Performing high-risk rescues: 'It's the New Hampshire way'

Very well writen article about the SAR volunteers.

http://www.unionleader.com/article/20111113/NEWS07/711139945


To bad that those who NEED this service the most contribute nothing to funding the NH F&G.

Ah, but they soon will

We can all expect the Legislature to pass some kind of funding assistance for the Fish & Game SAR fund in the session that starts in January, starting from the report of the SB128 sturdy committee whose report is in a post on page 14 of the F&G SAR thread on this page. If we do not debate among ourselves and consense on a position many of us can accept, we will have no choice but to accept whatever is passed by politicians listening to people whose voices are loud and who see hikers as incompetent whiny freeloaders. IMHO we are going to have to accept some means of raising money for the SAR fund beyond what F&G charges under the reckless rescue and the negligent rescue statutes. A voluntary SAR card that works like an insurance policy to exempt the owner from SAR charges unless they were reckless seems the most painless way forward.

Creag Nan Drochaid said:

... A voluntary SAR card that works like an insurance policy to exempt the owner from SAR charges unless they were reckless seems the most painless way forward.

Click to expand...

I would buy a lifetime SAR card if the price was somewhere in the $20 range as insurance against being charged for a rescue, even though it feels a bit like extortion. But then, the reasons for not providing adequate funding for SAR are illogical. If this method ends the funding issues, so be it.

A solution was presented

The NH F&G wanted to add a $3. fee at backcountry shelters but the AMC (aka Another Money Club) refused to go along with the plan.

WHY???????????

Maybe that is why I have not supported nor will I support the AMC! I have been at odds with their policies since the 70's.

bandana4me said:

To bad that those who NEED this service the most contribute nothing to funding the NH F&G.

Click to expand...

FWIW, 44% or the SAR missions were for non-hikers, or about 4+ out of 10. As in almost half.

It would be nice to think that what is discussed on this board is actually considered by the powers that be, but I have my doubts. I am all for paying some kind of fee.

bandana4me said:

The NH F&G wanted to add a $3. fee at backcountry shelters but the AMC (aka Another Money Club) refused to go along with the plan.

WHY???????????

Maybe that is why I have not supported nor will I support the AMC! I have been at odds with their policies since the 70's.

Click to expand...

As the SAR funding discussion continues to evolve, in the other thread, I’m sure the AMC issue will need to be resolved in that discussion.

Obviously that discussion will need to be factual and on point. Using rhetoric like “aka Another Money Club” is a distraction from the issue at hand and adds nothing of value to the discussion.
If you have strong feelings on this portion of the overall issue, I suggest doing your homework and be prepared to offer a factual, dispassionate POV.

Stay tuned.

As one of the posters on the Union Leader site mentioned (he actually taught me to rock and ice climb) a portion of the parking passes we have to buy from the US Forest Service in NH should go back to the state to help fund SAR.

bandana4me said:

The NH F&G wanted to add a $3. fee at backcountry shelters but the AMC (aka Another Money Club) refused to go along with the plan.

WHY???????????

Click to expand...

Perhaps because a) those who stay at the huts are already paying NH meals and lodging tax c) there's no evidence whatsoever that those staying in the huts (a fairly small percentage of backcountry users) are more likely to need SAR services than the rest of the (much larger) user population b) the AMC already contributes significant resources to SAR operations in the form of volunteers and first aid and other medical care provided directly to users, whether or not those users are paying customers or AMC members or d) all of the above.

griffin said:

Perhaps because a) those who stay at the huts are already paying NH meals and lodging tax c) there's no evidence whatsoever that those staying in the huts (a fairly small percentage of backcountry users) are more likely to need SAR services than the rest of the (much larger) user population b) the AMC already contributes significant resources to SAR operations in the form of volunteers and first aid and other medical care provided directly to users, whether or not those users are paying customers or AMC members or d) all of the above.

Click to expand...

Excelent point why put extra burdon on those that may very well be helping keep SAR costs down.

People caught on to buying parking passes, so they will "catch on" to buying a license, card, or insurance once they comprehend what that consequences will be if they don't.

There needs to be consequence if they do not. Perhaps not being able to renew your car registration would be a good one. Game over. Pay up or HIKE to work
Problem solved!

griffin said:

Perhaps because a) those who stay at the huts are already paying NH meals and lodging tax c) there's no evidence whatsoever that those staying in the huts (a fairly small percentage of backcountry users) are more likely to need SAR services than the rest of the (much larger) user population b) the AMC already contributes significant resources to SAR operations in the form of volunteers and first aid and other medical care provided directly to users, whether or not those users are paying customers or AMC members or d) all of the above.

Click to expand...

Not trying to start a rant about the AMC and with all feelings aside. they are one of the few people allowed to make a buck on national forest land when it cames to sheltering folks( I understand the RMC is another) Its not like I can start the FMC (Freighttrains mountain club) and bulid a hut next to lake of the clouds and start charging folks. With that being said they should still do all the things Griffin mentioned as well as more IMHO. They have a privilage to be allowed were they are and they should have to do lots of extra things to be able to run a commercial buisness in the the heart of the white mountains

freighttrain48 said:

They have a privilage to be allowed were they are and they should have to do lots of extra things to be able to run a commercial buisness in the the heart of the white mountains

Click to expand...

The AMC loses money on their lodging operations in the WMNF. It's not a money making venture. They already do lots of extra things, including supplying a major percentage of the S&R resources.

Alright let’s look at the facts:

1. We can agree that the findings state 56% of all rescues fall into the category of “Hikers”.
2. 41 % happen with in the boundaries of the WMNF.
3. Currently there is no plan in place to collect monies from the “Hikers”.
4. The NH F&G (SAR department) is in the red with no foreseeable solution to get into the black.


This is not a NEW problem but rather one that was swept under the rug by previous members of the State Senate and House. Along come newly elected officials that want to deal with and resolve ALL departments in the red and find a practical way to rectify those departments. After all the information is gathered and studied they find a “FAIR AND EQUATIABLE” solution:

Charge $3. Per person to stay at back country shelters that ALREADY collect a fee from hikers.


Now here comes the AMC. They refuse to agree to the terms of the State’s recommendations. The AMC is seen by the NH taxpayer (voter) as the States largest hiking (outdoor) club. What does that tell me about the hiking community?

That the AMC either does not know or it does not care if the state institutes a pay-as-you go rescue. According to many statements by SAR groups that would put an increased burden on their efforts due to a lack of early calls in survival situations. Does the AMC care if SAR groups are jeopardized?

It also tells the NH taxpayer that the “hiking community” does NOT want to pay their “fair share” of the rescue costs. It is a slap in the face to the taxpayers! Now the taxpayer (voter) is left with only one solution “PAY-AS-YOU-GO rescues.


My biggest problem is the lack of response from the AMC to my numerous e-mails questioning why they will not take on this task. I now put the blame squarely upon the AMC and the hiking community; it relives the entire burden from the taxpayer (voter) of the state. It is time for the hiking community to PAY their fair share!

BTW time is running out!

bandana4me said:

Alright let’s look at the facts:

1. We can agree that the findings state 56% of all rescues fall into the category of “Hikers”.
2. 41 % happen with in the boundaries of the WMNF.
3. Currently there is no plan in place to collect monies from the “Hikers”.
4. The NH F&G (SAR department) is in the red with no foreseeable solution to get into the black.

Now here comes the AMC. They refuse to agree to the terms of the State’s recommendations. The AMC is seen by the NH taxpayer (voter) as the States largest hiking (outdoor) club. What does that tell me about the hiking community?

It also tells the NH taxpayer that the “hiking community” does NOT want to pay their “fair share” of the rescue costs. It is a slap in the face to the taxpayers! Now the taxpayer (voter) is left with only one solution “PAY-AS-YOU-GO rescues.


My biggest problem is the lack of response from the AMC to my numerous e-mails questioning why they will not take on this task. I now put the blame squarely upon the AMC and the hiking community; it relives the entire burden from the taxpayer (voter) of the state. It is time for the hiking community to PAY their fair share!

BTW time is running out!

Click to expand...

I think you might have worded it better that I did. I call it "personal responsibility".


AT least I can say that when one contacts Col Garabedian you get a reply.

bandana4me said:

Charge $3. Per person to stay at back country shelters that ALREADY collect a fee from hikers.

Now here comes the AMC. They refuse to agree to the terms of the State’s recommendations. The AMC is seen by the NH taxpayer (voter) as the States largest hiking (outdoor) club. What does that tell me about the hiking community?

That the AMC either does not know or it does not care if the state institutes a pay-as-you go rescue. According to many statements by SAR groups that would put an increased burden on their efforts due to a lack of early calls in survival situations. Does the AMC care if SAR groups are jeopardized?

It also tells the NH taxpayer that the “hiking community” does NOT want to pay their “fair share” of the rescue costs. It is a slap in the face to the taxpayers! Now the taxpayer (voter) is left with only one solution “PAY-AS-YOU-GO rescues.


My biggest problem is the lack of response from the AMC to my numerous e-mails questioning why they will not take on this task. I now put the blame squarely upon the AMC and the hiking community; it relives the entire burden from the taxpayer (voter) of the state. It is time for the hiking community to PAY their fair share!

BTW time is running out!

Click to expand...

Tagging hikers that stay at AMC backcountry accommodations would (in effect) target a very small subset of the hiking community wouldn't it?

That small subset would probably be out-of-state upwardly mobile folks, wouldn't it?

What about the vast majority of hikers and walkers that probably account for a vast majority of SAR incidence? Aren't those the cheap one-day peakbaggers and leaf-peepers that would be getting a free ride?

Why tag a small rich group while letting a large cheap group have a free pass like they've always enjoyed?

And just because you're mad at the AMC, aren't you really just using the AMC as a vehicle to pick the pockets of rich out-of-staters?

bandana4me said:

Alright let’s look at the facts:

1. We can agree that the findings state 56% of all rescues fall into the category of “Hikers”.
2. 41 % happen with in the boundaries of the WMNF.
3. Currently there is no plan in place to collect monies from the “Hikers”.
4. The NH F&G (SAR department) is in the red with no foreseeable solution to get into the black.

Click to expand...

The AMC is seen by the NH taxpayer (voter) as the States largest hiking (outdoor) club. What does that tell me about the hiking community?

Click to expand...

It doesn't tell the taxpayers much. Just like the members of VFTT, some AMC members are willing to pay additional fees and some are not. The same can be said for people who have no club affiliations who also recreate in NH's backcountry.

It also tells the NH taxpayer that the “hiking community” does NOT want to pay their “fair share” of the rescue costs.

Click to expand...

What is one's "fair share"?

My biggest problem is the lack of response from the AMC to my numerous e-mails questioning why they will not take on this task. I now put the blame squarely upon the AMC and the hiking community; it relives the entire burden from the taxpayer (voter) of the state. It is time for the hiking community to PAY their fair share!

Click to expand...

As an alternative, you should contact your state representative and present your ideas to him/her. Since this is a significant drain on the annual F&G budget, perhaps NH should consider eliminating funding for SAR altogether. Live free or die. . .

This is a serious topic and sarcasm is not my intent. I have attached links to my previous ideas regarding this topic.

Funding Idea

Tread Carefully

Here's a brainstorm, so no laughing allowed.

How about raising the northbound Hooksett (and maybe Rochester) tolls by $.25 per car on summer weekends. No additional infrastructure required, targets mainly north country visitors, just some bookkeeping and signage involved.

Quietman said:

Here's a brainstorm, so no laughing allowed.

How about raising the northbound Hooksett (and maybe Rochester) tolls by $.25 per car on summer weekends. No additional infrastructure required, targets mainly north country visitors, just some bookkeeping and signage involved.

Click to expand...

What a great way to help those who are not hikers but are hiking the mountain trails as well as those of us who are well prepared "regulars" who might run into a problem.

Quietman said:

Here's a brainstorm, so no laughing allowed.

How about raising the northbound Hooksett (and maybe Rochester) tolls by $.25 per car on summer weekends. No additional infrastructure required, targets mainly north country visitors, just some bookkeeping and signage involved.

Click to expand...

Not to be too loud Quietman but...I am already putting my child's college money in those tolls to peak bag up north[not to mention maine's tolls].Now you want me to spend her raman noodle budget or her future potential hiking gas dough too boot?Too bad all these threads and very detailed analysis about this sar issue do not go after the real issue which is hikers all over going after their wonderfull insurance companies to pay for any potential rescues.I bet one Allstate or one progressive ad on tv is produced with more money then needed to fund rescues from the sierra madres to the longfellow mountains in maine for a entire year! Maybe Tim could throw some numbers together?:

Quietman said:

Here's a brainstorm, so no laughing allowed.

How about raising the northbound Hooksett (and maybe Rochester) tolls by $.25 per car on summer weekends. No additional infrastructure required, targets mainly north country visitors, just some bookkeeping and signage involved.

Click to expand...

Excellent idea !

Chip said:

What about a toll ? I admit to feeling (slightly) guilty driving through VT on 91 to 302 or 93 to get to Bethlehem. No toll and we rarely stop in VT for anything (though there's a good, convenient station in Wells River I may use more). There's no toll on northern 93, either. EZ Pass is pretty ubiquitous. Why not merge the budgets of SAR, Trailhead Maintenance and the Highway Dept ? Why not throw up a couple tolls on northern 93, 95 in NH and 89 ? You could even eliminate 1 or 2 on 93 then, make that commute easier. I'd put one on 2, 302 and 16 too, to catch the Mainers, but that may be onerous.

Click to expand...

Post # 104

http://www.vftt.org/forums/showthread.php?p=359003#post359003

bandana4me said:

To bad that those who NEED this service the most contribute nothing to funding the NH F&G.

Click to expand...

The average AMC member is older, tends to hike in groups with a leader in better weather and stays at huts or places like The Highland Center. In other words, not exactly the poster child for "those who NEED the service the most".