Poll: Would you purchase a yearly Hike Safe card?

[marnof]

If you were not covered for this by other NH licenses you purchased, would you:

Purchase a Hike Safe card to defray part of the cost of your rescue (voided if you are deemed negligent)?

 

[Tom Rankin]

Ummm, what part?

And more importantly, what Poll??

 

[marnof]

Ummm, what part?

And more importantly, what Poll??

Apologies... this didn't work out well when I set it up and Tim is offering assistance.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

I added a yes/no poll, and I voted no for two reasons - one, I buy an annual fishing license and two, assuming I am not negligent, $1000 is not enough to make me think too hard about calling for rescue.

Tim

 

[marnof]

I usually buy a non-resident fishing license, so I'm assuming it would be redundant to purchase the Hike Safe card for myself. I'd like to know if that's not the case, though.

If I didn't buy a non-resident fishing license (expensive, BTW) I don't think I'd pony up the money for this card, given that my cost without the card is at most $1000 of the rescue, and I could just as easily be held responsible for the entire cost anyway, if someone determines I was hiking negligently. I do hike solo primarily.

 

[Tom_Murphy]

Is hiking alone considered negligent?

I am very confident that I carry enough food, clothing, fuel, gear, etc. I am conservative in terms of weather, mileage, elevation. So when I break my leg and need a rescue [ I stick to my internary & I carry a PLB, so there won't be much of a search], will that fact that I was alone be used to declare me negligent?

 

[JCarter]

Old system: we bill you full cost if you are negligent (being a flatlander is implicit proof of negligence)
New system: pay us $18/year, or we'll bill you $1000, unless we consider you to be negligent or otherwise a non-resident.

Well, I'm motivated to go plunk down my $18.

 

[sierra]

Yes I would, they have them in CO and I bought one there. Yhis is the best system out there for direct contributions.

 

[jrbren]

No. If I needed a rescue then by definition I would be negligent. My solution is don't call for help. (Tom - yes hiking alone would be considered negligent. If they can charge you money, they will find some reason you were negligent, period). Hiking in snow would be considered negligent. Hiking in weather with a 10% or greater chance of showers would be considered negligent. If I do not own a gps, spot, or other electronic gadget of the day, negligent.

 

[Ed'n Lauky]

I voted yes but that is on the condition that solo hiking is not in and of itself considered negligent. If it is it would be a total waste of money for me to buy the card as, apart from Lauky, I am almost always solo.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

I cannot find anything on hikesafe.com that says you must hike with someone. It says if you start out as a group, then stay together and finish as a group, but it also says "Become self reliant by ..."

Tim

 

[Brambor]

I agree with this. In this system it seems that hikers are considered as a group to dump on or to extract money from. These decisions and ramblings in the nh newspapers are conducted by people who sit on their butt, never venture into the mountains and have no regard for people like us who do.

To them, the pure fact that we venture into the nature at our own power without motorized devices is crazy=negligent

Please excuse my rambling. I'm trying to keep it short ;-) I am most likely wrong.

No. If I needed a rescue then by definition I would be negligent. My solution is don't call for help. (Tom - yes hiking alone would be considered negligent. If they can charge you money, they will find some reason you were negligent, period). Hiking in snow would be considered negligent. Hiking in weather with a 10% or greater chance of showers would be considered negligent. If I do not own a gps, spot, or other electronic gadget of the day, negligent.

 

[RoySwkr]

I feel that the $18/yr is a gross ripoff and will not buy one at that price, although I am considering a donation of that amount to some rescue group

I would buy one at the $1/yr charged for other users

 

[Tim Seaver]

Initially I was supportive of the card, but once it was stated that even purchasers of the card would get billed if "deemed negligent", I lost interest pretty quickly.
They are trying to have their cake and eat it too, and I don't think it's going to go over well as designed at this point.

This is what happens when you try to do stuff "on the cheap" - you shoot yourself in your own economic foot trying to kill that fly on your toe.

You would never know given the fuss over a few hundred grand for SAR, that there is over $4 BILLION in traveler spending in NH every year!
You also don't hear many complaints about the DTTD spending 5 MILLION a year to promote tourism either. Because it's not dramatic or "newsworthy".

This is all about optics - the drama of a rescue makes people more focused on the money, even though the actual amount is TRIVIAL compared to other expenditures.

 

[Kevin Rooney]

Initially I was supportive of the card, but once it was stated that even purchasers of the card would get billed if "deemed negligent", I lost interest pretty quickly.

Yup. Me too.

 

[Jasper]

I voted No. The liability amount, and the risk associated with hiking just don't make this a good value.

 

[SherpaWill]

I would if the price is reasonable.

 

[andrewb]

I would definitely buy in if there was not a negligence clause. As others have stated, that wording essentially makes the card basically worthless, esp for solo hikers. On a related side note, if I am any indication, then hikers do not contribute very much of the $4 billion in traveler spending. I never stay in a hotel / motel (even in winter I would rather sleep in drivers seat if setting up a tent not practical) - do not eat out after hike except for a $5 sub - and overall spend absolutely as little money as possible.

 

[Raven]

I feel that the $18/yr is a gross ripoff and will not buy one at that price, although I am considering a donation of that amount to some rescue group

I would buy one at the $1/yr charged for other users

This would be my hope that many of us could do. If hikers threw in a yearly donation, this discussion might not be necessary, nor would negligence determination, nor would insurance.

I voted "no" on principle, on more than one principle actually, as I will not buy anything resembling insurance to hike. Personal view. Nor do I care to have some panel determining whether or not the combination of my hike plan, conditions, gear, and my individual skill level to use such gear is neligent or not, especially a panel that would likely not be independent of F&G. I am in full support of S and R groups and have donated the financial equivalent of more than 5X one of these cards within the last month. I believe in supporting them, but I will not buy insurance even if it becomes a $0.99 iPad app. Here are some links. These are good people that can use the support directly:


This group (NH Outdoor Council) provides grants for equipment and other needs that go directly to the S&R groups. It is a 100% volunteer group so there are no salaries or stipends to cover. Thanks to SarDog for pointing it out to me recently.

http://www.nhoutdoorcouncil.org/index.php

Here's one for the Pemi S&R Team:

https://www.facebook.com/pemisar

Here's Mountain Rescue Services:

http://www.nhmrs.org/

They're all good groups. Which ones am I missing?

Mods: please let me know if any bounds have been overstepped and I will edit.

 

[spider solo]

I also voted no.
No rescues for me, thank you very much.

My wife and I used to have an agreement, if travelling by land no rescue till I'm at least one full day late....if traveling by boat same day if overdue.
Now I ask her no rescues either way.

Of course that leads to the question : what if somebody initiates a rescue when you don't want one ?