Billing for Rescue: Effectiveness and Side Effects
The current issue of Appalachia (Summer/Fall 2026) includes a short discussion about the practice of billing negligent hikers for rescues. I wish I could include a link to the text, but it appears only the print edition is available at the moment. The text starts on page 120 and features thoughts from Col. Kevin Jordan of NH Fish & Game.
Is billing for rescue an effective deterrent for risky behavior? According to Jordan:
>Billing for search and rescue still averages about a dozen or so cases each year -- not many when you consider we do about 180 missions per year ... I am glad we have this tool; I think it does make a difference although it's hard to measure exactly. I have seen the reckless cases reduced statewide.
Are there unintended side effects? Jordan says he is:
>... very happy that all the concerns that were voiced when we were considering this law change did not materialize. It did not affect SAR donations, they still come in as usual, and there was a belief people would not call for help due to the fear of being billed, and their situations would become worse. We have not seen any of this. Just as with a need for an ambulance in the streets, when people need help, they call.
Although we probably need more hard data, it's encouraging to hear hikers are still calling for help, despite the possibility of being billed. In my opinion, that concern was always overblown.
It's also good to hear the law hasn't affected donations to SAR organizations, but just a reminder: The SAR groups around NH are volunteer organizations. While the groups don't pay their volunteers, they do need to pay for equipment and training. Don't assume that SAR groups benefit from NH F&G billing. They depend on donations from hikers like us!