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.