NH F&G in the RED!!!!! Again

[--M.]

Yes, Wu, but no matter how mature and "reasonable" I am, if I step wrong and break a leg, they'll come for me, whether I want them to or not (and I probably should want them to, right?). Someone has to pay. I'm happy to pay my bit (preferably as a fee/insurance premium/share rather than as a catastrophic event).

F&G, who have all my sympathies and respect, have the responsibility to drive the discussion, because they're the ones charged with running SAR. Everyone here has had good ideas; it's on them to pick one, sell it to the legislature and make it a reality. How it's done in NH ain't workin' (for anyone); they've got to accept their role as drivers of the issue.

 

[dug]

My issue is, and will always be, why these questions are limited to "mountains". The largest F&G cost this year was to find a drowned swimmer....

If I am on a "hike" on a "mountain" and I need to be rescued, why is that different from a "walk" on a "hill" that is near my house? And, why is that different froma "stroll" in the "woods" that are near my house?

 

[dr_wu002]

Why assume S&R should be treated like and ambulance or a tow truck instead?

Because you're unable to get out of a certain location and/or in trouble and you need somebody to come get you.

And why assume that, while (in your opinion) putting government in charge of providing rescue services "promotes complacency or at worst idiocy like people walking around the woods and then calling for a rescue on their cell phone" but that having people buy a permit or insurance beforehand WON'T? Why wouldn't that be just as likely to make people feel like they're owed a rescue?

I said you could purchase insurance, not have the government require it which just becomes a tax. I'm saying pay out of pocket to get rescued. But if the option is available you could purchase insurance if you wanted to. Not many people would do it. Hopefully the great government in their infinite wisdom never requires it.

Aside from that, I'm less impressed with the ability of private contractors to provide good, across the board, public services when they rely on individuals (as opposed to "the goverment") for their income stream. I think emergency services and thinks like SAR are exactly the kinds of things our government should be in charge of because it allows us to have collective oversight and control over something in a way that would be very hard for individual actors to match.

Collective oversight over what? A private contractor would come get you and present you with a bill. If you don't pay it they take you to court. If they don't do a good job at rescuing, F&G can find someone else to do it or do it on their own and bill you the same.

And I'm generally opposed to creating potential barriers to citizens accessing something that we already collectively own. Asking for a few bucks at a trailhead to help maintain that resource is one thing, making people buy insurance or requiring a permit is another - and again, it's also much harder to enforce.

Ugh, more trail head fees to pay for morons getting lost in the woods!? Awesome idea! And sorry, if you or I get hurt in the woods we should pick up the bills as individuals and not everyone else and especially not non-hiking taxpayers.

-Dr. Wu

 

[dr_wu002]

Yes, Wu, but no matter how mature and "reasonable" I am, if I step wrong and break a leg, they'll come for me, whether I want them to or not (and I probably should want them to, right?).

There won't be any forced rescues much like a tow truck isn't going to force you to get your car towed away (except if you're parked illegally or blocking traffic, I guess) and if you're simply not feeling good an ambulance crew isn't going to haul you away and if they do, that's what the courts are for, I guess...

Someone has to pay. I'm happy to pay my bit (preferably as a fee/insurance premium/share rather than as a catastrophic event).

Sure, the individual will pay and if the individual wants less risk and are willing to pay more, you purchase insurance. Just don't mandate the insurance for all because then it's just another tax and defeats the whole purpose of purchasing "insurance" in the first place which is because you want a little added protection and less risk against a large payout for a rescue... But I don't want to be forced to pay for the public at large unless I choose (the key here is "choose") to purchase insurance which if I deem is worth it, I just might.

-Dr. Wu

 

[griffin]

Because you're unable to get out of a certain location and/or in trouble and you need somebody to come get you.

Sorry, I still don't get why you would necessarily compare SAR services to ambulances and tow services, but NOT to what the cops or the fire department would do.

Collective oversight over what? A private contractor would come get you and present you with a bill.

That is if they decide there's enough financial incentive to come get you (and having F&G slap their wrists after the fact won't help you when you need it)

Ugh, more trail head fees to pay for morons getting lost in the woods!? Awesome idea! And sorry, if you or I get hurt in the woods we should pick up the bills as individuals and not everyone else and especially not non-hiking taxpayers.

I would be a lot happier putting a few bucks in a tube to support F&G and the various groups doing SAR than I am paying for services that don't exist as most of the trailheads.

And again, my understanding is that the agencies that do SAR work oppose charging people for rescue services (I also seem to read a lot about how limited the "insurance" people are touting in this thread is in actual practice, so I'm not sure why that seems a viable alternative)

 

[DrJJFate]

And I'm generally opposed to creating potential barriers to citizens accessing something that we already collectively own. Asking for a few bucks at a trailhead to help maintain that resource is one thing, making people buy insurance or requiring a permit is another - and again, it's also much harder to enforce.

The problem is that the citizens of NH own their state F&G department. They are also the taxpayers who are on the hook, no pun intended, for F&G's expenditures. F&G derives most of its funding from the licensure of hunting and fishing.

F&G is already "requiring a permit." It just so happens that unless one hunts and/or fishes, he or she is not affected.

So, here's the question: How do you convince a recreationalist from another state that he or she should contribute in some way to funding a costly service (a rescue) that he or she may use at some point in the future?

 

[dr_wu002]

Sorry, I still don't get why you would necessarily compare SAR services to ambulances and tow services, but NOT to what the cops or the fire department would do.

It's not a natural law. It's how, basically, Ben Franklin set things up. In theory, fire departments could be at least semi-private and charge you for rescues. Police is a little more tricky I guess because they provide overall "protection" and do a number of other activities. S&R does one thing, like tow trucks and ambulances do: they rescue you!

-Dr. Wu

 

[griffin]

F&G is already "requiring a permit." It just so happens that unless one hunts and/or fishes, he or she is not affected.

So, here's the question: How do you convince a recreationalist from another state that he or she should contribute in some way to funding a costly service (a rescue) that he or she may use at some point in the future?

I totally agree, it's not reasonable to have the funding burden fall on hunters and boaters.

Recreationalists from out of state and in state as well are already convinced to contribute to services they may or may not get - see my post above. New Hampshire could lobby the feds to get a piece of it, or be allowed to add a modest amount to it.

Or it could ask itself an alternative question, which is how do you or can you convince people in a state that relies on tourism for a huge chunk of its economy that it's worth diverting a relatively tiny amount of it's state budget to fund and agency that provides services to those tourists?

 

[--M.]

Bingo, excellent!

To revisit the original post/article, F&G is on the hook to the citizens of NH, and needs to sell an idea for how to handle SAR, even rescues of those pesky out-of-staters.

 

[bignslow]

Disclamer: If a hiking "permit" were required for NH I would happily purchase one (same as parking permit ~$20 pp). I also fully support purchasing T-shirts from rescue organizations (got one for the Pemi SAR group at mountain wanderer a few weeks ago).

So, here's the question: How do you convince a recreationalist from another state that he or she should contribute in some way to funding a costly service (a rescue) that he or she may use at some point in the future?

As a NY resident I feel like I'm already paying it to some degree. NH has no sales tax on their purchases that affect most NH residents. However; they do have a 9% tax on lodging and meals (source: http://www.nh.gov/revenue/faq/dra_700.html). NH also has a $0.38 per gallon tax on gasoline (source: http://www.newhampshiregasprices.com/tax_info.aspx).

As far as I'm concerned the fact that I visit NH, stay in NH, eat in NH and fuel my car in NH is a net positive for the state. If out of state visitors really incur a net negative against the state, levy another 0.25% on the lodging tax that goes directly to NH F&G for outdoor recreation.

Overall I think the problem isn't that "too many people (in or out of state) are being rescued" but rather "the NH legislature and/or NH F&G is not budgeting appropriately" (Yes, I'm aware the NY govt can't do anything right).

 

[Craig]

Me thinks that these periodic press releases from F&G regarding the number of rescues and the underfunding of same is their way of educating the public for free.

The fact of the matter is, if F&G exceeds their allotted 313K a year budget they can get more. (See III)

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2007/HB0433.html

I. The additional fee of $1 collected under the provisions of RSA 270-E:5, II(b) for each private boat registered, under RSA 215-A:23, X for each OHRV registered, and under RSA 215-C:39, XI for each snowmobile registered, shall be paid over to the state treasurer who shall keep such fees in a special fund to be expended by the fish and game department for use in search and rescue operations.

II. In addition to the funds in paragraph I, the state treasurer shall deposit from the general fund into the fish and game search and rescue fund an amount of $200,000 annually. The governor is authorized to draw a warrant for such amount out of any money in the treasury not otherwise appropriated.

III. If the executive director determines that funds provided in paragraphs I and II are insufficient to pay for search and rescue operations activities in a fiscal year, the executive director shall certify to the state treasurer who shall pay such sums as necessary to fund search and rescue operations activities from the general fund. The governor is authorized to draw a warrant for said sum out of any money in the treasury not otherwise appropriated.

IV. The special fund shall be nonlapsing. All funds received under this subdivision are continually appropriated to the fish and game department [for the purposes of this subdivision] and shall be used to fund search and rescue operations including, but not limited to salaries, training, equipment, and associated expenditures. The fish and game department shall report to the fiscal committee on a quarterly basis beginning on October 1, 1989, on the expenditures made from the fund.

I wouldn’t get argada over this. It’ll come up again, and again, and again.

 

[erugs]

Me thinks that these periodic press releases from F&G regarding the number of rescues and the underfunding of same is their way of educating the public for free.

Good idea! Each rescue written up in the press should add to this by letting folks know what others could have done better.

 

[dr_wu002]

Good idea! Each rescue written up in the press should add to this by letting folks know what others could have done better.

C'mon... two types of people read these things: (1) hikers like us who probably won't need rescues for doing stupid things and, as it seems, rarely for injuries. And (2) non-hikers that get angry that their taxes or fish&Game dues go to hikers doing stupid things or getting injured doing hiking things (stupid things to them). How many of these "got lost on Monadnock and called S&R on their cellphone" dufuses do you think reads Boston Globe articles on a missing hiker and think to themselves, "wow, I need to go out and get the right gear and maybe a guide book and a few 'how to' books on hiking..."

Just charge them and be done with it. Even if they have no idea that they could be charged for a rescue (it was probably on a sign on the trail head!) it'll still cover the costs of S&R...

-Dr. Wu

 

[DrJJFate]

Recreationalists from out of state and in state as well are already convinced to contribute to services they may or may not get - see my post above. New Hampshire could lobby the feds to get a piece of it, or be allowed to add a modest amount to it.

NH residents are convinced by paying their property taxes.

How are recreationalists from outside of NH currently "convinced" to contribute? Parking fees in WMNF do not contribute. AMC memberships do not contribute. I have never seen coffee can collections set up at trailheads encouraging the general philanthropy to local S&R organizations, let along the state F&G department.

Why is it the responsibility of a federal taxpayer in Alabama, Kansas, or Wisconsin to cover costs of rescues in NH? I pose this questions so Wu won't have too.

 

[leaf]

C'mon... two types of people read these things: (1) hikers like us who probably won't need rescues for doing stupid things and, as it seems, rarely for injuries. And (2) non-hikers that get angry that their taxes or fish&Game dues go to hikers doing stupid things or getting injured doing hiking things (stupid things to them). How many of these "got lost on Monadnock and called S&R on their cellphone" dufuses do you think reads Boston Globe articles on a missing hiker and think to themselves, "wow, I need to go out and get the right gear and maybe a guide book and a few 'how to' books on hiking..."

well said.

 

[DrJJFate]

As far as I'm concerned the fact that I visit NH, stay in NH, eat in NH and fuel my car in NH is a net positive for the state. If out of state visitors really incur a net negative against the state, levy another 0.25% on the lodging tax that goes directly to NH F&G for outdoor recreation.

Overall I think the problem isn't that "too many people (in or out of state) are being rescued" but rather "the NH legislature and/or NH F&G is not budgeting appropriately" (Yes, I'm aware the NY govt can't do anything right).

It's a fair point to say you visit, stay, eat, and fuel your auto in NH. However, out of state hunters and fishermen/women visit, stay, eat, and fuel autos and boats. They also must purchase permits.

I believe it is the people from outside of NH, like NY or my beloved Commonwealth, who have a certain expectation of services which are provided back home.

However, the folks in NH, and by proxy, their state government, do not desire these services for the simple reason that they require funding and don't want to pay for it. And, unlike NY or the Commonwealth, NH doesn't tax everything that moves simply to pay for a benefit to a select group people.

 

[TCD]

I guess I don't have anything new to say about this debate. I rethink it each time it comes up (every couple months, these days), and I always end up with the same opinion.

http://www.vftt.org/forums/showthread.php?p=298736#post298736

 

[griffin]

How are recreationalists from outside of NH currently "convinced" to contribute? Parking fees in WMNF do not contribute.

Sorry, I thought my point was obvious (see "NH could lobby to get a piece of it/add to it").

Regardless of the fact that WMNF parking fees don't currently contribute to NH SAR services, the fact that thousands and thousands of visitors every year do put money in those fee tubes - most with little or no understanding of what they're paying for* - shows that it wouldn't take much convincing to get people to pay a small fee if you make it convenient for people to do so.


* I suspect if we surveyed people using those parking areas, most would be surprised none of the fees go to NH.

 

[--M.]

And I'd be interested in participating, because whether NH residents like it or not, if I break a leg while skiing, the State of New Hampshire is going to answer the call. I'd rather plan for that than hear the whining from people who fire up the chopper and then talk about how much it costs. Present me (the consumer) an option that's rational, not take my consumer cash and then whack me for services I may not have needed or requested.

The good people of NH, through their elected approval of F&G recommendations, need to... Fund SAR well with an appropriate plan!

I like that they end up just taking it from the general fund, making a lot of this moot.

 

[Sheomet]

I am sick of my fishing license fees paying for rescues.
It's the FISH and GAME dept; not 'outdoor recreation', or 'SAR' department

I agree. I moved out of the state last year, but before that I bought a hunting/fishing license yearly since i was 16 and registered my snowmobiles and 4wheelers since I was 18, and my family has been doing the same since before I was born. It sounds ridiculous to consider having to obtain a hiking license or paying a fee to go hiking, but I think there should be some sort of funding from hikers that contributes to paying most of the costs for search and rescue for hikers. Better yet, why should fish and game have the responsibility for SAR of hikers?