NH Proposes Fee If People Need To Be Rescued

vftt.org

Help Support vftt.org:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
DougPaul said:
No but they do want our tourist money.

Doug
Click to expand...
Last I heard everyone whom lives in the New Hampshire never leaves. We all stay here waiting for them flatlanders to come up here and pay our way. Why heck should we go south and pay sales tax in another state when we've got our bread buttered on both sides. We pay no sales tax or income tax cuz them folks from Taxachusetts carry our load. Pretty Sweet. :p;):)
 
Last edited:
Mods are gonna nuke this....... its a given.....

I live in ME and work in NH. I pay income taxes in ME on NH earnings as well as property taxes on my ME property. Conversations over many years with many NH resident co-workers have told me, the butter is spread pretty equally over the whole loaf of bread and all the sandwiches we eat.

Breeze
 
hb0256 will have a public hearing by the Fish and Game and Marine Resources Committee on Thu 1/31 at 2:30 PM in room 307 of the Legislative Office Building.
 
bikehikeskifish said:
Heard this today on NPR. Also applies to the Lost skiers in VT but brings up an interesting quote from Kevin Jordan.

http://www.npr.org/2013/01/23/16952...es-can-snowball-into-a-search-and-rescue-bill

Tim
Click to expand...

From your linked article:

Kevin Jordan, who helps run New Hampshire's search-and-rescue program, says "when people get in trouble, they don't hesitate to call."

"They call immediately because they are in trouble," he says.

His program — which frequently handles rescues in the White Mountains, an area known for severe weather — has been less squeamish about billing when it finds that those who were rescued have been reckless or negligent.

Jordan says the policy has stirred up debate, but he doesn't think it deters anyone from seeking help — though he admits there isn't a way to prove that.
Click to expand...

Poppycock. As I have posted numerous times previously, there have been many documented cases of people either delaying a call for rescue or actively avoiding search parties, both behaviors caused by fear or financial repercussions.

Mr. Jordan is making statements that may sound authoritative, which in fact are demonstrably false.

Since the mid to late 1980's, it has been documented that lost or injured people balk at receiving help from SAR teams because they fear the bill they "heard about". Many victims try to self-rescue adding to injury or causing their own death. Here are examples from a collection of reports from Colorado emergency rescue personnel:

A Boulder climber failed to arrest his rappel and plunged off the end of his rope. His body slammed into the rocks below breaking his pelvis. Fearing enormous costs of rescue, the man and his climbing partner decided to rescue themselves. Their attempt at evacuation exacerbated and added to the fallen climber's injuries. In the middle of the night, the two realized they couldn't get out without help. The unhurt climber hiked out and called search and rescue. In the end, the extraction of the injured climber in the middle of the night increased hazard to the search and rescue teams.

Another case in Summit County tells of a hiker climbing Quandary. She got stuck on a dangerous length of trail as the sun dipped below the rugged peaks. She called 911 on a cell phone, but refused offered SAR assistance. She told the dispatcher to just talk her down. When it got too dark to pick her way out of that stuck place, the 911 person insisted on calling SAR. Again the girl refused. The two argued back and forth until the 911 operator asked why the girl was so resistant to being rescued. "I can't afford it!" she said. Hiker girl was a college student who feared having to abandon her education to pay for rescue efforts.

Climber and Quandary Girl were lucky. Hesitation to call for help can seal a death sentence.
Click to expand...
 
Legislative Hearing January 31, 2013, on Fish and Game Search and Rescue Funding

CONCORD, N.H. – A legislative hearing before the N.H. House Fish and Game and Marine Resources Committee regarding proposals to address the shortfall in funding for the New Hampshire Fish and Game Department's search and rescue activities is scheduled for Thursday, January 31, 2013, at 2:30 p.m. in Room 307 at the Legislative Office Building in Concord, N.H.

Legislative Hearing January 31, 2013, on Fish and Game Search and Rescue Funding
 
Hearing ran 3.5 hrs but sponsors and press left about halfway

Testimony about as expected:
* Many SAR groups opposed billing for rescues
* AMC and RMC wanted to use rooms & meals tax, would require only .002%
* ATV users tired of hikers freeloading, one wanted to bring back hut tax
* Search dog lady said increasing number of lost with Alzheimers, autism, suicide usually in So. NH

Maj. Jordan was up last and said all the suggestions had failed to pass in the past
* CO style card projected to raise only $25k in NH, not nearly enough
* VT decided to wait till morning to rescue lost guy on warm night, but he had broken femur and died of exposure
* Gen Reidel trying to eliminate charge for helicopters
* x-c skiers 1.4% of SAR but counted as "other" not hikers
* 2% were swimmers
* Crime involved in 8.6%
* 43% of searches in White Mtns, harder to guess where victim was in So NH
* Wanted to keep all SAR money in one pot to use as needed instead of billing user groups separately, don't know at beginning whether missing girl is lost, runaway, or murder victim
* No staff or funding to prepare bills to send out
* Asked what happens if law changed to remove F&G responsibility with SAR left to volunteers, he said volunteers fine as searchers but not trained to manage them

The youthful committee chairman will appoint a subcommittee to review testimony and revise bill as necessary
 
Last edited:
bikehikeskifish said:
Jeb is "picking on hikers" presumably because he believes they use a majority of the resources and should pay for it. I've been gently nudging him to participate here... no luck yet.
Click to expand...

Feel free to share with Jeb that since the change in law lowering the standard for billing/fining for SARs from recklessness to negligence, I have consciously reduced the amount of money that I spend in NH. Instead of stopping for breakfast along the way to my destination and for a post-hike meal, I now bring extra food and beverages (water, tea, etc.) to consume on the drive home and I wake up a little earlier to have breakfast at home, or stop to grab a bite before entering or after leaving the state. I make sure that I fill up my gas tank before entering New Hampshire and wait until I've left to refill. No longer do I stop at the L.L.Bean stores in Lebanon & Concord. My goal is to spend as close to $0 as is possible in the state, while at the same time not reducing my time hiking and skiing there. (Actually, the last couple of summers I've increased my hiking in New Hampshire.) With this proposed legislation I have become more fastidious in my efforts.

I encourage others to do the same.
 
Last edited:
peakbagger said:
Aha, therein lies the rub on the fee, what does it cover? Is is a "get out of jail free" card where all sins are forgiven including egregious contempt for basic hiking standards? Do I really want to be subsidizing the AT hiker from long ago who bought a fifth of whiskey and proceeded to Moriah to get drunk and wander around and ultimately need to be rescued, if not does the "person of authority" decide that the dayhiking gear a hiker had in her possession was "inadequate" for the conditions (per last years rescue on Jackson) and charge anyhow despite a fee?

In any case it comes down to judgement call with no defined limitations except that the total collected has to at least cover the cost of S&R initially and then become a revenue source to subsidize other efforts when the F&G budget is cut. Its a slippery slope. Will the fee be applicable to someone going out of bounds at a ski area and will ski areas elect to include the fee in the lift tickets? On a more practical front does the fee cover the elderly individual that decided to walk home to down south when he went on a hike or the youngster who wandered into the woods?
Click to expand...


I'm the woman who got charged $7,000 for the rescue on Jackson almost 2 years ago. I was found negligent because I didn't have a compass or GPS on me and made the decision to hike when forecast for above treeline conditions was very cold and windy. I had enough clothes, etc. to spend the night out in below 0 temperatures. I got lost, first time in 15 years. I know some people are critical of me for not having a GPS or compass. I took an outdoor lesson a few years ago to learn how to use a GPS. Had some difficulty learning how to use it but finally got it. Never needed to use a GPS before and 3 years later didn't remember how to.
The first people to find me were 3 men from Mountain Rescue Service, who were terrific. I did feel a little idiotic getting lost and being rescued. But it happened. I've come to terms with paying over $7,000 but it's a lot of money. Paying $1000 to be rescued sounds great to me!
 
Mountain49 said:
I'm the woman who got charged $7,000 for the rescue on Jackson almost 2 years ago. I was found negligent because I didn't have a compass or GPS on me and made the decision to hike when forecast for above treeline conditions was very cold and windy. I had enough clothes, etc. to spend the night out in below 0 temperatures. I got lost, first time in 15 years. I know some people are critical of me for not having a GPS or compass. I took an outdoor lesson a few years ago to learn how to use a GPS. Had some difficulty learning how to use it but finally got it. Never needed to use a GPS before and 3 years later didn't remember how to.
The first people to find me were 3 men from Mountain Rescue Service, who were terrific. I did feel a little idiotic getting lost and being rescued. But it happened. I've come to terms with paying over $7,000 but it's a lot of money. Paying $1000 to be rescued sounds great to me!
Click to expand...

The problem with this bill is you would have STILL gotten dinged for 7 Grand. If you'd had the GPS, it (might) have been lowered to 1K, but ONLY if they decided that you also had sufficient shelter, and food, and if the weather report wasn't threatening enough, and if you weren't a flatlander. The guys from MRS and the other volunteer rescue organizations are fantastic, but they still get nothing.

The fact is, you survived a night out without injury, regardless of the fact that rescuers eventually showed up.

I can honestly say that having a GPS on me did help me find the trail once. But if it had been whiteout conditions, I doubt it would have actually made a difference.

Haven't heard a peep about the idiots (yes, I've had time to digest the incident report) who triggered an avalanche and a massive rescue in the Huntington Ravine and sent 3 guys to the hospital. Oh, that's right, most of them were from NH. Not Negligient. (Ok, to be fair F&G wasn't involved, so if they had been, all evidence suggests that this rescue wouldn't have triggered a "fine").

My apologies, but my attitude about this has been steadily deteriorating over the last 3 years. I need to go for a hike and clear my head.
 
I've been wondering, Pam, how you were looking at this newest bit, and the fact that the cost seems to be going down. I'm still feeling upset that you were charged, and charged so much, when others get lucky and don't run into problems.
 
And so, if I read this right, the hikers from the recent Tufts rescue, will be fined 7 Grand? Just like Pam?
 
erugs said:
And so, if I read this right, the hikers from the recent Tufts rescue, will be fined 7 Grand? Just like Julie?
Click to expand...

But if they aren't, that messes up my "flatlander tax" theory. Darn your facts!

Well, they had maps and compasses, they just didn't look at them.
 
erugs said:
... fact that the cost seems to be going down. I'm still feeling upset that you were charged, and charged so much, when others get lucky and don't run into problems.
Click to expand...

Actually, the costs aren't going down. Some super-genious in Washington decided that NG helicopter flight time for SAR is no long "training", and has to be reimbursed at full cost. 7 grand won't even begin to cover even the simplest flyover any more. So if NH F&G doesn't extract it from the victim, it comes out of their budget (which we all understand they don't have).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
Get ready for Rescue Fees to be back in the news
Replies
4
Views
2K
sierra
sierra

Latest posts

Top