New Hampshire Fish and Game Search and Rescue Funding Hearing

I don't have time to read all this stuff. When this thread is done, will someone please just tell me what I owe.

If anyone needs me, I'll be out buying some spandex.....I just read in a post in this thread that I need to wear a pair of those grape-smuggler shorts if i want to ride my bike (or is it my cycle?).

dug said:

True, but I'm not really swaying anyone. I'm here for the entertainment and education, only. This is really good stuff. I just don't see things in black and white. Drives people mad.

Click to expand...

IT may drive them mad, but imo, very little in life is black and white and there lies the crux of life and its many complexities. People who suscribe to a black and white philosophy as many do, reach conclusions that are many times lacking in the undercurrants of the truth and where it really lies.

For who insist that answers to complex issues are best approached with the attitude of "the facts please, nothing but the facts", this article on the decline effect and the scientific method may prove interesting and illuminating.

Craig said:

So why has everyone been saying, for years, that SAR is funded by Hunters and Fisherman?

So it looks like this:

1971-1989 SAR operations were funded by hunters and fisherman.
1990-2005 SAR fund was funded by OHRV and boat registrations
2006-Present SAR fund is funded by OHRV, Boat and Snowmobile registrations.

Click to expand...

Craig, I guess you were answering your own question there ? I believe the logic is it's primarily the same Hunters and Fishermen (Tim ) that own the OHRVs and boats. So you'd be double dipping in many cases if there were a surcharge on both their licenses and their registrations.

I am at once embarrassed and proud to announce I have contributed exactly $3 to NH SAR this year. Can anyone beat that ?

Billy said:

I don't have time to read all this stuff. When this thread is done, will someone please just tell me what I owe.

Click to expand...

I'm in the process of setting up a fund right now. I'm going to call it “The Craig's trying to figure out WTF is going on with the SAR issue, fund”. Accepting donations shortly.
I understand if you don't have time to read all this, but I tried to give everyone a readers digest version way back in Post #34. But no one listened.

So now, with 300 posts and counting, your getting the unabridged version.

Kevin said:

For who insist that answers to complex issues are best approached with the attitude of "the facts please, nothing but the facts", this article on the decline effect and the scientific method may prove interesting and illuminating.

Click to expand...

Facts aren't really facts, they're just someones interpretation of the available information.
~ Craig ~

It's funny, when I was a kid, growing up in the country, the conventional wisdom about doctors was they were gods. What they did by making sick people well, was almost magical, and their words were above reproach. Family, friends, teachers, everyone felt the same way.

Then I started to mature, and as I gained a greater understanding of the world, I realized that doctors and every other profession, organization, and entity are made up of just people. People that make mistakes, have agendas, are mentally ill or otherwise have emotional baggage that slants their opinions etc etc etc.

You can't rely on someone else's “facts” to make decisions that are important to you.

My motto is: “Trust but verify”

If that's your Reader's Digest version, I shudder to think if you become a novelist....

Kevin Rooney said:

For who insist that answers to complex issues are best approached with the attitude of "the facts please, nothing but the facts", this article on the decline effect and the scientific method may prove interesting and illuminating.

Click to expand...

With the exception of just a couple of paragraphs, that's a very good article. As a respected scientist (who also happened to be my bosses boss) once told me, "If you need statistics to prove your point, you're in deep shit."

I think part of the point Kevin is trying to make is that relying on numbers is all well and good, but you better also assess how good the numbers are. I've found on several occasions that digging into a report to see how the authors arrived at some final number is quite fruitful and illuminating. Sometimes (definitely not all the time) you find direct evidence of an agenda. Could be the case here, with the "5167" number - i.e. the number of people who "will" buy a card. Seems HIGHLY suspect to me, but I don't have time right now to go digging. At the very least, I expect that number depends on a lot of other numbers (cost of the card, consequences of not buying a card, etc.), and those should be understood prior to writing a proposal that depends on that number.

I would never argue against using the scientific method as a way of obtaining information and knowledge in our Western culture, if for no other reason than it’s the best system we’ve to able to devise up to this point. We’re rather fond of bashing each other over the head with My Set of Facts vs. Your Set of Facts.

Back to the topic at hand - and if New Hampshire ever comes up with a method of broad-based taxes to fund essential government services I for one am sure going to miss the silliness and sheer spectacle of watching NH legislators in their attempts to define who among of us is more worthy than others.

Craig said:

Direct costs only, as I understand it.
See my post #139

Click to expand...

Thanks for the link, Craig. Not saying your numbers are right or wrong, but if we took the $863K SAR cost divided by your $4,000 mission cost estimate yields 215 missions like the Devin Frenette case each year, which sounds way too high. Lemme know if you stumble across any additional data which provides any more insight into the F&G cost for personnel on SAR missions.

hikerbrian said:

I think part of the point Kevin is trying to make is that relying on numbers is all well and good, but you better also assess how good the numbers are. I've found on several occasions that digging into a report to see how the authors arrived at some final number is quite fruitful and illuminating.

Click to expand...

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." -- Mark Twain

(And as a former statistics teaching assistant at university, I think ol' Mr. Clemens is pretty on-the-mark... )

Craig said:

So why has everyone been saying, for years, that SAR is funded by Hunters and Fisherman?

Click to expand...

Partly because they remember the old days, and are wrong

Maybe because of transfers from other F&G when the SAR fund ran a deficit?

They're dealing with similar questions out in Washington state. More specifically, users are having issues with transferability of trail use stickers for their vehicles.

http://www.wta.org/trail-news/signpost/making-the-discover-pass-transferable-your-thoughts

The Discovery Pass is restricting access to State land only, by the State.

I think the problem is, 46% of the current rescues occur in the WMNF. The state of NH can't enforce any type of access restrictions or pay for use on federal lands.

Craig said:

The Discovery Pass is restricting access to State land only, by the State.

I think the problem is, 46% of the current rescues occur in the WMNF. The state of NH can't enforce any type of access restrictions or pay for use on federal lands.

Click to expand...

I understand that and should have said in better words that other people and states are also struggling with ways to be fair to most.

erugs said:

I understand that and should have said in better words that other people and states are also struggling with ways to be fair to most.

Click to expand...

Oh, agreed

Attention: The following is about Washington State, not NH

Washington State Senate Bill 5622 - re: Discovery Pass

It is the intent of this act to reform and improve access to and management of state lands on a sustainable basis for the recreating public by:
Providing a motor vehicle access pass and access policies for state lands; recovering the cost incurred by the state for operations and management of recreation opportunities; providing resources to address the growing demand and impacts of outdoor recreationists and conservation of our natural resources; and providing effective education and enforcement of state land access policies.

Click to expand...

Washington Trails Association

We believe the Discover Pass is an important safety net to supplement recreation funding, but these funds should not replace appropriated general fund dollars in times of state prosperity.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, there are no provisions in the proposed statute to repeal or reduce this access fee in “times of state prosperity”.

It's funny, this is the 2nd entity that I have seen use a parking fee as a back door user fee for public lands. There must be something that restricts charging folks twice for using public lands?
Taxes and user fees.

Craig said:

So why has everyone been saying, for years, that SAR is funded by Hunters and Fisherman?

The F&G department was mandate with SAR responsibility in 1971.

The SAR fund was established in 1989 to (presumably) track the money spent specifically on SAR.

From 1971 – 1989 SAR was funded from the F&G fund (major funding being hunting and fishing licenses)

When they established the SAR fund in 1989 they funded it from $1 fee on OHRV and boat registrations

In 2005 they added a $1 fee on snowmobile registrations.

So it looks like this:

1971-1989 SAR operations were funded by hunters and fisherman.
1990-2005 SAR fund was funded by OHRV and boat registrations
2006-Present SAR fund is funded by OHRV, Boat and Snowmobile registrations.



Note, they sought additional funding in 2006 just before the SAR fund went insolvent in 2007

Click to expand...

Commitee study

It appears in the findings that while SAR is no longer funded by funds from the hunters and fisherman. The findings state: "Money is taken from the fish and game fund, which includes fees from hunters and fisherman, to make up the deficit in the search and rescue account." from Page 2 findings 2. So while hunters and fisherman don't directly fund the SAR account anymore, they are clearly helping to fill the gap. This year to the tune of up to $166,000, almost half of the total expenditure.

Keith

SAR-EMT40 said:

Commitee study

It appears in the findings that while SAR is no longer funded by funds from the hunters and fisherman. The findings state: "Money is taken from the fish and game fund, which includes fees from hunters and fisherman, to make up the deficit in the search and rescue account." from Page 2 findings 2. So while hunters and fisherman don't directly fund the SAR account anymore, they are clearly helping to fill the gap. This year to the tune of up to $166,000, almost half of the total expenditure.

Keith

Click to expand...

Well, not really.

What the study committee report didn't say is that the same amount of money was transferred from the general fund to the F&G fund to cover all deficits within the F&G department. It's not like the F&G fund was running a surplus.

It's my understanding, that by statute, the treasurer can only transfer moneys from the general fund to the F&G fund. Then once the money is in the F&G fund they can transfer what's needed to balance the other funds. They can not transfer from the general fund into, say, the SAR fund directly.

I suspect this makes it easier for “them” to say “no taxpayer money is use for SAR”.

So, no, hunters and fisherman didn't help and aren't helping to fund the SAR fund indirectly.

dug said:

Why not a bake sale?

Click to expand...

We could've baked a lot of damn pies by now.

A Paradigm Shift

Perhaps because of our perceptions and preconceived notions we have been become compliant to those same solutions that the legislature has tried in the past. Perhaps we should take a look at this from a different angle.

If you believe that hiker related SAR incidence have been on the rise since the mid 90s as I suggested in post #285.

And if you believe that hiker related SAR incidence represented 46% of all incidence between 2002-2006 as shown in the table in post #285.

And if you believe that the hiker related SAR incidence in 2011 is 56% of all incidences as presented in the study committees report.

And if you believe, left unchecked, hiker related SAR incidences will continue to rise, typical to the past 15 years.

Then why is the primary focus on finding more money for the SAR fund? Isn't that just throwing money at the problem? Isn't that akin to treating the symptom?

Shouldn't the primary focus be on lowering the hiker SAR incident rate? Wouldn't that be akin to treating the disease?

For your consideration.

Epidemiology of Wilderness Search and Rescue in New Hampshire, 1999–2001

Conclusions:

The results of this study provide quantitative information on wilderness search and rescue in New Hampshire from which we may attempt to tailor education and prevention efforts. The most prevalent demographic group requiring search and rescue in New Hampshire can be reached by targeting men aged 30 to 40 years who reside in New England and engage in hiking. To decrease the major precipitants of search and rescue, the focus should be on preventing wilderness users from getting lost and on preventing lower extremity musculoskeletal injuries. Wilderness deaths may be prevented by focusing attention on cardiac health in wilderness users older than 50 yearsand on water safety.

Click to expand...

Perhaps this is why F&G creationed Hikesafe in 2003.

Drift, another poll...

http://www.vftt.org/forums/showthread.php?t=42730

Are the number of visitors rising? So, are the number of outdoorspeople needing rescues dropping?