Count to ten before ditching that Hike Safe card

[sardog1]

Some of you are on the mailing list for announcements from the newsroom at New Hampshire Fish and Game. If so, you were sent today a reminder to get a new Hike Safe card and then a "correction" asserting that "The Hike Safe card does not exempt the holder from liability for repaying search and rescue costs due to negligence."

Before you wail, gnash your teeth, rend your clothing and/or burn your Hike Safe card, know this:

1. The statute absolving negligent recreationists of liability for SAR costs if they have Hike Safe cards has not been amended in a way that changes the basic protection afforded through purchase of the card. The relevant part of the statute now reads as follows:

"RSA 206:26-bb Search and Rescue Response Expenses; Recovery. –
I. Any person determined by the department to have acted negligently in requiring a search and rescue response by the department shall be liable to the department for the reasonable cost of the department's expenses for such search and rescue response, unless the person shows proof of possessing a current version of any of the following:
(a) A hunting or fishing license issued by this state under title XVIII.
(b) An OHRV registration under RSA 215-A, a snowmobile registration under RSA 215-C, or a vessel registration under RSA 270-E.
(c) A voluntary hike safe card.”

The original text of the statute is at RSA 206:26-bb Search and Rescue Response Expenses; Recovery.

There was an amendment this year that deleted a reference to another statute which imposes liability for response costs if a person has acted negligently while operating "a motor vehicle, boat, off highway recreational vehicle, or aircraft while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage or controlled drug[.]" – Bill Text: NH HB1268 | 2016 | Regular Session | Chaptered)

2. A message pointing out this fact has been sent to Fish and Game today.

 

[Ed'n Lauky]

The initial statement you quoted from the letter and the statue you quoted seem to contradict each other. What am I missing

 

[Tom Rankin]

The initial statement you quoted from the letter and the statue you quoted seem to contradict each other. What am I missing

You're missing the last line of his post:

2. A message pointing out this fact [tfr: contradiction] has been sent to Fish and Game today.

 

[Ed'n Lauky]

Well done. Do you think they will listen?

 

[peakbagger]

https://www.boston.com/news/local-n...ke-safe-cards-sold-in-new-hampshire-this-year

 

[sardog1]

Well done. Do you think they will listen?

I was told initially that someone would be getting back to me. That hasn't happened yet. Meanwhile, the original press release has since been edited, to fix a related error on the subject. So, the answer to your question from this ex-lawyer is that there is circumstantial but not direct evidence that they did.

 

[Raven]

For clarification purposes for those who may not know:

As I understand it, the goal of the changes to the law were/are designed to remove the "get out of jail free" component. In other words, the card is no longer meant to cover anyone found negligent.

As for how the language is currently written and interpreted, I won't speculate but I would assume changes to the language are coming.

 

[TJsName]

So does that mean people who aren't negligent can now be charged?

 

[jniehof]

Every "clarification" in here has made things muddier. The intention is not to cover people who are found negligent? So nobody's covered? Or it is to cover those found negligent, and thus there's no change? Or it's okay as long as you aren't negligent due to alcohol consumption? Or as TJ suggested the default has changed and now everybody has to pay, negligent or not, either directly or via HikeSafe contribution?

Or somebody had some idea and now the General Court has completely muddied the implementation and it'll be decided in case law?

I'm hoping to get out next week; gotta call my lawyer first.

 

[skiguy]

As a suggestion maybe a member of the Senate whom is also a member here can add some clarity to this.

 

[sardog1]

This thing is starting to look like Jarndyce v. Jarndyce.

!. The protection from buying a Hike Safe Card against being billed, if your negligence results in SAR response costs being incurred by the state, did NOT go away this year.

2. The ONLY change of significance is that DUI operators of various contrivances can no longer (potentially) avoid liability for SAR response costs by citing the statute I quote at the the top of this thread. This year's amendment took away that argument.

3. If you recklessly or intentionally create a situation requiring an emergency response, you're still on the hook for that under RSA 153-A:24.

As Justice Frankfurter said:

"Read the statute. Read the statute. Read the statute."

 

[sardog1]

For clarification purposes for those who may not know:

As I understand it, the goal of the changes to the law were/are designed to remove the "get out of jail free" component. In other words, the card is no longer meant to cover anyone found negligent.

As for how the language is currently written and interpreted, I won't speculate but I would assume changes to the language are coming.

This is dead wrong, for the reasons I cite at the top of this thread and immediately above this comment of mine.

 

[jniehof]

2. The ONLY change of significance is that DUI operators of various contrivances can no longer (potentially) avoid liability for SAR response costs by citing the statute I quote at the the top of this thread. This year's amendment took away that argument.

Thanks. I understand F&G is really in a bind here funding-wise; I just wish the General Court would come up with a less convoluted fix. Happily would let them take a buck or five out of my (state parks) plate, for instance. At this point I've given more to CORSAR and El Paso County S&R (and I should cut AVSAR and PVSART an end-of-year cheque) because this whole business is just so teeth-gnashingly bad.

 

[Raven]

This is dead wrong, for the reasons I cite at the top of this thread and immediately above this comment of mine.

I'll stand by my comment. The intent of the changes are as stated in my post as I understand them.

Sardog is correct in pointing out the language is unclear, however it is indeed the intent of NHF&G to remove the "get out of jail free" component.

 

[sardog1]

I'll stand by my comment. The intent of the changes are as stated in my post as I understand them.

Sardog is correct in pointing out the language is unclear, however it is indeed the intent of NHF&G to remove the "get out of jail free" component.

It is incomprehensible that you continue to say this. There's nothing "unclear" about any language here. There's an inadvertent error in the "correction" sent out by Fish and Game. I brought that error to their attention, and they have since fixed the press release to reflect the actual reading AND intent of the statute. Nor do they have any such "intent" as you erroneously impute to them. They're dealing with the cards as they've been dealt to them by the Legislature (the pun is intentional).

 

[Raven]

It is incomprehensible that you continue to say this. There's nothing "unclear" about any language here.

It's not that hard to comprehend.

Again, I'll point out I'm not talking about the language as written but the intent to remove the GOOJF component moving forward.

 

[sardog1]

It's not that hard to comprehend.

Again, I'll point out I'm not talking about the language as written but the intent to remove the GOOJF component moving forward.

Oh, those pesky facts. They're so inconvenient when it comes to polemics:

"We’re just looking for help overall. We’ve got a fairly difficult budget ahead of us for the next two years and whatever help we can get from the public will help us provide the public services people want. We certainly don’t want to be leaving people out there. This is a service that goes to a lot of folks in the course of a year. We spend a lot of time at it and just like most things these days, it simply costs money."

N.H. Fish & Game Hopes 'Hike Safe' A Rescue From Budget Shortfall

So F&G launched the program, advertises its availability constantly and has never ONCE stated or implied an intention "to remove the GOOJF component moving forward". Or do you actually have some evidence to the contrary?

 

[Raven]

Oh, those pesky facts. They're so inconvenient when it comes to polemics:

"We’re just looking for help overall. We’ve got a fairly difficult budget ahead of us for the next two years and whatever help we can get from the public will help us provide the public services people want. We certainly don’t want to be leaving people out there. This is a service that goes to a lot of folks in the course of a year. We spend a lot of time at it and just like most things these days, it simply costs money."

N.H. Fish & Game Hopes 'Hike Safe' A Rescue From Budget Shortfall

So F&G launched the program, advertises its availability constantly and has never ONCE stated or implied an intention "to remove the GOOJF component moving forward". Or do you actually have some evidence to the contrary?

My comments are based on a conversation I had earlier this month with a person involved in the process. I do not believe he would mind me sharing my understanding as stated in earlier posts, but that said, I'll not comment on it further here.

Suffice it to say, I will be paying attention to changes in the language of this law in the relatively near term and buying the card remains a way of supporting S&R in NH regardless of the interpretation of the law.

It will be interesting to see the response to your question if you get one. Good luck.

 

[jfb]

The answer to FAQ 4 should make it perfectly unclear: http://www.wildlife.state.nh.us/safe/index.html

The top paragraph reads "An individual may still be liable for response expenses if they are deemed to have recklessly, negligently or intentionally created a situation requiring an emergency response."

Are they taking away the only advantage to buying a card?

 

[TJsName]

The answer to FAQ 4 should make it perfectly unclear: http://www.wildlife.state.nh.us/safe/index.html

The top paragraph reads "An individual may still be liable for response expenses if they are deemed to have recklessly, negligently or intentionally created a situation requiring an emergency response."

Are they taking away the only advantage to buying a card?

Time to launch a S&R mission for the Oxford comma...