Negligent Hiker Law

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by fullnelson on April 15, 2010 at 2:31pm

I think "neglient hiker law" is a poor name for this forum and/or topic. The issue extends beyond hikers and beyond negligence. It really should be something more like, "Funding search and rescue operations" since that gets more to the heart of the matter. The recent rescue of a skier on Mt Washington is a case in point. Review the reader comments on this news thread from a Union Leader news article and you'll see how quickly civilized debate can deteriorate: http://bit.ly/bUmsNU

Negligence is a factor in some cases and can and should be part of the conversation, but perhaps more importantly we need to agree that rescues can, will and should occur when someone is in trouble and that some creative thinking might help bridge the funding gap that seems to be the major stressor on this issue, especially if neglience is involved.

I've heard discussions of hiker/climber/skier/adventurer insurance that may have further merit as a topic for this forum. An in-depth look at existing NH Fish & Game funding sources vs. other potential sources should be on the table. Hiker parking permit fees and how these are collected and distributed can be part of the conversation. I'm sure there are more ideas too so let's hear them.

Permalink Reply by Alex Lamb Joselow on June 3, 2010 at 4:19pm

Hawaii has a similar law regarding rescue operations. They only fine those who have operated under recklessness and negligence. However, when clauses like this come up it ultimately comes down the digressions of people. They have to decide whether or not the rescued was being irresponsible. It would be very difficult to define what makes one negligent or not. Additionally, it is our tax dollars that fund rescue operations already so paying again seems redundant. However, I don't think it is fair for tax payers to shell out unnecessary money because someone decided to go outdoor adventuring in an unsafe way.