I am sorry if I seem to be arguing with you Red, that is really not my intention.

We live in a world of idiots and morons.

It is easy to get upset with the rest of them, but often enough we find ourselves being one of the idiots and morons too.

Editorialists like the one who wrote the original newspaper article make it worse by stirring up our moral indignation and getting us attacking each other instead of working out good solutions.

And Education doesn't seem to work, or at least it only works to some degree.
If you look at a lot of these cases they deliberately ignored warning signs, even moving barricades out of their way to place themselves in danger.
These are the "It is easier to get forgiveness than get permission!" type of people.

As I said before, you can't cure stupid.
It is part of the nature of the human herd.

And billing them for their own rescue often just results in extra costs like lawyer's fees because they simply don't pay the judgments.

I think they should be charged,
but they should be charged with reckless endangerment and attempted suicide or something like that which earns them jail time instead of just billed for a few dollars (that they often walk away from paying anyhow).
Maybe we should make them wear a sign saying "I am an idiot!" for a year too.

Now if we just accepted the actual SAR costs as a minor cost of doing business for the recreation industry, and funded it like we should it would be a much better solution than trying to bill the victims of their own idiocy.

Dagny touches on a point; most people here prepare for something they will likely never encounter. Why? Cuz e've gone through the scenario in our heads dozens of times. Most of us here dont go out unprepared. We have learned through our own lives, and through others' experiences, what we need to get through a situation; to make an uncomfortable night a good story later down the road, rather than a tragedy on the news. This is something these people who are negligent fail to do; they dont take into account the "what if" scenarios. That in itself isnt negligent; going out into the wilderness totally unprepared is though.

Now that I can agree with 100%, especially the sign. Like the guy who parasailed onto the Statue of Liberty, arrested, lesson learned.

The basic premise and ideas of charging people for their own mistakes and lack of judgment go beyond the SAR community. Many Fire Departments, Forestry agencies, Park agencies etc have grappled with this very complex issue.

When I was a fire fighter, this subject came up many times not only with ourselves but with the local government and their legal counsel. Simply put, there is no easy answer to any of this. Knowledgeable people in emergency services have all seen or heard the same type of responses as posted here and other places for years and and collectively know these will not work otherwise these ideas would of been implemented as law already.

That being said, there was a discussion on one of the fire fighters forums a few months back where a couple of localities had implemented a fee for some emergency services based on the person's neglect....now it is up to the courts (and not the just the United Sates) to decide whether these types of fees are valid based on whether the person is guilty of negligence. These types of cases will wind through the court systems for years and it the outcome remains to be seen...

It's more than just America. As a species we show a certain predilection towards mindless behavior. Sometimes, I wonder how we continue to thrive!

I wonder though, what might be more valuable... having someone pay for their rescue, or having someone as an example to pick apart and show how the behavior was stupid? It would seem the latter would prove more valuable. Plus, and I hate to say it, but lives are lives...and if we set up a system where people REFUSE to ask for help for fear of the financial outcome, we set up a system that affects far more in the way of lives (family?) than what could prove to be a teachable moment.

Yes, people feel far too secure and myopic. But ignorance can be overcome, stupidity can't. How many are we **really** prepared to see suffer and/or die just because they're stupid? How much humanity are we prepared to toss? I just don't see any good solutions with these types of things. Flash emotion makes me **want** to turn around and walk away. I just can't do it and don't know if I could live with myself if I did.

this is the new hampshire law as found through a link at the nh fish and game website:

153-A:24 Responsibility for Public Agency Response Services. –
I. A person shall be liable for response expenses if, in the judgment of the court, such person:
(a) Negligently operates a motor vehicle, boat, off highway recreational vehicle, or aircraft while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage or controlled drug and thereby proximately causes any incident resulting in a public agency response;
(b) Takes another person or persons hostage or threatens to harm himself or another person, thereby proximately causing any incident resulting in an appropriate public agency response; or
(c) Recklessly or intentionally creates a situation requiring an emergency response.
II. A person's liability under this subdivision for response expenses shall not exceed $10,000 for any single public agency response incident.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

now, does this alter the discussion?

i suspect no one would argue with (a) or (b).

even if you are reckless (c), it would only set you back 10k.

and for intentional (c) - my 2 cents says bill 'em double.

I apologise if this gets posted twice.

Those who want to start charging for rescue should realize that they are also opening the door for more litigation. If you're gonna charge me you better perform.

Same thing goes for the fire department and SAR, if you're gonna charge for your services, you better perform lest you be sued for negligence.

Someone wrote earlier that charging fees is a way of not charging the community at large for an individual's mistakes, it's a short leap from that position to the one where individuals start to refuse to pay for services that they don't use, ie, childless couples shouldn't have to pay for schools, pacifists shouldn't have to pay for wars, etc. Again I go back to the idea of "community" and the social contract.

JohnE

That's an awfully broad catch-all provision:

(c) Recklessly or intentionally creates a situation requiring an emergency response.

This thread is a very good discussion of a difficult issue.

Crafting a definition to carve out the grossly negligent fools deserving of legal sanction is akin to defining pornography. We know them when we see them but a bright-line legal definition is elusive.

And I would like to be exempt from taxes for schools the kids I don't have don't use.

And I'd be pleased to be taxed for dog parks we don't have.

Oh well, that's why we have a democratic process.

Apparently they wrote it so the person they rescued has to be found guilty of a crime in court first.

So is the billing for services a criminal case, a civil suit (torte for damages) or getting billed for unsolicited services.
If it is criminal then that brings up double jeopardy. You can not be charged for the same crime twice.
If it is a torte action than it is just like every other small claims civil suit which lands us at whether the person receiving the services had them forced on him against their will.
New Hampshire Fish and Game might be opening themselves up for counter suits.
Negative billing is against the law.

This law also opens it up for privatized rescue insurance and privatized search and rescue operators who can even bill for rescuing people against their will.
Since it is now a billable service then trying to deny private operators the right to compete would be unfair business practices.

Say goodbye to SAR and say hello to prepaid rescue plans where you only get the rescue you can afford.

I think the only people who will ever make any money from this are lawyers and insurance agencies.

bsmith, thanks for bringing some facts into this, but you missed this part:

206:26-bb Search and Rescue Response Expenses; Recovery.

I. Notwithstanding RSA 153-A:24, any person determined by the department to have acted negligently in requiring a search and rescue response by the department shall be liable to the department for the reasonable cost of the department’s expenses for such search and rescue response. The executive director shall bill the responsible person for such costs. Payment shall be made to the department within 30 days after the receipt of the bill, or by some other date determined by the executive director. If any person shall fail or refuse to pay the costs by the required date, the department may pursue payment by legal action, or by settlement or compromise, and the responsible person shall be liable for interest from the date that the bill is due and for legal fees and costs incurred by the department in obtaining and enforcing judgment under this paragraph. All amounts recovered, less the costs of collection and any percentage due pursuant to RSA 7:15-a, IV(b), shall be paid into the fish and game search and rescue fund established in RSA 206:42.

See http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2008/hb1648.html

The passage you posted dates from 1999, and its standard of recklessness or intent essentially means that you only get nailed if you wilfully ignored warnings, correct practices, etc. -- that's recklessness. Most people would find this reasonable.

The new language allows you to be billed for the full costs, based on the department's judgment that you were negligent (not grossly negligent; merely negligent). This is an administrative decision; you don't get a court hearing. A bureaucrat decides.

There is no guidance as to what constitutes negligence.