Being Rescued in N.H. Could be Costly

Being careless in the woods and getting lost to the point you require rescue could become costly in New Hampshire.

The issue brings up something I've long wondered about and has become a problem for many agencies forced to go out and rescue people.

According to an Associated Press story, New Hampshire could make "negligent" hikers pay to be rescued or risk losing driver's, fishing and hunting licenses.

The N.H. House passed the bill March 18.

The House Fish and Game Committee said $42,000 of the $150,000 spent in 2007 on search-and-rescue missions was the result of negligence. As proposed, anyone determined to be negligent and who refused to pay for the rescue cost would lose the right to hold those licenses.

My questions about the N.H. bill is why just hikers? Was that just the way the story was written or would the bill also cover hunters and anglers? What about bicyclists, snowmobilers, dog sledders, cross-country skiers and downhill skiers who choose to go out of bounds and end up lost after dark?

Second, why doesn't any state follow Colorado's example and create a mountain pass. Funds for the pass, which costs something like $10 a year, are used toward equipping local rescue crews and paying for such search and rescue efforts. If you hold a pass and find yourself in need of resuce, you're off the hook. If you don't have the pass, you could find yourself staring at a bill.