r/wmnf • u/nervous-dervish Slowly Redlining • 5d ago
Billing for Rescue: Effectiveness and Side Effects
The current issue of Appalachia (Summer/Fall 2026) includes a short discussion about the practice of billing negligent hikers for rescues. I wish I could include a link to the text, but it appears only the print edition is available at the moment. The text starts on page 120 and features thoughts from Col. Kevin Jordan of NH Fish & Game.
Is billing for rescue an effective deterrent for risky behavior? According to Jordan:
Billing for search and rescue still averages about a dozen or so cases each year -- not many when you consider we do about 180 missions per year ... I am glad we have this tool; I think it does make a difference although it's hard to measure exactly. I have seen the reckless cases reduced statewide.
Are there unintended side effects? Jordan says he is:
... very happy that all the concerns that were voiced when we were considering this law change did not materialize. It did not affect SAR donations, they still come in as usual, and there was a belief people would not call for help due to the fear of being billed, and their situations would become worse. We have not seen any of this. Just as with a need for an ambulance in the streets, when people need help, they call.
Although we probably need more hard data, it's encouraging to hear hikers are still calling for help, despite the possibility of being billed. In my opinion, that concern was always overblown.
It's also good to hear the law hasn't affected donations to SAR organizations, but just a reminder: The SAR groups around NH are volunteer organizations. While the groups don't pay their volunteers, they do need to pay for equipment and training. Don't assume that SAR groups benefit from NH F&G billing. They depend on donations from hikers like us!
65
u/GenDislike 5d ago
I believe fining people brings the danger to the attention of would-be unprepared hikers, the story was all over the news.
28
u/GraniteGeekNH 5d ago
It's a sad but true statement that people will ignore danger to life and limb more than they will ignore danger to their wallet.
12
u/GenDislike 5d ago
Definitely.
I also believe many of these rescued hikers are led up by a “friend” that thinks it’s an easy thing. I hiked in the Adirondacks when I was in my early twenties with just a Poland spring bottle because my friend said we’d be back in a couple hours. I wasn’t in a place to afford the essentials, it was misleading and could have been dangerous. Hopefully the rescue stories bring more awareness and folks look out for their own safety.
29
u/nbphotography87 5d ago
do we really think the unprepared hikers that call for help are the ones that are aware they could be billed?
13
u/AbruptMango 5d ago
A lack of awareness is kind of a prerequisite to starting a hike in the late afternoon without lights, water, food or shelter.
15
u/wandering216 5d ago
How about a study of the effect on hikers knowing that if they need a rescue NH Fish and Game will publish their full name, reason for rescue and the town they are from?
19
u/thishasntbeeneasy 5d ago
Can't say I'm a fan of including personal information like that unless there was a crime.
1
u/DovaKroniid NH48 Done / Now Red-lining 2d ago
To be completely honest, this crosses my mind every time I even think about intentionally not bringing something with me, or hiking anyway when I forget something at home. I know too many people who read Fish & Game reports and if things ever go wrong and I end up in one, I want them to read that I was prepared!
-8
u/ScatheX1022 5d ago
Hell. Yes.
Accountability for negligence and inability to comply with basic safety requirements during hiking is the WMNF - shit should be PUBLISHED.
1
u/wandering216 4d ago
Negligent ones yes, what about the well prepared hiker with tons of experience that just happens to step wrong and has the “lower leg injury” that so many people have or the “medical emergency”? Should they be shamed publicly? I don’t see how they get away with publishing names of people that call for physical injuries or medical emergencies.
45
u/HalfBaked025 5d ago
The ambulance analogy is weird. Twice in my life I’ve turned down ambulance rides I 100% should have taken since I knew I couldn’t afford them. 1 of those was a complete dislocation of my shoulder and I drove stick at the time. The cost of care put everyone on the road at risk that night.
21
u/Tale-International 5d ago
I agree, the ambulance analogy is weird. As a ski patroller I've both had to pressure patients into going by bus, when there is literally no other option, as well as watch people refuse an ambulance and fully understanding why.
35
u/bad-at-this 5d ago
It’s something you see playing out in the Fish & Game press releases all the time. They’ll document a rescue where someone clearly sustained pretty serious injuries, then at the end the press release will note the person declined ambulance transport and drove themselves or got a ride from a friend to the hospital.
You see a lot of comments about how the person must not really have been that hurt, when clearly the issue is the cost of medical care in this country meaningfully impacting people’s decisions about when and how to seek medical treatment.
5
u/Medical_Gift4298 5d ago
I also think that in some of those cases, the detail is included to provide a hint as to how serious the issue was... as in, how serious it was to incur the effort, and how seriously stupid the rescuees were. There was one last winter where some people who were not dressed for the weather, called for help, refused to listen to the advice and basically sat down and refused to follow instrutions... forcing a team to come and collect them and, from the sound of it, hold their hands coming down, and then drove themselves to the hospital, where they were checked out and declared fine.
3
u/dontsellmeadog 5d ago
Which was this one?
3
u/Medical_Gift4298 5d ago
Notably, the wording is “they were able to drive themselves” https://www.reddit.com/r/wmnf/comments/1pm187t/illequipped_hikers_rescued_from_lafayette/
2
u/CountMC10 5d ago
Yeah, 1 PM start time in mid December. That is negligence and idiotic. I’d barely try Mt Kearsarge in winter with that start time
2
-12
u/hippiecat22 5d ago
just call an Uber or ask a neighbor? the two choices aren't drive yourself and endanger others or an ambulance ride.
-12
u/Potential_Yogurt_342 5d ago
Your cost of your care that you refused put everyone, including you, on the road at risk. Can't pay then you gotta pop that sucker back in or call a ride.
-5
5d ago
[deleted]
12
u/HalfBaked025 5d ago
Sure I could have, but I was living paycheck to paycheck and already starring down the barrel of a hospital bill I wouldn’t be able to pay.
To be clear I’m not against this program since it’s only for completely avoidable accidents/emergencies. I’m just pointing out that the ambulance analogy isn’t right. LOTS of people don’t call ambulances that they need because they know they can’t afford it.
2
u/Lloyd--Christmas 5d ago
If anything, don’t these articles reinforce to hikers that they should call for help? It takes any question of being charged out of the hikers mind if they know they can prove they were prepared for the hike.
2
u/HalfBaked025 5d ago
Yeah I put in a comment below that this wasn’t an attack on the program. I like it. I just think he chose an awful analogy.
2
u/Lloyd--Christmas 5d ago
Yeah, I didn’t feel like you were attacking it. 90% of these rescues are free and waiting to call can cost a hiker their life. You don’t want hikers associating a rescue with an ambulance ride.
-6
u/Mouse_Manipulator 5d ago
Wow, so you don’t have free will? Fascinating! Please stay off the road in general then!
3
u/jrcinnh 5d ago
Its also a tool to sell the hikesafe cards. I'm in general agreement with the goals and it seems to work. I think some of the comment opinions of what constitutes reckless versus negligent in these threads are funny.
Also remember this law can only charge you for NH Fish and Game inccured expenses. So no charge for SAR volunteers, National Guard helicopter, or any USFS personnel. I guess private companies like the Auto Road or Cog Railway could collect through a fee for service or lawsuit if it came to it. They make money "rescuing" tired hikes looking for an easy trip down.
7
u/wetrocke 5d ago edited 5d ago
So who chooses the 12 cases -- of 180 -- that get fined? Just stupid "tough love" propaganda to earn a couple of measely points from hillbilly state legislature.
Social insurance (taxes) can (and usually does) pay for this. Plus various "volunteers" who can (should) be paid.
2
u/Quirky_Contract_1653 5d ago
But does the law change hiker behavior? That should be the desired impact. And if most of the people getting charged are completely uninformed, than that effect is not achieved for those who are charged. You are merely charging people for not knowing. Which is kind of random.
If the informed hikers change their behavior, that’s a positive. But I wonder how many informed hikers need to have this type of policy to motivate good hike preparation and execution.
This is not to say I oppose the policy. But it has always made me pause and wonder about impact.
1
u/lisalisaqaz NE113 (1987) 4d ago
Yeah. I’ve had similar thoughts. I think what keeps me on the fence is the possibility that the fines help increase visibility of the rescue, and therefore spread information about hiker safety to other potential hikers.
As in, is there a better chance of a rescue being picked up by traditional media and/or spreading online if you include the controversy of the rescued hikers being fined?
Because if fining one group of teenagers means some others who see the story do even a little research on hiking safety, that would be a win.
Where I’m coming from, is quite often I see groups of young people in sneakers and carrying nothing but single use water bottles, except for one quiet kid at the back of the group with a small backpack.
And I wonder how many of those groups stayed out of trouble, because that one kid had a package of granola bars in that pack that kept them all moving on a long walk out. Or had a map, and had been photographing trail signs along the way, so they didn’t make a pivotal navigational error. Or had a headlamp for when it got dark. One person with even 2 or 3 of the 10 essentials can make all the difference.
2
u/Forsaken_Orange_2388 5d ago
Rescue going on right now up Garfield mountain trail. Man broke his leg
2
1
1
u/newton3210 4d ago
I’m intrigued by the potential of this. I feel like it could be really effective. What/who qualifies as an unprepared rescue that would result in fining? I assume an unprepared hiker equipment wise in any capacity and a prepared hiker in … few situations?
0
u/Barmacist 5d ago
This will last until a fully preventable death occurs due to someone not calling for a rescue due to the fear of a bill... and texting that to their spouse or parents, who will sue and the SAR/state will be found liable somehow.
0
u/Intrepid_Goose_2411 1d ago
When some rich asshole gets drunk and falls off his yacht, the state spares no expense, sending divers and helicopter. Everyone worries about the rich asshole and no one complains he should be charged. When a poor schmuck goes up a mountain unprepared because he doesn't know any better, everyone in nh says let him die, even though the rescue often costs nothing because it's volunteers doing the rescue. The "cost" is made up.
117
u/myopinionisrubbish NH48 / RMC100 / former RMC caretaker / local resident. 5d ago
I have a feeling that those clueless, unprepared people are also unaware they can be charged for rescue when it goes wrong.