In 2008, the Office of Legislative Budget for the State of New Hampshire released an audit report of the Fish and Game Department (F&G) covering the years 2002 through 2007. Over that five-year period, the Department spent approximately $1.5 million on search and rescue operations, including training, equipment, and related expenses. More importantly, the audit found that the balance of the State’s Search and Rescue Fund had been rapidly declining, due to an increase in total expenditures and stagnant revenue of $200,000 per year. By the end of 2007, expenditures had exceeded the fund’s balance, leaving New Hampshire in urgent need of a new source of revenue to support its search-and-rescue missions.

The audit found that the existing funding source, collecting one dollar from every boat, snowmobile, and off-highway recreational vehicle (OHRV), was insufficient. It also noted that, of the 12 tracked activities, hiking accounted for 42 percent of all search-and-rescue operations. The report offered several recommendations to address the budget shortfall, one of which eventually led to the passage of RSA 206:26-bb later that year.

While not often mentioned by name, RSA 206:26-bb is a well-known but frequently misunderstood statute. At trailheads and mountain summits, it is not uncommon to overhear a conversations about, “If you have to get rescued, they make you pay for it.” What is often left out of these discussions is the less sensational legalese: that a hiker can only be charged if they are found to have been acting negligently. The process begins with a recommendation by Fish and Game, which is reviewed internally before being passed to the Office of the Attorney General for final approval. This is not a low threshold, nor is it an automatic charge, and as reported by F&G, only a small percentage of hikers are ever billed.

The statute’s reputation stems largely from a few high-profile cases. A year after its passage, a 17-year-old hiker failed to return from a planned hike on Mount Washington. A search party located him after three days with a sprained ankle, and he was sent a bill for $25,000. Although the case did not result in litigation, it generated widespread media coverage. Many commentators argued that the teen’s background in Scouting and his efforts to self-rescue did not constitute negligence. Likely in response to the public backlash, the Department decided not to pursue collection.

To date, only one case has been litigated under RSA 206:26-bb: New Hampshire Fish and Game Department v. Bacon. In that case, the plaintiff challenged his over $9,000 bill for his rescue from the Franconia Ridge Trail. The court upheld the charge, noting that despite the plaintiff having undergone multiple hip surgeries, he was attempting a five-day hike over 5,000-foot peaks after training in a Michigan park with a maximum elevation of 250 feet.

New Hampshire remains one of only a few states that can charge hikers for the cost of rescue. The rationale is straightforward: the 2008 audit found that nearly half of all rescues involved out-of-state residents, making it unreasonable to place the entire financial burden on New Hampshire taxpayers. The state’s easily accessible mountains attract many inexperienced hikers, especially in the fall when trail and summit conditions can vary drastically. The risks are well documented. The book Not Without Peril chronicles 150 years of tragic mountaineering incidents, and the 2022 film Infinite Storm, starring Naomi Watts, tells the true story of a rescue on Mount Washington. As recently as October 2025, twenty hikers were rescued from the mountain by train after being stranded in severe weather. Meanwhile, the activities funding the rescue fund rarely require its services.

For those concerned about potentially incurring such a cost, there is another option, even if they were found to have hiked negligently (which is, of course, never advised). For $25, or $35 for a family, hikers can purchase the HikeSafe card. Available online after completing a brief quiz on outdoor safety principles, the card protects holders from being charged for rescue costs except in extreme cases, such as intentionally causing an emergency. Aside from a small transaction fee, all proceeds go directly to the search and rescue fund, representing a significant increase from the one dollar collected per registration.

A hunting or fishing license also provides the same protection, effectively functioning as a HikeSafe card with added privileges. While the card is not a permit, it offers a voluntary way for hikers to contribute to an underfunded but essential service. According to the Fish and Game Department, since 2020, annual HikeSafe card sales have averaged about $315,000.

Anyone who spends meaningful time in New Hampshire’s mountains should consider purchasing one, if for no other reason than to help raise awareness and funds. Casual hikers on easy summer trails are unlikely to face negligent circumstances, and experienced outdoorspeople tend to prepare adequately. Unfortunately, the group most at risk, those inexperienced and unprepared, are also the least likely to know the card exists. Every purchase of a HikeSafe card increases the chance that more people will learn about the card and remains a practical and worthwhile way to support the state’s search and rescue efforts, without shifting the financial burden onto others.

Link to the HikeSafe Website.