Will You Buy a NH HikeSafe Card?

[Stan]

Thank you, Tim, for that excellent synopsis.

I don't think anyone can complain about this "license" since it is optional in the first place. I feel it is appropriate and fair to be lumped with other outdoor sportsmen (fishermen, hunters), especially since hikers probably compile the majority of SAR and SAR costs. We also share the same interest in conservation, access and wildlife management so perhaps participation in this way can eventually give the hiking community some leverage with F&G. Projecting the benefit to SAR and possibly to other matters in our interest, I think it is worth supporting the Hike Safe Card (and program).

 

[peakbagger]

Much as I do not like the format, I will probably buy one. Considering that the average hiker blows a tank of gas and a couple of post hike beers every time they go for a day hike, I regard it as a donation to fish and game's rescue fund. I am not sure if I will get the pass of buy a license. Its all a donation anyhow as I don't hunt, fish or fowl (but don't have any issues with those who do).

I approach the fee as I approach the elections, its usually a choice between two bad alternatives but if I don't participate, I don't feel I have a right to complain.

I do expect its worth stocking up on virtual popcorn and sitting back to see how the first cases are handled. I expect if someone has the card, they will be handled with kid gloves, but if they don't, expect half the press release to publicize the new permit system. It will be more interesting when a photogenic family or youth group gets billed and they get a sympathetic reporter to write an article about how they didn't know about the pass and how the billing will be a great hardship.

 

[trailbagger]

I will buy one, more or less as a donation to the system. If it ends up offering me any kind of protection, it's a bonus.

 

[sdways01]

I personally won't buy one because I am already covered based on my 3 OHRV (1 ATV & 2 Snowmobile) registrations and my sporadic hunting and fishing licenses. While I'm not complaining since I won't be buying one, the two things that confuse me some are:
1) Why is it I'm only adding $1 per OHRV registration to NHF&G, yet it costs $25 for a hiker card? Does it really cost the extra $24 to process this all?
2) Less of an issue, but I still only partly see why my ATV/Snowmobile registration covers me when I do something stupid while hiking.

 

[Stan]

... 1) Why is it I'm only adding $1 per OHRV registration to NHF&G, yet it costs $25 for a hiker card? Does it really cost the extra $24 to process this all?

I don't believe it has anything to do with marginal costs ... hikers don't pay anything now.

 

[Remix]

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

Is the law posted publicly so we can read it? At this point, its my understanding that the law creates the ability to sell cards only. In other words, if the program does not provide significant revenue, then there will still be pressure to offset costs by discovery of negligence.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

I think this is current.

Tim

 

[Remix]

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, unless the person shows proof of possessing a current version of any of the following:
(a) A hunting or fishing license issued by this state under title XVIII.
(b) An OHRV registration under RSA 215-A, a snowmobile registration under RSA 215-C, or a vessel registration under RSA 270-E.
(c) A voluntary hike safe card.

So you can be deemed negligent , but for $25 you are not liable. Correct?

 

[Raven]

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, unless the person shows proof of possessing a current version of any of the following:
(a) A hunting or fishing license issued by this state under title XVIII.
(b) An OHRV registration under RSA 215-A, a snowmobile registration under RSA 215-C, or a vessel registration under RSA 270-E.
(c) A voluntary hike safe card.

So you can be deemed negligent , but for $25 you are not liable. Correct?

That's how I read it. Keep in mind, the word "notwithstanding" refers to this (to be thorough):

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/xii/153-a/153-a-24.htm

The card will not cover you under cases of negligence if you have been driving under the influence, have taken a hostage, are threatening harm, or acting recklessly. The language here is fairly clear regarding who will be charged. All of the question, as has been pointed out, lies in how the department will determine what represents negligence, where that bar lies. A big concern many people have is that the agency that is the one in need of money (Fish and Game) is also the one judging whether you are negligent or not. Some see this as a conflict of interest.

 

[MichaelJ]

I'm going to wait and see how 2015 turns out. I want to see if there's a rise in “negligent” hiking as people feel like they can do anything between having a cell phone and their Hike Safe card paid up.

 

[JCarter]

I do expect its worth stocking up on virtual popcorn and sitting back to see how the first cases are handled. I expect if someone has the card, they will be handled with kid gloves, but if they don't, expect half the press release to publicize the new permit system. It will be more interesting when a photogenic family or youth group gets billed and they get a sympathetic reporter to write an article about how they didn't know about the pass and how the billing will be a great hardship.

I find the lack of any provision for youth groups to be particularly irksome. We operate on slim (i.e., non-existent) budgets that make NHF&G look rich.

But technically, if I took a group of 10 Boy Scouts hiking, I'd only be covered if I ponied up $250 for the weekend. Sure, if the *same* 10 Scouts went hiking in NH many times, they could amortize that pain.

As a group, we're unlikely to be 'negligent' by any reasonable definition of the word (The Guide to Safe Scouting is currently 122 pages), but as has been pointed out, the agency that draws the negligent/non-negligent line is the same one collecting the money.

 

[Stan]

I find the lack of any provision for youth groups to be particularly irksome. We operate on slim (i.e., non-existent) budgets that make NHF&G look rich.

But technically, if I took a group of 10 Boy Scouts hiking, I'd only be covered if I ponied up $250 for the weekend. Sure, if the *same* 10 Scouts went hiking in NH many times, they could amortize that pain.

As a group, we're unlikely to be 'negligent' by any reasonable definition of the word (The Guide to Safe Scouting is currently 122 pages), but as has been pointed out, the agency that draws the negligent/non-negligent line is the same one collecting the money.

As a group, if you hike in the WMNF, you may need either a permit or a waiver ... probably the latter as that is what I get for non-profit groups I've led.

Regarding the "conflict of interest", there is plenty of precedent for that but the control on it is that you'd have recourse to appeal through the courts, and probably through a process within the agency itself depending on the issue. Admittedly, there are those who either do not recognize, or choose to ignore, the balance of powers between government branches but citizens still do have that constitutional right.

 

[hikerbrian]

But technically, if I took a group of 10 Boy Scouts hiking, I'd only be covered if I ponied up $250 for the weekend.

I don't think that has been addressed yet, but someone please correct me if I'm wrong. In other words, if one member of a group has a card but the others don't, who gets billed?

 

[RollingRock]

I don't plan on buying one. I'll take a risk that I'll have to pay if I'm negligent...highly unlikely. Perhaps the best approach to raise funds is to find out if EMS, AMC, etc. would contribute to the fund and that would give them the right to display some sort of seal on their website and promotional materials. After all, if there was nobody out there to rescue people and more people ended up dying, it might affect sales, membership, etc.

 

[TJsName]

My understanding is that the risk I take will be the same one I've been taking for years. If this was for *any* rescue then I'd feel compelled, but I'm pretty sure I'm not negligent, so I see no need.

 

[Raven]

I'm going to wait and see how 2015 turns out. I want to see if there's a rise in “negligent” hiking as people feel like they can do anything between having a cell phone and their Hike Safe card paid up.

This could be an interesting winter in that regard, although I don't expect anyone's behavior to change too much.

I keep getting this image of a group calling in a rescue from one of the ravines while precariously stuck on a ledge with beach umbrellas, portable daiquiri blenders, and HikeSafe cards. I realize this scenario is absurd and unlikely to happen...and yet...

What's possible IMO would be some people buying the card and then trying to use F&G as a taxi service. I can see someone calling in because they're tired because, "the mountain was bigger and rockier than we thought and we would like a ride out now please." Of course, I expect said hikers will be summarily told how to handle that situation and no one will be getting "rescued" in those cases.

Regardless, it'll be all new fodder for comments in the UL.

 

[JCarter]

I don't think that has been addressed yet, but someone please correct me if I'm wrong. In other words, if one member of a group has a card but the others don't, who gets billed?

The card is per-person, and not transferrable, not per-group. Otherwise there would be no point behind the $35 'family' version.

 

[JCarter]

As a group, if you hike in the WMNF, you may need either a permit or a waiver ... probably the latter as that is what I get for non-profit groups I've led.

There are no permits (or waivers) required for groups to use the WMNF, unless you are collecting a tuition or fee for services, since this is considered commercial activity.

 

[hikerbrian]

The card is per-person, and not transferrable, not per-group. Otherwise there would be no point behind the $35 'family' version.

Sure, but here are some likely scenario where it's not obvious (to me) how it will work:

1. I take my 4 and 6 year old kids into the woods and we require rescue due to my negligence. I have an individual card. Can they bill my minor children?
2. I lead a group of 10 into the woods, we require rescue, 5 of us have cards. Is the total cost split among the 5 who don't have cards, or is just half the cost split among the 5 who don't have cards? This could become pretty important if you're the only person in a group of 10 who doesn't have a card.

 

[hikerbrian]

There are no permits (or waivers) required for groups to use the WMNF, unless you are collecting a tuition or fee for services, since this is considered commercial activity.

FWIW, we AMC leaders have it drilled into our heads that we MUST carry a guide card for any trip that we lead in the WMNF, or otherwise be subject to a $500 fine. The WMNF is rather nebulous on the subject online:
http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/whitemountain/passes-permits/event-commercial
I personally am not willing to risk it, even if said fine is rarely or never levied. Again, we've been told very clearly that this applies to volunteer AMC leaders who charge nothing for a trip into the WMNF. I assume there's some historical context to this agreement between AMC and the WMNF, which I'm not privy to. And I expect it doesn't apply to church groups and such.