Poll: Would you purchase a yearly Hike Safe card?

[RoySwkr]

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

In effect, that's what happened to Scott Mason - he could easily have built a bigger fire but didn't know anybody was looking for him

The woman who spent the night near Mt. Jackson may wish to comment here

And let's take the case of the recent folks who triggered a beacon near Lafayette Brook, suppose F&G could call them back with 3 choices:
* You are 1.5 miles from the road, if you walk down the brook a parks employee will meet you at the road and drive you back to your car for free
* If you are feeling overextended, two conservation officers will break a path into where you are, give you hot drinks, and walk out with you - this will cost you $200
* If you need immediate rescue, we will winch you up to a helicopter which will cost you $8000

 

[griffin]

... if I am any indication, then hikers do not contribute very much of the $4 billion in traveler spending...

I think taking ourselves (either as specific individuals or those who post on sites like this) as "any indication" is a dicey proposition. We're a pretty self-selected group, though speaking for myself and the people I tend to hike with, I'd estimate we spend at least $10 per head on gas (we always refuel before heading home to Mass.) and post-hike snacks. And that's when we head straight home rather than hitting the Common Man or the like for dinner and tasty beverages. And I do stay at huts and hotels depending on the weekend's itinerary. Then, there are the folks who visit NH because they can go hiking, or who might decide to hike on a trail during a vacation, whom we might not think of as "hikers" So I do think that hikers/people who hike/people who use hiking trails/however you want to define it do contribute significantly to NH's economy. And that's before you get to the funds the federal government pays to NH to offset the state tax revenues and other expenses related to having a national forest withing its borders.

That aside, I haven't voted because I have mixed feelings. IMO, New Hampshire ought to fund Fish and Game, and it's role in SAR operations appropriately out of existing funds. But it doesn't, and I'm willing to chip in in some way, particularly if some of those funds would help support the organizations that participate in SAR activities (offset gear and training costs, etc.). However, I do have some of the same concerns about the cost, and the risk of being charged anyway because the people in charge of deciding if I'm negligent have an interest in collecting additional monies.

 

[IQuest]

I voted no. I hike mostly solo with my dog and have no plans to ever call fo a rescue. It sounds a bit vain but I believe that if caling for help is part or you emergency plan than you are relying, and planning, on someone else to take over when things go wrong. If I need a rescue I more than likely won't be in any shape to use a phone. Do you think Darby Field ever had the thought of rescue insurance?

Not to stir the pot, but maybe a parking pass should be required at all trailheads and part of that fee could cover the rescue insurance rather than an outhouse and trash can.

 

[griffin]

maybe a parking pass should be required at all trailheads and part of that fee could cover the rescue insurance rather than an outhouse and trash can.

I like this idea, too - they could add a buck or two to the WMNF fee tubes and add tubes parking areas on state facilities. It's easy, and it captures the majority of users who might have need of the service regarless of whether they consider themselves "hikers" or whether they believe they'd ever need the service.

 

[Highcomm]

Yes, sign me up. However, I just know one of these days I'm going to do something stupid on the trail and I'm going to end up crawling back to civilization to avoid the cost of rescue.

 

[roadtripper]

Where's the option for "No, and I think the state of NH is being absolutely ridiculous for not supporting one of its biggest drivers of its own economy"? =)

 

[Breeze]

Truly, Let Jeb Bradley come sit with me any Saturday or Sunday May through late October as I turn car after car after car after car around the Toll house at the Auto road.... all occupants looking for " the" trail to the White Mountains.

25 cents for a clue would go a long way.

Breeze

 

[Highcomm]

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 ?

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


A couple of friends of mine spent a night on West Royce a few years ago. It was suppose to be a nice winter hike but they encountered a snowstorm, lost the trail a couple of times, and had no snowshoes. They got behind schedule so they decided to hunker down for the night and walk out in the morn. They were never lost. Anyway, one of the wives panicked when her husband didn't call or show up as scheduled and she proceeded to contact NH state police, game warden service, etc and convinced them to start a search. From what I understand, a massive search and rescue effort ensued. It even included National Guard helicopters. To make a long story short, the two guys walked out to the trailhead parking lot at 7am and were greeted by the team of rescuers. The lead rescuer made no bones about the fact he was pissed and that the two guys would probably be charged for the rescue effort. He told them the cost would probably be around $15K. They apologized profusely but told the head guy they never were lost and they never asked to be rescued. Thankfully, the state must of thought twice about it because they never got a bill. There was a period of time, though, in which they were sweating it out fearing they would get a big bill.

 

[Trail Bandit]

If you want to make a donation I would suggest that you send it to the Mountain Rescue people in North Conway.
They don't get paid out of your tax money and go out and rescue people whether the rescuees are idiots or just got into a mess but were otherwise competent. What percent of the NH Fish and Game total budget is spent on rescues?
I won't send a dime to NH F&G for a rescue card that is only of help in covering the costs if THEY decide to let you off the hook.

 

[Ed'n Lauky]

I won't send a dime to NH F&G for a rescue card that is only of help in covering the costs if THEY decide to let you off the hook.

This is an excellent point and one that needs to be pointed out forcefully to NH F&G. People are not going to buy that card if they don't have confidence that it will be honored. If they really want the card to work they will have to make some commitments that will give people confidence in the card. In particular there needs to be a clear statement one way or the other about solo hiking.

 

[Creag Nan Drochaid]

There is a long thread on this topic from about two years ago. Here is my summary of where my idea came to rest after it bounced off several other posters:

F&G should sell a rescue insurance card online, through its agents, in tourist areas, and at trailheads. Suggested price was $20, with the option to buy one good for only a week or a month that costs only $5. This card is in addition to already-existing sources of money for the F&G SAR fund.
The card would work like a life insurance policy, good until needed, no time limit. It spreads the cost of rescuing the few who would need rescuing among the many who don't. In order for the owner to benefit, it would cover the cost of their rescue EVEN IF THEY WERE NEGLIGENT, though not if they were reckless. If you can still be charged for your rescue due to mere negligence, there is no benefit to you from having the card and there is no reason anyone should buy one. This is especially problematic because, simple bad luck aside, negligence is a vague concept that depends on subjective judgements about many factors that change fast with time and conditions in the outdoors.

At the very least, let the state have to define what exactly constitutes "negligence" in our outdoor pursuits.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

New-Hampshire-Fish-and-Game-Search-and-Rescue-Funding-Hearing, in case you missed it, was a six week saga in Oct/Nov 2011.

Tim

 

[bikehikeskifish]

I am told that the legislation is due to be out shortly and I will be notified of the hearing date. Will keep everyone to-to-date.

Tim

 

[Creag Nan Drochaid]

Just visited www.gencourt.state.nh.us. Bill # is hb0256. Judge for yourselves.

 

[Tim Seaver]

From the text of the bill:

Individuals who have purchased a hike safe card will be exempt from the search and rescue fees described above.

Is this statement absolute? I am not clear on the language in the bill as to the concept of "negligence" as it applies to card purchasers.

 

[marnof]

From the text of the bill:



Is this statement absolute? I am not clear on the language in the bill as to the concept of "negligence" as it applies to card purchasers.

I see that in the "fiscal note" below the bill language, referring to the bill.

I did notice that there is no actual description of negligence in the bill, and the "department" determines negligence or competence. Another thing I wasn't aware of was the "one-time fee" for the card. I was under the impression it was a yearly card.

 

[Tim Seaver]

Hmmm. Well, perhaps this will end up being closer to the Colorado CORSAR card in the end - a one-time fee that supports SAR, which buys you a "get-out-of-jail card" ( within some legal definition of "reason", I imagine) if you need a rescue in the back country.
The big difference would be that CO doesn't fine people without the card.

Given the fairly low revenue projected from the fines, I still think the prospect of fining people is going to turn out to be a financial loser, both in the realm of potential tourism lost and the possible scenarios of the larger costs to the state when a slightly hypothermic hiker with a sprained ankle in Godforsaken Ravine decides to try and self-evacuate ( to avoid the fine), ends up going into shock and is immobilized, triggering a $20,000 helo rescue instead of one of the $500 walk-off variety.

OK, that was a terrible run-on but you get the idea. For the record, if I ever need a rescue, I will shower my rescuers with gold doubloons and kiss their feet, even IF I buy this card.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

It does include the other-licensee clause:

Also exempt will be those who can show proof of a hunting or fishing license, off-highway recreational vehicle registration, snowmobile registration, or boat registration issued by the state

which over the long term costs me more, although I do (clearly) obtain other benefits from the fishing license.

Tim

 

[sardog1]

I see that in the "fiscal note" below the bill language, referring to the bill.

I did notice that there is no actual description of negligence in the bill, and the "department" determines negligence or competence. Another thing I wasn't aware of was the "one-time fee" for the card. I was under the impression it was a yearly card.

Sorry, but you're misreading the bill and the fiscal note. The bill provides in relevant part:

"I. 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.

I-a.(a) Without regard to the determination of liability under paragraph I, and notwithstanding RSA 153-A:24, any individual who was the object of a search and rescue response shall be assessed and liable for payment of the minimum flat fee under subparagraph (b) unless the individual shows proof of possessing a current version of any of the following:

(1) A hunting or fishing license issued by this state under Title XVIII.

(2) An OHRV registration under RSA 215-A, a snowmobile registration under RSA 215-C, or a boat registration under RSA 270-E.

(3) A voluntary hike safe card. The executive director shall adopt rules under RSA 541-A for the issuance to an individual who purchases on the department’s Internet site a hike safe card prior to the individual’s need for a search and rescue response. The one-time fee for a hike safe card shall be $18. The executive director shall forward to the state treasurer the amount of $15 from each hike safe card purchased for deposit in the fish and game search and rescue fund under RSA 206:42. A transaction fee of $3 shall be for the internet license agent under RSA 214-A:2.

(b)(1) For any rescue whose cost as determined by the department is between $500 - $999, the individual shall be charged a flat fee of $350.

(2) For any rescue whose cost as determined by the department is between $1,000 - $1,499, the individual shall be charged a flat fee of $600.

(3) For any rescue whose cost as determined by the department is $1,500 or greater, the individual shall be charged a flat fee of $1,000.

I-b. The executive director shall bill the responsible person for such costs. Payment shall be made to the department within 30 days after the receipt of the bill, or by some other date determined by the executive director. If any person shall fail or refuse to pay the costs by the required date, the department may pursue payment by legal action, or by settlement or compromise, and the responsible person shall be liable for interest from the date that the bill is due and for legal fees and costs incurred by the department in obtaining and enforcing judgment under this paragraph. All amounts recovered[, less the costs of collection and any percentage due pursuant to RSA 7:15-a, IV(b),] shall be paid into the fish and game search and rescue fund established in RSA 206:42. No amount recovered under this section shall be subject to retention under RSA 7:15-a, IV(b).


The (possibly inartful) reference in the fiscal note to "exempt from the search and rescue fees described above" is to the flat fees, not the recovery of costs for responding where there's negligence. In other words, the card is no get-out-of-jail card on the negligence aspect, only the flat fees.

 

[marnof]

The (possibly inartful) reference in the fiscal note to "exempt from the search and rescue fees described above" is to the flat fees, not the recovery of costs for responding where there's negligence. In other words, the card is no get-out-of-jail card on the negligence aspect, only the flat fees.

I have never doubted that. I was pointing out that the fiscal notes were referring to the description of fees above, and that even still, there's no real description of negligence.

My other observation was that the card is a one-time $18 fee, rather than a yearly obligation.