NH Hikesafe Card in NH House study committee

[Kevin Rooney]

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?

That would be an "unknown unknown"...

 

[Breeze]

Lets not play < blame the victim>. Screw the vocabulary and the legalese. If you fall and break your leg while hiking, you are not likely to walk out on your own. Who actually HELPS you get out may not be exclusively NH F&G, and if you are the patient/victim, you may never see a NH F&G uniform or truck. Just a volunteer with a smile and a hey, I'm here to help you, glad I found you, lets get working on how to get you outta here.

If you hunt, fish, or launch a boat in NH, you wont' be charged for a NHF&G rescue because you've paid something to the State for a license to do those things. If you hike, the state gets nothing directly from you. Aside, of course, from the meals and lodging taxes you pay while you vacation there, the gas taxes you pay when you use motorized transport in and around the state.

Really, if you have a hunting license in NH, you can take off 3 of your own toes with one misdirected or accidentally fired load of buckshot, need NH F&G to haul your butt out of the woods, and never worry about a bill.

If you frostbite your own three toes while hiking or camping, and need the exact same F&G folks to help you out of the exact same woods from the exact same place as your hunter neighbor, you need to worry about negligence or recklessness. Doh.

Let's just cut to the chase, the state is Effed up in its thinking, NH F&G is Effed up in their thinking and truly, no amount of money is going to fully fund all the expenses the bean counters will find that need to be funded.

Let NH F&G off the hook for managing every SAR report. Let them consult and advise and participate. Don't place the entire expense of SAR management on that one agency, they DON"T DO it ALL. The entire state of NH is blessed with so many volunteers who do the yeoman's work of most SAR. Call up ONE F&G person, get him or her out of bed, dressed and into the truck, but get the rest of the <volunteer> phone tree lit up. That is how it works in practice. NH F&G acts < on stage> in Concord as if they are the only folks out there. So far its worked for them in the court of public opinion and legislature, but it is another thing to see what actually happens in the field.

Look at the search around North Conway for Abby Hernandez. If you think NH F&G or the State of NH is going to present a bill to Zenya , her Mom, for services rendered, you really need to think twice about what you think about. And Yes, that comes from the Department of Redundancy.

Breeze

 

[peakbagger]

If a NH resident chooses not to pay the rescue fee , the state can do things like refuse to renew someone's professional license or drivers license. I am not sure what they can do to someone out of state. The failure to pay the rescue fee is currently a civil offense so I don't think the state has the option of issuing a warrant.

Good edit - I will change fine to rescue fee fee

 

[bikehikeskifish]

We (myself included) need to stop thinking about it as a "fine" as in punishment, like a speeding ticket or late library book. It is a bill to cover services rendered.

Tim

 

[Kevin Rooney]

So, let me get this straight: are you suggesting that hikers pay a fee to avoid a fine?

 

[DougPaul]

We (myself included) need to stop thinking about it as a "fine" as in punishment, like a speeding ticket or late library book. It is a bill to cover services rendered.

I disagree.

The reason for fining a speeder is to punish and discourage speeding. Municipalities commonly use the money to fund, in part, their police departments.

A hiking fine punishes the offending hiker and the threat of a fine is used to discourage hikers from hiking in ways that are discouraged by the authorities. The money is used to fund F&G.

Looks like the same thing to me: punishment, discouragement, and funding.


IMO, $3-$5 might be reasonable, $35 is extortion. And if the state still reserves the right to FINE the hiker, the card is likely worthless.

Doug

 

[bikehikeskifish]

I disagree.

The reason for fining a speeder is to punish and discourage speeding. Municipalities commonly use the money to fund, in part, their police departments.

A hiking fine punishes the offending hiker and the threat of a fine is used to discourage hikers from hiking in ways that are discouraged by the authorities. The money is used to fund F&G.

Looks like the same thing to me: punishment, discouragement, and funding.

I disagree. If you are speeding, you are breaking an explicitly posted speed limit where the law has explicit rules about penalties for doing so.

If you are hiking in ways discouraged by the authorities, you aren't breaking any explicit rules or laws... there aren't any. There are guidelines (hikesafe) and schools-of-thought, but none of it is written into law beyond "negligence" (or "recklessness") will get you a bill from F&G... the amount of which is directly related to the cost of your rescue.

Tim

 

[JCarter]

IMO, $3-$5 might be reasonable, $35 is extortion. And if the state still reserves the right to FINE the hiker, the card is likely worthless.

Doug

Yeah, it's basically that last point that made the last version of this proposal DOA with the hiking community. Why should hikers be subject to a different standard of care than all the other constituencies? (fishermen, hunters, snowmobilers, ...)

 

[bikehikeskifish]

From http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XXI/265/265-60.htm

265:60 Basic Rule and Maximum Limits. –
...
V. The fines for violation of subparagraphs II(a)-(d) shall be as follows:

Miles per hour above the limit specified:
1-10 $50
11-15 75
16-20 100
21-25 200
26+ Must appear
(Minimum $350)


VI. The fines for violations of subparagraph II(e) shall be as follows:

Miles above the 65 mph limit:
1-5 $65
6-10 100
11-15 150
16-20 250
21-25 350
26+ Must appear

From http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XVIII/206/206-26.htm -
XII. To conduct search and rescue operations in woodlands and inland waters and to provide security at the sites thereof, and to enforce recovery of expenses under RSA 206:26-bb;

(emphasis mine)

Tim

 

[Raven]

Perhaps looking at this from a different perspective:

It is a punishment, but only for those found Reckless.

For anyone needing a rescue not deemed reckless, those who were found reckless may be the ones paying.

Although, those found reckless will have to pay much more than their share if others are to be covered with this new revenue steam. I am assuming the sale of the cards will not necessarily be enough to cover all costs.

I personally do not have a problem with those people who "abuse the system" being the ones paying for it.

Let's get on those definitions of "reckless" and "experienced."

I am thinking for that price, I might pass up the rescue card and buy a hunting or fishing license for a few more dollars. That at least arguably has an added benefit.

 

[KV]

Look at it this way...if a jury of my "peers" are the ones to determine if I have been reckless rather than negligent, the $ spent in the court systems will far outweigh any benefit from the insurance card purchases.

 

[RoySwkr]

We (myself included) need to stop thinking about it as a "fine" as in punishment, like a speeding ticket or late library book. It is a bill to cover services rendered.

If you are injured and carried out like the 2 in the article, why isn't this covered by your health insurance like an ambulance ride? Why not ask DHART to pick up injured hikers instead of the National Guard as DHART has a billing system already in place?

 

[Mountain49]

Just to clarify-I had a map!

 

[bikehikeskifish]

If you are injured and carried out like the 2 in the article, why isn't this covered by your health insurance like an ambulance ride? Why not ask DHART to pick up injured hikers instead of the National Guard as DHART has a billing system already in place?

That is a good question. It's probably been discussed before in one of these threads. Would be interesting to see if your insurance would cover the rescue reimbursement costs, should you get billed.

Tim

 

[JCarter]

Just to clarify-I had a map!

Yep. Too bad you had a cell phone. I still feel safer hiking with you than many of the yo-yos I see on the trail.

 

[Andrew]

That is a good question. It's probably been discussed before in one of these threads. Would be interesting to see if your insurance would cover the rescue reimbursement costs, should you get billed.

Tim

They and their mutual aid partners have. Still only covered the flying costs.

"Yeah, it's basically that last point that made the last version of this proposal DOA with the hiking community. Why should hikers be subject to a different standard of care than all the other constituencies? (fishermen, hunters, snowmobilers, ...)"

Those activities require and have through modern history already required a license or registration by law (with a whole other set of punishable offenses if found violated); so a greater and more complete pool of a user group are contributing to the revenue stream towards management. It would be unreasonable to think that every hiker and non-motorized recreationalist would contribute through the current proposal- unless a license or registration would be required before partaking these activities, which would be unreasonable and unenforceable.

 

[Raven]

Look at it this way...if a jury of my "peers" are the ones to determine if I have been reckless rather than negligent, the $ spent in the court systems will far outweigh any benefit from the insurance card purchases.

Good point. The new court costs associated with this program may far outweigh any income it generates.

I will suggest what I often suggest for this issue. Instead of looking to cover all existing costs, why not eliminate as much of that cost as possible? Start by removing F&G from the equation and not replacing them with another slow-moving, expense-laden solution. There would need to be a revenue source for the helicopter but we have seen that there are ways for that cost to be covered as well (training mission hours). This could be reinstated.

Take the bureaucratic costs out of it. There are enough volunteers to maintain a search and rescue team as well as coordinators. There are completely grant-funded programs that can and do provide much of the necessary equipment with zero salaries being met. If necessary pay someone or a service to man the phones 24 hours a day to make sure calls are received.

Instead of trying to solve the problem with the existing framework, maybe we can change the framework and ease the burden.

 

[peakbagger]

I don't agree that there are currently adequate volunteer skilled rescuers nor is there a likelihood of there being enough in the whites. Most population trends I have seen for Coos and Graton counties is that the local population is declining except for the elderly. Many of the large employers (I.E. the paper mills) in the region used to support employees who participated in fire/ambulance /rescue as they it was to the companies benefit to have that skill base in the area. The current employment base in the area has shifted largely to tourism and vacation housing, in both of these industries most employees are in it for the bottom line and if an employee wants to go on a rescue, they are doing it out of pocket and could get penalized for the effort. AMC used to be a large contributor to S&R but even they have cut back on paid trail crews and have shifted much of their effort to volunteers. Lately, the Observatory has made it in the news as they no longer actively participate in S&R due to liability issues (although individual employees appear to be able to participate) Currently most local fire and ambulance services in the region are short on volunteers and the volunteers they have are getting "gray". In general the demographics are heading in the wrong direction for volunteer S&R. During the recent search efforts for the lost hiker in Maine, there was numerous statements that they lacked "skilled rescuers" and would not accept folks who weren't certified. The certification effort requires upfront training and expenditures plus ongoing commitments and in general the population if getting less prone to be "joiners" that have to make commitments. This makes for a very well qualified but very sparse volunteer base as few are going to volunteer to make the commitment. I even see this "professionalism of volunteers" driven into the hiking community with required chainsaw (with its requisite first aid training) certification generating a lot of controversy and in general cutting way back on volunteer efforts. S&R folks are subjected to even more rigorous training requirements which further reduces the pool and shifts the effort to those who are paid to stay certified like F&G folks.

So my feeling is S&R is going to shift more to a paid effort by paid professionals, the question is what business model will support a well staffed (minimum 18 employees for litter carries plus additional folks for shifts and vacations) well trained crew for 365 days per year when the incidence of rescues is actually quite small for the number of folks in the woods. I cant think of any for profit model that this works for very well, thus the responsibility falls on government. NH has a fairly weak state government lacking access to income tax, sales tax or property tax so its hard to justify cutting up what revenue that is received to a perceived small group of people many of whom are out of state folks. Having participated in town meeting form of government in the area for 20 plus years, I guarantee you that the towns are not going to pick it up and very much doubt that the county will pick it up.

Thus there is mechanism in place via F&G with volunteer help that does have its issues but functions. The real issue is source of funding. Come up with steady funding and state government will fill the void. Unfortunately the "pay for rescue" approach is not the way to go and everyone in the process knows it, unfortunately the alternative of handing over the keys to the piggy bank and funding via the room and meals is politically unsellable. Thus the rescue card is a way of getting funding into F&G. Unfortunately, the second F&G has a new revenue source I expect the legislature will cut their funding back so that there is no net increase in a few years.

I anticipate as the population get older and the demands on state and federal government increase to fund the elderly that S&R debate is going to get even worse.

 

[Kevin Rooney]

Raven - while your points are well-taken, there needs to be some governmental oversight of the entire SAR process in order to provide accountability. I don't know of any jurisdiction - whether in this country or any other - which doesn't provide for some unit within government to provide this oversight.

I think the trick is finding the right balance of governmental oversight and volunteers, which in a state like NH will always be more difficult than others since NH's method of generating tax revenues creates an almost continuous crisis atmosphere. Until a regular, predictable revenue stream can be set in place to fund the governmental unit assigned to SAR oversight/coordination we'll continue to have these debates.

 

[sardog1]

Good point. The new court costs associated with this program may far outweigh any income it generates.

I will suggest what I often suggest for this issue. Instead of looking to cover all existing costs, why not eliminate as much of that cost as possible? Start by removing F&G from the equation and not replacing them with another slow-moving, expense-laden solution. There would need to be a revenue source for the helicopter but we have seen that there are ways for that cost to be covered as well (training mission hours). This could be reinstated.

Take the bureaucratic costs out of it. There are enough volunteers to maintain a search and rescue team as well as coordinators. There are completely grant-funded programs that can and do provide much of the necessary equipment with zero salaries being met. If necessary pay someone or a service to man the phones 24 hours a day to make sure calls are received.

Instead of trying to solve the problem with the existing framework, maybe we can change the framework and ease the burden.

With the exception of your first paragraph, this utterance demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of what is involved here. And characterizing Fish and Game as a "slow-moving and expense-laden solution" is matched in its ignorance only by its offensiveness.