N.H. toughens up its negligent hiker laws

[not2sharp]

http://bangornews.com/detail/96197.html

Found this today. What do you think?
In my opinion it's a step in the right direction. I have no idea how much it will change, but maybe just a few people will think twice about their actions if there is a chance of financial loss for them.....
ilten

I think, that if the benefit fail to outweighs the cost; they should just close and sell off the park. You can't idiot proof a park, nor can you commercialize rescues to the point that the authorities are laying traps to meet their budgets. So either operate it, along with all of the negatives, or let someone else do something with the land; and forego the turist revenues.

Charging people for rescue is about as dumb as you can go. The closest you can come to this is to set up a check point at the park entrance, and require each and every visitor to demonstrate minimum skills and equipment before they are admitted to the park. I don't see that as a viable solution, but it certainly is better then setting up a credit card machine at the park rescue office; sorry Mrs. Smith, your credit card declined and we cannot begin a search for your 9-year-old until somebody posts a $5000 bond. How long would it be before private rescue teams started a bidding war to run their own little rescue service? What a mess.

n2s

 

[Ramm9]

How is a fully equipped SAR member ......"obviously not prepared and not properly trained just like the original victim"?
The victim is dressed in shorts, a tank-top, and tennis shoes and is only carrying an IPOD and six-pack of beer in his back pack.

Maybe both of them had a flashlight and defective batteries...so the stumble in the dark causing the searches was for identical reasons...

Previous to the law change which generated this thread, the law said that a person had to be proved "reckless" before they could be charged for rescue expenses.

And now, as Stage2 pointed out, the statute has been softened so "negligence" rather than "recklessness" is the measure.

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.

I would be surprised if the nature of the workers changed so drastically from being benevolent to exploitative.

The concern is that when recovered funds go into the SAR coffer a department director can decide "Hey guys, let's charge that group and in thirty days we can buy the new chain saws.....? "

and letting the first responders exercise their discretion in deciding whether the individual was negligent, I think would work best. They're in a better position to honestly asses the situation than any executive or lawyer.

Holy s*%t...you have read some of these posts. No thank you, I do NOT want any first responders deciding anything. Recommend and submit reports...of course...but decide...I don't think so.

Perhaps a fixed charge would work best,

Our members with medical backgrounds would know if my assumption is correct. Knowing that many people have very high insurance deductibles for ER care, I have to think they often delay treatment far too long with hopes they will avoid the cost of the deductible. Fixed charges could create the same problem.

This talk of license and permits to go into the woods is just ludicrous.

Not licenses or permits to go into the woods but to demonstrate a person has been exposed to some education and by following the recommendations may mitigate exposer to "reimbursement charges" resulting from assistance.

 

[PrimitiveMan]

Any liscense or permit to demonstrate you have adequate knowledge would just be another tax. And we all know what happens with taxation.

 

[timcsaw]

If the F&G provided hikers with a "required items for hiking" list, and a victim was found to have none of these items when rescued, should the victim be absolved of all responsibility? If it is the law that hikers must carry certain items, but they refuse to do so, should there be no consequence to breaking the law?

 

[STAGE 2]

And now, as Stage2 pointed out, the statute has been softened so "negligence" rather than "recklessness" is the measure.

Thats the thing that really peeves me about this. In order to prove negligence you need to show (among other things) that a person had a duty to do or not do something, and that they breached that duty.

This law now makes it so that people have a "duty" to society at large. Thats pretty unprecedented where the law is concerned.

Sorry, but I only have a duty to not harm others (physically, financially, etc). If I get myself into a jam, thats my business. The folks that are coming to the rescue are there of their own free will and I've already paid for the service via my tax dollars.

 

[STAGE 2]

If the F&G provided hikers with a "required items for hiking" list, and a victim was found to have none of these items when rescued, should the victim be absolved of all responsibility?

Under what authority does the government have to require a person to carry items on them? Hell, the supreme court has ruled that you aren't even required to carry ID on you while in public.

The freedom to travel is one of our rights in this country. I have a feeling that everyone here would object to a state law requiring you to carry things when you walked out your front door. Hiking is no different.

Besides, laws that operate from exclusive lists are always poorly written and terribly impractical by design. What works for you might not work for me and the list will never take this into account.

 

[Ramm9]

Any liscense or permit to demonstrate you have adequate knowledge would just be another tax. And we all know what happens with taxation.

I was thinking more of a no charge, interactive, web based program. Answer some questions, submit, read what the correct answers are and take it again until you get them all correct. The result is to know some basics and maybe avoid problems, and have a record of making the effort.

 

[PrimitiveMan]

Tim,

No, they should not be absolved of responsibility. They should not have a list of required items in the first place. The whole premise is moronic. What melon head gets to pick the items? And as I said, having the items has no bearing on whether you actually know how to use them. Like the scouts that got lost a few years back with a fully functional GPS unit.

What if they have EVERY item on the list but are wing nuts? Then you can't charge them? C'mon, the whole thing is stupid.

You can't make laws that regulate common sense.

 

[not2sharp]

If the F&G provided hikers with a "required items for hiking" list, and a victim was found to have none of these items when rescued, should the victim be absolved of all responsibility? If it is the law that hikers must carry certain items, but they refuse to do so, should there be no consequence to breaking the law?

So you get chased and mauled by a bear and the nice ranger gets to search your carcass to see if you had all of the required equipment, or they will seize your estate. You are implying that people in an emergency situation should be required to demonstrate a complete kit; I am suggesting that in an emergency situation is precisely when you are most likely to lose things.

n2s

 

[timcsaw]

Thats the thing that really peeves me about this. In order to prove negligence you need to show (among other things) that a person had a duty to do or not do something, and that they breached that duty.

This law now makes it so that people have a "duty" to society at large. Thats pretty unprecedented where the law is concerned.

Sorry, but I only have a duty to not harm others (physically, financially, etc). If I get myself into a jam, thats my business. The folks that are coming to the rescue are there of their own free will and I've already paid for the service via my tax dollars.

If you are a resident of Connecticut, how have you contributed via tax dollars to SAR or F&G in NH?

 

[STAGE 2]

If you are a resident of Connecticut, how have you contributed via tax dollars to SAR or F&G in NH?

I havent. But its kind of a moot point. Everyone in the state is going to contribute to the SAR budget. The percentage of people that actually use the parks is going to be very small. The percentage of people that actually require rescue is going to be a tiny fraction of this tiny percentage. So there are lots of people putting something in the pot that won't ever use it.

 

[timcsaw]

Tim,

No, they should not be absolved of responsibility. They should not have a list of required items in the first place. The whole premise is moronic. What melon head gets to pick the items? And as I said, having the items has no bearing on whether you actually know how to use them. Like the scouts that got lost a few years back with a fully functional GPS unit.

What if they have EVERY item on the list but are wing nuts? Then you can't charge them? C'mon, the whole thing is stupid.

You can't make laws that regulate common sense.

True, you can't legislate common sense... but you can legislate standards and make people who don't meet those standards pay for their refusal to do so (every traffic law/sign is an example).

 

[PrimitiveMan]

Actually, They probably receive FEDERAL dollars also.

But I agree, it has nothing to do with whether or not charging idiots for SAR is an intelligent response to the concern.

Tim, are you kidding?

Traffic laws? How many people are on the highway speeding RIGHT NOW? Haow many tickets are written? And the primary purpose of tickets is REVENUE, NOT safety.

 

[Ramm9]

If you are a resident of Connecticut, how have you contributed via tax dollars to SAR or F&G in NH?

Oh please.....what's your point? Let's assume he's speaking on behalf of a client that pays NH taxes and move on.


"Here's the rub" that comes to mind. Let's not confuse "fine" (as in ) traffic and "reimbursement.

The traffic ticket is X dollars for exceeding the limit by X miles per hour. The reimbursement is like buying something on ebay without any idea what the shipping charge will be.

Hey, $200 fine for being stupid in the woods is one thing. Hey, pay us $6,500/$16,500/$75,000 and do it in 30 days is a big difference. And the decision to bill is made by F&G .

 

[carrot]

The real problem I see is that so many people aren't capable of self-reliance. They expect civil services to rescue them at a drop of the hat, which is really what separates the survivors from the sheeple.

 

[Sharp_newbie]

Sorry, perhaps i came off as a bit harsh.........its because people here use SAR like a taxi, much like Fujita Yuji mentioned...

Man i got shit to doooo!!! do you know how hard it is to actually WALK out of the bush the way i came!!! Agreed that they should start charging.

 

[timcsaw]

So you get chased and mauled by a bear and the nice ranger gets to search your carcass to see if you had all of the required equipment, or they will seize your estate. You are implying that people in an emergency situation should be required to demonstrate a complete kit; I am suggesting that in an emergency situation is precisely when you are most likely to lose things.

n2s

As I pointed out in an earlier post, what contributed to the need for rescue?

If the person would have had two of everything on the required list, those items would not have negated a bear attack. I can't see any fee's being charged.

If a person wants to hike in their boots and birthday suit fine... If they need rescue because they break an ankle... no charge. If they need rescue because they suffer from exposure and hypothermia, then they pay (their lack of clothing directly contributed to their need to be rescued).

 

[timcsaw]

I havent. But its kind of a moot point. Everyone in the state is going to contribute to the SAR budget. The percentage of people that actually use the parks is going to be very small. The percentage of people that actually require rescue is going to be a tiny fraction of this tiny percentage. So there are lots of people putting something in the pot that won't ever use it.

NH has no state income tax and no sales tax.

 

[PrimitiveMan]

Ahhhh...But Tim,

Were they wearing a bell to warn the bear? Did they have bear repellant?

Just exactly what will be required? And if you have the items but still need rescue, who decides whether you are high enough on the "Idiot scale" to charge? And while we are at it, are we charging people based on IQ? because stupid people don't realize they are stupid after all.

 

[timcsaw]

Actually, They probably receive FEDERAL dollars also.

But I agree, it has nothing to do with whether or not charging idiots for SAR is an intelligent response to the concern.

Tim, are you kidding?

Traffic laws? How many people are on the highway speeding RIGHT NOW? Haow many tickets are written? And the primary purpose of tickets is REVENUE, NOT safety.

A fee is charged to everyone who parks on Federal land in NH. If you park in the White Mtn. National Forest to hike, fish, camp, hunt, whatever, you pay a fee (or pay a fine if you don't pay the fee).

Yes, perhaps the traffic laws example wasn't the best... fines are different than reimbursements. Fines are fixed... reimbursements will be variable.

Poaching; the law says poach deer out of season, you lose your vehicle, and all of your possessions that are in that vehicle (as well as fines, jail, etc.). Variable results... I lose my 1894 Ford ranger, you lose your brand new Hummer (and your wife's engagement ring worth $10K if it happens to be in the glove box).