New Hampshire Fish and Game Search and Rescue Funding Hearing

vftt.org

Help Support vftt.org:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Royswkr said:
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.

Again, I'm not interested in opinions just facts. I'll leave discussions of opinions to others.

In 2007 the legislature proposed a bill that would modify F&G responsibilities for search and rescue operations to exclude the national forest lands in the state. F&G would not be authorized to conduct or coordinate search and rescue operations within national forest lands without a prior written agreement with the department of interior for reimbursement of those expenditures.

Side Note:

The Fish and Game Department has an agreement with the NH Outdoor Council to remit recovered search and rescue reimbursements to the NHOC to be used by the NHOC.
 
I've been trying to relocate the actual breakdown of the Mason rescue bill, which I remember as NH/ME/VT guard were not available.

I'm finding it difficult to find a line item actual breakdown of NHF&G expenditures for strictly SAR.

The standard of recklessness/negligence speaks to intent, and will always have the element of punishment/fine for getting into difficulty, will always incite pointing fingers, and is an element of current law that escalates public outrage and assumption. Escalation of outrage and assumption is good for fueling political division, not so good for finding broad based community agreement and compromise.

I do appreciate that this is and has been a long term problem for NH F&G.

I see more than enough <impending> consumers of a finite SAR resource every day .

Has HikeSafe been effective in educating? I can guess "no" because rescue costs have continued to rise, and I don't see any <fewer #'s > of those who arrive in Pinkham Notch around noon ( and significantly later) and whose first words are..... we are lost, no drive, want hike ~ French and German, some gist of Italian or Spanish,, and some Scandanavian. I can handle those languages, because Euro folks do that all the time...... but certainly I'm out of the loop with Hindi or Farsi or Hebrew.

I'd love to have a WMAA tourism sales person shadow me for a day in late fall.

Breeze
 
Last edited:
Again, I'm not interested in opinions just facts. I'll leave discussions of opinions to others.
It is a fact that the opinion of F&G has changed, they now want someone else to pay part of the SAR bill as evidenced by their recent testimony
 
Do share what ever facts you have.
I assume you went to the meeting yesterday and today?
Those meeting minutes will be public information eventually.

Your statement would seem to indicate that this isn't a funding issue in the eyes of F&G.
 
... Has HikeSafe been effective in educating? I can guess "no" because rescue costs have continued to rise, and I don't see any <fewer #'s > of those who arrive in Pinkham Notch around noon ( and significantly later) and whose first words are..... we are lost, no drive, want hike ~ French and German, some gist of Italian or Spanish,, and some Scandanavian.

To play devil's advocate - I don't think we can conclude that HikeSafe has been ineffective because SAR costs continue to rise, since we don't know what they would have been if the HikeSafe program had not be implemented.

Personally, while I think the HikeSafe program is a good idea, the implementation of it has been somewhat anemic, and would like to see more tourism $$ allocated to raise its visibility.
 
This year (2011) the legislature proposed a bill to establish a $3 hiker fee imposed on persons occupying sleeping accommodations of the AMC and the RMC. This fee would be on a per night bases. This fee would be deposited into the search and rescue fund.
Based upon statistics provide by the AMC and RMC the anticipated yearly revenue from this fee would be $270,500+/-.

All members of the NH Fish and Game Commission unanimously supported this bill.
Later the NH F&G Commission decided to continue researching this bill while the study committee examine other sources of funding.

[Opinion]
The additional 270K deposited into the SAR fund would be more than enough to fund SAR into the foreseeable future.
[/Opinion]

For additional commentary see this thread.
 
This year (2011) the legislature proposed a bill to require the department of resources and development to solicit lease proposals for the Cannon mountain ski area that would be secured by mid 2012. 50K of the proceeds of the lease agreement would be deposited into the search and rescue fund in 2012 & 2013.

This year (2011) the NH F&G Commission indicated the department of resources and development would be providing F&G with $50,000 a year from Cannon Mountain, to be deposited into the SAR Fund.
 
Anyone know whether the NH legislature runs proposed legislation past the AG's office for an opinion as to whether the proposal will likely withstand a legal challenge?

BTW - this idea has been around for at least a couple of years.
 
In 1989 the legislature proposed a bill that would allow the treasurer to transfer 200K from the general fund into the search and rescue fund in 1990 & 1991. This bill didn't make it through the legislative process.

In 2005 the legislature proposed a bill that would require the treasure to deposit from the general fund into the search and rescue fund an amount equal to the monies collected from the registration fees, not to exceed 200K annually.

In 2006 the legislature proposed a bill that would require the treasure to deposit from the general fund into the search and rescue fund an amount equal to the monies collected from the registration fees, not to exceed 200K annually.

In 2007 the legislature proposed a bill that would require the treasurer to deposit from the general fund into the search and rescue fund an amount of $200,000 annually.

In 2007 the legislature proposed a bill that would require persons needing the department’s search and rescue operations due to being lost or injured, to reimburse the search and rescue fund for the reasonable cost of such operations. Any cost determined to be less than $2,000 would not require proof of negligence.
 
In 1999 the legislature passed a bill that allows for the recovery of response expenditures from individuals if, in the judgment of the court, such person recklessly or intentionally created a situation requiring an emergency response. A person's liability under this subdivision for response expenses shall not exceed $10,000 for any single public agency response incident. (Note: this bill wasn't specific to F&G SAR)

In 2008 the legislature passed a bill that allows for the recovery of search and rescue expenditures from individuals that acted negligently in requiring a search and rescue response. This bill also allows for the F&G to determine negligence and to recover monies owed.
 
The NH F&G Department was created in 1935

The legislature mandated responsibility of SAR to the F&G in 1971

The legislature established a SAR fund with revenues from a $1 registration fee in 1989

F&G in collaboration with WMNF created Hikesafe in 2003

In 2010 the NH F&G budget = $32,134,000 +/-

In 2010 the Search and Rescue Fund budget = $189,800 +/-

Commentary on the legislature's role in the SAR funding:
[Commentary]
There appears to be a real disconnect between what the legislature wants and what F&G needs.

Shortly after the legislature established the SAR fund in 1989 they have been willy-nilly introducing bills to either increase revenues or decrease costs for SAR in what appears to be an uninformed and nonsensical attempt to do something, even if it's wrong.

In the mean time F&G is saying they are fiscally responsible and able to pay their SAR bills while giving recovered SAR money to the NH Outdoor Council.
Additionally, F&G developed *hikesafe with the intent of reducing search and rescues, thereby reducing costs.

Seems to me it would have been a lot easier for the legislature to increase the $1 fee on registrations, that they now charge, to $2. That would more than cover the cost of SAR into the foreseeable future.

The legislature is spending a lot of money trying to find $200K in a bucket of $32 million.
[/Commentary]

*Hikesafe is considered a model for use by other federal, state, and county agencies nationwide.
 
[Commentary]
There appears to be a real disconnect between what the legislature wants and what F&G needs.

Shortly after the legislature established the SAR fund in 1989 they have been willy-nilly introducing bills to either increase revenues or decrease costs for SAR in what appears to be an uninformed and nonsensical attempt to do something, even if it's wrong.

In the mean time F&G is saying they are fiscally responsible and able to pay their SAR bills while giving recovered SAR money to the NH Outdoor Council.
Additionally, F&G developed *hikesafe with the intent of reducing search and rescues, thereby reducing costs.

Seems to me it would have been a lot easier for the legislature to increase the $1 fee on registrations, that they now charge, to $2. That would more than cover the cost of SAR into the foreseeable future.

The legislature is spending a lot of money trying to find $200K in a bucket of $32 million.
[/Commentary]

Yes.

Here are some examples of SAR missions for which Fish and Game responded. (I know this for a fact certain because I was involved in the missions.) Tell me which of these people should have been left to their own devices or the capabilities of town police and fire departments (read: "generally unequipped and untrained for searching and rescuing off the road"), instead of having F&G respond to manage the operation:

1. An adult patient wanders away from a mental health facility located in the middle of the woods.
2. An elderly woman with Alzheimer's disease wanders away from her home and into the woods.
3. A man intent on suicide accomplishes the deed by hanging himself in the woods.
4. A woman gets drunk, has an argument with her spouse, and heads into the woods.
5. A girl and her very young brother walk a short distance from their house into the woods and get lost overnight, all while the temperature drops below freezing.
6. A five year old boy visiting from out of state follows his grandfather's dog into the woods and doesn't return when the dog comes back to the house.

And if you do agree that F&G should have been in charge because of its special competencies, which of these individuals (or their families) should have been sent a bill?

Do we send a bill to the victims of domestic violence for police and prosecutor resources used in protecting them? No.
Do we send a bill to the passengers of an impaired driver who are hurt in a crash and require an EMS response? No.
Do we send a bill to a business owner for hiring a person who turns out to be an embezzler who is then prosecuted for the crime? No.

We don't send a bill in these cases because most of us realize that some societal costs are best shared, not allocated down to the individual level, for all kinds of reasons.

Ah, but what about those allegedly wealthy, allegedly negligent recreationists who take solo winter trips, or who start on the Tuckerman Ravine Trail at 2:00 in the afternoon without "adequate" equipment and clothing, or who put their kayaks into the Connecticut River in April? If you think you've seen slippery slopes on the Rock Pile, just wait until we get to parsing IN COURT the meaning of "negligent" with regard to outdoor activities. And I'd sure like to have a look at the NH Attorney General's labor costs in the Mason case from start to finish. Can you imagine what it might cost to take one of these cost recovery cases to trial, if the person billed refused to pay up without a court judgment?

The reason this SAR funding issue hasn't been resolved satisfactorily is that in the Granite Headed State, it's far easier to get elected to the state legislature on the "no new taxes" pledge than it is to do the reasonable thing, which is to put the SAR cost burden on the general fund and move on to something more important, like funding education. Until that circumstance changes, don't expect a resolution that makes sense financially and socially.
 
5***** for this post "sardog"!
Very well said!
 
The reason this SAR funding issue hasn't been resolved satisfactorily is that in the Granite Headed State, it's far easier to get elected to the state legislature on the "no new taxes" pledge than it is to do the reasonable thing, which is to put the SAR cost burden on the general fund and move on to something more important, like funding education. Until that circumstance changes, don't expect a resolution that makes sense financially and socially.


..and that's not [/Commentary], that's [/TheSadTruth].

Kicking the can down the road, as an art form.
 
I second Maddy's comments re: SARDOG1's excellent post.

To Tim's previous posts re: the clueless hikers without headlamps/flashlights - yesterday (Friday) 3 of us were descending OBP, and about 1/2 way down encounters a party of 5. One of them had hurt his leg, and was moving slowly. We waited until he got off the phone, berating SAR for not coming after him with a stretcher. I explained to him that SAR will not come out for an ambulatory hiker, however slowly he might be moving, unless it was a life/death situation. None of the group had a headlamp/flashlight among them, so I pointed out that a cell phone could be an occasional light. In any case - I gave them my spare headlamp, urged them to continue walking down, however slowly, and we headed down. When we got to the TH one of my friends organized his gear, and went back up. I saw him today, and he got the group out about 7PM.

Despite Tim's comment about the clueless without lights, I didn't think I'd run into a group so soon. People just don't realize what a jam you can get in if you're stuck in the woods without a light. Unless it's a clear night with a bright moon, it's tough to find your way.

So, kudos to Steven M. for being a good neighbor.
 
Last edited:
In 1989 the legislature proposed a bill that would allow the treasurer to transfer 200K from the general fund into the search and rescue fund in 1990 & 1991. This bill didn't make it through the legislative process.
Thank you for the listing, here are some links to the bills:
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/1989/HB0215.html
The sum of $200,000 is hereby appropriated to the department of fish and game for the biennium ending June 30, 1991, for search and rescue efforts to be conducted by the department.

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.

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/1993/HB0636.html
This bill requires users of the state park system to pay an additional fee to be deposited into the fish and game search and rescue fund.


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.
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/1995/HB0178.html
An agent appointed by the executive director under RSA 214:7, II(a) may issue search and rescue insurance to any person upon payment of a fee of $3. The fee shall be paid into the fish and game fund search and rescue fund established under RSA 206:42. Persons who have bought such insurance shall not be liable for the cost of a search and rescue for such person for one year from the date of payment of the fee.

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.
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2004/HB1327.html
The executive director shall establish a program for persons hiking, mountain climbing, and rock climbing in the state to give a bond with sufficient surety for the benefit of the state, for the purpose of providing search and rescue operations administered by the fish and game department. Bonds shall be valid for one year. Any fees, expenses, or penalties assessed to the person related to search and rescue operations shall be recovered from the bond.

In 2005 the legislature proposed a bill that would require the treasure to deposit from the general fund into the search and rescue fund an amount equal to the monies collected from the registration fees, not to exceed 200K annually.
I didn't find this, same as below?

In 2006 the legislature proposed a bill that would require the treasure to deposit from the general fund into the search and rescue fund an amount equal to the monies collected from the registration fees, not to exceed 200K annually.
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2006/SB0364.html
The Fish and Game Department states that section 1 of this bill annually appropriates state general fund moneys into the fish and game search and rescue fund to match the $1 portion of private boat and OHRV registrations up to $100,000. In FY 2005, the $1 portion of the boat and OHRV registration fee totaled $190,945; $101,048 from boats, $89,897 from OHRVs. In FY 2006 (through 5/8/06), the fund had $140,697 in revenue; $71,823 from boats, $68,874 from OHRVs.

In 2007 the legislature proposed a bill that would require the treasurer to deposit from the general fund into the search and rescue fund an amount of $200,000 annually.
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2007/HB0433.html
This bill provides for state general funds to be used for funding search and rescue operations of the fish and game department.

This bill is a request of the fish and game department.
...
II. In addition to the funds in paragraph I, the state treasurer shall deposit from the general fund into the fish and game search and rescue fund an amount of $200,000 annually. The governor is authorized to draw a warrant for such amount out of any money in the treasury not otherwise appropriated.

III. If the executive director determines that funds provided in paragraphs I and II are insufficient to pay for search and rescue operations activities in a fiscal year, the executive director shall certify to the state treasurer who shall pay such sums as necessary to fund search and rescue operations activities from the general fund. The governor is authorized to draw a warrant for said sum out of any money in the treasury not otherwise appropriated.

In 2007 the legislature proposed a bill that would require persons needing the department’s search and rescue operations due to being lost or injured, to reimburse the search and rescue fund for the reasonable cost of such operations. Any cost determined to be less than $2,000 would not require proof of negligence.

I could not find this one
 
In 1999 the legislature passed a bill that allows for the recovery of response expenditures from individuals if, in the judgment of the court, such person recklessly or intentionally created a situation requiring an emergency response. A person's liability under this subdivision for response expenses shall not exceed $10,000 for any single public agency response incident. (Note: this bill wasn't specific to F&G SAR)
I couldn't find this but I remember when it passed

In 2007 the legislature proposed a bill that would modify F&G responsibilities for search and rescue operations to exclude the national forest lands in the state. F&G would not be authorized to conduct or coordinate search and rescue operations within national forest lands without a prior written agreement with the department of interior for reimbursement of those expenditures.

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2007/SB0127.html
This bill limits the search and rescue operations requirements of the
fish and game department to exclude National Forest lands except where
the cost is otherwise funded or reimbursed to the state.
The Fish and Game Department states this bill will decrease state fish
and game fund expenditures by $64,500 in FY 2008 and each year
thereafter. There is no fiscal impact on state, county, and local
revenue and county and local expenditures.

In 2008 the legislature passed a bill that allows for the recovery of search and rescue expenditures from individuals that acted negligently in requiring a search and rescue response. This bill also allows for the F&G to determine negligence and to recover monies owed.
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2008/HB0640.html
To require persons needing the department’s search and rescue
operations due to being lost or injured, paid for by the department
pursuant to RSA 206:42, to reimburse the search and rescue fund for
the reasonable cost of such operations. Any cost determined to be less
than $2,000 shall not require proof of negligence.

THIS ONE PASSED!
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2008/HB1648.html
This bill allows the fish and game department to recover the cost of
search and rescue responses from persons who negligently require
search and rescue services. The department is authorized to suspend
the driver’s license and other licenses of a person failing to pay.
 
Fish and Game Commission

The legislature established the F&G Department under the F&G Commission. The Commission is comprised of 11 volunteer Commissioners appointed by the Governor and Council. One Commissioner represents each of the ten counties in the state and one Commissioner represents the seacoast.
Statue states the Commission is responsible for setting general policy regarding:
1. conservation, protection, and management of wildlife populations and habitats;
2. developing, funding, and implementing a strategic plan;
3. educating the public and building support for Department programs and objectives;
4. establishing Department positions on proposed legislation.
The Commission also has statutory authority for reviewing and approving administrative rules and dedicated account expenditures, as well as nominating the F&G Departments Executive Director. While statue requires Commissioners have extensive background and knowledge related to wildlife conservation and protection, it does not require Commissioners to have a background in finance, budgeting, accounting, or public management.

According to statue the Commission is responsible for setting general Department policy in the “development, funding, and implementation of a long-range strategic plan to direct the operation of the fish and game department.” However, all 11 Commissioners stated the Commission is not currently engaged in a new strategic planning process, although six of the 11 Commissioners stated the ten-year-old strategic plan should be updated. One Commissioner noted the Commission is too busy to engage in larger planning efforts. Ten current and former Commissioners suggest the Commission has a limited role in planning and establishing Department priorities. Three Commissioners stated priorities are established external of the Commission and are only presented for Commission approval, while two Commissioners stated the Commission is unclear of its role in establishing Department-wide priorities. Another noted it can be difficult to maintain a consistent vision for the Department because each year the make-up of the Commission changes.

The F&G *constituency has changed since the Department’s 1935 establishment; however, Fish and Game Commission members remain exclusively hunters and anglers. Statue allows sporting club boards to submit nominees for the Governor’s consideration, statue also requires Commissioners to be an active outdoorsman and hold a hunting or fishing license in at least five of the ten years preceding appointment. Statue defines a sporting club as an organization specifically interested in hunting, fishing, trapping, and wildlife and habitat conservation, which has acknowledged in its permanent bylaws the promotion and protection of hunting, fishing, or trapping and which accepts scientific wildlife management methods and tools. Legislative mandates have broadened F&G’s focus since its creation, including many responsibilities in addition to the Department’s traditional responsibility for game animals and fish in the State. Additionally, increased popularity of other outdoor activities including canoeing, kayaking, cross-country skiing, rafting, hiking and snowshoeing has broadened the F&G’s constituency base. While these responsibilities affect a wider range of constituent groups, many are still not represented on the Fish and Game Commission.

Ten Commissioners, two former Commissioners, and a former F&G Department Executive Director stated the reporting relationship between the F&G Commission and the F&G Department Executive Director is unclear. A former Executive Director reported being pulled in two directions because it was unclear whether the Executive Director works for the Governor or the Fish and Game Commission, especially if the Governor’s priorities conflict with those of the Commission. One Commissioner stated while interviewing candidates for the perviously vacant Executive Director position, the Commission was telling candidates they would be working for the Governor, not the Commission.

While the Commission plays an important role as a liaison between the F&G Department and its constituency, it is difficult, and perhaps unrealistic, for a volunteer, part-time Commission to adequately fulfill its broad statutory responsibilities.

Within the 2010 Fish and Game Budget of 32 million the F&G Commissions budget was $9,500.

[Commentary]
Given the fact that "other outdoor activities" are not represented in the F&G Commission, it's not surprising that the commission unanimously supported the AMC/RMC hiker sleeping accommodation fee. Additionally, it's not a stretch to think the commission, and it's influence on the F&G Department policy, would support/propose those legislative actions that would favor hunting, fishing, snowmobiling etc. and not favor "other outdoor activities".

*Constituency (aka special interest group)
[/Commentary]
 
Craig, it's a bit hard to tell what words are yours and what phrases and sentences are lifted from sources on the web. You seem to be using quite a bit from this 2008 audit:
http://www.vision.ca.gov/docs/NH_Fish_and_Game_Audit.pdf

Is there a reason you are not linking to the source material?

It just seems a bit unusual to mix your own words with those of the state of NH without distinction. I think your posts would carry a bit more credibility if they were properly sourced when possible, or at a minimum using quotes around passages from the state.
 
1. An adult patient wanders away from a mental health facility located
in the middle of the woods.
Presumably the facility is supposed to keep track of the patient and could be billed
3. A man intent on suicide accomplishes the deed by hanging himself in
the woods.
4. A woman gets drunk, has an argument with her spouse, and heads into
the woods.
Two of the incidents that led to the reckless conduct billing law were a suicidal man who held police at bay and a drunken hiker
5. A girl and her very young brother walk a short distance from their
house into the woods and get lost overnight, all while the temperature
drops below freezing.
6. A five year old boy visiting from out of state follows his
grandfather's dog into the woods and doesn't return when the dog comes
back to the house.
You may not get a bill, but if your kids keep running off they could be taken away since you are an unfit parent - apparently that happened to the foster parents in the recent Hampstead incident

Do we send a bill to the passengers of an impaired driver who are hurt
in a crash and require an EMS response? No.
They may well get a bill for the ambulance, certainly from the hospital, and are on their own to collect from the drunk
If you think you've seen slippery slopes on the Rock Pile, just wait
until we get to parsing IN COURT the meaning of "negligent" with
regard to outdoor activities.
You could get a jury of Union Leader readers :)

The reason this SAR funding issue hasn't been resolved satisfactorily
is that in the Granite Headed State, it's far easier to get elected to
the state legislature on the "no new taxes" pledge than it is to do
the reasonable thing, which is to put the SAR cost burden on the
general fund and move on to something more important, like funding
education.
Readers who are not from NH or don't regularly deal with the financially challenged simply don't understand that it's not just SAR but the whole discretionary state budget that's being skimped on. A couple examples:
* A guy I know had to submit a budget to qualify for welfare, they told him to cancel his auto liability insurance (not required in NH) since nobody was likely to sue him.
* A single woman with a 2-year-old who was being evicted was denied TANF since she had joint custody and could plant the kid with her ex making her a single adult who was not eligible. I gave her some duct tape to fasten the window of her car that wouldn't stay shut as that's where she'll be living come tomorrow, the inspection sticker expired months ago but she said she's good at talking cops out of a ticket.
 
Top