New Hampshire is not just "one of the ones that bills", they are very nearly the only one that charges for rescues. A few other states have passed laws allowing them to charge for rescues, but they rarely or don't at all act on it, and a few popular areas with very small tax bases charge for rescues but they too are exceptions. [1] This is the definition of "the exception that proves the rule".

By contrast, the attitude at the statewide SAR conferences I've attended, and from SAR volunteers I've talked to across the country and in Canada, and from official statements from the National Association for Search And Rescue, and other agencies, are all opposed to charging people for rescues, and for good reasons.

Like the official statement from the national Mountain Rescue Association says: "...no one should ever be made to feel they must delay in notifying the proper authorities of a search or rescue incident out of fear of possible charges. We ask all outdoors groups and organizations to join us in sending this mountain safety education message." [2]

And as the former president of the Colorado Search and Rescue board says, "...people, fearing costs, have refused rescue despite grim injuries: a climber who hobbled down a 3,000-ft. mountain with a broken ankle; a woman who set out on her own to locate her missing husband; a lost and bewildered runner who hid from rescue crews. 'We know that when people believe that they are going to receive a large bill for a SAR mission, they delay a call for help or they refuse to call for help'". [3]

One of the most frustrating messages we have to continually get out to the public is that it's okay to call for search and rescue and that they should not expect to be charged for it. Every hour that someone is lost or endangered and delays calling for rescue adds to the size and complexity of the operation. We want search operations to be small, easy, and fast, and the only way for that to happen is for people to call sooner rather than later. New Hampshire's policy is screwing with that messaging and fuck them for that.

I would also refuse to volunteer my expertise to any agency that charges people for being rescued. If the agency's gonna collect, I expect to get my cut too. I volunteer to keep it free for the subjects of the search.

The attitude that people should pay for rescues tends to come from the same people that are quick to forget their own mishaps and quicker still to criticize others from the safety of their own spotless decision-making. There's at least a couple of these people that show up to every fundraiser or other public event to say, "maybe you shouldn't rescue people that made bad decisions." I really don't respect those folks.

There are already a lot of public safety services that do not directly charge the people involved in the incidents they respond to. This is a debate the country has already had and settled: you generally don't get charged for calling police or fire. New Hampshire ought to consider applying their charge-for-response approach to those agencies too and see how that works out for 'em.

> Your original comment was not obvious in its intent to say that SAR folks are cool. It sounded like a superficial recommendation to go out and be safe, and to call SAR early and often because they are a free and 100% reliable safety net. You clearly know enough to know that isn't true.

Yes, SAR folks are cool -- I mean in that most of them are friendly, capable, and professional, and want people to get home in good condition.

But the rest of your interpretation is fine too. I do in fact recommend that people go out (and have fun) and be safe, and call SAR early and often, because it should be free, and because it's a more reliable safety net when the calls come in earlier instead of later.

You may view that as "superficial", if you want, but I put a significant amount of my own time and money into making it true.

[1]: https://www.outsideonline.com/1986496/search-and-rescue-publ...

[2]: http://mra.org/what-is-mras-position-on-charging-for-search-...

[3]: http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1892621,0...