned but not used thereafter are rarely retained.)
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2001
- Messages
- 1,236
I agree the above posting, I don't want some young inexperience hiker to think instead of calling for help, I will give it a few more days. We all know what can happen in a few days.
I'm surprised by this move since NH is a very liberal minded so the idea of charging for search and rescue seems out of character.
This new measure came about because of economic down turn and reduce revenue.
Better alternates is to lash law makers pay they dick around and get payed 6 figures
Require that everyone who camps take basic survival course, nominal monies could to got search and rescue and whatever is left over park upkeep.
No, that may actually be the case, as specifics are not elucidated. From what is suggested, it sounds like codifying a dress code and supply list would be done for the sake of demanding rent in the event of an emergency, not actually reducing rescue incidents.
SAR is a not a liberty or freedom, but a service funded largely by taxes. Most public emergency services are like that, fire departments, police, etc. I'm not sure they are a "luxurious public service", but I suppose they are a luxury that is demanded and funded by taxpayers. What we have here is a change of the rules to make it easier for the State to recoup money. But as the numbers show, the difference isn't astronomical. In fact, I suspect the difference is small enough that it will provide no actual deterrence to potentially negligent hikers.
I don't necessarily see a problem with raising user fees (which is what is kind of in place). But it seems the proposals won't change things all that much, for all the finger wagging you guys are doing here. Emergency services are always a money loser. It's just a fact you all need to get over.
BTW, disqualifying yourself from welfare by having a job does affect your liberty, because you still have to pay for it, even if you never use it. Still not quite sure where you were going with that analogy.
timcsaw
Gold Member
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2007
- Messages
- 21,439
If a totally unprepared hiker decides to try to go up Tuckerman's Ravine in mid-January in only his hiking boots and birthday suit... totally naked... and breaks his leg on the first 15 feet of level trail at the bottom, he is NOT going to have to pay SAR fees if they are called out. His "unpreparedness" did not contribute to his need for rescue. Now if he'd have hiked half way up, and THEN suffered hypothermia and called for help, he should expect to pay the whole bill (as his unpreparedness/stupidity was the main/prime contributor).
It's not like these Fish and Game guys or SAR folks are just sitting around hoping to risk their lives to earn the state a few reimbursement dollars. It's only AFTER they get to the recovery site that they can determine the victims level of preparedness.
I thought the comparison to someone calling for an ambulance was right on the mark... no matter the reason for your needing it (in most cases), YOU pay for the service, period. In the case of the NH law, it's far less strict or cut and dried than that... No one is expecting everyone to pay for the "moutain ambulance" in every case.
It's not like these Fish and Game guys or SAR folks are just sitting around hoping to risk their lives to earn the state a few reimbursement dollars. It's only AFTER they get to the recovery site that they can determine the victims level of preparedness.
I thought the comparison to someone calling for an ambulance was right on the mark... no matter the reason for your needing it (in most cases), YOU pay for the service, period. In the case of the NH law, it's far less strict or cut and dried than that... No one is expecting everyone to pay for the "moutain ambulance" in every case.
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2004
- Messages
- 3,124
From a legal perspective, basing SAR service fees on a post-hoc determination of preparedness would complicated at best. It sounds like it would involve tests of reasonableness and / or negligence. Which body would be empowered to make such determinations? What seems like a straightforward, common-sense idea in abstract terms would quickly become bogged down with technicalities.
I'm not certain that it would translate into any cost savings for the taxpayer. What it would do is subject outdoors activity to additional regulation.
I would rather pay - as a taxpayer - for rescues on the slippery slopes than create another slippery slope of regulation. Education seems to be the best response to a lack of preparedness.
All the best,
- Mike
I'm not certain that it would translate into any cost savings for the taxpayer. What it would do is subject outdoors activity to additional regulation.
I would rather pay - as a taxpayer - for rescues on the slippery slopes than create another slippery slope of regulation. Education seems to be the best response to a lack of preparedness.
All the best,
- Mike