 |
Web Hosting by Netfirms | Free Domain Names by Netfirms |
|
|
|
| Home | Trail Descriptions | Articles | Links | Seasonal Tips | Forum |
Suppose that you are hiking above treeline alone in mid-winter in a whiteout. You lose the trail on the way down, and you didn't bring snowshoes because the trail was well packed. You wind up floundering around in deep snow in thick scrub for several hours making little progress. Fortunately you did bring your cellular phone so you call for help. The next day the weather has cleared and a helicopter spots you. A rescuer rappels down with an extra pair of snowshoes and leads you out to the highway. Home free? Home maybe, but not free after state officials determine that under those conditions hiking alone and not bringing snowshoes constituted reckless behavior, and send you a bill for your rescue.
Far-fetched? This is an exaggeration of an actual case a few winters ago. Unlike other states where officials try to enforce minimum party sizes or require certain equipment under penalty of law, live-free-or-die New Hampshire has no such rules. However, if your lack of good judgement causes the state to expend money and rescuers to risk their lives trying to help you, the state may decide to send you a bill for services rendered.
The statutory responsibility for rescuing lost or injured people in woods or water lies with the New Hampshire Fish and Game Department and their force of well-trained conservation officers. Some incidents may be handled by passers-by, local rescue squads, State Park or U.S. Forest Service employees, or AMC staff, but Fish and Game has the ultimate authority. Traditionally, the Fish and Game Department was funded entirely by revenues from hunting and fishing licenses, and those who paid ever-increasing fees for those licenses didn't like being forced to pay for finding lost hikers or diving for drunk motorboaters who fell overboard. Tourism groups opposed a mandatory hiking license fee for everyone as it might convince families to vacation in a different state, but ordinary voters reading about the antics of some of the more foolish hikers were easy to convince that the reckless should pay.
The original impetus for this action was a couple of decades ago, when a hiker became inebriated on Mount Moriah in a sleet storm and required rescue in appalling conditions. There was some question as to whether he could be charged with reckless conduct under the criminal code for placing rescuers in danger of serious bodily injury - in another case a rescuer did die in an avalanche while searching for two lost climbers. Lawyers suggested that hikers needed to be warned of the consequences, so warning signs appeared at major trailheads. As reckless incidents declined, the signs faded and weren't replaced.
After a new crop of newspaper headlines in the late '90s, it was decided that reckless hikers could be billed for rescue costs under a statute primarily aimed at drunk drivers and hostage-takers for recklessly or intentionally creating a situation requiring an emergency response. Not everyone unfortunate enough to need a rescue will receive a bill - only a few of the most extreme cases of recklessness each year are referred to the Attorney General for prosecution. The money collected goes to pay for rescue equipment, etc., not into the state general fund.
Originally, the bright new 2001 warning signs contained questions to ask yourself:
If a primary goal of your hike is to return safely, you should have no trouble following these guidelines. Otherwise, bring your checkbook with you.
| Start a discussion about this page | e-mail Content Manager |