NH Hikesafe Card in NH House study committee

[Creag Nan Drochaid]

Well, the State in its omniscience now has a law that is not much changed from the original bill, and the details of fees and where the card can be sold are in the law, not exactly left to the discretion of the Commissioners of Fish & Game. The new "hikesafe" card is less fair than the previous system, because you pay $25/year for one whereas if you bought another type of license from F&G or registered your boat you would throw only $1 into the F&G fund. Such persons are 14% of the rescuees and persons F&G calls "hikers" are 57% of the rescuees, but the individual hiker has little incentive to pay $25 for a one-year rescue insurance policy especially when the terms of coverage are so vague and at the discretion of the same people who bill them for their rescue.

The Colorado card obviously works better because it works like an insurance policy, buy it once and it is then good for one use thereafter, and your money is in the SAR fund from date of purchase. No need to determine "negligence" and no conflict of interest. I suggested this to the Senate committee last March 19 to no avail. I also suggested that if the NH SAR card is to be annual then the fee should be $15 with $12 going to the SAR fund, a much better cost/benefit ratio. That also fell on deaf ears.

I expect that individual hikers calculating the odds of their needing rescue versus the cost and term of this SAR card will most likely see it as not beneficial enough for them, and the fact they pay 25 times the rate of any other "user group" can't help sales either.

The present card will probably fail, and we will be back before legislative committees in a year or two. Maybe they will listen better then.

Meantime there is the public hearing on the rules implementing the hikesafe card at 630 PM on Mon Sep 8 at F&G HQ on Hazen Drive in Concord. Maybe they can at least mandate that the card be sold at every F&G license agent so it has a chance of reaching more people, or does the law limit sales to only the F&G website? If so, that's another way for the powers that be to plan for this to fail.
I hope someone attends and reports.

 

[RoySwkr]

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.

I don't think that the experienced in any sport are those most likely to need help, although IIRC Cave Dog had to be toted off the Long Trail by his staff

Lacking flashlights is a frequent equipment issue in reports, F&G doesn't break out trail runners from hikers but if they did the common type wearing sneakers who starts up late in the day without a pack or flashlight because they'll be down in no time has the features of a trail runner

Even the famous $25,000 "Eagle Scout" might be categorized as trail running as he expected to cover the distance fast and didn't carry overnight gear

 

[Tim Seaver]

No. Just....no.

Note that I was referring to "endurance events", not "trail runners".

In any case, I think your interpretations are a stretch which doesn't jibe with the historical record. In particular, trying to shoehorn Scott Mason into the category. Seriously?

Find me some F&G reports that refer to "trail runners" being rescued, which most emphatically does NOT include people wandering up mountains with no lights at random. That doesn't make them "trail runners" .

Trail runners RUN. That's the distinguishing feature in case you are confused about what "trail running" is.

The myth of the lightly prepared trail runner needing a rescue is a persistent one, but based on hot air.

 

[Tuck]

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.

Use of "tautology" in a "fight club" reference = A+

Tuck

 

[TJsName]

Use of "tautology" in a "fight club" reference = A+

Tuck

http://xkcd.com/703/

 

[RoySwkr]

Find me some F&G reports that refer to "trail runners" being rescued, which most emphatically does NOT include people wandering up mountains with no lights at random. That doesn't make them "trail runners" .

F&G doesn't separate types of users, and the study you love to cite is over a decade old before the popularity of trail running exploded

Trail runners RUN. That's the distinguishing feature in case you are confused about what "trail running" is.

Trail runners need to recognize that there are doofus runners just as there are doofus hikers, if you don't get the FS to approve "Run Safe" guidelines and the 4? Essentials they will continue to group everybody with hiker guidelines.

Somebody who goes to EMS and buys trail running shoes instead of hiking boots so they can jog up mountains is a trail runner, and doesn't magically become a hiker when they get tired and start to walk.

 

[David Metsky]

Moderator Note
Let's be sensitive to real people and emotions out there.

 

[alexmtn]

Moderator Note
Let's be sensitive to real people and emotions out there.

This discussion actually succeeded in sending me to a dictionary, which assigned 3 definitional attributes to the term 'hike': (1) long; (2) walk; and (3) countryside [or woods]. So for folks who operate under this definition, trail running is indeed a distinctly separate activity from hiking, and therefore presumably deserves/requires its own set of guidelines.

For whatever reason, my own interpretation of 'hike' has been more in alignment with what we perceive from F&G, wherein (1) and (3) above are the operative attributes, whether walking, jogging, or running. In other words, I've always thought of trail running as being a subset of hiking. I see the HikeSafe guidelines as being equally applicable to all these flavors, with one's intended gait and speed being planning variables just as trail conditions, weather, terrain, intended distance, possible contingency risks, etc. are planning variables that affect go/no-go decisions, alternate plans, clothing, gear, food/water amounts, etc.

So as we look at and discuss the substance of what safe/sensible back country travel is, let's recognize that many points of disagreement actually are nothing more than artifacts of varying definitional contexts. So this thread could be distinctly more friendly and fun (well, depending on what each of us thinks of as 'fun') if we take pause to understand where the other person is coming from when he/she invokes a loaded word such as "hike" or "run" before responding, tautologically (combine this with the above quote from David) or otherwise.

Alex