New Hampshire Fish and Game Search and Rescue Funding Hearing

A friend who is involved in search and rescue asked me if I would post a note about a funding meeting for the NHF&G SAR expenses. This hearing will be an opportunity for the general public to provide their input on NHF&G SAR funding. I'm sure the committee would appreciate hearing the opinions of those who express their thoughts so freely here on VFTT.

As you may know, there is a State legislative Study Committee exploring various options for funding the search and rescue expenses of the New Hampshire Fish and Game Department. The Study Committee has heard some testimony from the Fish and Game Department, the White Mountain National Forest, the State Attorney General’s Office and the AMC. Next week they have another hearing planned, where they expect testimony from the Department of Resources and Economic Development, the New Hampshire Department of Safety, and the general public.

It strikes me that the hiking community might not be well aware of this Committee or its hearings. So, since I am just a lurker at VFTT, if you might be able to post a message about the upcoming hearing, perhaps some hikers in the VFTT community might be able to attend and perhaps would be moved to offer testimony of some sort. Since, according to Fish and Game figures, hiker incidents account for about half of their search and rescue activity, there is interest in finding some way to have hikers tangibly support this activity.

The hearing is tentatively scheduled for Tuesday October 18 at 11 AM; location is so far undetermined, but would most likely be either the State House or the Legislative Office Building in Concord. Since day, time, and place of such meetings can change, it would be best for anyone planning a trip to Concord to keep an eye on the Committee’s webpage at

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/statstudcomm/details.aspx?id=2059&rbl=1&txtreportduedate=11/01/2011

even up to the morning of the hearing.

S & R Funding

I think it would be wise to have the funding broken out into its two components

Search: If a true search is undertaken (seldom the case these days with all the tracking and comm devices) I believe the searchee should be billed 100% of the cost for such an effort.

Rescue: Funded by the same mechanism(s) the state uses to fund the 'rescue' of folks in car crashes on state / interstate highways.

A person is a person and a 'crash' is a 'crash' regardless of where it happens. If the state has the obligation to protect & serve the public - let it be so.

If NH wants to charge car crash victims then charge recreational victims too. Why should one group of folks have special concerns about funding their accident or stupidity clean-ups?

Respectfully
Doug G

Interesting take, and one I have never thought of. Rescuing a sick or injured hiker should be (and may be??) handled differently that searching for a lost hiker.

The grey area would be rescuring the unprepared hiker (most likely to have a charge assessed). Defining "unprepared" is a slippery slope -- no pun intended.

147:3 Duties. The committee shall study sources of funding for the search and rescue operations of the fish and game department, including possible assessments of fees on hikers or accommodations in addition to or in lieu of charges on fish and game registrations and licenses.

Click to expand...

Time to break out the world's tiniest violin for the fee-averse crowd. I can already hear the pitiful wails of poverty clearly, despite the crisp output of their 12 speaker Bose sound system as they drive their SUV 200 miles to the trailhead.

First they came for the hikers wallet. and I said nothing...

Using the car crash analogy, is the

driver not wearing a seat belt === unprepared hiker?
(motor)(bi)cyclist not wearing a helmet === unprepared hiker?
reckless, tail-gating, non-signalling, speeding motor vehicle operator === unprepared hiker?

Tim

bikehikeskifish said:

(motor)(bi)cyclist not wearing a set belt === unprepared hiker?

Click to expand...

Your bike has a seatbelt? Cool!

OldMan said:

Your bike has a seatbelt? Cool!

Click to expand...

Oops. Nice catch.
Tim

Rescue insurance

Here We Go Again...
Last time this question arose on this site we considered how to offer optional rescue insurance to outdoors people. At this time I am thinking of two possible ways:

1) Let Fish & Game sell the rescue cards through their network of dealers who now sell licenses to hunt and fish. The system is in place, and what's another license more or less? Preferably the card would cover you for many years, for life, or at least for the first time you got rescued... Least amount of overhead, highest percentage of the proceeds to the rescue fund.

2) Have a commercial insurance company sell rescue insurance the same as any other policy. The AMC (for example, there are other clubs too) has 90,000 members who are usually competent enough outdoors people as to not need rescuing, in fact barring unavoidable accidents they are ashamed to be rescued and take great pains to stay safe. They'd qualify for a low group rate. The general public might have to pay a much higher rate unless they passed a HikeSafe course or somesuch to qualify for the lower rate.
In Europe the mountainous countries have national Alpine Clubs which buy rescue insurance policies that not only cover your rescue but also your medical and recovery expenses. In New Hampshire the law now lets you be charged for your rescue if a "rescue review" board deems you were merely negligent, never mind the older and stricter standard of acting recklessly which is of course still in effect. Rescue insurance of some kind seems desirable, because Fish & Game is by law in charge of SAR, and at present is tapping license money from other outdoors people, but not the hiker nor the tourist thinking they are one.
- Creag nan drochaid

Tim Seaver said:

Time to break out the world's tiniest violin for the fee-averse crowd. I can already hear the pitiful wails of poverty clearly, despite the crisp output of their 12 speaker Bose sound system as they drive their SUV 200 miles to the trailhead.

Click to expand...

I think that for many people it's got nothing to do with being able to afford it or not. There are at least two specific bullet points that I see here that people can take issue with if a mandatory fee was imposed:

Charging people to walk on public land.

Taxing the safe, prepared hikers to pay for rescuing the unprepared hikers. In particular, taxing the "regulars" to pay for helping the one-time visiting tourists.

And actually, let me throw a third out there ... if you thought that the cell phone would cause people to be more lackadaisical about preparation and planning for being out in the woods, what do you think a guaranteed rescue for just a small fee would mean?

Charging for rescues is bad public policy. Period.

-Excellent point.-

MichaelJ said:

And actually, let me throw a third out there ... if you thought that the cell phone would cause people to be more lackadaisical about preparation and planning for being out in the woods, what do you think a guaranteed rescue for just a small fee would mean?

Click to expand...

Why isn't the committee accepting written public comments? That way the views membership could agree on one message to deliver in writing.

IMO, in order to have an informed discussion with Concord, or address their concerns, you first have to know what their true problems and motivations are.

They are publicly stating that this issue is a pure revenue issue.
Is this true or is this managing the news?
I personally find it hard to believe this is all about money.

MichaelJ said:

I think that for many people it's got nothing to do with being able to afford it or not. There are at least two specific bullet points that I see here that people can take issue with if a mandatory fee was imposed:

Charging people to walk on public land.

Click to expand...

We are already being charged to park our vehicules on Public Lands. I am not totally educated on exactly where all the parking fee money goes; but if not already why not funnel some of that into F&G budget.

skiguy - some NH state parks do charge day-use or parking fees, but of the trail head fees are for the White Mountain National Forest, and those go to the Feds.

I seem to recall someone here posting that New Hampshire gets some kind of compensation from the Feds for providing services in the WMNF - or was it for the forest itself? Is that correct?

skiguy said:

We are already being charged to park our vehicules on Public Lands. I am not totally educated on exactly where all the parking fee money goes; but if not already why not funnel some of that into F&G budget.

Click to expand...

The $3 parking pass is a federal program. It is the state, specifically F&G, which owns rescues. F&G is self-funded. NH State Parks are also self-funded, and oddly, they don't all charge for parking, especially in the Whites... No wonder things are such a mess. If the money has to come from somewhere, my personal choice would be to charge for parking at (some of the more popular) state park trail heads... Falling Waters, Flume, Basin, Cannon, etc. Small area, cheaper to patrol and enforce, lots of visitors, hits the tourists as hard as the hardcore hikers, targets the specific users incurring the rescue costs in question, etc. Why do I have to pay at Monadnock, but not in Franconia Notch? Both are state parks...

Tim

MichaelJ said:

And actually, let me throw a third out there ... if you thought that the cell phone would cause people to be more lackadaisical about preparation and planning for being out in the woods, what do you think a guaranteed rescue for just a small fee would mean?

Click to expand...

Well, if we were in Colorado, it would mean that you get rescued without having the state drag your family name into the mud while they try to shake down their teenage son for cash. As I recall, NH didn't exactly come out smelling like a rose on the Mason affair, did they?

When people are not fearful of being charged, they will call sooner rather than later, which has been proven to ultimately be safer and cheaper for ALL parties involved. This has been studied at length by the Coast Guard and the NPS. Same conclusion every time: charging for rescues is a bad idea. Will this lead to some "fluff" rescues? - of course! That should be an expected cost.

The CORSAR card system is working quite well. I have yet to hear why NH can't implement a similar system.

I think some of the stuffed suits should take a good look at what Colorado is doing - NH's ham-handed bufoonery on the Mason "rescue" echoed rather loudly in the press, and that costs tourist money.

The city of Golden is keenly aware of these dynamics - it's about time NH smelled the coffee and got their act together.

When Golden encourages individuals to come play in the neighborhood, then charges those consigned to an unfortunate circumstance for their rescue, it sends a powerfully negative message.

Click to expand...

Hunters, Fishermen, ATV owners, Sled owners, etc all have to pay license, use and/or registration fees and taxes, have for years, and do so willingly to be able to participate in their sport. Let's just look at the Fishermen, as that's the least controversial: While they don't get injured, lost and in need of rescue too often, they certainly have less impact on their environments. If you're going to argue they pay for stocked fish and lake patrols, why shouldn't we expect to pay SOMETHING for trails, trailheads, rescue, hut access, etc.

With all the money spent on lodging, food, gas and beer getting to and from a trail, it'd be insignificant to pay some fee for a sticker or tag to help fund rescues and maintenance.

One more thing: There is no sales tax or income tax in NH, so some services need to raise revenue from users. Maybe NH should institute a sales tax on energy bars, energy drinks and beer to pay for the services.

Tim Seaver said:

The CORSAR card system is working quite well. I have yet to hear why NH can't implement a similar system.

Click to expand...

I've suggested in the past every hiker should by a hunting/fishing license to help fund the system. Perhaps the state could change the name of those to something like "State Outdoors Recreation Pass" and make everyone get one. They can be 1 day, 1 week, 1 year, like the hunting and fishing are, more for out of staters, less for residents.

EDIT: Groups like the AMC have some function here to, but I'm not sure what it is as they already provide or coordinate a lot of the access and maintenance. Certainly can't suggest everyone should be an AMC member .
__________________

Pay to park on state land

Yes, it is true that the NH Div Parks & Rec has foregone many $100,000s by not charging for parking in popular trailheads since the USFS started charging at theirs. Parks has consistently stuck to its agenda of seeking appropriations from the general fund rather than advocating for a user-pays funding method to help cover their costs. Back in 2005 they presented the Legislature with a study that estimated that at Lafayette place alone, at $5/car/space/day, collecting only on ten or a dozen weekends a year, the take would be $80,000/year, IIRC.
Keeping that particular parking lot free has to have resulted in at least some increase in traffic on the local trails, which when I hike them seem to not have enough maintenance time put into them to cope with the very heavy traffic. The upkeep is left to the altruism of volunteers, who are experienced enough to work well and efficiently but nowhere near numerous enough to stabilize the trails under the endless pounding of boots and rain. In 2011 the AMC Trail Crew spent weeks rebuilding substantial parts of Falling Waters Trail and Lonesome Lake Trail; I won't pretend to know who paid for it, I haven't all the pieces to this puzzle. I hope there are adopters enough to keep the improvements from washing away.
If the public had to pay to park in Franconia Notch State Park, among others, there would be less erosion on the trails and the money could have some fixed percentage go to trail upkeep and another fixed percentage go to F&G SAR. The public has long since reconciled themselves to the fact they have to pay to park on USFS land because the USFS makes quite sure that they get something for their money, ie better maintained trails. They publish an illustrated annual report to the public with a little of that money too, available at info centers and trailheads. Sadly, this example of success seems to matter not to the NH Div Parks & Rec. They seem to be doing a good job with building/replacing facilities at developed properties with appropriations from the legislature, but other sources of money that could be applied to fix other problems seem not to interest them. I cannot understand this, and have never seen an explanation for it that made sense.
I would like to be proven wrong about this matter, I see Parks as filled with dedicated professional people struggling with a great lack of funding.

No one expects a free lunch, and while funding SAR thru buying a hunting or fishing license is one way, it's indirect and some will object for any number of reasons.

A CORSAR-type system is a mechanism where ALL the funds are directed towards supporting SAR. The NH F&G would need to do a financial analysis to determine whether the $3/yr or $12/5 yrs would be adequate to cover costs for their and other NH SAR units - perhaps this has been done already.

I agree with Tim - why isn't this approach being proposed by the suits?

griffin said:

I seem to recall someone here posting that New Hampshire gets some kind of compensation from the Feds for providing services in the WMNF - or was it for the forest itself? Is that correct?

Click to expand...

Are you referring to this?

Additional information relative to financing SARs in NH.