NH Hikesafe Card in NH House study committee

[Tim Seaver]

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 think that's way off the mark, but we are all just speculating, right?

The CORSAR card has been quite successful, something which would be unlikely if it was just irresponsible trail runner types buying them.

I say we give it a chance before we condemn the idea.

 

[Ed'n Lauky]

I think that's way off the mark, but we are all just speculating, right?

The CORSAR card has been quite successful, something which would be unlikely if it was just irresponsible trail runner types buying them.

I say we give it a chance before we condemn the idea.

As Raven pointed out, the failure of the legislature to distinguish between 'negligent' and 'reckless' is disturbing. One question that has been frequently raised and to my knowledge never answered is: Will hiking solo be considered 'reckless'? Just knowing the answer to that question would help many people know if it is worth purchasing the card. While what applies in one area may not figure in in another, I was wondering if you could tell me from your experience with the CORSAR card if solo hiking figures into the equation.

 

[TJsName]

I think that's way off the mark, but we are all just speculating, right?

But speculation is fun. The confirmation bias leads to false confidence in assertions. IMO, one of the greatest disservices one can do to their constituents is to state opinions as fact when the assertion is at best unproven and at worst maliciously intended to deceive. I guess in a few years we can refer back to this thread and see what the actual impact was.

Now, what are the definitions of success for this program?

 

[Raven]

Now, what are the definitions of success for this program?

IMO:

-Quality/success rate of rescue services stays at the level that has been maintained.
-NHF&G stays within their budget due to the increased revenue generated by this card and no general fund tax money is necessary.
-Hikers choosing to not buy the card are not asked to pay for rescues they would not have paid for before the card came about.
-Charges are applied consistently and fairly based on clear, transparent reasoning.

 

[Tim Seaver]

But speculation is fun.

This is true! Personally, If I were to speculate on who is going to purchase the card as a "Get Out Of Jail" ticket, I would venture it would be the same group that accounts for most of the rescue incidents in the backcountry, which is middle-aged, out-of-shape hikers getting in over their head. Perhaps while they are pursuing a list of some kind.

If I was to speculate.

 

[TJsName]

IMO:

-Quality/success rate of rescue services stays at the level that has been maintained.
-NHF&G stays within their budget due to the increased revenue generated by this card and no general fund tax money is necessary.
-Hikers choosing to not buy the card are not asked to pay for rescues they would not have paid for before the card came about.
-Charges are applied consistently and fairly based on clear, transparent reasoning.

1.) Agreed - this is very important. While I'd be surprised if the card program led to poorer service for people without cards, I see your concern. Is F&G going to ask about it before they come get you? It should be irrelevant - something to sort out after.

2.) Agreed. This is the impetus for the program, right? This type of goal is easier to measure than the first...assuming NH doesn't move back to the gold standard...

3 and 4.) Agreed in spirit, but this seems harder to define aside from comparing to existing cases where there already inconsistencies. When I think of a problem like this, I try to imagine what the code would look like. It's pretty easy to code for the easy stuff - if they have done nothing right (no supplies/gear, no planning etc.) vs having done everything right (proper gear, experience). It's all those in-between cases that are so difficult to code for. I would advocate for the use of discretion that can be guided by a rubric. I'm sure this group could come up with dozens of hypothetical (and real-life!) scenarios where the answer isn't obvious. Like code, sometimes the best way to see if it works is to try it and then go back and fix it.

I think that's a great start and I think you have the order right as well. I'm glad you jumped past the 'sell 100,000 cards' type of goals that aren't really measures of the program working. I would add as number 2, the number of rescues due to negligence decreasing as percentage of all hikers (however they estimate that). I would hope that the focus of the messaging around this problem is how prevent needing a rescue, not just what happens after you need one. I suspect that even the most ardent ultra-lightweight hikers wouldn't be opposed to the extra ounce.

 

[Raven]

1.) Agreed - this is very important. While I'd be surprised if the card program led to poorer service for people without cards, I see your concern. Is F&G going to ask about it before they come get you? It should be irrelevant - something to sort out after.

2.) Agreed. This is the impetus for the program, right? This type of goal is easier to measure than the first...assuming NH doesn't move back to the gold standard...

3 and 4.) Agreed in spirit, but this seems harder to define aside from comparing to existing cases where there already inconsistencies. When I think of a problem like this, I try to imagine what the code would look like. It's pretty easy to code for the easy stuff - if they have done nothing right (no supplies/gear, no planning etc.) vs having done everything right (proper gear, experience). It's all those in-between cases that are so difficult to code for. I would advocate for the use of discretion that can be guided by a rubric. I'm sure this group could come up with dozens of hypothetical (and real-life!) scenarios where the answer isn't obvious. Like code, sometimes the best way to see if it works is to try it and then go back and fix it.

I think that's a great start and I think you have the order right as well. I'm glad you jumped past the 'sell 100,000 cards' type of goals that aren't really measures of the program working. I would add as number 2, the number of rescues due to negligence decreasing as percentage of all hikers (however they estimate that). I would hope that the focus of the messaging around this problem is how prevent needing a rescue, not just what happens after you need one. I suspect that even the most ardent ultra-lightweight hikers wouldn't be opposed to the extra ounce.

Re: "I would advocate for the use of discretion that can be guided by a rubric. I'm sure this group could come up with dozens of hypothetical (and real-life!) scenarios where the answer isn't obvious. Like code, sometimes the best way to see if it works is to try it and then go back and fix it."

I'd like to see this too. For an example, a series of questions scored 0-5 (or something like that) with each score level given a "sample answer." An obvious question they will ask is regarding how many of the 10 essentials were with the hiker. Maybe having all of them or all the vital ones for that day gets you the 5, maybe having 7 of them gets you 4 points, etc. The experts come up with 20 or so questions about the rescue scenario in that rubric format and you get a baseline score. With enough good questions and a thorough response, it could have some value. I agree though, that common sense must prevail for those situations where out of the ordinary circumstances cause a situation not really appropriate for the rubric to assess. I also think they should err on the side of the hiker should there be doubt.

Good point and I agree in hoping the message gets out there to the people who need it. If enough talk is generated about the card itself during the roll out phase, it may get people asking questions about why it's needed, what happens without one, etc. There could be some education there. That would be the ideal answer anyway. Education. Best way to avoid paying for a rescue is to not need a rescue.

 

[jniehof]

I was wondering if you could tell me from your experience with the CORSAR card if solo hiking figures into the equation.

The CORSAR card is nothing like the proposed HikeSafe card. Rescue in CO is performed by local agencies (often coordinated by the county sheriff) and generally one is not charged. If SAR responds to someone carrying a card, they're reimbursed from the CORSAR fund. The CORSAR program takes no stance on the topic of being charged for rescue and I have not heard of any agency which makes that a determining factor. For that matter, I haven't heard of any agency seeking reimbursement from an individual in distress regardless.

 

[Tim Seaver]

The CORSAR card is nothing like the proposed HikeSafe card.

The cards certainly share some similarities. Are they identical in their rules and implementation? - no.

What they share is a method of fundraising to offset the costs of SAR, do they not?

By purchasing a CORSAR card you are contributing to the Search and Rescue Fund, which will reimburse these teams for costs incurred in your search and rescue.

------

For the cost of the card, you have helped ensure that trained and well equipped search and rescue teams will respond should you become lost or in need of rescue. Furthermore, volunteers will not have to incur undue expense due to your emergency

Isn't the main difference being what happens if you DON'T have a card? In Colorado, they still won't bill you, whereas in NH, they will?

Is this "insurance?"
NO.
The SAR Card is not "insurance.” When SAR teams are called and carry out
the mission, they won't bill you. Never wait to call for help. Delaying a call for a SAR
team can cause needless danger in a rescue, or unnecessarily complicate a search for a
missing person. Always err on the side of caution and call 911 as soon as possible.

 

[RoySwkr]

The CORSAR card has been quite successful, something which would be unlikely if it was just irresponsible trail runner types buying them.

It voluntarily raises a small fraction of the SAR expense, so I would call it successful but not "quite"

Having climbed over 100 peaks in Colo I have never seen one of these advertised there and I don't know anybody who has one, as you won't be billed for rescue anyway

This is true! Personally, If I were to speculate on who is going to purchase the card as a "Get Out Of Jail" ticket, I would venture it would be the same group that accounts for most of the rescue incidents in the backcountry, which is middle-aged, out-of-shape hikers getting in over their head. Perhaps while they are pursuing a list of some kind.

I wish I had a Master Snarkiness license like TS, who can make outrageous statements without ever drawing complaints from the moderators

As far as I can tell, neither trail runners nor peakbaggers make up more than I small fraction of the rescuees who are often kids or random hikers from out of state, the rescued will never hear of these cards until too late hence are unlikely to buy one

 

[Tim Seaver]

I wish I had a Master Snarkiness license like TS, who can make outrageous statements without ever drawing complaints from the moderators

As far as I can tell, neither trail runners nor peakbaggers make up more than I small fraction of the rescuees who are often kids or random hikers from out of state, the rescued will never hear of these cards until too late hence are unlikely to buy one

My good man, I believe you have misunderstood my post, which while in part was intended to be a humorous response to some of the speculation by others as to the motives and demographics of the people who will supposedly buy the card, is based on an actual study of SAR incidents.

It's a bit dated now, but still relevant.

Epidemiology of Wilderness Search and Rescue in New Hampshire, 1999–2001

Methods
We conducted a retrospective review of New Hampshire Fish and Game Department wilderness search-and-rescue reports between January 1999 and December 2001. The study group consisted of all the subjects of the New Hampshire Fish and Game Department search and rescue in the state of New Hampshire during the study period. Demographics, types of incidents, type and location of injuries, environmental factors, fatalities, and use of medical services for all the subjects were analyzed.

Results
Three hundred twenty-one incidents involving 457 subjects were analyzed. The mean age of the subjects in the incidents was 35.6 years, with 64.5% men and 35.4% women; 73% of the subjects resided in New Hampshire and Massachusetts. At the time of the incident, 57.3% of the subjects were hiking. Injuries precipitated 39.3% of the rescues, whereas lost and missing persons accounted for 41.4%. Fractures accounted for 33.7% of the reported injuries; 49.7% of the injuries were to the lower extremities. Sixty-four of the subjects (14%) died; 32.8% drowned, and 23.4% died from cardiac events. Volunteers were used in 53.3% of the rescues, a rescuer was injured in 2.5% of the incidents, and at least 36.4% of the subjects were transported to a hospital.

Conclusions
The most prevalent demographic group requiring search-and-rescue efforts in New Hampshire was men aged 30 to 40 years who were hiking and who resided within a 4-hour drive of the area where they encountered difficulty. To decrease the number of people involved in most search and rescue, efforts should be focused on preventing wilderness users from getting lost and preventing lower extremity musculoskeletal injuries. Wilderness deaths may be prevented by focusing attention on cardiac health in wilderness users older than 50 years and on water safety.

(emphasis mine)

Do note that there is no mention whatsoever of ill-equipped people and their wacky trail endurance events getting rescued.
That's because that rarely, if ever, happens. Why? Because generally those folks know the area pretty damn well, are physically fit, know their limits, and are prepared.

To review:
1. The people needing rescues are generally the 30-40 yr old semi-local males who were hiking.
2. Don't get lost or injure your feet/legs.
3. Out of shape older hikers account for the greatest number of fatalities. If those hikers were in better shape, fewer would die or require SAR teams.

 

[skiguy]

Can't help but remember the fellow whom was out hiking Cap's Ridge I believe with his daughter a few years back and needed a rescue. If I remember correctly it was Summer and they started hiking around 3:30 PM. It got dark not far from their decent off the Summit of Jefferson. I do not believe they had many if any of the 10 essentials including no flashlight. Although they did have a cellphone in which they tried to use as a flashlight to no avail. They called 911. It took several hours for rescuers to find them. Upon the rescuers arrival the Man's first words were "What took you so long"?

http://blog.tmcnet.com/blog/rich-tehrani/uploads/monopoly-go-to-jail-card.jpg

 

[sierra]

Can't help but remember the fellow whom was out hiking Cap's Ridge I believe with his daughter a few years back and needed a rescue. If I remember correctly it was Summer and they started hiking around 3:30 PM. It got dark not far from their decent off the Summit of Jefferson. I do not believe they had many if any of the 10 essentials including no flashlight. Although they did have a cellphone in which they tried to use as a flashlight to no avail. They called 911. It took several hours for rescuers to find them. Upon the rescuers arrival the Man's first words were "What took you so long"?

http://blog.tmcnet.com/blog/rich-tehrani/uploads/monopoly-go-to-jail-card.jpg

I've lived in CO and the card they use is very succesfull. I did buy one, not that I planned on using the benefits, but wanted to contribute to the SAR guy's. One of the biggest problems with the implementation of the card here, is everyone is so confrontational about the basic details. Just look at this thread alone. I mean the principle is basic. You buy the card if your rescued your covered.

 

[Tim Seaver]

I've lived in CO and the card they use is very succesfull. I did buy one, not that I planned on using the benefits, but wanted to contribute to the SAR guy's. One of the biggest problems with the implementation of the card here, is everyone is so confrontational about the basic details. Just look at this thread alone. I mean the principle is basic. You buy the card if your rescued your covered.

It's fascinating to see the card almost being demonized now as something only deadbeat types would buy, isn't it?

Kind of an odd way to build support for this initiative. Should we just trash the whole HikeSafe program while we are at it? Save some of those precious "taxpayer dollars"?

I mean...nobody reads that crap at the trail heads anyway, right?

 

[bikehikeskifish]

Personally I will continue to buy an annual fishing license which contributes to more than one of my outdoor passions.

Tim

 

[hikerbrian]

Not expecting (or trying) to change anyone's opinion here, but if CO's card is so successful, why not charge a similar amount for the NH card? I mean, at least within an order of magnitude? $125 for 5 yrs in NH, vs $12 for 5 yrs in CO? C'mon.


I'm sure "an analysis was done," and they expect to lose some participants but maximize revenue at that price point. Well, they've lost me as a participant. Good luck, NH.

 

[TEO]

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.

The determination of negligence is at the discretion of the State Fish & Game Department & is, as you say, "a bit 'loosey-goosey'"(1). New Hampshire law is clear about the definition of reckless conduct & it is a criminal charge (2).

TITLE LXII
CRIMINAL CODE

631:3 Reckless Conduct. –
I. A person is guilty of reckless conduct if he recklessly engages in conduct which places or may place another in danger of serious bodily injury.
II. Reckless conduct is a class B felony if the person uses a deadly weapon as defined in RSA 625:11, V. All other reckless conduct is a misdemeanor.
III. A person convicted of a class B felony offense under this section shall not be subject to the provisions of RSA 651:2, II-g.

Source 1 & Source 2.

 

[JCarter]

A person is guilty of reckless conduct if he is reckless. Of course it is. The first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club.

 

[Raven]

The determination of negligence is at the discretion of the State Fish & Game Department & is, as you say, "a bit 'loosey-goosey'"(1). New Hampshire law is clear about the definition of reckless conduct & it is a criminal charge (2).




Source 1 & Source 2.

Thanks for posting those, especially source 2. I 'lol'ed as the kids say, when I read this for the definition of reckless conduct:

"Section 631:3
631:3 Reckless Conduct. –
I. A person is guilty of reckless conduct if he recklessly engages in conduct which places or may place another in danger of serious bodily injury." (Bold added)

Hmmm...so a person is guilty of "reckless conduct" if he "recklessly" engages in "conduct" which places another in danger.

Interesting. Using the term "reckless conduct" to define "reckless conduct." Well done, legislators.

I hereby submit suggested language for the bill:

"A hiker is to be found engaged in reckless behavior if said hiker engages in behavior that is deemed to be reckless. On the other hand, a hiker is to be found engaged in negligent behavior if said hiker engages in behavior that is deemed to be negligent."

Yes.

The first source has a helpful line:

"Hikers who may be billed include those who are poorly equipped for terrain or weather and/or lack reasonable skills or stamina to handle the hike without getting lost or injured."

Edit- JCarter, you beat me to it.

 

[TEO]

While it certainly looks like a circular definition, reckless conduct/endangerment is a pretty standard legal term for a criminal act with roots at least as deep as Common Law. Most states have laws in place for criminal negligence, but since we are talking about negligence as determined by the State Fish & Game Department, and punishment amounts to a fine, but does not include the possibility of jail time, it is not the criminal kind.