NH Hikesafe Card in NH House study committee

Moderator Hat
Calm down everyone. Let's take a few steps back and try to discuss this without insults or vitriol.

I've read pretty much this entire 4+ page discussion. Very interesting. While it is a bit more expensive than this HikeSafe card being discussed, I'm a member of the American Alpine Club. It's an organization I want to support and it comes with rescue insurance as a benefit, so I'm not going to worry about fines or fees from the state. I only need to take care of my self and of course, leave a note with my wife of where I'm going, often solo.

I'd probably buy a HikeSafe card. If most of the funds actually go to SAR, that something that I support. I'll probably renew my AAC membership anyway.

Woody

Sardog,

I am not trying to be ignorant nor insulting to anyone. Nor do I expect to take the same I return. Keep your insults to yourself please. My comments are critical of the process, not of the people involved. Try not to take it personally. I have the utmost respect for people who volunteer their time for S and R. I have none for those who get in the way of the process through bureaucratic weight.

Kevin - I appreciate that most or all other groups have government oversight. My suggestion is that we question whether that idea is necessary. I've never been much for the 'everyone else is doing it that way' argument.

F and G is slow moving for one of the very reasons Peakbagger suggests a mostly volunteer effort won't work. Bear in mind I did not say 'slow to respond.'

Of course it won't work if the only people allowed to be part of the process have to be put through a rigorous training and certification process (slow moving, exclusive in its nature). If you make it practically impossible for people to become a volunteer, you kill your volunteer force. If there has to be oversight for every process, sometimes the process is made too cumbersome.

I'm merely suggesting thinking outside of the box and not continuing to look for a solution within a framework that is clearly broken severely. If my opinions and suggestions seem ignorant to those of you who are experts in the field, then I am sorry.

You of course have the option to ignore my comments and can always fall back on bashing NH and it's tax system as the problem or discuss the states of origin of the hikers in question.

How about some questions back on topic:

What percentage of people involved in NH S and R are unpaid volunteers?

How many people in NH are paid to be a full time search and rescue employees as their only job responsibility?

Can anyone place some numbers to these questions?

Is a group of volunteers likely to be as good as a group of trained professionals? No.

Is a group of volunteers likely to be totally useless? No.

I spent a day with a group searching for the missing Learjet. I showed up at the hotel early in the morning, and an older guy decided I looked properly dressed and asked if I wanted to go with his group. We took a couple SUV up an incredibly muddy road and did a couple of line searches. Most of the people seemed to be hunters, who were used to off-trail travel in cold weather. We didn't find it, although it later turned out that it was only a couple miles away. It also turned out that the plane was a different color than we were told, the owners didn't want bogus claims for the reward.

I'm sure many of us would never be hired by F&G, but we were adequate for the task and rejecting such people is foolish.

David Metsky said:

Moderator Hat
Calm down everyone. Let's take a few steps back and try to discuss this without insults or vitriol.

Click to expand...

Thank you, Dave.

Hi all,

It seems that this topic has touched some nerves and stirred some emotions. IMHO I think it is important that we all realize that this is an online community not a random chat room where there is no need for digital ethics. People should feel free to voice their opinions without fearing the critical judgements of others. I have been laying low as of late for this very reason.

I am extremely appreciative of those who volunteer for S&R and think that a well-coordinated effort that appropriately utilizes volunteers and trained personnel is the best means of providing assistance. Obviously this is neither a shocking revelation nor a total deviation from the current model used by most S&R teams.

The idea of an altruistic person putting their own safety at risk for someone who is negligent and takes unnecessary risks upsets me. I am not saying that all those who require rescue are negligent, irresponsible, risk taking fools. Most experienced hikers have found themselves in a hairy situation at least once but when someone else puts their life on the line to save another's it is my hope that the reason for the rescue is not due to reckless behavior.

Just an unsolicited personal opinion,

Z

Raven said:

I'm merely suggesting thinking outside of the box and not continuing to look for a solution within a framework that is clearly broken severely.

Click to expand...

What exactly are you saying is broken? Your comments seem to indicate that you think the way search and rescue operations are staffed and organized is the issue; that they're too expensive.

Based on the numbers NH provides, I'd say that's hard to support. According to F&G's own site (http://www.wildlife.state.nh.us/Inside_FandG/funding_2013/SR_funding_background.html), they spent $1.8 million on 957 S&R operations over a 6 year period (2006-2012). That's only $300,000 per year, and $1900 per rescue on average (costs usually don't escalate unless they need to bring in a helicopter and the National Guard's choppers aren't available).

$300,000 per year against the hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenues generated by outdoor recreation? (http://www.outdoorfoundation.org/pdf/ResearchRecreationEconomyStateHampshire.pdf)

I don't think the operational framework is broken at all. The funding mechanism, and the political will to find a sane funding solution? That's another story.

I don't think the framework's busted, I think they just don't have the political will to come up with a sane solution.

Woody said:

I've read pretty much this entire 4+ page discussion. Very interesting. While it is a bit more expensive than this HikeSafe card being discussed, I'm a member of the American Alpine Club. It's an organization I want to support and it comes with rescue insurance as a benefit, so I'm not going to worry about fines or fees from the state. I only need to take care of my self and of course, leave a note with my wife of where I'm going, often solo.

I'd probably buy a HikeSafe card. If most of the funds actually go to SAR, that something that I support. I'll probably renew my AAC membership anyway.

Woody

Click to expand...

The AAC benefit looks interesting, but it's hard to imagine how the "Global Rescue" half would come into play in the NH situations we're discussing. It appears to only pay for rescue (NOT search), and it only kicks in after a phone call to the provider.

The "Domestic Trailhead" part looks most likely to be useful, but unfortunately tops out at $5,000. Nothing to sneeze at (I'd take it if I needed it), but when F&G decides to go after someone for expenses, $5K is gone in a flash. I think I saw in another thread some amounts for the kind of bills they have or have tried to give people, and you'd still take a significant hit, even if they leave the helicopter at home.

I think it would be great to have a HIkeSafe card that paid into the SAR fund, as long as criteria used to decide whether the individual was liable for expenses is the same as for the other "license" categories mentioned.

Just curious, if a hunter gets lost or injured in the woods, and doesn't have the 10 Essentials, would F&G try to bill?

griffin said:

What exactly are you saying is broken? Your comments seem to indicate that you think the way search and rescue operations are staffed and organized is the issue; that they're too expensive.

Based on the numbers NH provides, I'd say that's hard to support. According to F&G's own site (http://www.wildlife.state.nh.us/Inside_FandG/funding_2013/SR_funding_background.html), they spent $1.8 million on 957 S&R operations over a 6 year period (2006-2012). That's only $300,000 per year, and $1900 per rescue on average (costs usually don't escalate unless they need to bring in a helicopter and the National Guard's choppers aren't available).

$300,000 per year against the hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenues generated by outdoor recreation? (http://www.outdoorfoundation.org/pdf/ResearchRecreationEconomyStateHampshire.pdf)

I don't think the operational framework is broken at all. The funding mechanism, and the political will to find a sane funding solution? That's another story.

I don't think the framework's busted, I think they just don't have the political will to come up with a sane solution.

Click to expand...

You did a nice job arguing against that point, but that is not really my argument. Here's what I really think is broken.

1. If we are talking about $300,000, we have already wasted too much effort and hours on the discussion. That's pocket change to a state government. Write it into a budget and move on. If leadership cannot get that done, then leadership is broken. This is a minor problem with a relatively small bill.

2. F and G has gone out of their way to publicize their lack of funding and has (IMO) made irresponsible decisions by charging people who were clearly not Reckless in their conduct. In my opinion, that was an attention move. The two cases we have been discussing are of hikers that were fairly prepared and experienced. Not even a question of reckless behavior IMO.

3. People should not have to consider whether they will get a bill when making an emergency call. (Will I be considered reckless?). This wastes time and puts the hiker and rescuers in more danger when the call is made later after dark.

4. My suggestion to take F and G out of the equation has nothing to do with personnel in S and R. It has to do with leadership not being able to come up with a solution to a relatively simple problem. I agree with some of your points. It may be time to let someone else try leading this for awhile, however as those in charge have been unable to find a solution.

We're talking only 300K a year right??

Cool, glad I asked for a clarification.

So yes, only 300K per year. Totally agree the amount of time and energy wasted on this debate is ridiculous. Also totally agree it's pocket change and New Hampshire should simply write it into their budget.

The problem is that is hasn't. The state government has given F&G a mandate to provide Search and Rescue services, but has refused to provide funding - only a law that allows them to collect a fee on ORV's that supposed to cover S&R costs (which is doesn't).

I also agree that Fish and Game has made somr dodgy decisions about who to bill, and when, and has gone to great lengths to publicize their lack of funding. But blaming them for the situation is like blaming the weatherman for bad storms - they've got no power to change how their funded, and trying to publicize the issue is pretty much all they can do to get other people to pay attention to it. And all you do by giving some other body that unfunded mandate is change who's going to have to resort to stupid publicity pushes to bring attention to the matter.

They're not the ones responsible for the failure of leadership - the NH legislature is.

griffin said:

Cool, glad I asked for a clarification.

So yes, only 300K per year. Totally agree the amount of time and energy wasted on this debate is ridiculous. Also totally agree it's pocket change and New Hampshire should simply write it into their budget.

The problem is that is hasn't. The state government has given F&G a mandate to provide Search and Rescue services, but has refused to provide funding - only a law that allows them to collect a fee on ORV's that supposed to cover S&R costs (which is doesn't).

I also agree that Fish and Game has made somr dodgy decisions about who to bill, and when, and has gone to great lengths to publicize their lack of funding. But blaming them for the situation is like blaming the weatherman for bad storms - they've got no power to change how their funded, and trying to publicize the issue is pretty much all they can do to get other people to pay attention to it. And all you do by giving some other body that unfunded mandate is change who's going to have to resort to stupid publicity pushes to bring attention to the matter.

They're not the ones responsible for the failure of leadership - the NH legislature is.

Click to expand...

I agree on almost everything you say, but I don't give F and G a total free pass, regardless of the state legislature and their issues. I'll hold my acid tongue on that one. Agreed, weathermen cannot change the weather however department heads can make convincing arguments to politicians regarding funding. Sometimes people in leadership positions need to be savvy with politicians. So far, maybe that hasn't happened here.

I empathize with the difficulty of their task (finding funding), however, the fact remains that S and R needs to be funded and two things are true: one, the legislature hasn't provided funding, and two, F & G hasn't yet convinced them that they should.

Edit: I'm off-topic and sounding overly critical of F and G, so I'll refrain at this point, as I highly regard what they do with S and R.

There is $500,000 to $600,000 per year coming into State Park coffers from the Mt. Sunapee ski area lease. That fund is literally being used to buy everything including the kitchen sink at Cannon Mountain ski area without touching Cannon Mountain revenue.

That fund could instead be used to cover SAR state park related expenses (considering much of the Franconia Loop, as well as the summit of Mt. Washington, is state park land...), as well as to cover accumulated depreciation in the park system (and perhaps improve the trails to reduce injuries leading to carry outs).

By the way, it should be noted that because of Legislative action, $50K was transferred into SAR in FY 2013 from an annual surplus (not to be confused with accumulated deficits) from Cannon Mountain. It obviously doesn't cover the entire SAR budget, however it's an example of what could be done with some of the Sunapee lease money.

It appears that hikers are not the only group that F&G are after. If a fishing license will cover you for hiking/being rescued will it also count if the have to come get you in your kayak or canoe?
http://nhpr.org/post/nh-lawmakers-float-idea-canoe-kayak-fee-boost-revenue

"Restitutionary Recovery: The Appropriate Standard of Care for Emergency Rescue Reimbursement by Hikers"

http://suffolklawreview.org/deblois-rescue/

This was an interesting and relevant legal review on negligence/recklessness and charging for rescues in NH from Suffolk Law.

I also enjoyed reading the specifics of the first time a hiker had ever been charged with reckless behavior in the U.S. Right here on our very own Mount Moriah in the WMNF. I know many here know the story well. Details I have heard over time have been warped a bit but here they are as recorded by the AP.

http://www.apnewsarchive.com/1988/H...en-Rescue/id-70d84ad322995bdaed74a66765a098ea

But in all of this, where's the equity? Why should a hiker be fined if they don't have a particular item (choose one from the hikesafe list), while a swimmer who goes into a rip current at Hampton Beach after being warned that the waters are dangerous just walks away happy to be alive after a rescue?

expat said:

But in all of this, where's the equity? Why should a hiker be fined if they don't have a particular item (choose one from the hikesafe list), while a swimmer who goes into a rip current at Hampton Beach after being warned that the waters are dangerous just walks away happy to be alive after a rescue?

Click to expand...

Because lawmakers don't write code.

expat said:

But in all of this, where's the equity? Why should a hiker be fined if they don't have a particular item (choose one from the hikesafe list), while a swimmer who goes into a rip current at Hampton Beach after being warned that the waters are dangerous just walks away happy to be alive after a rescue?

Click to expand...

Similarly, If a reckless hiker can be charged for the cost of the rescue, why not a criminal committing a felony and driving recklessly to escape? After the arrest, does the criminal pay for the salaries of the police officers who had to chase him or her? No. Yet the criminal would clearly be negligent, reckless, and putting himself and all those who went after him in danger.

It's the "fireman's rule" as I recall or something similar that prevents it, but no, it doesn't appear to be equitable from more than one perspective.

And here it (Hike Safe Card) is ready for a vote this month. $25 per hiker. $35 per family.

http://hosted2.ap.org/NHCON/c26bcf5af6bd4fda84f3e73888f72aef/Article_2014-01-01-Hike%20Safe%20Card/id-b772a8b83d124fa483377651b7b12f77

Edit: I hope they define "negligence" much more clearly before voting on the bill, but that seems unlikely at this point. Primarily, I would like a clear answer to whether hiking solo and/or bushwhacking in winter in and of itself is going to be considered negligent, reckless, neither, or "it depends."

Second Edit to remove outdated version of bill that had been posted.

Latest article

http://www.concordmonitor.com/home/10032691-95/bill-establishes-hike-safe-card-in-new-hampshire

Not a lot of new info or details but definitely in the news. Of course the devil is in the details.

Raven said:

And here it (Hike Safe Card) is ready for a vote this month. $25 per hiker. $35 per family.

http://hosted2.ap.org/NHCON/c26bcf5af6bd4fda84f3e73888f72aef/Article_2014-01-01-Hike%20Safe%20Card/id-b772a8b83d124fa483377651b7b12f77

http://www.nhliberty.org/bills/view/2013/HB256

Edit: I hope they define "negligence" much more clearly before voting on the bill, but that seems unlikely at this point. Primarily, I would like a clear answer to whether hiking solo and/or bushwhacking in winter in and of itself is going to be considered negligent, reckless, neither, or "it depends."

Click to expand...

DITTO That's the question that has never been answered.