NH , new laws regarding incompetent hikers

[woodsy]

When Albert Dow was killed working a rescue on Mt Washington the NH rescue community got very pi$$ed off. Especially in light of the last few years of cell phone calls for help. I found this when I searched for Mr. Dow's incident and would like to share it with you.

http://www.mountwashington.org/about.../surviving.php

Note that the good old Cog killed seven people in 1967

As a final note: I agree with this law but don't agree with our no helmet or no seatbelt law which applies to adults. Live Free and/or Die

Thanks for bringing up this link Hillwalker, a sobering reminder that the Presidential Range in particular is more than just a walk in the park and is worth clicking on the link.
This brief paragraph from the site among many was noteworthy and sums up part of the reason for enforcing the negligent hiker law.:

Many people donate their time to assist in search and rescue efforts in the Presidential Range. These people are willing to put their own lives at risk in order to aid those who have become lost or hurt in the mountains. In not properly preparing for your adventure, you risk not only putting your own life and the lives of those with you in danger, but you also put at risk the lives of those who would attempt to help you. Please prepare carefully and thoroughly before you go out to seek your mountain adventure.

[MOWGLI]

The only issue I have with this is... there are many other states that have public lands, and only a handful of them charge for a SAR. Tennessee doesn't have a state income tax either, but for some reason, they don't feel compelled to institute this charge. And we have plenty of federal lands where people can get lost and in trouble. And we have more than our share of nit wits too. (no wise cracks)

IMO, states should be prohibited from unilaterally instituting fees like this for a SAR on federal lands. There should be a uniform policy nationwide. What they do on state lands or private lands is their business.

[Homer&Marje]

So who is footing the bill on Federal lands. Is it the US Gov. that pays for the S + R or is it always the state. Seems like there is a conflict of interest on who is in charge. Easy to get the charges dropped in court at least. Hell, you don't even need a lawyer to get out of paying that fine. (Charge, repayment, restitution) whatever you want to call it.

[MOWGLI]

So who is footing the bill on Federal lands. Is it the US Gov. that pays for the S + R or is it always the state.

There was a much publicized SAR on the AT in GSMNP above Cosby a few winters ago. The hiker lost several toes. Rangers from the State of Tennessee participated in the SAR and littered the guy out.

I'm not sure if the Feds reimburse the State employees for their time. My guess is they don't, and the state park folks look at this as both an opportunity to help, and an opportunity to get real-time training.

[woodsy]

NH shoulda started charging some of these rescuees several years ago, when the cell phone, instead of proper knowledge and gear, became a survival tool.

[warraghiyagey]

Boobs

[Sly]

The only issue I have with this is... there are many other states that have public lands, and only a handful of them charge for a SAR. Tennessee doesn't have a state income tax either, but for some reason, they don't feel compelled to institute this charge. And we have plenty of federal lands where people can get lost and in trouble. And we have more than our share of nit wits too. (no wise cracks)

IMO, states should be prohibited from unilaterally instituting fees like this for a SAR on federal lands. There should be a uniform policy nationwide. What they do on state lands or private lands is their business.

TN doesn't have a dumb and drunk charge?

I'd venture to be that the Whites has more rescues, especially in Winter time than the Smokies, and the weather is much more extreme.

[zoidfu]

TN doesn't have a dumb and drunk charge?

I'd venture to be that the Whites has more rescues, especially in Winter time than the Smokies, and the weather is much more extreme.

No, they don't. Most places don't for reasons that have already been stated.

I'd argue that going out into the Whites is your first negligent act(which is why it's so fun).

[chomp]

This thread is one of the reasons I barely visit WB anymore, and I'm only participating now because I live in NH and feel like I need to clear up a few of the numerous false claims so far in this thread:

1) You will not lose your license for needing to be rescued. You will lose your license if you are charged for the rescue and you refuse to pay. There is nothing illegal or unconstitutional about this law.

2) NH does not have any broad-based taxes and that is exactly the way we want it around here. That means we have less money for "services", such full time fire departments or SAR, for example. That is not going to change. And the issue that started this law a few years back was cell phones and people calling for their own rescues.

3) Education efforts so far have not worked. New Hampshire started the HikeSafe website, as well as posted warning and information at most trailheads. This effort has not resulted in decreased SAR activity. As with most things, when it involves money, people sit up and pay attention. As much as this law is about recooping costs, its about discouraging future reckless hikers.

4) Discussion like this is exactly what the law was meant to bring about, so I'd say "Mission Accomplished". The new law got press. The rescued hikers that will be charged for the rescue got press. And now a how bunch more people just on this site that was unaware of this law before are now aware of it. Love it or hate it, anyone reading this thread will think of it before hitting the trails in NH. Do I have my compass? Maybe I should bring that rain jacket...

5) The volunteers that perticipate in SAR activities are not looking for money and are not complaining about having to go into dangerous conditions. What they are concerned about is burnout from having to perform too many rescues each year. These people have jobs and responsibilities of their own - how many times could you leave work with no notice for possibly a couple of days? Again, the long-term intention here is to cut down on the number of SAR's, not generate a new revenue stream.

6) NH gets no federal dollars for SAR activities.

7) FISHIN FRED is COMPLETELTY AND TOTALLY 100% WRONG WITH HIS POST ABOUT URINATING IN NH. First off, the first thing that NH did is define public urination and defication better, and made it so that it does NOT result in the offender landing on the sex offender registry. There is a $1000 fine for public urination of defication "under circumstances where the person knew or should have known would likely cause affront or alarm to another." In other words, you can pee in the woods, and just about anywhere that your parts won't be visible to other people.

[Rockhound]

so lets say a truck driver gets charged. In this economy hes having trouble making ends meet. He cant afford the fine and he certainly cant afford to lose his license. Its his livelyhood. Youre saying its fair to take his drivers licence and in effect ruining his life, for doing something completely unrelated to driving?

[chomp]

so lets say a truck driver gets charged. In this economy hes having trouble making ends meet. He cant afford the fine and he certainly cant afford to lose his license. Its his livelyhood. Youre saying its fair to take his drivers licence and in effect ruining his life, for doing something completely unrelated to driving?

The state has and would make an arrangement for the person in question to make payments for the rescue. What we are talking about is an outright refusal to pay.

[MOWGLI]

This thread is one of the reasons I barely visit WB anymore, and I'm only participating now because I live in NH and feel like I need to clear up a few of the numerous false claims so far in this thread:

1) You will not lose your license for needing to be rescued. You will lose your license if you are charged for the rescue and you refuse to pay. There is nothing illegal or unconstitutional about this law.

2) NH does not have any broad-based taxes and that is exactly the way we want it around here. That means we have less money for "services", such full time fire departments or SAR, for example. That is not going to change. And the issue that started this law a few years back was cell phones and people calling for their own rescues.

3) Education efforts so far have not worked. New Hampshire started the HikeSafe website, as well as posted warning and information at most trailheads. This effort has not resulted in decreased SAR activity. As with most things, when it involves money, people sit up and pay attention. As much as this law is about recooping costs, its about discouraging future reckless hikers.

4) Discussion like this is exactly what the law was meant to bring about, so I'd say "Mission Accomplished". The new law got press. The rescued hikers that will be charged for the rescue got press. And now a how bunch more people just on this site that was unaware of this law before are now aware of it. Love it or hate it, anyone reading this thread will think of it before hitting the trails in NH. Do I have my compass? Maybe I should bring that rain jacket...

5) The volunteers that perticipate in SAR activities are not looking for money and are not complaining about having to go into dangerous conditions. What they are concerned about is burnout from having to perform too many rescues each year. These people have jobs and responsibilities of their own - how many times could you leave work with no notice for possibly a couple of days? Again, the long-term intention here is to cut down on the number of SAR's, not generate a new revenue stream.

6) NH gets no federal dollars for SAR activities.

7) FISHIN FRED is COMPLETELTY AND TOTALLY 100% WRONG WITH HIS POST ABOUT URINATING IN NH. First off, the first thing that NH did is define public urination and defication better, and made it so that it does NOT result in the offender landing on the sex offender registry. There is a $1000 fine for public urination of defication "under circumstances where the person knew or should have known would likely cause affront or alarm to another." In other words, you can pee in the woods, and just about anywhere that your parts won't be visible to other people.

Good info Chomp. Thanks.

[zoidfu]

Would the person have to go on probation then? That's how they do it in PA when a person can't afford to pay a fine or give up their license.

[fishinfred]

OOPs my mistake It is only a $1000 fine
Here's a link
http://wbztv.com/watercooler/public.....2.898275.html

I could swear the article I read the other day said $2000
Sorry about the mislead there ...

Thanks Chomp
PEACE & GOOD HIKING!

[chomp]

OOPs my mistake It is only a $1000 fine

When I said that your post was wrong, I was more referring to you reference that peeing in the woods was illegal than your mistake about the dollar amount of the fine. If anything, NH has one of the more lenient laws on public urination, given that you won't be considered a sex offender and that you would cause affront or alarm by your actions.

And it is UP TO a $1000 fine, with the discretion being left up to the judge.

Here is the actual law:

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/...45/645-1-a.htm

[woodsy]

I'd venture to be that the Whites has more rescues, especially in Winter time than the Smokies, and the weather is much more extreme.

Good chance this is the case

more informative reading and some stats from Mt Washington Avalanche Center

The Presidential Range is located within a day’s drive (24 hours) of 80 million people, roughly 1/3 of the population of the United States. The area, with its rich cultural history, provides great attraction to seekers of winter alpine challenge. It offers some of the best, most accessible and most challenging alpine mountaineering and backcountry skiing in the northeastern United States. Recreation opportunities of this variety are not common in the region.
Of little surprise, winter recreation use is at a high level. Recreation activity in avalanche prone areas is highly concentrated in Tuckerman and Huntington Ravines on the eastern side of Mount Washington. It is within this area that the US Forest Service operates the only avalanche forecasting and education program in the eastern United States.
Roughly 35 to 40,000 people will visit the avalanche forecast area on Mount Washington each winter (B.Ray pers. com.). Our experience as avalanche forecasters indicate that a very small percentage of persons climbing and skiing within the forecast area have the knowledge, skills or rescue equipment to safely evaluate and mitigate avalanche hazards, presenting no small challenge to mountain safety personnel.

BTW, good post Chomp, thanks for weighing in again despite the annoying
minority @ WB.

[zoidfu]

BTW, good post Chomp, thanks for weighing in again despite the annoying
minority @ WB.

Whine more

[warraghiyagey]

Checking in on Wind Chill thread. All is well. . .

[mudhead]

That's how they do it in PA

Thanks for the info Chomp. I was worried about the whizzing thing.

Mainer gets the leash off, he's apt to water a tree about anywhere.

[yappy]

lol... alrighty then !