New Hampshire Fish and Game Search and Rescue Funding Hearing

griffin said:

...
But again, I don't live in NH so I don't get a vote.

Click to expand...

Sure you do:

==You vote with your tourism money. Talk with your tourism vendors, especially the small-business people in the diners, bookstores, fly-shops and gas stations. Tell them that your disposable income may have to be slightly reallocated to other states because of this law. They absolutely do listen and appreciate the feedback. Be positive and thank them for being there for you; it's a two-way street.

==Write your congress-people: the WMNF is a federal jurisdiction. It may be whistling into the wind, but a vote is a vote.

==Buy an out-of-state fishing license and then write to the NH Attorney General (or the governor, the committee chair-person, take your pick). Spending dollars on NH buys you a vote.

==Speak up on boards like these; maybe you'll be persuasive and change the mind of a NH voter or legislator. Stop laughing, it's possible!

Voting with tourism dollars has the most impact, especially if you tell the store-owners what's up. The legislature may decide it has enough tourism dollars anyway, but you've at least been heard.

While I love hiking in NH (and it really feels like home for me for that), my friends are mostly closer to the Cats and DAKs and I have to beg them to drive this far. NH really does have to decide how much of a tantrum it wants to throw with this law; it can have it any way it wants.

Please understand that I am not attacking the SAR nor do I want a delay in someone calling for a rescue but…let’s deal in reality here.

First the current policies, procedures and guidelines in place were set by the SAR, I hate to break the bad news to you but their way is NOT working! If it was working we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

According to the data compiled the largest segment of SAR calls come from …… HIKERS, yet they still contribute nothing in the way of fees that go directly to the cost of those rescues. Also it seems (using this term loosely) that the hikers are the ones making the most noise on this subject!

I do have an example of a hiker who did NOT call the SAR even when there was no fee involved and it ended in tragedy. I will not post this publicly as I do not wish that those who knew this person would have to relive that event. (Send me a PM if interested and I will send that info).

Lastly (I think I said that before), If the state institutes a pay for rescue policy, I would HOPE it would create an outcry in the public sector that would finally end this debate and institute a fair and equitable scenario for all rescues (trust me on this it won’t come from tax payers). I would have thought that the high profile case would have brought and end to this but it hasn’t!

The current system is broken and to keep doing the same thing and expecting different results is ludicrous.

hikers definition

I don't entirely disagree with the fact that hikers attribute for most SAR calls but I sometimes cringe when I hear such statistics. Let me first talk about another label used in rescues: kayaker. I've been reading rescue reports in the news for a while as well as fatalities and majority of these reports appear to be for people who don't appear to be the well equipped die hard kayakers. They seem to be mostly in wide plastic boats, often without a life jacket or a proper sprayskirt and often inexperienced or 'one time users'. Yet, because they were in a kayak they are classified as kayakers.

Then when the legislature tries to address safety concerns those who of us who have more experience and are properly schooled in rescues and safety equipment, are on the receiving end of mostly unwelcome fees and 'safety proposals'

Classification of hikers is similar. I cringe when someone at work who has never gone hiking says to me: 'I think we're going hiking this weekend up to Mt.Washington'. They will pick the mountain the know the most (from the news), put on their sneakers, jeans and tshirts and head up the mountain unprepared.

I cringe when I hear that some would want me to pay yearly fees for SAR. Let's say the fee is 100 per year. By the end of an active hiker's life they would have to pay $4000 + in fees and yet most likely would never need to call for a rescue (knock on wood). Not the mention the annoyance of jumping through several hoops before even setting a foot on the trail (parking pass, sar pass, camping reservation, fishing license, hunting license, anything license...)

But for the demographic of someone who goes a few times in a lifetime and pays much less into the system yet the statistical likelihood of them calling for a rescue is higher.

I am against such fees as I find them quite annoying but if there was a fee instituted I would love to see a system where your license amount decreases every consecutive year if you have not called SAR.

Brambor said:

I am against such fees as I find them quite annoying but if there was a fee instituted I would love to see a system where your license amount decreases every consecutive year if you have not called SAR.

Click to expand...

Do I get a credit if I perform a rescue or prevent the need for one?

Just a rhetorical question...

Doug

You will get a gift certificate to ChuckieCheese

DougPaul said:

Do I get a credit if I perform a rescue or prevent the need for one?

Just a rhetorical question...

Doug

Click to expand...

DougPaul said:

Do I get a credit if I perform a rescue or prevent the need for one?

Just a rhetorical question...

Doug

Click to expand...

At some ski areas the assigned "patrol" will stop a random skier and give them a gift if they are skiing safe. ( I am not making this up.) Nice positive reinforcement if you are the lucky one.

I bet if you performed a rescue you might have to attend a nice supper in your honor and receive one of those "hero" awards. Don't they give out engraved plaques for "courage above and beyond the call of duty".

Keep present laws, sell SAR cards

Trust the posters on this forum to thoroughly explore every aspect of this issue.

I am trying to focus on the narrow question of how to fund SAR costs of NH F&G, in the fairest and most efficient way possible. There is no general political will out there in favor of tapping the general fund, or the rooms-and-meals tax, or any sales tax, so let's drop them from discussion. Having an insurance company write a policy brings yet another actor onto this stage, and moreover one who would take a percentage off the top for their own costs and profit.

We are therefore left with F&G being authorized to sell a voluntary SAR card through its license sellers, info centers, stores, and wherever else wants to carry it. A small fee does go to the seller, but all the rest goes to the F&G SAR fund.

The SAR card should be voluntary not required, for if required it has all the problems of anything else you have to enforce. BUT, we still have the laws on the books that say you can be charged for your rescue if the rescue review board decides you have only been negligent, never mind reckless. In order that no one think the SAR card gets you rescued for free regardless of your conduct, I offer the condition that it only covers you if your conduct is judged to have been merely negligent at worst, but not if you have been reckless. Reckless is pretty obvious to the reasonable and prudent person, but negligent is harder to define. Unless we are perfectly equipped for anything and we turn back at the first sign of a risk, there is room to call us negligent. None of us is so perfect as to never misjudge the situation outdoors, and we cherish the freedom to go on the hill without having to prove anything to anyone beforehand. No matter how careful we are, the hill is a place of some risk and danger, and anyone can get careless or unlucky. Thus the SAR card, but why bother buying one if you'll be charged for your rescue anyway? There has to be a benefit to the buyer, and that has to be so limited as to reward the reasonable person yet not reward the wantonly careless.
Thus I arrive at a voluntary SAR card that covers your rescue if you were "negligent" or blameless, but not if you were reckless.
There, that's run up the flagpole, we'll see if anyone salutes...
Creag nan drochaid

Yes, it's a great starting point. There's one.

There are many right answers; here's one possibility!

Peer review is good. Reinventing the wheel unnecessarily may be a waste of time. Let's meet in the middle and get something done. Well said, CND!

They even charge in California sometimes....

http://unofficialnetworks.com/squaw...caught-tree-4-hours-calls-911-arrested-49030/

In 1994 the legislature proposed a bill to give F&G authority to appoint an agent that would provide search and rescue insurance for a fee of $3. The fee would be payed into the search and rescue fund. Persons who bought the insurance would not be liable for the cost of search and rescue for 1 year.

F&G advised that:
1. They were unable to determine the number of people that might buy the insurance
2. They had no way of calculating the possible cost expended per incident
3. They had no way to know the number of incidents that may occur per year

Therefor F&G advised the bill may have an indeterminable impact on the fund, county and local revenues and expenditures.

The NH Outdoor Council objected for varies reasons.

Craig said:

In 1994 the legislature proposed a bill to give F&G authority to appoint an agent that would provide search and rescue insurance for a fee of $3. The fee would be payed into the search and rescue fund. Persons who bought the insurance would not be liable for the cost of search and rescue for 1 year.

F&G advised that:
1. They were unable to determine the number of people that might buy the insurance
2. They had no way of calculating the possible cost expended per incident
3. They had no way to know the number of incidents that may occur per year

Therefor F&G advised the bill may have an indeterminable impact on the fund, county and local revenues and expenditures.

The NH Outdoor Council objected for varies reasons.

Click to expand...

This doesn't make sense? There has to be something between the lines not being said.

It's not a good enough so we do nothing?

Why pay it into the fund and not to an insurance company and let them figure it out and do the calculations? That's what they do, determine the risk and the cost. F&G is off the financial hook and collect from the insurance company to help cover some of their costs.

FYI - This thread discusses the SAR insurance issue.

Tim

bikehikeskifish said:

FYI - This thread discusses the SAR insurance issue.

Tim

Click to expand...

I remember that, it discusses it but didn't ans my questions then anymore than it does now. Just because some people don't like insurance companies or insurance companies a make profit doesn't void them of being part of the solution.

Important Disclosure: I do not work for, invest in or have any personal or financial connection with any insurance company or employee.

Any insurance company that cannot make a profit is automatically voided from the solution. As I understand things, without compulsory participation, there isn't enough revenue, or predictability for either F&G to budget around it, or for an insurance company to be interested.

Way back towards the beginning of the thread, I suggested parking fees at Franconia Notch State Park (and/or other state parks where hikers go). My reasons included

1. Targets the appropriate audience
2. Audience is used to paying for parking
3. The state is already set up to accept parking fees (Monadnock, Pack Monadnock, etc.)
4. There is a steady, predictable stream of users coming to these facilities.

Tim

In 1993 the legislature proposed a bill to establish access and use fees for the state park system. $1 of the access and use fee would be designated for the search and rescue fund.

bikehikeskifish said:

Any insurance company that cannot make a profit is automatically voided from the solution. As I understand things, without compulsory participation, there isn't enough revenue, or predictability for either F&G to budget around it, or for an insurance company to be interested.

Click to expand...

I am not qualified to make a statement like that and, sorry no disrespect intended, I question it validity.

If I were one of the decision makers for this I would invite the insurance companies that do hiking/climbing/travel/outdoor insurance to make proposals. Then I would have facts from which I can make a well informed decision.

My guess is, like some many group decisions, there is one strong willed individual who will push through what they want in spite of the obvious. How many times have we been left scratching our heads saying, "How did that ever happen? Doesn't make sense." That"s life. Then it fades into the back ground as something else comes along that grabs our attention that we obsess about.

I could be wrong. My statement could be invalid. I'm not in the insurance business myself, but I am in the software business and I can tell you that even when starting up a software business, which I am doing now for the third time, we won't engage with customers which don't fit our profile, or who will require support costing well in excess of the value of the deal, etc. I.e., unless we can either make money directly from a deal, or indirectly (will generate many future deals, i.e., a "loss leader"), it isn't going to happen. Things which are unprofitable for private enterprise are often paid for out of tax dollars and provided by the government. Even they (according to Craig in 1994) will not touch this.

The idea that people will voluntarily purchase SAR insurance is inconsistent with demonstrated behavior. People won't even carry a reasonable pack with the essentials, including water, food, light, and will head up places like Mount Washington in cotton and without any jackets. This implies they are of the mindset "It won't happen to me" and therefore "why should I buy SAR insurance?" One thing we can learn from the current economic situation is that Wall Street clearly does not like uncertainty, and voluntary contributions to SAR insurance is a very uncertain proposition indeed.

Has the threat of SAR fees increased preparedness? I don't know. There seems to be some support for the idea that it delays calls increasing risks for the victim and the SAR team. If there is an increase in preparedness, then maybe there would be an increase in SAR insurance purchases. It could become the 11th essential. I still believe that while droves of people are venturing out without the other 10, they aren't going to purchase the 11th.

This is all my opinion and is provided as-is in the spirit of discussion. You may like it, agree with it, etc., or you may not. That is your right.

Tim

What about a small charge, say $3-5, to park at Lafayette Place on busy hiking weekends? This targets hikers almost exclusively. The overhead should not be too large, since it would only be during high use periods. You could also limit the charge hours to 7 AM to 3 PM, making it a single shift.

If an individual does not want to pay, there are other places to hike in the area and/or they could come back at non-peak periods. If it discouraged a few from hiking at peak periods, it would be a benefit to those who paid.

In 2003 the legislature proposed a bill that would require F&G to implement a program to bond all hikers, mountain climbers and rock climbers with sufficient surety and for the benefit of the state. Any fees, expenses or penalties for search and rescue would be recovered from the bond. The bond would be valid for 1 year.

F&G expected this bill would actually increase expenditures, significantly, as a result of enforcing such a program.

Additionally, in a written response to this proposed legislation, then assistant chief of law enforcement of the F&G department, Timothy Acerno said, Generally speaking and being fiscally responsible the department is able to meet the financial needs to administer the search and rescue program in the state.

Craig said:

In 2003 ...

Additionally, in a written response to this proposed legislation, then assistant chief of law enforcement of the F&G department, Timothy Acerno said, Generally speaking and being fiscally responsible the department is able to meet the financial needs to administer the search and rescue program in the state.

Click to expand...

SAR costs have shot up dramatically since 2003, I'm not sure how much is higher wages and expenses, how much more cases, and how much more complex cases - anyway they now see a problem.

I think it was in the 80s that a kid disappeared climbing Lafayette over Columbus Day in a snowstorm and the body wasn't ever found (or was found the next year and hushed up according to rumor) and there was a hue and cry to require fee permits for winter hiking which was of course said to be unreasonably dangerous. But it didn't include Columbus Day as that would discourage leaf peepers and eventually died altogether.