Lots of Rescues - Taking Stock

Waumbek said:

what are authorities to do when your loved ones want you found because you are overdue, the weather is bad, etc? Can you imagine the outrage if they turned a deaf ear--and were wrong?

Click to expand...

As an adult, you do have the right to disappear without explanation, etc. This has been a subject in many missing person cases, such as the girl who disappeared on Route 112 a few years ago and the lady who disappeared last year down south - search and rescue operations weren't started immediately because it was implied the persons had wanted to be left alone/disappear. In the first case, the girl has still never been found...in the second case, the woman was found barely alive off the side of a route (down a large embankment) after having an accident a week earlier. So, while that rule is being debated, one could apply it to hiking and say that one has the right to refuse to be found/rescued, so long as they are an adult with proper judgement who isn't wanted for a crime.

The State of NH specifically promotes itself as a hiking, skiing, fishing, hunting, back country destination. Part of that proposition should include funding, from a related area like rooms & meals tax or a use fee, the necessary precautions and rescue operations that accompany such promotion.

I for one am not a happy camper when I have to pay through my taxes and my health care premiums for irresponsible behaviors which drive costs up for preventable conditions caused by lifestyle choices. Either good behavior should be rewarded (seatbelt, motorcycle helmet, healthy diet and exercise, for example) with a health insurance premium rebate or bad behavior should be punished. Six of one, half-dozen of the other. Otherwise, the honest, responsible people of society are unduly burdened carrying everyone else. I would like to see a real HEALTH CARE system instead of a DISEASE CARE system like we have today.

I don't think that cigarette taxes are carte blanche for state financial obligations, like education costs for example. I do think that cigarette taxes should be specifically targeted at the costs to society. My insurance policy should allow a rebate for the use of, or a null-and-void clause for non-use of seat belts, motorcycle helmets, etc.

Just my $0.02,
Tim


Tim

Somehow the concept that the rescues are already paid for so why charge now unnerves me. Will anybody ever try to get off the mountain by themselves again or take this free cool ride in a Blackhawk. I suspect every time that copter goes in the air those folks are taking a risk, since the consitions will not be good.

If there is concern that the Blackhawks are already paid for and training is needed, put some fee for rescue towards money to the SAR teams. Make their lives easier- I have to imagine they could use equipment etc- they get no free rides up the mountain.

After watching the news story on WMUR I can't help but think this is just knee jerk saber rattling by NH politicians/officials. If you're a taxpayer you own those helicopters and pay the crew's salaries and the fuel bills. The SAR folks (God love them and keep them safe) are volunteers and those that I know love what they do.
Charging more hikers for rescue efforts is simply punitive and partialy a reaction to non-outdoor types bemoaning the recent spurt of rescues and the related costs. Its a typical political reaction and makes no sense to me.
Thats my somewhat cynical 2C.

Tuco said:

Somehow the concept that the rescues are already paid for so why charge now unnerves me. Will anybody ever try to get off the mountain by themselves again or take this free cool ride in a Blackhawk. I suspect every time that copter goes in the air those folks are taking a risk, since the consitions will not be good.

If there is concern that the Blackhawks are already paid for and training is needed, put some fee for rescue towards money to the SAR teams. Make their lives easier- I have to imagine they could use equipment etc- they get no free rides up the mountain.

Click to expand...

It wouldn't count, though!!

On a more serious note, I intended this thread "to come clean" to myself. I have never considered myself a negligent person, and if you saw my gear list and hiking history, many of you would probably agree. However, as I mentioned, I do not take a lot of gear with me based on my knowledge of the area, past conditions, trip reports, forecasted weather, etc. etc. etc. For example, there stands a 99% chance I would forget my map of the Franconia Range should I do that hike, again. I've lost count, but I would guess I have been across that ridge maybe 25 times? I know the drainages, trails, treelines, etc. like the back of my hand. So, I just don't think about it when I'm packing. I might do a mental gear walkthrough and think "I'm only doing the Franconia Ridge, so I need XYZ".

Does that make me negligent? It certainly might.

The effort to recoup the cost is fueled mainly by a budget shortfall in the F&G department, which can no longer increase license fees charge to anglers and hunters because so doing will decrease the number of license sales and actually reduce their revenue overall. So they have the idea of a sticker for kayakers who don't need or use ramps and get no tangible benefit for their sticker fee, which as you might have guessed is not popular (In our family, there is a collection of boats, canoes, dinghies, sailboats, and kayaks.)

Rather than cut an expensive service which benefits relatively few, they are looking to increase revenue to directly offset costs in this area.

That is my understanding anyway. There are numerous other threads dealing with this in prior years and for prior bills. It has been the subject of many NHPR stories. It's come up again because of yet another bill.

Tim

Mental Hotfoot

George Carlin used to talk of the "mental hotfoot". I heard one today at Rotary Club while discussing the rescues. The image of a Blackhawk hovering over a ridgeline and lowering down a swipe card machine brought some laughs.

Hmmm.... maybe we should shoot for a bill to change our motto from "Live Free or Die" to "Live Free or Be Rescued".

Like Doug said, I dont regret any of the risks I have taken and I embrace them in what was my past. I have calmed down in my risk taking now in my life and just remember them by memories and stories I have written. I have done just plain stupid risks in my past, and some far worse then some of the rescues that have just taken place, the only difference is I was lucky. I remember being lost in a blizzard on Mount Washington, falling down Lions Head in winter 50 feet, attacked by bull moose all alone in the pemi, and many many other things. I think doing these crazy trips is part of growth for being such a young inexperienced hiker. A lot has changed since then, and I was just lucky none of them required a rescue. So I find myself anitially usuing the word "ridiculous" when looking at some of these incidents that have happened needing a rescue, until I take a second to think about things I have done in my past..it happens. -Mattl

Tuco said:

Somehow the concept that the rescues are already paid for so why charge now unnerves me. Will anybody ever try to get off the mountain by themselves again or take this free cool ride in a Blackhawk. I suspect every time that copter goes in the air those folks are taking a risk, since the consitions will not be good.

If there is concern that the Blackhawks are already paid for and training is needed, put some fee for rescue towards money to the SAR teams. Make their lives easier- I have to imagine they could use equipment etc- they get no free rides up the mountain.

Click to expand...

That's how I feel. Nothing is ever really "already paid for" or "has plenty of money available for it if they just cut out the pork". If that's the case, then reduce property or sales taxes accordingly and charge for rescues. If the cost in Oregon is 3% of the budget, doesn't the other 97% still have to exist for the rescue to occur ?

Now, I'm also aware that rescues are less likely to be called for if the person needing rescue knows it's going to cost some big bucks. This increases the chances of severe injury or death, so I'm not saying the answer is easy.

It would be interesting to see a breakdown of the responsibilities, activities and agencies involved with a rescue; Police, F&G, volunteers, National Guard, ambulance, etc.

One thing is for sure- if someones charged for a rescue it will head directly to court!

A breakdown of the actual cost of a rescue would benefit all. What exactly are you being charged for:

1. Blackhawk: training time, covered in the DOD budget. Already paid for.
2. Volunteer rescuers: if there not being paid why are you being charged????
3. Fish and Game officers: Why would the person be charged for an officer already on shift and being paid and is responding to the rescue?? If others are called in and there's cost such as OT, that can definitely be a legitimate chargeback to the rescued person.
4. Equipment: large items such as Command and Control vans, patrol cars, boats, etc are already paid for- budgeted items. F and G is not going out and purchasing a new CC vehicle for this particular rescue. Why is the person being charged for that?
5. I didn't ask to be rescued- I was walking out........which in several cases this year they were.
6. Charging the deceased estate or maimed individual will go over real well in the same newspapers asking for hikers to be charged.


Then everyone else needs to be charged- boaters, swimmers, walkers, marathoners, drivers, joggers who get hurt, injured and have an accident and need rescue! Looks like a money grab to cover shortfalls in budgets.

Charge anyone who does something that society calls "risky behavior"?????

there have been 3 rescues in a short period of time. seems like since the mt hood thing last year - the news gets wind and its all over the place now via media. not saying its not serious - but due to the last 2 mellow winters, things are picking up again kind of like they did 2000-2004 (and likely longer but I started winter hiking in 2000 and thats when I started paying attention) - before the 2 years of the the mellow winters.....

I think kevin, etc. said it good - lots of snow, storms lately, holiday weekend, etc... just a bad week in the hills.

just like everything else - probably not really increasing - just more noticable now. with this site and ROT, etc.. - within seconds of the press release or news clip - its liniked here or there

dug said:

Hmmm.... maybe we should shoot for a bill to change our motto from "Live Free or Die" to "Live Free or Be Rescued".

Click to expand...

I was thinking along those lines, too.

It seems to me that if we are going to charge people for rescue services, then it should be their option as to whether or not they are rescued. In other words, one should have the option of declining a ride in the whirlybird (or on the snowmobile or snowcat or ATV) back to civilization if he hasn't requested it. No ride = no obligation to pay.

That probably is unrealistic taken as a hard-and-fast rule. But the thought should be there as we discuss the matter of charging people for rescues, which many of us think is a repugnant -- or at least questionable -- policy.

G.

Grumpy said:

I was thinking along those lines, too.

It seems to me that if we are going to charge people for rescue services, then it should be their option as to whether or not they are rescued. In other words, one should have the option of declining a ride in the whirlybird (or on the snowmobile or snowcat or ATV) back to civilization if he hasn't requested it. No ride = no obligation to pay.

That probably is unrealistic taken as a hard-and-fast rule. But the thought should be there as we discuss the matter of charging people for rescues, which many of us think is a repugnant -- or at least questionable -- policy.

G.

Click to expand...

Or, a menu of rescue services: $1,000 for the helicopter; $20/hr. per rescuer for manual lift out, etc. If found, the first thing dropped to you would be a menu.

Maybe a fee/bonus for the successful person who finds you? You know, a financial incentive to the SAR.

Now, please note, I am only injecting some humor into this 'debate'. Please do not take this as making light of any SAR efforts. I honestly do not have the answer.

amstony said:

2. Volunteer rescuers: if there not being paid why are you being charged????

Click to expand...

I don't know how this is covered/paid, however it is my understanding that the SAR volunteers are covered under workmans comp which, in the private sector at least, costs some money.

amstony said:

One thing is for sure- if someones charged for a rescue it will head directly to court!"

Click to expand...

Not this someone.

amstony said:

A breakdown of the actual cost of a rescue would benefit all. What exactly are you being charged for:

1. Blackhawk: training time, covered in the DOD budget. Already paid for.
2. Volunteer rescuers: if there not being paid why are you being charged????
3. Fish and Game officers: Why would the person be charged for an officer already on shift and being paid and is responding to the rescue?? If others are called in and there's cost such as OT, that can definitely be a legitimate chargeback to the rescued person.
4. Equipment: large items such as Command and Control vans, patrol cars, boats, etc are already paid for- budgeted items. F and G is not going out and purchasing a new CC vehicle for this particular rescue. Why is the person being charged for that?
...

Click to expand...

I don't agree with this viewpoint. It's a bit like saying it doesn't cost me anything to drive to work because I already own the car, or that I shouldn't charge clients for my services because I already have the knowledge and my student loans are all paid.

Obviously there is a huge cost related to the existing infrastructure and specific costs associated with particular rescues.

amstony said:

Then everyone else needs to be charged- boaters, swimmers, walkers, marathoners, drivers, joggers who get hurt, injured and have an accident and need rescue! Looks like a money grab to cover shortfalls in budgets.

Charge anyone who does something that society calls "risky behavior"?????

Click to expand...

Most of those activities' emergencies are covered by car, boat and medical insurance, with their costs and deductibles. If I'm a big boater, I can also choose to purchase insurance that covers the cost of a tow, or I can pay for that tow per occurance. What I can't expect is that the Coast Guard or F&G Officer will tow me in because they already exist and are funded with my tax dollars.

giggy said:

the news gets wind and its all over the place now via media.

Click to expand...

One thing for sure it sells newspapers and ad space.

A couple thoughts about the fear of being charged discouraging the call for help...

How often is the victim the caller? I know the single hiker on Mt Lafayette called on his cell, but don't the majority of cases get reported by freinds/family after someone fails to show? The two on Little Haystack were reported missing by coworkers. I doubt those two have even heard of the idea of rescue charges, let alone the coworkers who called.

I beleive that most who need rescue are without much understanding or experience with mountain hiking, so I doubt the average victim has heard of rescue charges.

forestgnome said:

A couple thoughts about the fear of being charged discouraging the call for help...

How often is the victim the caller? I know the single hiker on Mt Lafayette called on his cell, but don't the majority of cases get reported by freinds/family after someone fails to show? The two on Little Haystack were reported missing by coworkers. I doubt those two have even heard of the idea of rescue charges, let alone the coworkers who called.

I beleive that most who need rescue are without much understanding or experience with mountain hiking, so I doubt the average victim has heard of rescue charges.

Click to expand...

Okayyyy, then why not add a bit more about possible rescue charges on trailhead signs, and even repeat again on signs at tree line?

And, in reply to some earlier posts in this thread, NH F&G personnel are obviously salaried, but their SAR work is commonly after regular hours, hence requires additional funds, which simply are not there any longer with the decline in fishing and hunting licenses. Volunteer SAR workers are not salaried by Workmen's Comp, but are covered for medical costs if injured on a call out. Finally, I believe that NH F&G is having problems finding qualified applicants for job openings, so if you know anyone good, encourage that person to apply. Fair warning, though, these guys are tough, as those of us SAR volunteers are constantly reminded when we try to keep up with them on call outs.

Bob, the moderator at ROT, posted a link for F&G's 2006 budget, which is here.

As you can see from their charts , about 42% of their total revenue is from hunting and fishing licenses, and S&R functions amount to 1% of their expenditures. In addition to federal revenues, it appears that transfers are made from gas taxes, ORV fees, and other income accounts for 8% of the total.

These facts are a bit different than some of the info I've read here and elsewhere. As to whether hunting and fishing license fees are taking a big hit for funding S&R activities - there are different ways to do the math, but it appears that about 1/2 of 1% of those fees are used for rescues.

Whether that constitutes an unreasonable share - you decide.