NH Hikesafe Card in NH House study committee

[peakbagger]

Looks like senate gave the card preliminary approval

http://www.seacoastonline.com/articles/20140501-NEWS-140509970

 

[JCarter]

So, I've read the article, can somebody summarize what the version voted on *really* says? What are the conditions under which having the card *won't* pay? And did they change the conditions underwhich you will be asked to pay for rescue if you don't have the card? (I'm a fully prepared, equipped and experienced hiker, but I'm unlucky enough to have an unforeseable accident which prevents me from walking out on my own - twist an ankle, etc.) In some of the older versions, there was a "bill everybody" provision.

 

[RoySwkr]

So, I've read the article, can somebody summarize what the version voted on *really* says? What are the conditions under which having the card *won't* pay?

The actual text as amended: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2014/HB0256.html
"Notwithstanding RSA 153-A:24, 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"
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XII/153-A/153-A-24.htm

If you don't buy a card, you are liable for expense if you act negligently, it is ambiguous whether if you do buy a card you still have to pay if you are reckless.
Sorry, but that's how I read it.

 

[psmart]

Looks like the Hike Safe card was approved by the Senate on Thursday.

http://www.concordmonitor.com/home/...t-will-help-fund-search-and-rescue-operations

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2014/HB0256.html

 

[JCarter]

The actual text as amended: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2014/HB0256.html
"Notwithstanding RSA 153-A:24, 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"
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XII/153-A/153-A-24.htm

If you don't buy a card, you are liable for expense if you act negligently, it is ambiguous whether if you do buy a card you still have to pay if you are reckless.
Sorry, but that's how I read it.

153-A:24 says:

153-A:24 Responsibility for Public Agency Response Services. –
I. A person shall be liable for response expenses if, in the judgment of the court, such person:
(a) Negligently operates a motor vehicle, boat, off highway recreational vehicle, or aircraft while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage or controlled drug and thereby proximately causes any incident resulting in a public agency response;
(b) Takes another person or persons hostage or threatens to harm himself or another person, thereby proximately causing any incident resulting in an appropriate public agency response; or
(c) Recklessly or intentionally creates a situation requiring an emergency response.
II. A person's liability under this subdivision for response expenses shall not exceed $10,000 for any single public agency response incident.

Which says to me that (a) they'll still bill you for reckless behavior and (b) there's a 10K limit for reckless behavior, but the old version did NOT have an upper limit on negligent behavior ??? (see the Scott Mason $$$ bill ....). So, to limit your liability, you should go full moron before calling in SAR....

 

[peakbagger]

I expect that the borders are going to be drawn quite narrow for non negligent behavior. And I also expect that a few lawyers will be earning some fees litigating those borders.

 

[TJsName]

So it says if you have a hunting or fishing license then you are already covered because $1 already goes into the fund. I'm wondering if a $5 Migratory Waterfowl license will cover me. It only says I need to have proof of having the license. Nothing about any intent to actually use it. http://www.wildlife.state.nh.us/Licensing/license_prices.htm

Writing laws is akin to writing code. GIGO

 

[Greg YEAH!]

I still want to know if that guy from Maine will be charged for his rescue off of Bondcliff before I buy anything. If they don't consider him negligent then I can guarantee that I will never be found negligent.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

http://www.wildnh.com/Newsroom/2014/Q3/hike_safe_card_hearing_082114.html


Proposed Hike Safe Card Rule Hearing Set for September 8, 2014

CONCORD, N.H. – The New Hampshire Fish and Game Department will hold a public hearing on proposed rules to establish a voluntary hike safe card on Monday, September 8, 2014, at 6:30 p.m. at the N.H. Fish and Game Department, 11 Hazen Drive, Concord, N.H.

The proposed rules would govern the online purchase and issuance of voluntary hike safe cards. The program would become effective on January 1, 2015.
A hike safe card is one of the documents whose possession exempts a person from liability to the Department for the reasonable cost of a search and rescue response due to the person’s negligence.

The complete rulemaking notice and initial proposal with proposed rule language can be viewed at wildnh.com/Legislative/Notices_summary.htm.

Written comments must be received by September 15, 2014. Send to: [email protected] (use subject line “Comments on Hike Safe Card rules”); or write to Executive Director, N.H. Fish and Game Department, 11 Hazen Drive, Concord, NH 03301; or fax to 603-271-1438.


Tim

 

[summitseeker]

I still want to know if that guy from Maine will be charged for his rescue off of Bondcliff before I buy anything. If they don't consider him negligent then I can guarantee that I will never be found negligent.

Hi Greg,

You bring up an interesting point. At what point does "bad luck" and negligence begin and end? Having the proper gear and attire is, as far as I know, part of the determining factor in making the call as to whether someone is "prepared". The less concrete elements would, in my opinion, have to do with how prepared the hiker is. Being well informed, physically conditioned for the proposed hike, and having sound judgement when it is necessary to turn around are all things I would personally weigh in making the determination of negligence.

That being said, I too am curious as to whether this man will be charged or not.
http://www.wmur.com/news/hiker-75-rescued-off-nh-mountain/25841214#!bH5VVU

I am just glad I don't have to make these determinations...


Be well,

Z

 

[peakbagger]

Darn, it looks like I need to use common sense and carry proper gear when hiking for a few more months, once I buy the card I guess I shouldn't care

There have been two recent rescues in the Gorham area that weren't publicized, one was medical issue on Mt Hayes in Gorham and more recently a claimed medical issue on Jefferson

 

[summitseeker]

Darn, it looks like I need to use common sense and carry proper gear when hiking for a few more months, once I buy the card I guess I shouldn't care

There have been two recent rescues in the Gorham area that weren't publicized, one was medical issue on Mt Hayes in Gorham and more recently a claimed medical issue on Jefferson

Hi peakbagger,

I hear you, and agree, loud and clear. What concerns me the most is that some fool-hardy people would buy the card knowing that they have a "get out of jail free" card should something go awry.

My greatest worry is that the card will give a sense of entitlement to those who carry it and it will be the search and rescue people who will be putting their lives at risk. I am aware that these brave people have chosen to be the ones who risk their own safety for the savior of another but it would bother me to no end if a S&R member was hurt or killed because someone felt that carrying the card made them exempt from their own responsibility.

Just saying...

Z

 

[sierra]

Hi peakbagger,

I hear you, and agree, loud and clear. What concerns me the most is that some fool-hardy people would buy the card knowing that they have a "get out of jail free" card should something go awry.

My greatest worry is that the card will give a sense of entitlement to those who carry it and it will be the search and rescue people who will be putting their lives at risk. I am aware that these brave people have chosen to be the ones who risk their own safety for the savior of another but it would bother me to no end if a S&R member was hurt or killed because someone felt that carrying the card made them exempt from their own responsibility.

Just saying...

Z

SAR folks go out because thats what they do. They see many ill-prepared in the process, this issue is moot. They will go no matter what. I lowered a guy with summer boots off Lions head in the winter after he broke his ankle, he didnt even have a winter coat. Those facts didnt concern me. I tied a rope around him and lowered him to the Tuck's trail and the litter. Then I went home.

 

[Raven]

A concern I have is that I have yet to see a clear distinction between "negligent" and "reckless." It appears that negligent behavior will be covered if you have a card whereas reckless behavior will not. It's imperative to know specifically how those terms are defined by NHF&G. Right now it's a bit "loosey-goosey." I think for those who choose to buy this card, they should have a clear distinction so there are no surprises.

I hope it does not, but if this card does give people a sense of invulnerability and false security, it has the potential to cost Fish and Game more money in the long run than it does now.

I will be interested to see data over the next few years and especially interested to see who is paying for rescues, who is not paying for rescues, who has/had a card, how negligence and reckless behavior are defined and if they are applied consistently, and whether having a card pushes people into more dangerous conditions because they have a clear safety net (in their minds). Either way, since this type of pay for rescue plan has detractors in many other mountainous regions, having accurate data is going to be important when deciding whether this program is having it's desired outcome as well as any unintended consequences.

It should be interesting to watch, that's for sure.

 

[summitseeker]

SAR folks go out because thats what they do. They see many ill-prepared in the process, this issue is moot. They will go no matter what. I lowered a guy with summer boots off Lions head in the winter after he broke his ankle, he didnt even have a winter coat. Those facts didnt concern me. I tied a rope around him and lowered him to the Tuck's trail and the litter. Then I went home.

I truly appreciate your efforts and commend you for not making judgements about the degree of preparedness you see in the people who you rescue.

Be well,

Z

 

[BooZiggy]

It seems to me the very nature of this card encourages the problem of adverse selection. I'm tempted to go to the public hearing.... though the thought of going up to Concord for 6:30 on a Monday night is not exactly appealing.

 

[RoySwkr]

>>My greatest worry is that the card will give a sense of entitlement to those who carry it and it
>>will be the search and rescue people who will be putting their lives at risk.

>SAR folks go out because thats what they do.

I think the point is whether people will take more risks if they think rescue is free

Whether F&G continues to bill the merely careless will hopefully be discussed at hearing

Even one additional helicopter operation will deplete whatever this card raises

 

[sierra]

I cannot grasp the idea that a card like this will be the cause of people taking chances because a rescue is free? Hey Dude, lets climb Mt.Washington this winter even though we only have summer gear, its free to get rescued!!!! Really this will happen? I don't see it at all. Knuckle heads that need rescues don't think that far ahead, they fall into trouble, they don't plan it. just my opinion.

 

[Tim Seaver]

I cannot grasp the idea that a card like this will be the cause of people taking chances because a rescue is free? Hey Dude, lets climb Mt.Washington this winter even though we only have summer gear, its free to get rescued!!!! Really this will happen? I don't see it at all. Knuckle heads that need rescues don't think that far ahead, they fall into trouble, they don't plan it. just my opinion.

That's kind of how I feel about it.

A similar program has been quite successful in Colorado, and it doesn't appear to be having that effect.

Change is hard. I'm hoping that enough people will eventually buy them to be a positive step.

 

[peakbagger]

The casual hiker that is most likely the least likely to have the proper gear and equipment is also the least likely to buy the card. Barring a F&G officer standing at the trail head with a pile of passes and some way of collecting electronic remittances, the card will most likely be bought by the people least likely to need them. It will be a very rare minority that will buy one so they can take higher risks, although I could envision a small market for those who elect to go underequipped in their trail endurance events buying them as insurance.

I expect there will be campaign where every F&G rescue report will include a tagline about "not leaving home without one" but expect 99.9 percent of the hiking population will assume that a they will never need the service.