New Hampshire Fish and Game Dept. Judge Jury, Hangman

[moldy]

"New Hampshire Fish and Game Department announced that hikers who negligently cause themselves to become lost or injured - resulting in costly and dangerous rescues - may be billed for those rescue services.

Under the current law, which is supported by the Fish and Game Commission, the Department reviews each search and rescue mission to determine whether a bill should be sent to those involved. Hikers who may be billed include those who are poorly equipped for terrain or weather and/or lack reasonable skills or stamina to handle the hike without getting lost or injured."

If you are rescued while hiking in New Hampshire it is not a good idea to say very much to your rescuers. The department will review you rescue to determine if you acted negligently. If the department determines that you did, then the fine (bill) could be many thousands of dollars. They are under no obligation to tell you that the information you give them could be used against you in determining the outcome of your case.
They are judge, jury and hangman, you have no input into the proceedings. Speak to an attorney prior to making any statements to your rescuers.

[MuddyWaters]

Anyone, can bill almost anyone, for anything.
Making them pay is a different story alltogether.

Guy I used to know was pissed at his knee doctor, he had to wait an hr or so past his appt time before he went to the back, and another 45 min before he finally saw the dr.
He sent the Dr a bill for his time wasted, @ $125 per hr. Since he had an agreement in writing, that he had an appt at X time, that the Dr failed to keep. The door swings both ways.

[Prime Time]

This law has been on the books for almost 20 years now and unfortunately is rarely applied. I live in northern NH and am amazed at the constant parade of morons who need to be "rescued" because they ignore every piece of advice and warning that they are inundated with before setting out on their misadventure. The local newspaper is full of these stories and the details are often hilarious. What's not hilarious is the huge cost to the state and the tremendous inconvenience to the search and rescue personnel dispatched at all hours to go get these clowns.

[4eyedbuzzard]

"New Hampshire Fish and Game Department announced that hikers who negligently cause themselves to become lost or injured - resulting in costly and dangerous rescues - may be billed for those rescue services.

Under the current law, which is supported by the Fish and Game Commission, the Department reviews each search and rescue mission to determine whether a bill should be sent to those involved. Hikers who may be billed include those who are poorly equipped for terrain or weather and/or lack reasonable skills or stamina to handle the hike without getting lost or injured."

If you are rescued while hiking in New Hampshire it is not a good idea to say very much to your rescuers. The department will review you rescue to determine if you acted negligently. If the department determines that you did, then the fine (bill) could be many thousands of dollars. They are under no obligation to tell you that the information you give them could be used against you in determining the outcome of your case.
They are judge, jury and hangman, you have no input into the proceedings. Speak to an attorney prior to making any statements to your rescuers.

Have you done much research regarding what you are talking about? Have you been rescued by NH F&G and received a bill? You seem very upset by the fact that negligent behavior carries consequences.

From my prior reply to you regarding this very same subject several weeks ago (the current law vs. the new proposed law and Hike Safe card):

NH Fish & Game is mandated by the current law (and by agreement with WMNF) to perform ALL S&R in NH regardless of where an incident occurs, including on Federal lands. All S&R activities are currently funded by state sporting license revenues only, not federal tax dollars. NH has spent approximately $1.5 million over the past 5 years performing rescues, billed those determined negligent by current law(requires finding by F&G AND also Attorney General review) about $83K, and collected about $55K of that. 54% of all rescues are for hikers/climbers who pay nothing, but the entire S&R costs are borne by fishing, hunting, boat, snowmobile licensees who represent only 14% of rescues. S&R revenue shortfalls are approximately $200K per year and increasing every year.

You asked, "What about the other 13 states [the AT goes through]?"




Vermont, Maine, and Georgia also have provisions in their laws and/or civil codes that can allow S&R costs to be recouped, though to my knowledge they have yet to be used. There may be others as well - I just don't know. We have a bit more of a problem with lost and unprepared hikers here in New Hampshire than most states do though due to the popularity of our extensive trail system, ruggedness of our terrain, and our unique weather conditions. Other non-AT states that have laws allowing fines/recoup of costs for S&R are CA, OR, WY, ID, HI to name a few. S&R is overwhelmed and underfunded in many states/areas, and many voters/taxpayers don't feel they should have to foot the bill for a rescue during "high risk" activities of those who choose to engage in them.

You said, "It looks like they are targeting out of state hikers with all the disclaimers for locals."




The proposed law applies equally to residents and non-residents (as does the current law). There are no disclaimers for locals, only disclaimers for those who have purchased sporting licenses, which are available to both residents and non-residents.

You said, "New Hampshire the 'pay up or die' state.

No one is forcing anyone to pay. And no one is going to be left to die. Should the new Hike Safe law even pass (it still requires State Senate passage and the Governor's signature first, which isn't a done deal especially as written) a person will receive the same incredibly fine and professional S&R effort from F&G and possibly along with some money hungry volunteer rescuers from AMC, RMC, DOC, and others if they need it - whether they pay in advance for the "Hike Safe" card or not. If they don't, they will be billed a flat fee representing somewhere between 35% and 60% of the F&G S&R cost, but in no case to exceed $1000 - basically no finding of fault, just a bill for services rendered if you don't have a card. Most responsible well-prepared hikers, such as all of us here on WB, will probably never need the services of S&R, so I really don't see a huge problem with the experienced hiker community. But we spend a lot of time and money and put rescue people at risk far too often simply because of negligent people who go off into the outdoors unprepared. The law and the Hike-Safe allows NH to generate revenue for S&R and recoup some of the cost if necessary, but more importantly it sends a strong message to those who might ignore preparedness warnings and act in a negligent fashion.

[riff raff]

I think I'll spend my hiking dollars in another state.

[4eyedbuzzard]

I think I'll spend my hiking dollars in another state.

That's okay. You're not missing anything. Our NH trails suck.

[jdc5294]

That's okay. You're not missing anything. Our NH trails suck.

When I was there I didn't really see any sights or views that were worth it.

Joking aside, everyone has to complain about something. I read about this a couple times (on here once before I think), and the a parade of people who I'll choose to trust and who are tapped into what goes on up there shared anecdotes about just how stupid most of the people being rescued have been. It's obviously not made public whether they were billed, but every one of them deserved to be. Lastly, not the smartest thing to do to be tight-lipped as you're being rescued with hypothermia from the side of a mountain. They're there to help you and get you home safe, not steal your money. The ignorance from the OP here is a little ridiculous to be honest.

[nitewalker]

if you are rescued then you should pay some type of fee. if rescued due to negligence then the fee should be multiplied by ten or more. we already have too many free riders in this country. they say stupidity cant be fixed but a hefty fine or bill may get you to think differently....

[nitewalker]

should i apply for a hiking license?

[Tuckahoe]

Have you done much research regarding what you are talking about? Have you been rescued by NH F&G and received a bill? You seem very upset by the fact that negligent behavior carries consequences.

From my prior reply to you regarding this very same subject several weeks ago (the current law vs. the new proposed law and Hike Safe card):

NH Fish & Game is mandated by the current law (and by agreement with WMNF) to perform ALL S&R in NH regardless of where an incident occurs, including on Federal lands. All S&R activities are currently funded by state sporting license revenues only, not federal tax dollars. NH has spent approximately $1.5 million over the past 5 years performing rescues, billed those determined negligent by current law(requires finding by F&G AND also Attorney General review) about $83K, and collected about $55K of that. 54% of all rescues are for hikers/climbers who pay nothing, but the entire S&R costs are borne by fishing, hunting, boat, snowmobile licensees who represent only 14% of rescues. S&R revenue shortfalls are approximately $200K per year and increasing every year.

You asked, "What about the other 13 states [the AT goes through]?"




Vermont, Maine, and Georgia also have provisions in their laws and/or civil codes that can allow S&R costs to be recouped, though to my knowledge they have yet to be used. There may be others as well - I just don't know. We have a bit more of a problem with lost and unprepared hikers here in New Hampshire than most states do though due to the popularity of our extensive trail system, ruggedness of our terrain, and our unique weather conditions. Other non-AT states that have laws allowing fines/recoup of costs for S&R are CA, OR, WY, ID, HI to name a few. S&R is overwhelmed and underfunded in many states/areas, and many voters/taxpayers don't feel they should have to foot the bill for a rescue during "high risk" activities of those who choose to engage in them.

You said, "It looks like they are targeting out of state hikers with all the disclaimers for locals."




The proposed law applies equally to residents and non-residents (as does the current law). There are no disclaimers for locals, only disclaimers for those who have purchased sporting licenses, which are available to both residents and non-residents.

You said, "New Hampshire the 'pay up or die' state.

No one is forcing anyone to pay. And no one is going to be left to die. Should the new Hike Safe law even pass (it still requires State Senate passage and the Governor's signature first, which isn't a done deal especially as written) a person will receive the same incredibly fine and professional S&R effort from F&G and possibly along with some money hungry volunteer rescuers from AMC, RMC, DOC, and others if they need it - whether they pay in advance for the "Hike Safe" card or not. If they don't, they will be billed a flat fee representing somewhere between 35% and 60% of the F&G S&R cost, but in no case to exceed $1000 - basically no finding of fault, just a bill for services rendered if you don't have a card. Most responsible well-prepared hikers, such as all of us here on WB, will probably never need the services of S&R, so I really don't see a huge problem with the experienced hiker community. But we spend a lot of time and money and put rescue people at risk far too often simply because of negligent people who go off into the outdoors unprepared. The law and the Hike-Safe allows NH to generate revenue for S&R and recoup some of the cost if necessary, but more importantly it sends a strong message to those who might ignore preparedness warnings and act in a negligent fashion.

I think I'll spend my hiking dollars in another state.

Those not familiar with this subject need to read, re-read, and then read again 4eyedbuzzard's response, especially before commenting. Modly is just a $hit stirrer and by failing to include the information that 4eyedbuzzard has made clear, moldy is being intellectually dishonest. An omission of facts is frankly a lie.

[peakbagger]

I am not a fan of the tone of the original post but the basics are true. Get lost or hurt in NH , need rescue they rescue you then decide if you were negligent and bill you for the rescue costs they incurred. Anything you say to the rescuers or to anyone else can be used to determine your negligence. If you are charged, this is a not a criminal offense thus you cant be arrested for non payment of fine but you can be sued. If you are a NH resident they can extract it in any number of ways. A big change is that previously helicopter searches were paid for by a NH NG training budget but of late these funds are lacking thus if F&G decides a copter is needed the costs can run up quite high.

A major point of contention is that the definition of negligent is not established, its ultimately the F&G directors call with no formal appeal or oversight. In recent months statements have been made in the press by the F&G that hiking solo is inherently negligent. There is a NH hikesafe website that gives recommended gear for various seasons which appear to be a baseline used for proper equipment.

This is political battle in NH, F&G is self supported by fees and the legislature is supposed to fund their rescue funds as needed by appropriation but the normal response to asking for more funding is to force them to cut services, thus F&G has resorted to this approach to get attention and get some compensation for rescues. Currently the state is discussing that there will be a voluntary rescue card available for sale that will waive a hiker of any responsibility to pay the bill. Unfortunately the current version appears to exclude costs for rescues due to negligence so it is questionable if its of much use unless the bar is set for negligence.

Do note that much of the actual rescues are done by volunteers who do not charge or receive compensation they unfortunately are pulled into this mess. By law F&G is responsible for rescues in NH and any rescuers fall under their control whether they are paid or unpaid so anything said to the volunteers can also be included in the decision to bill.

[moldy]

In a court of law I have the opportunity to prove or disprove my negligence to a jury, there are rules, I have rights. In the recent court case involving the hiker rescued in the Whites, now with the 9,000 dollar bill. Almost all of the evidence for judging him negligent was just handed over by the hiker. F&G would not have known his previous medical problems. The point here is that Fish and Game is allowed to issue arbitrary punishment without any form of "due process". The state contends that it is not punishment, just a simple bill for services rendered to a negligent hiker. The method of determining who is "Negligent"? The great gods of Fish and Game just decree it, then send out a bill, then a press statement. Sounds a bit un American.

[Abatis1948]

What is the deal? If I am ever on the trail dying of hypothermiaor have broken both my legs, come and rescue me. I will find a way to pay for it.

[Starchild]

I assisted in a rescue of an injured hiker from Huntington Ravine during my 2013 thru. I worked alongside 6 NH Fish and Game rescue personnel as well about 20 or so AMC volunteers. It was great to work with those guys and (1) gal as well as see the AMC staff's ability and obvious training. Short summery, we started back up at 6pm, reached the injured hiker at 8pm, began moving him down by 9pm, got him to Pinkham at 2:30am. We also used low angle rescue methods (ropes to help lower the 'litter' basket to which the injured hiker was secured.)

As a volunteer firefighter, also trained in low angle rescue, these hours for such a emergency call are not unusual, it is part of the job. I did not notice anything out of the ordinary that the NH F&G used that would cause any unneeded expense for this operation except some first aid consumables, with perhaps the damage to a ATV that one of them attempted to drive up the Tuckerman's Ravine Ski trail and had to abandon the ATV as it was too rocky. If the ATV was damaged, or expensive to recover, and it was a reasonable act to take that ATV on that trail I could see them wanting the rescued hiker to reimburse them for it, but IMHO such a attempt could not work due to the conditions of the trail and it was not reasonable to try.

The helicopter was not part of the NH F&G, so that expense is out too.

So the issue I see is what is their expense outside what they are suppose to do as part of their service to the public? Also if you would like to charge them for the hours/overtime, why enlist so many volunteers? Something does not seem right in that situation.

Add to that last statement, I personally suffered some loss, sort of, one of my trekking poles got irreparable damaged. I was not offered to list that expense on this guy's rescue bill (if one was sent), though if they did bill him I should have been able to claim it. To be fair REI was more then happy to replace it and AMC loaned me a set of their treking poles at Pinkham till mine came in. They (AMC) also put me and Splash up for the night at Pinkham's Lodge.

[Prime Time]

I assisted in a rescue of an injured hiker from Huntington Ravine during my 2013 thru. I worked alongside 6 NH Fish and Game rescue personnel as well about 20 or so AMC volunteers. It was great to work with those guys and (1) gal as well as see the AMC staff's ability and obvious training. Short summery, we started back up at 6pm, reached the injured hiker at 8pm, began moving him down by 9pm, got him to Pinkham at 2:30am. We also used low angle rescue methods (ropes to help lower the 'litter' basket to which the injured hiker was secured.)

As a volunteer firefighter, also trained in low angle rescue, these hours for such a emergency call are not unusual, it is part of the job. I did not notice anything out of the ordinary that the NH F&G used that would cause any unneeded expense for this operation except some first aid consumables, with perhaps the damage to a ATV that one of them attempted to drive up the Tuckerman's Ravine Ski trail and had to abandon the ATV as it was too rocky. If the ATV was damaged, or expensive to recover, and it was a reasonable act to take that ATV on that trail I could see them wanting the rescued hiker to reimburse them for it, but IMHO such a attempt could not work due to the conditions of the trail and it was not reasonable to try.

The helicopter was not part of the NH F&G, so that expense is out too.

So the issue I see is what is their expense outside what they are suppose to do as part of their service to the public? Also if you would like to charge them for the hours/overtime, why enlist so many volunteers? Something does not seem right in that situation.

Add to that last statement, I personally suffered some loss, sort of, one of my trekking poles got irreparable damaged. I was not offered to list that expense on this guy's rescue bill (if one was sent), though if they did bill him I should have been able to claim it. To be fair REI was more then happy to replace it and AMC loaned me a set of their treking poles at Pinkham till mine came in. They (AMC) also put me and Splash up for the night at Pinkham's Lodge.

So was the guy ever charged?

[Alleghanian Orogeny]

.........an arm of the government billing you for services, or mere availability of services, which you might otherwise choose not to purchase, be it an actual rescue or a Hiker Card.......wonder if there is legal precedent for that?

Oh, wait, there is. In June 2012 the US Supreme Court said that such billings are a form of excise tax and the government has every right to bill excise taxes in such a manner. The common name for the situation where this is applied is ObamaCare. Due process is not required, according to The Supremes.

It's pretty simple, really. The semantics of why, how, or can they do this are meaningless in the face of a simple set of truths: The $25 cost of the hiker card is a drop in the bucket of costs associated with being on any trail, anywhere. Just get the card, use some elementary common sense, be accountable for your own actions, and stop assuming the Gummint should be financially responsible for your failure to act responsibly.

AO

[Sly]

If you are rescued while hiking in New Hampshire it is not a good idea to say very much to your rescuers. The department will review you rescue to determine if you acted negligently. If the department determines that you did, then the fine (bill) could be many thousands of dollars. They are under no obligation to tell you that the information you give them could be used against you in determining the outcome of your case.
They are judge, jury and hangman, you have no input into the proceedings. Speak to an attorney prior to making any statements to your rescuers.

Dishing out legal advice? I'd certainly be pleasant, cordial and appreciative of my rescuers. A little bit of honey would go further than, "I'm not saying anything until I talk to my lawyer."

[Starchild]

So was the guy ever charged?

I don't know, and as I read this that would not be determined till some times after the event, not that night.

I do know that they guy was flown from their to Darthmouth then Darthmouth to Boston and expected to make a full recovery after breaking both wrists and having a concussion.

[Slo-go'en]

It's really not that hard to tell the difference between who had a simple accident which could have happend to anyone and who was being irresponsable.

[Mountain Dog]

New Hampshire needs to change its web site which tries to get tourist money. The state clearly encourages people to come there to hunt, hike, fish and so forth. They do not say to come only if you have the special skills needed. Inherent in this invite is that people will sometimes have trouble enjoying nature. They should at least add a warning that should you come and need help then they will charge you extra if they determine you are at fault. I'll bet the income from tourist significantly exceeds the extra expense the tourist cause. Does anyone know if New Hampshire's signs at the borders say, "tourist are not welcome"?