NH Hikesafe Card in NH House study committee

I just rang Rep. Chandler, the prime sponsor of hb256. He says the text of the bill in the link on #78 of this thread is NOT what the House will vote on next Wed 1/8/14, because the committee considering it made several changes. Tomorrow morning he will have his staff ring me with the proper title and links so I can read the bill as it was sent to the House. After I read it I will report to you here, and you can better decide whether and what you may want to say to your state rep.

Here is the response just in from Rep. Chandler's staffer:

Mr. Sanborn,



Attached please find a PDF of HB256 as amended.



The amendment was adopted back in November and the committee recommended by an unanimous 12-0 vote that the House pass the bill as you see it in the attachment.

The summary from the committee is below. It appears in the House calendar which is circulated to all Reps.



HB 256-FN, relative to funding for the fish and game search and rescue fund. OUGHT TO PASS WITH AMENDMENT.

Rep. Jonathan F. Manley for Fish and Game and Marine Resources.



This legislation authorizes the Fish and Game Department to establish and issue a voluntary “Hike Safe” card with all revenue generated going towards funding of the Search and Rescue fund. This bill also extends the commission to study opportunities and options to improve the sustainability of the fish and game department that was established in HB 588 for one year and removes the eight hours of volunteer service as a requirement for serving as a deputy conservation officer. Vote 12-0.



Aaron Goulette

Sr. Legislative Aide

New Hampshire House of Representatives

State House Room 307

Concord, NH 03101

Not knowing how to attach the text of hb256 as amended, I can only offer the relevant points:

- The sliding scale of fees to cover rescue costs is gone (IMO, there went the stick as motivation).

- The cost of the hike safe card is $25 PER YEAR for one person, and $35 PER YEAR for a family. (IMO, that is a lot to pay per year for coverage on the off chance you will need to be rescued AND deemed reckless or negligent and thus liable for costs. A resident hunting license is $22 per year and only $1 goes to the SAR fund, IIRC).

IMO, the best resolution of this matter would be to restore the scale of fees as shown in the nhliberty.org link at post # 78 on this thread, make the card a one-time purchase good for one rescue like an insurance policy, and sell tyvek cards at the Department's usual vendors, information centers etc, as well as online. What's one more type of license to sell if it sells more of them?.

The House will vote on this bill on Wednesday 1/8. Now is the time to call your state rep. I'm calling mine.

Yours, Creag nan drochaid

It should be noted though, that the non resident fishing license is $53 and the non resident hunting license is $103. Compared to those rates it almost makes the Hike Safe card a bargain.

Creag Nan Drochaid said:

I just rang Rep. Chandler, the prime sponsor of hb256. He says the text of the bill in the link on #78 of this thread is NOT what the House will vote on next Wed 1/8/14, because the committee considering it made several changes. Tomorrow morning he will have his staff ring me with the proper title and links so I can read the bill as it was sent to the House. After I read it I will report to you here, and you can better decide whether and what you may want to say to your state rep.

Click to expand...

Thanks for pointing that out and following up. I have removed the link to the outdated version of the bill from my post.

Edit: it may (or may not be) a minor point, but NH residents will be encouraged by the $22 price tag of the in-state hunting license as opposed to buying the $25 HikeSafe card. Will people look back 20 years from now at this time period as a boom in NH hunting popularity?

Creag Nan Drochaid said:

- The sliding scale of fees to cover rescue costs is gone (IMO, there went the stick as motivation).

Click to expand...

I think they can still bill you if reckless under the previous law

Note that in addition to the $22, you also pay a $2.50 habitat fee and $2 or $3 transaction fee, don't know if these also apply to Hikesafe card

There is also a saltwater-only fishing license for $11, not sure how that pays for rescues

If you can buy these online, they're like Obamacare that you don't need to buy one until you need it. Before you dial 911 on your Smartphone, use the app that r21 will provide to buy a Hikesafe card

Creag Nan Drochaid said:

I just rang Rep. Chandler, the prime sponsor of hb256. He says the text of the bill in the link on #78 of this thread is NOT what the House will vote on next Wed 1/8/14, because the committee considering it made several changes. Tomorrow morning he will have his staff ring me with the proper title and links so I can read the bill as it was sent to the House. After I read it I will report to you here, and you can better decide whether and what you may want to say to your state rep.

Click to expand...

Note that this bill is on the Consent Calendar, i.e. it will be passed by voice vote along with other non-controversial items. No public hearing as one was held last year. Because the card is voluntary, the anti-taxers can vote for it, otherwise it would have no chance.

Just so. The House passes it, it goes to the Senate, whose committee has to have a public hearing on it, which will be our last chance to be heard. Let us be watchful so we all find out when that will be.

Raven said:

Thanks for pointing that out and following up. I have removed the link to the outdated version of the bill from my post.

Edit: it may (or may not be) a minor point, but NH residents will be encouraged by the $22 price tag of the in-state hunting license as opposed to buying the $25 HikeSafe card. Will people look back 20 years from now at this time period as a boom in NH hunting popularity?

Click to expand...

Anyone who has never had a hunting license is now required to first complete a hunter education course which includes a mandatory field session. There is zero chance of people doing this just to save three dollars.

Ed'n Lauky said:

It should be noted though, that the non resident fishing license is $53 and the non resident hunting license is $103. Compared to those rates it almost makes the Hike Safe card a bargain.

Click to expand...

So there won't be in-state and out-of-state rates for this card? That's good news at least. I was wondering about that as a CT resident.

sardog1 said:

Anyone who has never had a hunting license is now required to first complete a hunter education course which includes a mandatory field session. There is zero chance of people doing this just to save three dollars.

Click to expand...

There are people who make choices based on principle as well.

However, the hunting license is less money and comes with more advantages than a HikeSafe Card. It may represent a much better option for some of us if having a hunting license is advantageous as well. A field session with training in the safe use of firearms may be looked at as a benefit by some, not merely as an inconvenience.

My point is that people may choose a variety of options other than a HikeSafe card that appear to entail the same ability to get rescued without charge but have added benefits. This has the possibility of skewing statistics.

Perhaps we will choose to save $14 with the saltwater fishing license instead once some light is shed on the specifics of who is entitled to free rescue. I say there is a higher than zero chance of that occurring.

DayTrip said:

So there won't be in-state and out-of-state rates for this card? That's good news at least. I was wondering about that as a CT resident.

Click to expand...

I'd probably pay the same in-state fee unhappily as an out-of stater to hike in the National forest. Having an out-of state fee any higher for the honor of spending my tourism dollars in NH would only send me to the Adirondacks or BSP. If the state politicians would prefer less tourism, that's fine, I know, I spend more than $35 in NH annually.

Since it's voluntary, perhaps the AMC can/will negotiate a group rate for it's members.

It's been a little while since BSP made an additional purchase but the ADK has been acquiring land from private clubs and providing more access. When's the last time there was a purchase or addition made in the WMNF? Was the ATV park added or is that private and adjacent. (not that many of us like that use of the land)

I've been charged a fee for parking & now a get out of jail free card. At least at the beaches the lifeguards are paid and the bathrooms are updated. (okay WMNF bathrooms have been updated but that was USFS funds, except maybe in Franconia State Park)

Much as folks will threaten to take their business elsewhere like Mike, the reality is that the WMNF is a 1 to 3 hour drive from Boston and the need for an optional hike safe card may initially deter a few folks out of principle but in the long run I don't think it will be the trigger that causes a decline in NH tourism. Currently snow machine users and ATV users, both pay a fee and contribute far more dollars to the state coffers. Realistically, the folks most prone to needing rescues will be the infrequent weekend visitor that will not buy the card and will end up getting billed and held up as a "poster child" by the state to encourage additional sales. Give it a season or two and then there will be some high profile incidents where folks who do own a card call in a rescue as they are "tired/bored/cold" and it will get even more controversy. Generally NH politics tends to work on the delay the inevitable approach so this just kicks the can down the road to a later legislature to deal with. I don't see any of this fee being sent to the underfunded state park system so I expect the issues of lifeguards and bathrooms will remain.

It's been a little while since BSP made an additional purchase but the ADK has been acquiring land from private clubs and providing more access. When's the last time there was a purchase or addition made in the WMNF? Was the ATV park added or is that private and adjacent. (not that many of us like that use of the land)

WMNF has been buying lands but no high profile purchases of late since the Pond of Safety purchase north of the ridgeline in Randolph. They have done some land swaps in the North Country near the ATV park and near Cannon Mtn and a few other spots. WMNF is constrained by the declaration boundaries so making major expansion is difficult unless they deal with inholdings which tend to be high value due to the fact that they are inholdings. The WMNF purchases require congressional action and funding. Realistically the FS is underfunded and limited on any revenue obtainable from so called multiple use lands so there isn't a lot of internal demand or interest to expand.

The ATV park in Berlin was bought by the state out of trail access fees charged to ATV user registrations.

I expect the ADKs had to act on the Finch inholdings as they would have been snapped up by developers.

The far more major federal activity in Northern NH/western Maine is the rapid growth of Silvio Conte and Lake Umbagog Federal wildlife properties. Silvio Conte is now right at the border of the WMNF in the Twin Mountain/Jefferson/Whitefield area. BSP has an endowment fund plus generally receives matching funds from conservation groups. With the National Park proposal to the east and much conserved land to the west, BSP doesn't really need to aggressively purchase land, although some hope that someday the Quimby properties get handed over to the park.

It may be much closer to Boston but from much of CT the distance is about the same. I can get to Giant as quickly as Crawford Notch. (I'm south & east of Hartford close to route 2) For the more affluent and more populated Western part of CT, NY and NJ, it has been cheaper to drive to NH and get out of the car then it has been to drive up the expressway. This will change that & to my knowledge, there has been no mention of fees for rescues in the ADK's and Catskills. (Lake George & Waterville about the same distance)

I know one of the local scout troops are looking at having their big trip to the White Mountains. Yes, the card is voluntary, but how would a card work for groups? AMC Led hikes, if my leader has a card & I don't or I do and the rest of the group doesn't? Church Groups & non-profits? (many scout troops are sponsered by churches) Either it wil have to be filled out & filed in a databse or if a blank card, if someone in my group needs it, it's their card. (How does the AAI handle their insurance?)

It's not the scout group I am affiliated with but I've been bringing some scouts up every year to both NH & NY. So in my case, it's not just my $, it's several families. Who will run the hike safe card program? Where will I have to go to bait & tackle shops, Gun shops, State Liquor stores, AMC, EMS Ragged & IME? There will likely be an adminstration expense in running the program, if run by businesses, it will likely not do it for free, if by the state, increased costs & annual increased costs. (Administration cost are typically not static as employees want raises, healthcare and energy cost increases. Linking hiking & liquor would seem a poor choice....)

Is the Highland Center in the USFS or Crawford Notct State Park? If AMC is distributing, does that provide any conflicts when they negotiate with the State or USFS on leases? (Or have we decided the lease process is basically, an exercise in paperwork only?)

My guess is you will get them in exactly the same places as the fishing (no test, no hunter safety, etc.) and hunting licenses, which includes an online purchase with PDF download which you simply print out and take with you.

https://www.nhfishandgame.com/

Tim

In an age of paperless & electronic, will you be able to just keep a couple on your phone or mobile device? If yes, will you be able to buy it right after your accident. I can say to date, I've never gone to Nhfishandgame.com to buy anything to date. Is that .com instead of .gov? (will you have to produce it first or will they just look it up on a database & when & how will that be updated?)

I'd think it would want more outlets for buying unless it's meant more as a simple tool to decide who gets billed & therefore you don't want many people buying it? If you have a card, you don't get billed, if you don't you get billed since negligence can be hard to decide. (you can't measure it like BAC or speed on the highway)

Who gets to go solo? IME and EMS guides only, only VFTT readers, AMC Croo, no one? If I carry a spreadsheet showing well over 100 solo trips, can I go solo?

If you get hurt on a pemi loop where you too dumb or not fit enough to do such a trip & therefore negligent - yes some of us have done or tried it but many (non-running or biking enthusiest a 1/2 marathoner or 100 rider can probably do) novices probably shouldn't. Likely no one in Concord considers a 30 mile hike & over 9000 vertical a day hike.

Hiking after dark (probably similar arguement as solo) Full moon without a light?

hiking in bad weather? What's bad weather? (monitored like driving too fast for road conditions?) Is 60 MPH winds and 1/10 of a mile visibility and temps below 20 bad weather? (Someone in Concord might say that, probably none of us, its maybe less than fair or not quite mediocre)

Using card membership as you sole method of billing makes it simple. (until someone hires or is a lawyer)

If you've done the grid are you beyond negligence? a trailbagger (redliner) the winter 48? the summer 48? the 115? (buy the card and it's a moot point & avoid the hassle? )

I am also curious as to what role the HikeSafe card will have on rescues not coordinated by Fish and Game...in the ravines (Cutler River Drainage) in winter/spring for example where USFS takes the lead role. Will they fall into the same category?

Mike P. said:

Having an out-of state fee any higher for the honor of spending my tourism dollars in NH would only send me to the Adirondacks or BSP. If the state politicians would prefer less tourism, that's fine, I know, I spend more than $35 in NH annually.

Click to expand...

I think using BSP is a poor choice of example. As an out of stater you pay more to get in there already.

SteveHiker said:

I think using BSP is a poor choice of example. As an out of stater you pay more to get in there already.

Click to expand...

True on the cost but BSP is also more regulated than any of the other areas but many consider it a diiferent wilderness experience also. IMO, I get something for my money that I can see & it's also an entrance fee. I look the cost at BSP as more of a parking fee, not unlike the parking pass the USFS has for the national forest.

I'm okay with higher out of state fishing licences which I've bought when I've gone fishing in VT. Rescuing me shouldn't be more expensive than a NH resident. Raising rescue fees for out-of state hikers would beg the question whether state police and fire departments should charge out of state or out of town visitor for responding to emergenices on the highway also.

(It's been brought up and in some cases passed in some places across the country but dropped quickly in virtually all cases )

This is a long thread. I skimmed it but am not sure if the bill has gone though yet. Do the hike safe cards exist yet? If not, when?

Related to this I havent seen anyone mention the SPOT sat messenger. I've carried one for a year - makes it easier to convince my wife that I'm safe hiking solo . With the SPOT you can add GEOS rescue insurance underwritten by Loyds of London (I think it was only $7.95)/year). I think it is for up to $100,00 2 incidents per year.

Mike P. said:

Raising rescue fees for out-of state hikers would beg the question whether state police and fire departments should charge out of state or out of town visitor for responding to emergenices on the highway also.

(It's been brought up and in some cases passed in some places across the country but dropped quickly in virtually all cases )

Click to expand...

Nearly all fire departments charge for ambulance service, I would say it's increasing not decreasing

For some reason F&G declines to consider this approach, in fact just this year they decided not to certify their officers as EMT although they still get the training