NH Proposes Fee If People Need To Be Rescued

[bikehikeskifish]

To clarify, the card is $18 per year (says the article). I have passed all of these comments along to Jeb Bradley, and he is aware of this discussion.

As I understand it, the idea on the fee range is to increase the rate of compliance. It's not as crippling a fee as say $25K (clearly), and they probably don't need to give half to the atty general to collect it, etc. If enough people buy the $18 license but don't require rescue, that might make up the discrepancy between the $350-$1000 per rescue and the actual cost (a guess).

Personally, I buy an annual fishing license, so it would work out well for me.

I don't know what the cost is in/out of state nor where you would purchase one. Probably in the same places as hunting / fishing licenses which includes an online mechanism (which is what I do myself).

Tim

 

[Raven]

Personally I think using a voluntary model would go over MUCH better, and if done in a away that appealed to people's better side, would possibly be more successful at bringing in $$$$.

I totally agree; as we all know, mandates are not popular in NH (and many other places either).

I think an opt-out clause is important for the principle, whether it is used or not.

 

[Maddy]

I like it. Where can we get them?

Don't leave home without it. Pack-boots- spikes -dog- insurance card!

 

[RoySwkr]

But the amount is an order of magnitude too low to pay the bills, so expect the amount to go up dramatically once this is in place.

Just the opposite: the number of annual hikers in NH is about equal to the deficit, so $1 would be a fair amount - and the $1 fee paid by ATV and boat owners covers all users not just one person

Note that a hunting license is $24.50 and you get a lot more for it than you do for an $18 hiking permit

 

[DougPaul]

Just the opposite: the number of annual hikers in NH is about equal to the deficit, so $1 would be a fair amount - and the $1 fee paid by ATV and boat owners covers all users not just one person

Note that a hunting license is $24.50 and you get a lot more for it than you do for an $18 hiking permit

Yes--$18 for a hiking permit is exorbitant compared to the $1 contributed by other licensees. (Sure, there will be administrative costs: $3-$5 seems a lot fairer to me.)

Doug

 

[Maddy]

http://www.wildlife.state.nh.us/Licensing/license_prices.htm

Seems like we are getting a good deal.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

It is not a permit. Fishing or hunting without a license in NH is against the law. Hiking without the "hiker safety card" is not. NH RSA 214 mentions an administrative fee of $10 for licenses for permanently disabled persons who qualify for the lifetime free fishing (or hunting) license. If it costs $10 to administer, then only $8 is going towards the cost of rescue. Since the legislation is still in draft form, we don't know anything for sure. Maddy's link shows all NH F&G product prices. Replacement licenses are $6, so figure the administrative costs are between $6 and $10.

Tim

 

[Maddy]

This is true, but it seems like we are getting a lot of bang for our buck.

How many hikers are rescued as compared to fisherman and hunters in the Whites.
We don't seem to hear of very many of those types being airlifted into choppers, and requiring high tech rescues, and/or rescues involving lots of searchers, some lasting for days on end. It would be most interesting to see what the numbers are.

 

[Tim Seaver]

$18 a YEAR? Yeah, that seems over the top.

I'd like to hear the explanation as to how NH has to charge 6 times what Colorado does.
That said, I would still buy one - the program is going to need some fine tuning, and adjusting the cost of the fees will certainly be one of them.

 

[RoySwkr]

This is true, but it seems like we are getting a lot of bang for our buck.

You sound like the big spenders on the school board here

F&G spends big $$ on raising fish in hatcheries, doing wildlife studies, etc. which is what most of the license fee goes for whereas hikers will get nothing else for their money

If the administrative cost is really $6-$10 (which I doubt) compared to $1 for searches, then what they need is to sell a multiyear license say $20 for 10 years so the money goes where it belongs

How many hikers are rescued as compared to fisherman and hunters in the Whites.

Fishermen and hunters are more likely to get lost elsewhere and more likely to help themselves, at one time F&G had a large portable air horn they would set up near the lost hunter's vehicle and blow it until he walked out

The year the Eagle Scout got lost in the Great Gulf, the second most expensive incident was an elderly hunter lost near Bear Brook SP who wasn't found until the next spring - but because he had a hunting license and turned up dead there was no furor over sending him a bill

 

[Maddy]

I would love to see more than "2 case studies". We need to look at the bigger picture not isolated incidences. That is the scientific method. I want to see real numbers.

Here's to BIG spending!
$18/yr=$1.50/mo= 5 cents/day OUCH! I feel the pain. There goes one cup of Starbucks per month but darn my LIFE IS WORTH IT.


What am I to do??? Woe is ME!

 

[bikehikeskifish]

Without the voluntary $18 card, and the sliding-scale fees, I'm told there will be increased pressure for broader-based fees, like parking fees at all state trailheads. I asked Jeb if he could break down the $18 and how the arrived at that number... will report back anything I hear.

Tim

 

[Ed'n Lauky]

Tim
Do you know if this insurance will cover all hikers or will there be loopholes so that you find you are actually not covered anyway? For instance, are solo hikers covered?

 

[bikehikeskifish]

Tim
Do you know if this insurance will cover all hikers or will there be loopholes so that you find you are actually not covered anyway? For instance, are solo hikers covered?

Unknown, sorry. Jeb did suggest that if you are prepared, you would fall more towards the low end of the sliding scale. So, if you think you only need one rescue every 21 years, you'd break even without buying the card.

Tim

 

[sardog1]

The year the Eagle Scout got lost in the Great Gulf, the second most expensive incident was an elderly hunter lost near Bear Brook SP who wasn't found until the next spring - but because he had a hunting license and turned up dead there was no furor over sending him a bill

I don't think you know the facts of this incident. This 70-year-old hunter passed away from natural causes, as determined by an autopsy. His son had been in contact with him by radio while they hunted together and lost contact. His body was found five months later, just fifteen feet off a trail, but it snowed heavily the first night of that search. Another son walked that trail calling his name, that very night. The body was not found until the end of the next April. He had a radio, a GPS and a cell phone with him. Hardly an example of an unprepared hunter deserving a bill from F&G ...

 

[RoySwkr]

We need to look at the bigger picture not isolated incidences. That is the scientific method. I want to see real numbers.

Fish and Game conducted 954 search and rescue missions over the past six years that cost $1.8 million, said Jordan. The agency has operated at an average annual deficit since 2006 of $101,446, he said.
http://www.wmur.com/news/nh-news/Hi...57858/17796880/-/item/0/-/uh2osn/-/index.html

Although Monadnock may be the most hiked mountain in America, with as many as 120,000 hikers a year,
http://www.monadnockmountain.com/FAQ.htm#1

2011 WMNF Recreation Fees $527,025
http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5389495.pdf

So just charging $1 to everyone who climbed Monadnock and $1 to everyone who bought a WMNF pass would cover the deficit and everybody else could hike free - exactly what more facts do you need?

So, if you think you only need one rescue every 21 years, you'd break even without buying the card.

Hmm, since I have hiked over double that without needing a rescue, I guess I won't be buying one

I will not buy one at that ripoff price on general principles and will do what I can to keep the law from being enacted, but if they charge me $500 to be carried out I will gladly pay considering the alternative

I don't think you know the facts of this incident....Hardly an example of an unprepared hunter deserving a bill from F&G ...

I didn't say he deserved a bill, I said it was an expensive search that Maddy apparently had never heard of

 

[Andrew]

So just charging $1 to everyone who climbed Monadnock and $1 to everyone who bought a WMNF pass would cover the deficit and everybody else could hike free - exactly what more facts do you need?

Most of the rescues and searches on Monadnock are handled by state park staff, not F&G. That's why you typically don't hear about the dozens of responses there every year. Also the hiker total includes many non-fee trailhead hikers, as well as discounted or special program (groups, schools, comp military & seniors). Besides the service charge just went up a dollar there to help cover S&R costs.

Most F&G wildlife research programs are funded through grants, although I would suspect game species agency match probably comes from license fees. Almost every minuute of a biologists time is coded off to specific grants depending on varying duties.

I'm happy to buy the card, just like when I was first thrilled to be able to buy the WMNF pass the first year it came out. I have wanted to buy a hunting license to help fund them even though I don't hunt, but did not want to have to take the safety course that is required. Have wanted to buy a fishing license but again, don't currently fish.

I know for many it's the principle of the whole thing, but I don't get why people are so cheap on this. I would be much happier to know that an agency that might save my butt some day in a difficult situation would not have to be pinching pennies to do their jobs.

 

[Maddy]

Fish and Game conducted 954 search and rescue missions over the past six years that cost $1.8 million, said Jordan. The agency has operated at an average annual deficit since 2006 of $101,446, he said.
http://www.wmur.com/news/nh-news/Hi...57858/17796880/-/item/0/-/uh2osn/-/index.html

Although Monadnock may be the most hiked mountain in America, with as many as 120,000 hikers a year,
http://www.monadnockmountain.com/FAQ.htm#1

2011 WMNF Recreation Fees $527,025
http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5389495.pdf

So just charging $1 to everyone who climbed Monadnock and $1 to everyone who bought a WMNF pass would cover the deficit and everybody else could hike free - exactly what more facts do you need?



Hmm, since I have hiked over double that without needing a rescue, I guess I won't be buying one

I will not buy one at that ripoff price on general principles and will do what I can to keep the law from being enacted, but if they charge me $500 to be carried out I will gladly pay considering the alternative


I didn't say he deserved a bill, I said it was an expensive search that Maddy apparently had never heard of

My first question is this. Why try to keep others from buying the $18 protection plan? We have an opt out option so we could make our own decision about which plan is best for our individual budgets. I agree with Andrew. By buying the plan we help support those who risk life and limb to help save our sorry bacon, and we have the option of not buying into it and paying the $250-1000 bucks when they come a lookin' for us. The decision should be ours to make.

Last but not least you wrote." I didn't say he deserved a bill, I said it was an expensive search that Maddy apparently had never heard of."
I have some excellent news. I believe you are making reference to the Scott/dead hunter case rescue. I never wrote one word stating that you said "he deserved a bill". What I did write was this.

"I would love to see more than "2 case studies".We need to look at the bigger picture not isolated incidences. That is the scientific method. I want to see real numbers." Let me explain. It would be great if we could see how many hikers vs how many hunters/ fisherman required rescue over the last 10 yrs. I think hikers might outweigh the hunter/fisherman rescues but until we see real date comparing the two we can't really comment on it. They pay for a license, we do not.

I will put your mind at rest. Maddy did hear of both cases. I would LOVE to know where you got the idea that I had never heard of the case. Was it because I said the two cases were not enough for a real comparative study? Bottom line is we need all the data to compare hikers and hunter/fisherman. We don't have it. This much Maddy knows. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and hope that was not meant as an insulting remark to me.

You do however raise a good point. I think that perhaps if you die of natural causes on the mountain there should be an exemption that states you will not be fined. Personally, I hope they leave me to rest in peace.

I have gotten over giving up 1 cup of Starbucks per month! Will brew it at home!

 

[sardog1]

I didn't say he deserved a bill, I said it was an expensive search that Maddy apparently had never heard of

Actually, you said this in part:

The year the Eagle Scout got lost in the Great Gulf, the second most expensive incident was an elderly hunter lost near Bear Brook SP who wasn't found until the next spring - but because he had a hunting license and turned up dead there was no furor over sending him a bill

 

[RoySwkr]

Most of the rescues and searches on Monadnock are handled by state park staff, not F&G. That's why you typically don't hear about the dozens of responses there every year. Also the hiker total includes many non-fee trailhead hikers, as well as discounted or special program (groups, schools, comp military & seniors). Besides the service charge just went up a dollar there to help cover S&R costs.

That was just an example to show how many hikers there are in the state as to why a $1 fee would be enough. I'll bet that in the final version fee-paying state park visitors anywhere will be excluded from the charges.

Why try to keep others from buying the $18 protection plan?

I know for many it's the principle of the whole thing, but I don't get why people are so cheap on this. I would be much happier to know that an agency that might save my butt some day in a difficult situation would not have to be pinching pennies to do their jobs.

Because the cost is outrageous compared to the expense it's supposed to cover. At one time the F&G dive team was an expensive part of the SAR budget, yet if the boat registration fee was raised by $18/yr for every person that boat could seat I'll bet there'd be an outcry there.