NH Proposes Fee If People Need To Be Rescued

[grouseking]

http://www.wmur.com/news/nh-news/Hi...57858/17796880/-/item/0/-/uh2osn/-/index.html

The fee could run somewhere between 350 and 1000 bucks. Honestly, I think it is a good idea, esp if you are being a dumb hiker and aren't prepared. In the article, one rescuer said that he hasn't been able to replace his gear in 8 yrs because they cannot afford it, and adding this bill could aid with that. If you ask me, thats reason enough right there, because if gear fails, the hiker won't be the only one needing rescue.

What do you all think?

 

[Kevin Rooney]

I don't have a problem with purchasing a "get out of jail free card", so long as it's reasonable in cost.

This has probably been covered before, but ... does the rescue insurance provided by the American Alpine Club cover rescues in NH?

 

[grouseking]

Maybe Tim or Alan can change the above URL, but the article actually starts here.

I don't have a problem with purchasing a "get out of jail free card", so long as it's reasonable in cost.

This has probably been covered before, but ... does the rescue insurance provided by the American Alpine Club cover rescues in NH?

Whoops, fixed. Thanks.

Yeah I'm not really sure about any of that. Actually I'm pertty uninformed by the whole thing. I just know that if I was to get rescued, I would want the rescuers to have good gear. If the costs go to that, then I am all for it. It would be interesting to hear the other sides...as I am sure there are plenty.

 

[MichaelJ]

Two things in this article that stood out to me:

The attorney general's office gets half of anything (Fish & Game) collects (for a rescue due to negligence).

This is news to me. I was not aware of this.

A policy change in 2011 by the National Guard Bureau in Washington that directed the New Hampshire National Guard to recover its costs for participating in the missions.

This is also news to me, I didn't know about this policy change. Previously the use of the Blackhawk was covered as training.

 

[Tim Seaver]

Playing Dumb For Dollars

From the linked article:

"(Fish and Game Maj. Kevin) Jordan said he does not understand resistance to charging for rescues since the hikers carried off the mountains are met by an ambulance that charges them as does the hospital they are taken to."

Really? Maj. Jordan has never heard the position of the Mountain Rescue Service on charging for rescue, even in the wake of the Scott Mason case in NH, after which the MRS re-affirmed their position on charging for rescue, based on the behavior of NH F&G? He has never heard the same from other rescue personnel in NH?

Mr. Jordan must have a very short memory or simply isn't being honest.

 

[RoySwkr]

> the attorney general's office gets half of anything it collects.

Hmm, I thought they were supposed to provide an independent review but looks like they may have a bias

That needs to be changed

> The cost of some rescues also has gone up due to a policy change in 2011 by the National Guard
> Bureau in Washington that directed the New Hampshire National Guard to recover its costs for participating in the missions.

Wonder what DART would charge, and they will bill insurers

Carrying out by hand may be cheaper but will put a lot more stress on both victims and rescuers

> Jordan said he does not understand resistance to charging for rescues since the hikers carried
> off the mountains are met by an ambulance that charges them as does the hospital they are taken to.

Then the bill should include language requiring health insurers to pay the rescue bill

What about lost hikers that aren't injured?

 

[erugs]

> the attorney general's office gets half of anything it collects.

Hmm, I thought they were supposed to provide an independent review but looks like they may have a bias

Did anyone else notice how this fall there were a lot of stories about rescues in the mountains printed by the Union Leader? And now there isn't much. I think there was a push to the press for a while, but now the press has let the issue drop.

 

[sardog1]

This has probably been covered before, but ... does the rescue insurance provided by the American Alpine Club cover rescues in NH?

Ahh, it must be winter – the undead Count of Transylvania (aka "rescue insurance from the AAC") rises anew from his coffin. And is pierced through the heart, yet again, with this response from 2008. So far as I know from checking this earlier this year, the linked analysis still applies:

It's NOT rescue insurance from the AAC.

 

[Highcomm]

http://www.wmur.com/news/nh-news/Hi...57858/17796880/-/item/0/-/uh2osn/-/index.html

The fee could run somewhere between 350 and 1000 bucks. Honestly, I think it is a good idea, esp if you are being a dumb hiker and aren't prepared. In the article, one rescuer said that he hasn't been able to replace his gear in 8 yrs because they cannot afford it, and adding this bill could aid with that. If you ask me, thats reason enough right there, because if gear fails, the hiker won't be the only one needing rescue.

What do you all think?

I belong to a mountaineering blog out of Colorado. They had a string of posts once about how crazy it is in the east that people are charged for being rescued. Interesting regional difference of opinion.

 

[Tom_Murphy]

I belong to a mountaineering blog out of Colorado. They had a string of posts once about how crazy it is in the east that people are charged for being rescued. Interesting regional difference of opinion.

Many of us here in New England also feel that rescues should not be charged; for a variety of reasons.

However, one of the many things that complicates the discussion is that the NH Fish & Game has responsibility for S&R but does not have adequate funding. Also the funding mechanism that does exist draws its revenue from "non-hiking groups" hunters, fishermen, etc. NH has a history of fee for service that is percieved as being the fair way to distribute the cost of government.

I am sure I am doing a disservice to all sides with that brief summary but it is either that OR referring you back the many existing VFTT threads on this topic.

 

[Highcomm]

Many of us here in New England also feel that rescues should not be charged; for a variety of reasons.

However, one of the many things that complicates the discussion is that the NH Fish & Game has responsibility for S&R but does not have adequate funding. Also the funding mechanism that does exist draws its revenue from "non-hiking groups" hunters, fishermen, etc. NH has a history of fee for service that is percieved as being the fair way to distribute the cost of government.

I am sure I am doing a disservice to all sides with that brief summary but it is either that OR referring you back the many existing VFTT threads on this topic.

The interesting thing is that NH promotes people coming to its state to hike and enjoy the outdoors. They need to expect that every now and then one of these tourists is going to do something stupid like get hurt or get lost while in the outdoors. I understand the political culture in NH. Not complaining about it but it seems a little difficult to understand sometimes. That said, I will do my best to never get hurt or get lost while hiking in that state.

 

[Red Oak]

The interesting thing is that NH promotes people coming to its state to hike and enjoy the outdoors. They need to expect that every now and then one of these tourists is going to do something stupid like get hurt or get lost while in the outdoors. I understand the political culture in NH.

SEveral threads regarding your first two sentences already on this forum.Glad you get the political culture in nh,I do not!
Nh is really a tale of two states.Southern nh is awash in Boston commuter money with all the benefits such as unchecked growth and traffic hell,while the northern section struggles with depopulation and lack of jobs.Never talk politics while in northern nh or maine!!

 

[roadtripper]

If they charged a fee like that, then I would literally crawl my way out if I got injured. I would tell my family to try to sue the state if I died because charging a fee for getting injured is ridiculous (unless negligence is involved).

Tourism is NH's 2nd or 3rd biggest industry (NPR says it is #3). According to one report I read, tourism in NH contributes 4.6 billion to the NH economy each year.

Shame on NH for not directing some of the general funds to support activity of its 2nd or 3rd biggest industry.

 

[DougPaul]

Ahh, it must be winter – the undead Count of Transylvania (aka "rescue insurance from the AAC") rises anew from his coffin. And is pierced through the heart, yet again, with this response from 2008. So far as I know from checking this earlier this year, the linked analysis still applies:

It's NOT rescue insurance from the AAC.

The AAC rescue insurance has been increased recently--your old opinion might be out of date.

Doug

 

[weatherman]

I belong to a mountaineering blog out of Colorado. They had a string of posts once about how crazy it is in the east that people are charged for being rescued. Interesting regional difference of opinion.

One thing I like about having moved to CO is that people who use the backcountry seem to get along with one another pretty darn well, regardless of activity (the skier-snowboarder thing notwithstanding ). The Search and Rescue Fund is funded by licenses to hunt, fish, use off road vehicles, register anything big you might use in the backcountry (like a boat), and, for those of us like me who don't do any of the above, voluntary SAR cards that you can buy for cheap. From my reading of the regs, if you get rescued and have a card, the Sheriff's office in wherever you get stuck can be reimbursed by the fund for the costs of your rescue. If you don't have a card, you'll of course be rescued anyway, but it's a really nice thing to do. Charging people for rescue would just not seem right, for a million reasons.

I can't easily find data on how well the fund works, but it's good to have, and I haven't heard complaints from people who hunt and fish about those who don't taking advantage of the system. Most people do more than one thing anyway.

 

[TJ aka Teej]

"for a rescue due to negligence"

Who will be decide what that means?

 

[David Metsky]

"for a rescue due to negligence"

Who will be decide what that means?

Probably the same folks who decide now.

 

[Tim Seaver]

"for a rescue due to negligence"

Who will be decide what that means?

The same people who get the funds from a "yes they were negligent" decision, no? Which also cannot be challenged, if I remember correctly. Not exactly a Kangaroo Court, but it's a pretty huge conflict of interest to ignore IMHO.

 

[Maddy]

I carry my gear to spend a night out but I do go solo with my dog.
If solo hiking is being negligent so be it. I will pay up and be grateful someone was willing to save my sorry bacon.

They have the hike safe protocol carefully spelled out. I suppose if that's what they go by and we wish to do our own thing, we will be deemed negligent in the "hikers court". It's like driving. The speed limit is non negotiable.

I don't like having to pay and would rather have insurance. We pay an ambulance fee here in town and it's not cheap.
We are having to pay for recycling bags which are mandatory. It's the way of the world. They all need funds to carry on.

I spend most of my time in MA an VT to save on gas. Didn't someone die of hypothermia on a trail in VT ? last year when they could not decided who was responsible for doing rescues? I think we discussed it. I have a PLB so I will be much more difficult to ignore.

 

[sardog1]

The same people who get the funds from a "yes they were negligent" decision, no? Which also cannot be challenged, if I remember correctly. Not exactly a Kangaroo Court, but it's a pretty huge conflict of interest to ignore IMHO.

The decision to collect the funds would be subject to judicial review by a New Hampshire court. In fact, Fish and Game has no authority even to seize property or garnish any account or wages to collect the amount. The Attorney General would have to sue the party in question.