this is the site sponsored by the nh outdoor council.

http://www.hikesafe.com/

i'm not so sure paying $25 to exempt someone of being billed for a rescue due to negligence is a good idea.

Yah, on one hand you say to yourself geez it's a no-brainer I plan on spending quite a bit of time in the area and this would be nice to have just in case. Then you think about it and say how many are gonna get into a questionable situation and say ah, hell, lets just go for it if anything happens we got insurance and they gotta come get us and it wont cost us a dime. Let's do it!

Back when I was a young man in New Hampshire, S&R missions associated with irresponsible hikers were almost nonexistent. What were they? Little kids who'd strayed from campsites (many of whom were so ingrained with 'stranger danger' that they actively hid from searchers). Old people no longer in full possession of their faculties who went wandering. Perfectly responsible backcountry users who simply suffered bad luck and broke an ankle or something. (These were easy, they were generally right on trail and simply needed to be patched and transported.) Folks of all sorts who had sudden medical emergencies in the woods. (Appendicitis, a kidney stone or a heart attack doesn't always strike in town.)

What was the outcome of these for me? Generally some number of dark and wet hours in the woods, followed by the news that another group had found the subject, followed by a quick high five, a cup of bad coffee and a trip home.

What did the state pay me for those dark and wet hours? Nothing.

Who paid for the gas getting to and from a trailhead? Me.
Who paid for my gear? Me.
Who paid for my training? Me.
OK, the state gave me some amount of liability insurance. Even so, the word among the S&R folks was that it was pretty worthless, because if things went pear-shaped, the bureaucrats would be quick to find the rescuers negligent and wash their hands of them.

Yes, sometimes we had air support from the National Guard. How much did that cost the taxpayer? $0. It was accounted for as training hours, and if there were fewer S&R callouts, there would simply have been more training flights of other sorts.

Yes, of course sometimes we worked alongside paid emergency workers. Would the state have hired fewer rangers or firefighters if there were no negligent backcountry users? I don't think so. And we're usually thankful when our paid firefighters are sitting around the firehouse.

And even in the days when S&R was for the most part done at no charge, the subjects would great searchers belligerently: "I didn't call you! Go away!" Because they were afraid of monstrous bills. People delay calling for help, they hide from searchers, they've even been known to punch searchers out. Charging surely endangers the lives of the people who are searching AND BRINGS THEM NOTHING IN RETURN. They're still volunteers.

But there is a certain political segment that believes that no government services should ever be offered to the public without full cost recovery from the subject. A segment that believes that if the fire department puts out your house, you owe the government. If a cop arrests the guy who mugged you, you owe the government. These people write editorials that sound positively gleeful about how much they expect to be able to wring out of victims.

And you know what that $25 will buy you? Precisely nothing. Because it will say in the fine print that it doesn't cover anything. Or some bureaucrat will figure how to read that into it.

Yes. I do get kind of worked up about this. Asking for volunteers for this duty - and then charging the subjects for their services - is an insult to both subject and rescuer. Its sole benefit is cost transfer onto the victims - who are the least likely to be able to afford it.