New Hampshire Fish and Game Search and Rescue Funding Hearing

[Little Rickie]

The committee will draft a report next Tuesday including proposed legislation.

Still not to late to......



Me? I'd voluntary pay for a licence that goes toward me be covered by insurance. KISS

 

[Tim Seaver]

If you are not aware of the situation early and you PROCRASTINATE then shame on you!

I can't help but notice the people supportive of charging the victim don't seem to want to address the principal concern of the SAR - that people who are fearful of getting charged delay ( or procrastinate, if you like) their call for assistance until they are in even more serious trouble, endangering themselves and rescue personnel.

Any takers? Tell us why the SAR people are WRONG in their assessment.

 

[dug]

Because Tim, in the words of Foghorn Leghorn, "Yak yak yak. Always flapping your gums. How can you hear anything I'm saying if you're always talking?"

 

[TCD]

People are naturally afraid of being charged $25,000 for an extensive search and helicopter extraction. People might respond differently if the charge was moderate (say, $100), and was known to all up front, as opposed to being a frightening unknown.

I'm not saying the SAR people are necessarily wrong; there's not enough data to say either way. But the SAR people also are not disinterested parties. Just like the angry NH UL posters, the SAR people have an interest in this. Naturally, I want MY agency funded by a steady, guaranteed revenue stream, not by "customer" payments that might vary as the business varies.

As I have said on other threads, if society decides that SAR should be free, then it should be funded appropriately. If we decide to charge, that's fine too. But we should stay away from trying to "judge" who should be charged and who should not. If we decide to charge, we should charge everyone. And I think we should even stay away from charging more for "bigger" rescues. Charge anyone a fixed fee. Then you avoid the court battles over "I didn't ask for a helicopter!"

 

[Tim Seaver]

People are naturally afraid of being charged $25,000 for an extensive search and helicopter extraction. People might respond differently if the charge was moderate (say, $100), and was known to all up front, as opposed to being a frightening unknown.

I think that's an excellent idea. Anything that would give people just a bit more incentive to at least pack a flashlight, which seems to be one of the primary culprits in SAR calls that probably could have been avoided.

The "let's not carry a flashlight" thing is a real problem here in VT too. Ugh.

 

[skiguy]

The "let's not carry a flashlight" thing is a real problem here in VT too. Ugh.

But if you have a Cell Phone with a large bright LCD screen you don't need a flashlight; but then again that might mean carrying extra batteries. Better education could go a long way to solving some of the issues being discussed in this thread IMO. Then again we would have to find the funding. Is it possible that more dollars allocated to education would offset the money spent on SAR resulting in less dollars spent overall? A tough onion to peel but maybe worth looking into...of course again that would probably mean a short term increase in spending but possibly worth the long term windfall.

 

[MadRiver]

http://www.wmur.com/news/29529280/detail.html
Should they fine her or not. Discuss!

 

[Brambor]

She should not be billed for SAR. I wonder what levels of reporting to the authorities do we have:

a) this person is missing
b) this person is missing but we are poor so please do not run SAR
c) this person is missing and would you please run SAR because we have $6000 + just laying dormant in our mattress.

OR

You honor I did not report my mother in law as lost because I could not afford the SAR...

 

[RoySwkr]

Any takers? Tell us why the SAR people are WRONG in their assessment.

I think that the SAR people are probably correct that many large operations could have been much shorter if started sooner.

Now why don't you tell me who should pay if a lost hiker didn't buy an SAR card because they never heard of it?

 

[Little Rickie]

.

Now why don't you tell me who should pay if a lost hiker didn't buy an SAR card because they never heard of it?

Doesn't everyone get to enjoy the benefits of hunting and fishing license fees? I'm from out of state, drive on your roads but don't buy your gas, thank you, feel free to drive on my state's roads.

If I buy a hiking card or insurance knowing my fee is helping support SAR so they don't have to charge a fee for rescue: either me, some dumb ass or for some unfortunate accident I'm good for that. Save them, dam it save them!

If you don't buy a card/insurance fine. Don't like the idea, then don't buy. Some people support the local volunteer fire dept and some don't. Some of us feel compled to be helpfull some don't. So what. Save them!

I think the focus should be on how the $ supports SAR? Are you willing to toss in a few bucks, no matter how it is raised, so they can do what they do regardless of who they rescue? I'm about saving people in need not bitching about the cost. IMHO

Let the insurance companies figure everything else out. They are the experts at evaluation risk and it's cost which is a lot more objective than what I like or dislike, think is right/wrong or crab about.

It's not fair. Life isn't fair. We do the best we can. Nothing is perfect. It about saving a human being.

Don't ask me about their dog hiking with them.

 

[Maddy]

I think that the SAR people are probably correct that many large operations could have been much shorter if started sooner.

Now why don't you tell me who should pay if a lost hiker didn't buy an SAR card because they never heard of it?

Ignorance of the law does not an innocent person make.
The same could apply here.
Try telling a state trooper that you did not know that the speed limit dropped for 65 to 50 in a certain more populated area of the interstate where he just caught you speeding.

I am looking forward to hearing what they propose. I would think they might put signage up in all the prime spots and then some.

I have to wonder how many super brave folks are out there who might become lost or injured and not try to get help as the sun sets. I suspect there might only be a very small minority. There is something quite intimidating about being lost with no light, map, water, food, and warm clothes on some godforsaken trail, or lack thereof, as darkness closes in on you. I can't help but think that the cost would not be foremost in their mind.

Last week two city folks were "hiking" at a local state park and had stopped to enjoy the wildlife viewing area. They asked me if there were bears and not wanting to deceive them, I replied in the affirmative. It could not have been more that 5" when I observed them in their vehicle leaving the park. I would stake my life on those two not hesitating to call 911 if they were benighted regardless of the cost.

It's all conjecture now because we have no real clue what decisions they made but it's been a long time coming.

 

[Tim Seaver]

I'm about saving people in need not bitching about the cost. IMHO

Best one line summary of this thread.

 

[Tim Seaver]

I have to wonder how many super brave folks are out there who might become lost or injured and not try to get help as the sun sets. I suspect there might only be a very small minority.

Here's a few concrete examples:

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. Seeing how fear of monstrous costs has a negative impact on a person's decision making process when calling for help, Colorado SAR groups decided collectively NOT to charge for services.

 

[SAR-EMT40]

Here's a few concrete examples:

What is going to be harder to gauge is if some of these people (the poorly prepared ones) did die. We all know the kinds of headlines that generates. What would need to be gauged is if those headlines leads to many more people or even god forbid, most people, making themselves more prepared, more self sufficient. Remember, you aren't going to hear about these people because they actually checked on how they should be prepared thus not having to have any need to rescue them. Would those one or two deaths mean that many others would not even need rescue or not die?

I don't know the answer but it is a worthy question for contemplation. What I can tell you is that when you give the government the requirement to rescue you, no matter the circumstance. You then create the environment for the government to tell you that what you are trying to do is too dangerous and they will either not allow you to do it, or require you to take another stupid course or to register. I am getting very tired of loosing my freedoms due the stupid actions of a few. As a sidebar I just had to take a ridiculous motorcycle course because after 35 years I decided to get the endorsement. It was an absurd class, passed as law because a woman lost a son and went on a crusade that the politicians saw as too appealing to turn down. Not a single shred of evidence that this class can be shown to cause any decrease of death or injury.

For the two anecdotal cases. An unstable pelvis is usually pretty easy to identify. With some minimal training either should have been able to identify that it was a serious situation and SAR should have been called. I applaud their attempt but you could say they were not prepared, at least knowledge wise. The mechanism alone dictates that this was a real emergency. Lack of knowledge is what caused their delay in seeking medical attention because clearly at some point they decided that it was worth whatever the cost. They just couldn't figure out how badly injured the climber was right from the start.

The second case. I don't know what a 911 person is. If the report is referring to the dispatcher s/he doesn't need the victims permission to dispatch any resource they have available if there is no authority on the scene. The dispatcher should have dispatched SAR sooner.


Keith

 

[TCD]

Interesting examples, Tim. Some keywords support the suggestion I made earlier:

"Fearing enormous costs..."

"...fear of monstrous costs..."

I think people would react differently if the costs were moderate, and well known up front.

This discussion continues down the "all or nothing" path. I can definitely see some wiggle room between "Zero cost" and "Enormous, monstrous cost." That looks like a pretty wide doorway to me.

But most folks seem to be committed to slamming their heads against one doorpost or the other...

 

[Tim Seaver]

Exactly, TCD - examples like this make a good case for what you suggested upthread. One would hope such an approach would satisfy the Pound-Of-Fleshers to some extent, although $100 is more like an earlobe keyfob in comparison to 25k.

 

[griffin]

But there are two separate arguments going on here - one is indeed "should we charge recipients for rescues, and if so when and how much" but unless the answer to that is "yes, always, and for the total cost of the operation" then we are still left with the original questions "how should we fund SAR"

So in some cases, we're less banging our heads off of door jambs than trying to walk through walls

I do wonder if an unintended consequence of a flat, non-poverty-inducing fee for anyone needing rescue might be potential rescuees viewing SAR as a service they are entitled to and a first-line bail-out option. You have a cell phone and a credit card - who needs rain gear or a flashlight? Although Dog knows some people seem to have that sense now.

 

[Kevin Rooney]

... potential rescuees viewing SAR as a service they are entitled to and a first-line bail-out option. You have a cell phone and a credit card - who needs rain gear or a flashlight? Although Dog knows some people seem to have that sense now.

This point of view has been raised by others as well, but is there any credible evidence that hikers actually think this way? I mean, there are always inadequately prepared hikers - anyone on this board can look back on their early days and realize how woefully prepared they probably were - but this POV suggests that some make a conscious decision to NOT carry important gear. Personally, I don't know of anyone in that category. IMHO some people might hike a bit lite for my comfort, but not the degree this POV implies.

Again - is this a credible point of view? Or is it a variation on "let's exact a pound of flesh from the unfortunates"?

 

[RoySwkr]

I still have not received an answer of the question of what should happen with SAR cards:
* Optional, strictly feel-good for buyer (like CORSAR)?
* Optional, but you pay cost if you don't have one?
* Required, but only enforced by paying cost if you don't have one?
* Required, ranger checks for cards and you're fined for not having one (like fishing license)?

I personally think that #4 will cause far more ill will than the present system, because you will catch a lot more "innocent" people that the public will identify with - the public at large doesn't identify with the sort of "reckless" hikers who are being billed

 

[griffin]

Again - is this a credible point of view? Or is it a variation on "let's exact a pound of flesh from the unfortunates"?...Personally, I don't know of anyone in that category. IMHO some people might hike a bit lite for my comfort, but not the degree this POV implies.

For the record, I'm against charging people for rescues, period - I'm not interested in a pound of anyone's flesh* You're right, it is just speculation. And while I don't think anyone I've ever hiked with would consciously decide to carry less gear, or take more risks because they see rescue as an entitlement, not everyone who goes "hiking" thinks about that activity in the same way this community does. I also don't think a false sense of security necessarily involves a conscious decision.

*My personal opinion is that public safety services like SAR should be supported by the general fund (particularly given how much money tourism pumps in NH's economy); from the payments in lieu of taxes paid by the Feds as compensation for the WMNF (which were pegged at over $7 million in one of the links in this thread and are intended to support such services according to the law as cited); or failing that, a combination of the current fees plus trailhead parking fees and some kind of volunteer mechanism. The last of these could be/should be structured so that hunter and orv owners don't get whacked twice. But again, I don't live in NH so I don't get a vote.