NH Hikesafe Card in NH House study committee

[bikehikeskifish]

You could extend the "no experience using them" to "no experience hiking" or "no experience in rain" or "..." to fine pretty much anybody.

Tim

 

[TJsName]

You could extend the "no experience using them" to "no experience hiking" or "no experience in rain" or "..." to fine pretty much anybody.

Tim

Yeah, this is pretty much a 'never try anything new' mentality / you can't do anything unless you've done it before.

 

[Tim Seaver]

I read this story in Backpacker: http://www.backpacker.com/eagle_scout_fine_rescue/blogs/daily_dirt/1177
The facts from the article are that he has crampons and axe, but no experience using them. The implication is that those two facts are related to SAR choosing to fine him.

I guess this is what confused me:

"Particularly, the route required the use of crampons and ice axe."

According to who?

I am not sure why they would fine him for having equipment he didn't actually need, but they do tend to be very creative in that realm.

 

[Kevin Rooney]

...I am not sure why they would fine him for having equipment he didn't actually need, but they do tend to be very creative in that realm.

Tim - you are aware that when the dust settled, they (the NHFG) decided not to fine him?

 

[Tim Seaver]

Tim - you are aware that when the dust settled, they (the NHFG) decided not to fine him?

Oh yes...I was more talking hypotheticals. I think the bad publicity and optics were simply too much for them, claims to the contrary aside.

 

[Raven]

Oh yes...I was more talking hypotheticals. I think the bad publicity and optics were simply too much for them, claims to the contrary aside.

Agreed. Image is everything.

IMO, the decision to go after Scott Mason was bound for a political nosedive from the start. It seemed to me like those in charge were waiting impatiently for the opportunity to "brandish this sword"...so they did by starting the process with Mason. And my guess is that they regretted it shortly after, since he was clearly a bad choice for making their point.

Edit: Yes, more on point, I think a clear distinction between Negligence and Recklessness must be made, but if it's the definition TEO is using, I seriously doubt anyone is going to be paying for their rescue if they have to first be convicted by a jury. Would I buy a card? I don't know. If I need a rescue, I'll probably just call Tim. I think that falls under the "moderator umbrella"

 

[bikehikeskifish]

OK, moving back to the original topic... how do we think a voluntary participation hikesafe card will do if it's true that they won't be charging for negligent hikers who don't have it? (Let's further assume, for the sake of discussion, that since they never charged in the past, nobody met the legal definition of reckless) I personally have no incentive to buy one since I buy an annual fishing license ($35) already, and for that I can fish and have rescue insurance (for $35 combined.)

Tim

 

[Tim Seaver]

New Hampshire is certainly not Colorado, and their program is designed differently, but if the success of their voluntary CORSAR program is any guide, I would hope that a program administered in a similar fashion in NH would do well.

Here is a snippet from the COSAR Annual Report, which has much more info on their program ( .pdf):

The CORSAR card program is a voluntary mechanism for hikers, mountain bikers, climbers, kayakers, and other non-sportsmen to participate in the fund. A one-year CORSAR card costs the buyer $3.00, places $2.00 in the SAR fund and pays $1.00 to the vendor. A five-year CORSAR card costs $12.00, with $9.00 going in to the SAR fund and paying $3.00 to the vendor.

n 2012, CORSAR sales generated $64,767 in revenue. The revenue generated from CORSAR card sales has become a significant contribution toward the total fund balance. CORSAR card internet sales have increased substantially since becoming available in 2006. In FY2008 the state internet portal took over internet sales, and the access was quicker and easier to use.

The data goes directly into our database which reduces the data entry required and improves the efficiency of our system. In FY2012 internet sales accounted for 10,400 cards sold (5,910 one-year cards and 4,490 five-year cards). The Department of Local Affairs (DOLA) has also implemented an automatic renewal notice e-mail for cards sold on the internet, as well as providing the mechanism to send renewal post cards for those buyers who purchased their card from a vendor and did not provide an e-mail address. Vendor bulletins are published periodically to help keep vendors informed about the program and the specifics of card sales. In addition, a SAR team bulletin with information specific to their needs is published as needed. Search and rescue missions of interest are highlighted in both publications as well as information on the use of funds to help readers understand the benefits of the SAR fund and acknowledge their contributions to search and rescue in Colorado.

 

[rocket21]

There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kinds of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of lawbreakers - and then you cash in on guilt.

Is "reckless" behavior in the woods any worse than in a bad part of town? Can you be charged for your rescue if you decide to walk unarmed at night through a gang-plagued section of a city and get caught in crossfire?

I'm concerned that government is trying too hard to intimidate the behavior of a few responsible people under the guise of trying to generate revenue to cover an expense. A hiker card isn't going to change the behavior of someone who hops off I-93 and starts the Franconia Loop at 5PM decked in cotton whilst carrying a water bottle.

The dirty little secret is that there is a $500K+ a year annuity in the parks department that could easily tapped into to cover SAR's expenses.

 

[Ed'n Lauky]

If I were still living in Maine I believe I would buy the insurance card. However, I remain as always a bit skeptical because of the subjectivity of the decision as to what is negligent or reckless. Since I would be more than likely hiking solo (with my dog) how could I be sure that even with the card the decision would not be made that I had been reckless\negligent simply because I was alone?

All that being said, if one is charged for the rescue does one have the option of going to court as with a traffic ticket to appeal the fine?

 

[peakbagger]

Hard to speculate on law that hasnt been written yet. I would expect that there will be appeal process. Most folks forget that normally a law gets passed and then administrators have to write the specific rules to meet the intent of the law. At some point, someone or group will have to define adequate gear and possibly experience and I expect that will be a potential for litigation down the road.

 

[peakbagger]

Some fuel for the fire

http://www.newhampshire.com/article/20131022/NEWHAMPSHIRE03/131029832/0/newhampshire03

 

[thegibba]

Some fuel for the fire

http://www.newhampshire.com/article/20131022/NEWHAMPSHIRE03/131029832/0/newhampshire03

I'd be interested on how either of those were not negligent.

from the article

"Neither packed a sleeping bag. They didn't keep a close eye on the weather and had no way to make a fire, Osborne said.
They weren't prepared for the 70 mph winds, sub-zero temperatures and heavy snow that made it almost impossible to walk or see, Osborne said."

Perhaps the death of one of the hikers and the loss of the others leg and toes in that instance was deemed pre-payment in full.

 

[peakbagger]

I believe that the rules in place for negligence have been tightened up since the incidents. A hiker got tagged for negligence last year on Jackson when she had to bivy overnight. She had more gear than most would carry and no injuries but they tagged her for lack of a compass (and possibly a map) and lack of adequate emergency food. The map and compass would have been useless as there were very high winds and potential white out conditions. Many have speculated that F&G needed the publicity before the legislature and decided to throw the book at the next person to be rescued and she unfortunately got hit.

 

[Tom_Murphy]

The map and compass would have been useless as there were very high winds and potential white out conditions.

With alll due respect, aren't very high winds and potential white out conditions exactly when you need a map and compass? I still think her decision to hunker down was the correct one but not having map and comapss made her an easy target. Those are the FIRST things you should be reaching for before going into the woods.

 

[Neil]

Is this initiative a proposed method for raising money for a SAR fund or is it a project whose goal is to define negligent and reckless with respect to hiking in NH?
One way or another they have to come up with good definitions applicable to hiking before going ahead with the card.

Seem like there is plenty of room for subjectivity and "it depends" wiggle room in the definitions cited earlier in this thread.

"Don't do anything you've never done before". That's a good one but I suppose one could counter with, "when doing something new go with someone experienced".

What about doing something no one has ever done before?

 

[peakbagger]

Having hiked up the next day (and meeting the F&G crew with rescuee heading down), I got to see some of the conditions on the trail, the winds had completely wiped out any trace of the trail in sections and when we passed by with a group and headed down in less than 20 minutes, any trace of our passage was obliterated for a few hundred feet of trail. The woods are open white birches and without a good hiker track its easy to mistake an open area in the woods for the trail. A map and compass would not have had fine enough resolution to get back on the trail and would only have been useful for striking out towards the road ( a bad idea). About the only thing that would have worked is a GPS with Lithium batteries. The winds were such that any attempt at taking a map out of a pack would most likely have led to the map tearing or more likely being blown out of the hands. The wind was far more obvious heading down than going up (hitting the back going up versus face first going down). I expect if she had a map and compass and full course meal in the pack they would have tagged her for something.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

On the surface, Neil, it is both - the voluntary hikesafe card will put money in the SAR fund directly, and will give you a get-out-of-jail free pass, even if you are negligent, but not if you are reckless. This is as I understand it from this thread and the embedded references, but it is not yet law, and not yet written out as rules, etc.

Tim

 

[sierra]

My personal experience is this. You better study your maps and have rough compass bearings in your mind, because in high winds and blowing snow, laying out a map is almost impossible.

 

[Raven]

Regardless of how this is written, is the fine enforceable?

What happens now (in the current situation) to those hikers charged who simply choose not to pay the fine?