Will You Buy a NH HikeSafe Card?

[Stan]

I checked "probably yes" mostly to support SAR which, in the absence of one of the other licenses or permits, gets us hikers off free even though we're at least at risk as others. This is a source of aggravation to others whose fees support SAR and rightfully so IMNSHO.

Given the opportunity I might get one of the other licenses as an alternative.

I agree with Mike P. about minimizing what I pay electronically. Too many security compromises going on ... in the past year I was victim of two security compromises (Target and one other unknown) whereas in the past 30 years I've never had my check book raided or a check cashed by other than its intended recipient. The convenience of electronic transactions is understandable ... I do it myself on occasion ... but it does make you a sitting duck and it is open season on that breed.

 

[jfb]

Being solo isn't negligent if you're competent, but it does require you to be more prepared.

That's the Catch 22 part of the regulation. If you're competent, then you can't be negligent (solo or not). The card is intended for negligent hikers who need rescue. So, if you're competent and need rescue you either don't need the card because you're not negligent or F&G calls you reckless and charges you.

If F&G can cover their budget with the program, then it is successful.

 

[hikerbrian]

I believe this is the same rationale behind uninsured motorists, like the one that hit my brother a few months ago.

It may be. Did the person who "hit your brother" pay out of pocket for your brother's expenses?

 

[TJsName]

It may be. Did the person who "hit your brother" pay out of pocket for your brother's expenses?

My brother is a ******* so I never followed up, but last I knew there had been no compensation. This isn't one of those 'couldn't have happened to a nicer guy' type stories.

 

[Raven]

Bumping this to see if anyone is interested in adding their vote to the poll now that this has come back up again.

 

[Hillwalker]

Hmm, I have a lifetime NH Fishing License but I live in Maine nowadays. I guess I'm covered.

 

[Remix]

Help me figure out the likely outcomes to the following scenarios so I can answer the poll.

1. I leave the extra equipment specified on the safe hiking pamphlet in the car, purchase an insurance card, go out for a day hike, sprain my ankle, and need to be rescued.
What is the likely outcome?

2. I put all the extra equipment specified on the safe hiking pamphlet into my pack, check the weather, do not have an insurance card, go out for a day hike, sprain my ankle, and need to be rescued.
What is the likely outcome?

 

[Raven]

Help me figure out the likely outcomes to the following scenarios so I can answer the poll.

1. I leave the extra equipment specified on the safe hiking pamphlet in the car, purchase an insurance card, go out for a day hike, sprain my ankle, and need to be rescued.
What is the likely outcome?

2. I put all the extra equipment specified on the safe hiking pamphlet into my pack, check the weather, do not have an insurance card, go out for a day hike, sprain my ankle, and need to be rescued.
What is the likely outcome?

1. As I understand it, you should be covered unless you are deemed reckless. I do not see how that could be considered reckless behavior. (edit: of course, the weather conditions could make it potentially reckless. If you go into a huricane with no equipment maybe.)

2. As I understand it, you would not have to pay for a rescue in this case, unless they are planning to charge for rescues they never charged for in the past.

3. No one knows yet what this card really means until the first person (with a card) gets charged in a landmark case and the bar is set. It will also be interesting to see if anything changes regarding going after payment for rescues that were previously covered.

 

[B the Hiker]

I have rescue insurance through the American Alpine Club. For all those who hike alone, the Hike Safe is a small price to pay for the peace of mind.

Brian

 

[jniehof]

1. As I understand it, you should be covered unless you are deemed reckless.

I'm not sure that's clear. It's clear you'll be charged if deemed reckless, and covered by the card if negligent. Gross negligence has disappeared from the descriptions at some point. The original standard, before this program, was recklessness, then loosened to gross negligence.

 

[jrbren]

When they start patrolling the trails and ask for proof of insurance and issuing fines (& garnishing wages & bank accounts) for those who do not have them I will get one. I would fully expect to be deemed wreckless in any accident regardless of the circumstances, card or no card, once money becomes involved.

 

[B the Hiker]

I'm not sure that's clear. It's clear you'll be charged if deemed reckless, and covered by the card if negligent. Gross negligence has disappeared from the descriptions at some point. The original standard, before this program, was recklessness, then loosened to gross negligence.

This is complicated, Jonathan. "Negligence" in the abstract is the failure to exercise the level of care or caution that is expected of a reasonable person.

Typically, when we see the term reckless and negligent, they are used in the following scale: intent, knowledge, reckless, negligent. Intent means one intended to do something harmful. Knowledge means one knew the harm would result, but one did it for some other reason than to cause the harm. (I didn't mean to kill the person when I drove over him, I just wanted to get home, although I knew that by driving up my driveway with him having fallen on it, I would kill him). Reckless means engaging in a level of risk taking that one should have known was likely to cause harm. Negligent means engaging in a level of risk taking that one didn't know was likely to cause harm, but that a reasonable person should have.

So the four standards above are on a scale, and gross negligence is typically not used when we see those four categories, instead, we see it specifically when a state has not adopted those categories. Gross negligence is sometimes synonymous with "reckless."

So we shouldn't compare gross negligence with recklessness. Most likely the terms appeared in one way and then the other because when the bill was being considered, it hadn't yet gone to the legislature's staff attorneys, who realized that in New Hampshire, one term or the other is more appropriate given the state's legal regime, but they most likely the same thing for these purposes: someone put themselves and/or others in a position that a reasonable person should have realized was inappropriately dangerous.

So if you go out a "reasonable" trip (and to define it further will depend on what a jury thinks that means in the given instance), and one gets into an accident, it doesn't necessarily mean one was negligent. If one is not prepared to deal with that accident, then one might be negligent. If one goes out under conditions a "reasonable" person would have deemed unreasonably risky and one needs assistance, then one might be deemed reckless.

Going out a winter Presidential Traverse with a group under perfect weather, and having an accident is not negligent. Not bringing appropriate gear might be negligent. Going out in a total whiteout with massive winds and extremely cold temps, with appropriate gear, might still be deemed reckless. Going out over an area that has an avalanche warning might be deemed knowing, and going out with the intent of causing an avalanche could be deemed intentional.

Brian

 

[BISCUT]

I voted "probably yes" and have a few reasons for it. First is the fact i'm almost always solo, and I enjoy the snow and ice so a little extra protection fro $25 is a-ok with me. There is a small component of the flatlander giving back a little as well (I sure do hope I never get to use it). I also feel that if I were to ever get wacked for a 10k rescue, this $25 card will help my defense immensely and opens a lot of avenues for legal arguments against the big bill.

If we all want a more viable program, and this one was certainly not thought out by anyone with legitimate experiences on mountains, let the gov't take it course. Even if they only get a few thousand dollars rolled into their newly created revenue line, they will write it for years to come and EXPECT that revenue. Now when people want more or want it amended, Gov't tends to listen in that 2nd and 3rd year...because they will want to have public input to rest upon in their defense when they now want to raise the $25 to $100.

IMHO, and it is just that! There should be separate scales of payment for NH residents and non-NH residents. NH residents are already sporting much of the cost of rescue team system.

 

[walker]

I'm very very confused (which is normal)

Why should I buy a card?

If I don't carry a card, have all my equipment, do everything right, and need assistance, I don't get fined.
If I do carry a card, have all my equipment, do everything right , and need assistance, I don't get fined.

If I don't carry a card, have no equipment, do everything wrong, and need assistance, I get fined.
If I do carry a card, have no equipment, do everything wrong, and need assistance, I get fined.

So why carry the card?

I both cases, If the NHF&G find you "negligent", you get fined, card or no card.
If the NHF&G find you "not negligent" you don't get fined, card or no card.

I'm confused....very, very confused.

See you on the trail...with my hiking card stapled to my forehead......Walker

 

[jfb]

And if you do buy a card, they don't give you one because they won't be making any. Saves the forehead.

 

[sierra]

After carefull review, I've decided that in the cards current form, I'm going to treat it like I've treated the Parking pass, I will not buy one. Biggest reason, it's to expensive.

 

[Remix]

Why should I buy a card?

If I don't carry a card, have all my equipment, do everything right, and need assistance, I don't get fined.
If I do carry a card, have all my equipment, do everything right , and need assistance, I don't get fined.

Well, what does doing everything right mean? Do you have a medical condition that would make your hike seem unreasonable to NHFG? Was your decision to go up the mountain to shelter with a bad ankle careless instead of staying put? etc etc

Edit-Actually I'm going to delete my prior comments since most people understand the whole program is to provide funding rather than enhance safety.

 

[Raven]

So why carry the card?

I both cases, If the NHF&G find you "negligent", you get fined, card or no card.
If the NHF&G find you "not negligent" you don't get fined, card or no card.

I think we are all still a bit confused, but that's because clarity doesn't seem to exist yet.

My original understanding of this was the card would cover you for negligent behavior, so that you would essentially have a $25 yearly pass allowing for ignorance. Negligence could get you fined without a card, but with a card, I am under the impression negligence is covered. This may have all changed, but this is the model I was working with.

It seemed the difference was that reckless behavior would be fined in both instances but the card covered negligence. Maybe, maybe not.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

Read the law carefully. Effectively, it goes like this:

Once upon a time, you were rescued for free, unless you were reckless. Fish and Game doesn't get money from the General Fund, while being tasked with search and rescue by the state. Being self sufficient and in the red, they needed a way to get additional funding. Rescuing a non-contributing segment of the population was eating up budget paid for by licenses issued to other population segments. So, to level the playing field, hikers deemed negligent (the big change) would now be charged rescue costs (not fined - it is not a civil infraction). Recovering these costs through legal means ate up the money actually recovered, and so they adopted a pro-active funding mechanism not unlike that which the already-contributing segments were paying.

As I understand it, you would have to be pretty blatantly irresponsible to be deemed reckless. If you are deemed negligent and do not have the card, you will still be charged for your rescue. So yes (Walker and others), if you are not deemed negligent, you won't be charged for rescue in either case. And yes, it still remains to be determined - where exactly is that negligence bar.

Tim

 

[Mike P.]

Will be watching the upcoming season to see how the rescues of 2015 go. (Ok, that' really not any different, but the coverage in the press will have another detail)