New F&G Brainstorm - Charge EVERYBODY.

From an article in the UL:

Fish and Game is recommending a sliding fee scale for rescues, based on the idea that anyone pulled off a mountain or trail receives specific services and should pay for them.

The agency has asked that everyone pulled out of the wild be sent a bill.

“We recommend billing a baseline fee under guidelines, excluding individuals with a valid hunting or fishing or OVHR license because they have already contributed,” Nolan said.

The fee scale would include a bill for $350 for rescues costing $500 to $999; $600 for rescues costing $1,000 to $1,400; and $1,000 for rescues costing $1,500 or more.

Based on the cost of rescues over the past five years, the fee scheme would bring in more than $100,000 — money the Legislature has declined to take from the state’s taxpayers.

“There is no money in the pot is what I am told. Nobody wants added taxes,” Jordan said

Click to expand...

At least the upper limit of $1000 would not be as financially ruinous to someone who was unfortunate/stupid/ill equipped enough to require an expensive rescue. And the simple thing for hikers to do would be to would be to just buy a fishing license! Problem solved!

So if I understand this correctly (no sure feat), than by buying "hiking insurance" in the form of a hunting or fishing license I am good to go anywhere in NH without having to worry about being charged (minus the cost of the license) for a rescue? Would the license also prevent me from being charged even if I was not prepared and was negligent? Seems like a way to get us to contribute the the pot the state won't fund. At least this "insurance" would allow me to go hunting or fishing, as well as hiking risk free.

Tim Seaver said:

At least the upper limit of $1000 would not be as financially ruinous to someone who was unfortunate/stupid/ill equipped enough to require an expensive rescue. And the simple thing for hikers to do would be to would be to just buy a fishing license! Problem solved!

Click to expand...

Not that new - I think it was suggested last year but maybe top of the stack now that their other schemes didn't pass the legislature.

I just saw a bill for non-emergency scheduled ambulance transport less than 1 mile from hospital to nursing home - $950 + $49 for oxygen. If the legislature required health insurance to cover evacuation due to injury in the same manner that ambulances were covered, even the full amount of rescues would seem cheap. Searches are a different matter - probably unfair to bill Blue Cross for a week of searching when the victim winds up walking out by themself.

Tim Seaver said:

From an article in the UL:



At least the upper limit of $1000 would not be as financially ruinous to someone who was unfortunate/stupid/ill equipped enough to require an expensive rescue. And the simple thing for hikers to do would be to would be to just buy a fishing license! Problem solved!

Click to expand...

Here's a link to "insurance" costs for both residents and non-residents -

Thanks for posting that, Tim.

Tim Seaver said:

And the simple thing for hikers to do would be to would be to just buy a fishing license!

Click to expand...

If one is not interested in fishing, this is rescue insurance plus money extorted for some other purpose that is not of interest to the buyer.

Doug

DougPaul said:

If one is not interested in fishing, this is rescue insurance plus money extorted for some other purpose that is not of interest to the buyer.

Doug

Click to expand...

Yeah, that does seem a bit silly. Perhaps they could create a new non-mandatory "Hiking License" which would be slightly cheaper, with the $$$ going straight to the SAR fund?

Tim Seaver said:

...Perhaps they could create a new non-mandatory "Hiking License" which would be slightly cheaper, with the $$$ going straight to the SAR fund?

Click to expand...

My hunch is that's the strategy behind this latest proposal.

I don't have a problem with that approach, especially since now I'm a resident of NH. This state has a history of low taxes/low services, and if this variation of collecting user fees seems the most palatable choice for the state, then so be it.

I was surprised that the fishing license was more expensive than a hunting. Many (most?) states reverse that.

I was going to be cynical but the purchase of a fishing license fixes everything.

I start to wonder if when someone does the job they have been charged with such as search and rescue irrespective of the situation when will we get to the place where service charges are incurred. "Hi I would like to see your fishing license...hmm...everything is in order. You will be charged $25.00 as a service charge for me to ask to see your license". Can you imagine this happening? I can imagine the attempt for this by our legislature as they struggle with budgets. Same goes for routine traffic stops, fire department calls, and a visit to your town offices.

Perhaps the "fine" should be a requirement for the rescued person(s) to take a class in general mountain safety.

In the end I would like to see fewer rescues and more new people get out to the places we all love and get back to their cars safely.

Rescue insurance

We had a long debate here last year. The result was a better (IMO) idea: sell a rescue insurance card through F&G license outlets, outdoor gear stores, online, at trailheads. Terms: valid until needed to cover costs of rescue for the owner and their minor children in their party; coverage includes occasions where the owner is judged to have acted negligently but not recklessly, on the grounds that conditions change fast in the outdoors and life is about risk management, plus there has to be a benefit to the purchaser else why should they buy it? Advantage: ALL proceeds from this card go to F&G SAR fund (unlike with present licenses), thus it targets the people who do not pay in advance now but are the majority of the rescuees.

This rescue insurance card is in addition to charging the reckless people and the uncarded negligent people.

Now if we could just get the media to stop calling every clueless tourist who wanders off the roadside a "hiker"... I suppose that is a catchall phrase used by F&G to describe everyone in the woods who didn't buy one of their licenses...

Reading between the lines

Let me get this straight:

All rescues involve clueless tourists.

“A Vermont family of six…”
“Five people from Massachusetts and Louisiana…”
“A man from Cape Cod…”

How can this be?

“…visitors do things most Granite Staters know better than to even think about…”

The legislators are heroes for protecting NH taxpayers from outsiders who come to the state just to drain their funds.

“There is no money in the pot is what I am told. Nobody wants added taxes…”

“A legislative study committee made recommendations for funding, but bills to do it were washed away in the flood of controversial legislation…”

Evidently none of these recommendations are worthy of being mentioned. At least the guy from Cape Cod realized he had done something stupid.

There must be some way to make these fools stop calling.

“They say, ‘Am I going to get a bill for this?”’

This perception can make the job more difficult for Conservation Officers. I know of one case where an injured hiker refused help for fear of being charged. That hiker was slowly escorted down by many F&G Officers and SAR volunteers.

A message to the Granite Heads (pun intended) in Concord:
Believe it or not sometimes folks from NH get rescued. In fact rescue stats show the percentage of folks from any specific state needing rescue corresponds directly to that state's percentage of all hikers. In the short term this policy will cause people who need help not to call for fear of being charged and ridiculed. In the long term it will cost the state tourist dollars. Give F&G the proper resources to do their job.

I wonder if this is why The UL is publishing the kind of story I saw today about the number of troubled hikers since Friday? http://www.unionleader.com/article/20120617/NEWS07/706189920. One of the people they helped was an "experienced" hiker.

If I broke my leg or worse and I got lifted out by a chopper or carried out I'd gladly pay the $1,000. and thank them very much.

Me too. In the previous threads, I have been a supporter of a fixed charge to everyone.

Make it large enough to at least make people think about bringing a flashlight. Make it small enough that it does not bankrupt anyone, and if someone is in real trouble, they will call without hesitation. I might have set it a little lower (I think I have suggested $100 for everyone), but this is a good try.

Most importantly, it gets SAR out of the business of trying to decide who is responsible and who is reckless. 90% of cases are gray, and trying to decide that just leads to the courtroom.

SAR folks that insist rescue must be free have a conflict of interest - their desire for a budgeted funding stream.

Note, the fixed fee does not have to raise a lot of money, and does not have to solve any budget problems. It's like a deductible.

Kevin Rooney said:

I was surprised that the fishing license was more expensive than a hunting. Many (most?) states reverse that.

Click to expand...

NH spends a lot more on hatcheries, stocking, boat access, etc. for fishing than they do on hunting where they let most game raise itself - and there are extra license fees for some game that does cost more

Cheapskates could buy a hunting license instead, except that you need to take a hunter safety course first

Note that you can get a free instate license if you are old enough, 68 IIRC

RoySwkr said:

Note that you can get a free instate license if you are old enough, 68 IIRC

Click to expand...

http://www.nhfg.net/Licensing/license_prices.htm
http://www.nhfg.net/Licensing/fees_and_requirements.htm

Age 68+ NH residents are eligible for a permanent license.

Tim

TCD said:

Me too. In the previous threads, I have been a supporter of a fixed charge to everyone.

Make it large enough to at least make people think about bringing a flashlight. Make it small enough that it does not bankrupt anyone, and if someone is in real trouble, they will call without hesitation. I might have set it a little lower (I think I have suggested $100 for everyone), but this is a good try.

Most importantly, it gets SAR out of the business of trying to decide who is responsible and who is reckless. 90% of cases are gray, and trying to decide that just leads to the courtroom.

SAR folks that insist rescue must be free have a conflict of interest - their desire for a budgeted funding stream.

Note, the fixed fee does not have to raise a lot of money, and does not have to solve any budget problems. It's like a deductible.

Click to expand...

Why not make it 1% of your AGI? That way it "hurts" the same amount for everyone. I think this was the reason a speeder got hit with a $115,000 fine in Switzerland. Their tickets are linked to income.

TCD said:

SAR folks that insist rescue must be free have a conflict of interest - their desire for a budgeted funding stream.

Click to expand...

SAR folks are unpaid volunteers - their desire to keep Police, Fire and Life Squad personnel in cities and towns.

Looks like it's time to pick up my "migratory waterfowl" license to avoid being charged for walking in the woods!

I just don't want to see it limited to "hikers" in the "mountains". I want little old ladies lost in the woods charged, autistic kids who run away, teenagers trying to bike across the swollen Dover River, etc.

John H Swanson said:

Why not make it 1% of your AGI?

Click to expand...

Because more affluent people are smarter, don't get lost as often and are better equipped and trained when they do.

(I was going to post that without the emoticons to see reactions, but that'd be a cruel time waster.)

article link below said:

“The predominant funding for search and rescue is a one dollar fee on boat, snowmobile and ATV registrations. That generates $180,000 a year. Now our rescues are increasing and we are spending more money than that, so the general fish and game fund generated by hunting and fishing license fees is being used to offset the additional expenditures,” Garabedian says.

Click to expand...

http://vtdigger.org/2012/02/14/unli...d-rescue-protocols-dont-rely-on-state-police/

So it's not too fair, but the easiest/most likely thing is to double or triple that $1 fee. It would have no impact on boat, snowmobile and ATV registrations.