A-HA! A use for PEPPER SPRAY! ;)
I didn't know you could buy/take a WMNF tree - sounds like a potentially fun outing.
Having just pepper-sprayed them, I think it would be the least I could do.
Consider, though, that as resources are finite, we would want to be smart about who we target. So, does it make sense to spend finite resources targeting people who are more likely to already be familiar with "Hike Safe" etc.? Not to say that VFTT'ers for example don't ever need SAR services...
I'm not sure it's a hard sell to the retailers, or that you have to scare people into buying them in that context. REI stores in Mass sell WMNF parking passes (or at least they did), I don't think a SAR card is that much of a jump from there.
Then to sell them, appeal to the buyer's desire to...
Right, but it does suggest that their non-profit status doesn't affect whether or not they have to collect Room and Meals tax.
I don't think there are separate taxes for rooms vs. meals - it's one tax. You rent a room, you pay a tax. You buy a meal, you pay a tax. You stay in a room where the...
I think the issue at the huts is that the user only pays one single fee, not a separate amount for the room, and then for dinner - it's all-inclusive so the tax is, too (just as you don't get hit with a sep. fee if your hotel serves you a "free" "continental" breakfast). I'm not sure the...
Sure you have! Fee tubes at trailheads or other parking areas. This would allow for a smaller, per-use fee; gets at all potential service users, whether or not the consider themselves someone who would need an SAR card or license to hike ("hike? schmike! I'm just going for a walk..."); and in...
I agree with you in general, but I think Chip meant we don't contribute directly to Fish & Game's SAR budget under the current funding scheme (for that matter, I don't think hunters do either - isn't SAR funded by a portion of OHRV fees? $1 per?)
Perhaps because a) those who stay at the huts are already paying NH meals and lodging tax c) there's no evidence whatsoever that those staying in the huts (a fairly small percentage of backcountry users) are more likely to need SAR services than the rest of the (much larger) user population b)...
Well, duh. If you don't hike with a buddy, who will be there to laugh at you when you fall and break something?
Stinkyfeet - I loved that one, too. I do wonder if the tameness has anything to do with the new registration requirements :rolleyes:
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...
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...
We can wag fingers all we want, but that won't change the fact that said procrastination creates not just a "shameful" situation for the rescuee, it can create a more dangerous situation for SAR personnel.
Very cool! I was looking through the comments and found links to other options - I like the idea of making a belt instead, since it would replace something I'm already using, and I don't always like wearing things around my wrists...
New Hampshire does get money from the Fed, thanks to Craig for the links:
http://www.vftt.org/forums/showpost.php?p=358675&postcount=20
What that's earmarked for, I don't know.
If I decide your car needs an oil change while you're out on the trail, and provide that service (whether or not...
Speaking as a Masshole, though, I buy most of my gear close to home or online, not in New Hampshire. So that would put the burden unfairly on New Hampshire residents, no? (fwiw, that's what I meant by "equitable and sane" - that they don't just replace one grossly inequitable system with...