N.H. toughens up its negligent hiker laws

I

ilten

Joined
Feb 10, 2002
Messages
349
http://bangornews.com/detail/96197.html

Found this today. What do you think?
In my opinion it's a step in the right direction. I have no idea how much it will change, but maybe just a few people will think twice about their actions if there is a chance of financial loss for them.....
ilten
 
dear god i wish British Columbia would adopt such a law. I have lost count of the thousands of idjits that go into our mountains with a cell phone and water bottle and thin clothes, then need to be rescued at $5000 - $50,000 taxpayers expense per rescue.

they should lose their homes and be banned form ever setting foot into the woods again.

:mad:
 
I think it's a slippery slope to go down when you start charging people for rescues, regardless of their level of preparedness. What happens when someone does not use their cell phone to initiate a search because they are worried about being charged for the rescue and they die shivering on a mountain? This law may not apply to legitimate rescues, but how many people stranded on top of a mountain in light clothing are going to have their NH law books with them to explain the minutiae of the laws? I am not saying that people should not be held responsible for their actions, but there are very valid arguments on both sides.
 
yes there is valid arguments on both sides. we taxpayers (at least here in BC) are FED UP like you would not understand about the rising rescue costs of out of bounds skiers/snowboarders or unprepared hikers. Every year the same thing......same rescues, same unprepared circumstance, same out of bounds rescues....... hundreds of thousands possibly a Million every year in TAXPAYER paid rescue COSTS on the North Shore mountains alone. Not to mention the disruption of work and family life for SAR VOLUNTEERS, or the great personal risk to rescue these belligerent idjits from the mountains

. At the same time, there is not one of us that wouldn't rescue a hiker/skier in distress (medical injury, sudden severe weather etc etc ) and NOT bill them for it....... I believe the NH law is to target the idiots.

qoute: What happens when someone does not use their cell phone to initiate a search because they are worried about being charged for the rescue and they die shivering on a mountain?
 unqoute


There is ZERO excuse to be unprepared mentally, education and gear wise. Not calling in a rescue because a person is worried about billed for it can be called one thing: Darwin Award. Idiot. Stupid.

I believe the law can be written simply, even for the idiot sheeple types to understand.
 
Last edited:
Ray Mears is going to get charged for travelling with just a knife and a blanket :D
 
Sick. It's the kind of jackboot mentality I expect in my country. I always hold out a little bit more hope for liberty in America.
 
Similar problem exists in Japan, though no law to fine rescue callers exists.
Some mentally un-prepared group calls rescue too easily, just like taxi or something.

On the other hand, rescue insurance (something like CARTE NEIGE of France) is quite expensive.
 
People should be prepared and responsible for their own safety, but we know that it will never happen 100% of the time. As tuned in wilderness people with survival skills and knowledge (Although calling mine 'skills' is false advertising), it's easy for us to laugh at the 'sheeple' and show them little sympathy. But the majority of people out there don't have the knowledge that we do. Education seems a better way forward, rather than fines.
Plus, I have to agree with storl. What's next? Being fined for calling the police when you thought you saw a prowler that turned out to be a jogger?
 
Sorry, perhaps i came off as a bit harsh.........its because people here use SAR like a taxi, much like Fujita Yuji mentioned....
 
Uh.

The answer is the polar opposite.

Stop rescuing them and let them die.

I know, I know, it sounds harsh. But charging people for rescues is going to curb idiots from hiking in the back country like speeding tickets curb speeders.

Stop expanding rescue teams. Stop pouring taxpayers money down the rathole that has become "First responders" and let people pay the consequences for their own actions. Have a sensible sized group of individuals for Rescue, Fire and Police and let the rest fall where they may. We have told people to "Not feed the bears" enough and we have placed enough signs that say "Caution, Avalanche zone".

The cold facts are that everybody can't be smart enough to live. Idiots have a higher likelihood of dying and I am pretty comfortable with that.
 
Maybe a different approach. If you have to get rescued because of a lack of preparedness or skills, then you have to attend a survival course at some accredited surival school and then perform so many hours of community service helping to spread the 'word' or commit to so many hours of volunteer SAR work, working communications, or transportation, or something in that vein.

In other words, you have to take the necessary steps to prevent you from being in a similar situation in the future, and also to help others in the same circumstance.

If this is incoherent, please excuse - I just woke up :(.

Doc
 
"Live Free or Die", Isn't that the state Motto? This is one more way the government corrals people.
 
do we charge people who have to have the fire department or the police come when if they had just prepared and trained a little better they would not have needed assistance. I realize it is not across the board accurate but there are many rescue types that are getting paid rather they are on the scene or sitting at the station and volunteers are just that.
 
...And in a related topic, The boy scouts were collecting donations to go on a camping trip, and when asked, none of the three I encountered knew how to tie a bowline. When the Scoutmaster was asked which scouts should know the knot, he said they all have passed knot class. I told him none knew the bowline, and he said "Ask them if they can tie the knot "where the rabbit comes out of the hole." I asked another, and he said he knew but forgot. I went back to the scout master, and his response was a sarcastic, "Well, I guess we have to teach them better."

Just a heads up for you Rescue guys.

This brings the question, "When a scout troop is rescued, or some other group, will the bill be split between the parents, the Scout leaders, or the BSA?" This might be an interesting facet to the debate. And it will probably lead to Boy Scouting done with realistic video gaming technology. In no way am I myself trying to be sarcastic, this on several levels is a fearful reality that might, or is happen/ing.
 
Sorry Bushman5, I didn't mean to sound like I was directing my comments at you specifically. People that needlessly put SAR personnel in danger p*** me off too, along with the kind of idiots out there who call 999 (Or 911) when they have a headache.
But in the case of someone going for a walk and getting lost or (To an extreme) someone in a moment of panic throwing water on a grease fire in their kitchen, I can't see how fining them really makes sense.
 
Just what is unprepared? You trek off with water, jacket, knife, firesteel, poncho, map and compass, fall and break a leg. Are you unprepared because you needed help? You are out for a week enjoying yourself, decide to stay an extra day. Your wife/neighbor/boss calls police thinking you are in trouble and they find you sleeping peacefully under your tarp. Hmmm who pays that bill. I would think it would have to be pretty blatantly stupid/unprepared to bill someone.
 
I think one of the serious fact of this problem is that the number of rescue people are limited
that all of them are occupied by taxi jobs and those who need rescue most can not be saved.
 
Bumppo said:
"Live Free or Die", Isn't that the state Motto? This is one more way the government corrals people.
Click to expand...

Your and baldtaco's logic is backward. The expectation (entitlement) that the government will rescue you, is where you find that the government corrals people.

Live free means that you rely on yourself. Or die.

Most of the people who want to be rescued probably subscribe to Darwin's natural selection ideas. So let them be naturally selected.
 
HornyToad said:
Just what is unprepared? You trek off with water, jacket, knife, firesteel, poncho, map and compass, fall and break a leg. Are you unprepared because you needed help? You are out for a week enjoying yourself, decide to stay an extra day. Your wife/neighbor/boss calls police thinking you are in trouble and they find you sleeping peacefully under your tarp. Hmmm who pays that bill. I would think it would have to be pretty blatantly stupid/unprepared to bill someone.
Click to expand...
While there is potential for abuse, NH officials in the article seem to be intent on only pursuing legitimately negligent "victims" such as
Article said:
Officials estimate that of the 140 rescues a year, New Hampshire could seek reimbursement in about 40 cases, up from 10 under the previous law. The attorney general’s office is reviewing four cases under the new standard, most of which involve people who wandered from trails or campsites without supplies or flashlights.
Click to expand...
To be fair, people who "wander [from trails] without supplies" should probably not only pay for their rescue but also pay a fine sufficient to cover the cost of one or more real rescue(s) as well.
 
I thought that we pay taxes so that police and firemen are there when we need them. I know I pay alot of taxes every year and have never had to call for help from either. It is not like we get a refunf at the end of the year if you did not use their service. I know most SAR teams are voulunteers and those people put out there own time and money to help. I think that this is just another way for government to collect more money from people instead of taking responsibility for spending our tax money on themselves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top