After ‘horror show’ hiker rescues, N.H. asks whether criminal charges are the next frontier

I don't know on the cost. Lot's of good points. I'd like to think the public cost of the safety net is less than overall benefit of having a happy, healthy, outdoor lifestyle enjoying public, and all the wonderful family times together to boot. Would people work as hard, and provide to the overall economy in the same way, if outdoor activities (or whatever you might do away from work) were effectively removed or banned because of the possibility of bearing a large cost? I can see a fine, especially a selfie fine, but I'm not good at drawing lines.
 
Last edited:
Mossback said:
Question is...
Should YOU have to pay for a wilderness rescue, not THEY.
If a 70 some year old goes hiking, falls and breaks a hip, or ankle through no fault of his own just a bad roll of the dice, should he pay for a rescue ?
After all, at 70 plus years of age, isn't it a poor decision to be out hiking when you know your bones are more brittle, your abilities are not what they were, and the odds of an accident happening have increased markedly since you were younger ?
;)
Lol
Click to expand...
As a 70 plus yr old and I fall in my house and have to call an ambulance. I'm gonna have to pay what my ins. won't cover.
So anyone one that has to be rescued no matter where yer at should pay.
Now that gives me another idea.
Hikers Ins.
 
From a different point of view. I got a ride on the back of a searcher’s motorcycle after spending a night in the woods. Did I do something stupid? Perhaps. I was hunting deer in the evening. I spotted a buck and was attempting to get close enough for a shot. While stalking the animal I was so focused I didn’t realize how late it was getting. Once I realized it was almost dark I also knew it was going to be hazardous to attempt to get out of these woods in the dark. Pretty rugged section of the Siskyou Mountains in Southern Oregon. I knew exactly where I was. There was a small cabin close by that was used by the ranchers during round up so I made my way to the cabin and settled in for the night. Area used to be open range. Not sure if that is true today.

In the morning I started back to my truck. Got to the dirt road, squaw lakes road or French gulch road depending on how old you are, and was walking back to my truck when two guys rode up on dirt bikes. One ask if I was Kerry. Then asked if I knew where I was. I told them I was on Squaw Lakes road about a mile or so from my truck. He looked at the other guy and said I was correct. They gave me a ride to my truck where there was a couple more guys in a pickup and asked me to stop at their response command center down on the main road. Ok, kinda curious about this command center. Once there I had to be interviewed by the head of the command center, some guy out of the sheriff’s dept.

They claimed they rescued me. I was never lost. Knew what to to do once it was to dangerous to walk out of the woods and if they didn’t actually have someone at my truck I would have drove out of there without anyone even knowing I was there.

My roommate reported me missing. This happened long before cell phones or global positioning systems. I was fine and was not in need of ”rescue”. Am I glad there were people looking for me? I guess. They were told I had gone hunting. That I was an experienced outdoorsman and that I knew the area very well. I believe the response was a bit overkill but I imagine the response is going to be the same for any person reported missing.

If charged for a non-rescue I would have challenged it.
 
dirty dog said:
As a 70 plus yr old and I fall in my house and have to call an ambulance. I'm gonna have to pay what my ins. won't cover.
So anyone one that has to be rescued no matter where yer at should pay.
Now that gives me another idea.
Hikers Ins.
Click to expand...

You can already purchase such insurance.
 
Mossback said:
Question is...
Should YOU have to pay for a wilderness rescue, not THEY.
If a 70 some year old goes hiking, falls and breaks a hip, or ankle through no fault of his own just a bad roll of the dice, should he pay for a rescue ?
After all, at 70 plus years of age, isn't it a poor decision to be out hiking when you know your bones are more brittle, your abilities are not what they were, and the odds of an accident happening have increased markedly since you were younger ?
;)
Lol
Click to expand...
I resemble that remark
 
My response last time the topic came up:
Look, my tax dollars already pay for lung cancer treatment for smokers and for open heart surgery for sedentary burger bingers, no questions asked. I’m not gonna get my panties in a twist over a lost hiker who doesn’t have his ten essentials. Plus, I can guarantee you’d spend way more determining fault than you’d ever collect.
 
Brian Miller said:
I resemble that remark
Click to expand...
Not picking on older hikers here, just pointing out a scenario where blame needs to be fixed, and that determination can be made in a number of ways.
My hiking buddy is in his 70's, and while we dont typically put ourselves in a situation where we need rescuing, shit happens, and we have discussed what we would do if something did happen.
He's in better shape than me at 10 years older, so probably be him going for help while I hunker down and wait to be hauled out.
🤣🤣
We have determined if one of us drops his phone in a trailhead outhouse, we are not going in after it, so doing our planning here...
 
Mossback said:
Question is...
Should YOU have to pay for a wilderness rescue, not THEY.
If a 70 some year old goes hiking, falls and breaks a hip, or ankle through no fault of his own just a bad roll of the dice, should he pay for a rescue ?
After all, at 70 plus years of age, isn't it a poor decision to be out hiking when you know your bones are more brittle, your abilities are not what they were, and the odds of an accident happening have increased markedly since you were younger ?
;)
Lol
Click to expand...
 
I have no issue with charging people who are completely unprepared to deal with their own issues.

When I was on the Dean not only did we have a SAT phone but the heli number on speed dial and we would have had to pay. Full stop. We prepared for this. When you backcountry camp, fish, hike, etc, $hit can and will happen. Prepare for the worst. Hope for the best. Pray for Steel.

Nuff said.
 
If you trek to Everest basecamp and do not have insurance to cover a helicopter out you will stay put or really have to convince someone you can cover the flight expense. You are on the hook for thousands.
 
Gyrfalcon22 said:
maybe we can combine them and get those college nerds out there saving lost folks? One rescue/ 5 quarter hour $ erased?
(tongue in cheek..I paid my loans back far too soon it appears)
Click to expand...

I find generally people are ok spending other people's money if it's something they might benefit from or do benefit from. If not they are against it. This is a general rule and not absolute.

Maybe a flat fee for rescue that hurts but doesn't instantly bankrupt a person is in order. I would say absolutely in order on a second offence if not full boat.

From a guy who paid his loans and never been rescued.
 
I used to tell my hunting buddies not to even look for me until noon the next day if I didn't show up. I was prepared to spend the night in the conditions at the time. Two jokers going rock climbing without any kind of preparation or skill need to learn a hard lesson. Paying for the rescue is perfectly reasonable, while the risk of that getting really expensive really fast makes me think a cap on the charge should be something that hurts but not something that is going to bankrupt the willing victim. Falling would be worse.
Around here most of the effort in a S&R mission is done by volunteers, with coordination by the local sheriff, so it's not tax dollars that pay for most of it. Most of the volunteers are providing their own gear, vehicles and spend a lot of time training and preparing for this. At the ski area I frequent the Ski Patrol is now charging 500 bucks for a rescue if you went out of bounds. The potential cost of that rescue is significantly higher, but 500 bucks is going imprint a memory in most peoples minds, and perhaps get them to think again before taking a stupid risk.
If 500 dollars or 2500 dollars is enough to dissuade someone from getting the help they need, perhaps the human gene pool would be best served by letting them win their Darwin Award.
 
I don't think it's right to limit outdoor participation to only those who can afford a $50,000 rescue or buy another insurance policy. I think a better solution would be to take the annual search and rescue budget and distribute the cost across (almost) all users as license, permit and pass fees.
 
Last edited:
Now that I'm an old man and have done a little bit of falling down. I start to wonder that my not going fishing is weighing on me about falling down. Fishing alone doesn't look so good anymore.
 
Tom Butler said:
I don't think it's right to limit outdoor participation to only those who can afford a $50,000 rescue or buy another insurance policy. I think a better solution would be to take the annual search and rescue budget and distribute the cost across (almost) all users as license, permit and pass fees.
Click to expand...
I hate the permit system we have here in Washington. My memory sucks, (When did I buy my discover pass? )and I think it's gotten too complicated. State land is owned by the state (US), and we shouldn't have to buy a discover pass just to drive across it. I get the pass for the boat launches as a way of keeping them from being used as park and rides, to leave room for people who launch boats and whatnot, but another activity I can't do without finding someone to sell me a permit? And because of the absolute stupidity of a few willfully unprepared bozos? Nope.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top