$25,000 fine assessed for teen hiker

[jniehof]

Or more correctly who pays for SAR in places OTHER than New Hampshire. The article mentions nothing about how New Hampshire funds SAR.

It also gets the CORSAR card wrong, a very common problem in these discussions. SAR groups are reimbursed for expenses incurred in rescuing a cardholder; it does not "ensure that a cardholder won't be charged for SAR operations."

http://www.wildlife.state.nh.us/Inside_FandG/pie_charts.htm

If I'm reading that correctly, SAR is 1% of F&G's expenses. I have a hard time believing 1% is a major factor in making or breaking F&G's financial situation, so I must be missing something.

 

[RoySwkr]

The state of NH would do well to adopt a system similar to the one used by Colorado, which is working very well.

They apply a minor surcharge to hunting/fishing licenses and boat registrations, and sell a voluntary SAR card. I have visited CO for a total of a couple hundred days and climbed over 100 peaks and have never seen such a card offered for sale.

So CO has a distinct surcharge instead of raising the basic license fee, it's still the hunters and fishermen that pay. I'm not sure that NH selling the voluntary card would be such a good idea, in the past the AMC has opposed such cards because they're afraid that people would feel entitled to minor rescues and the AMC would put out a lot of extra staff time for no reimbursement.

SAR is only a minor part of the F&G budget but many hunters rightly feel that many hikers are out to ban hunting and wouldn't care if they all got lost It is even a smaller part of the rooms and meals tax collection and that's where the money should come from IMHO.

 

[Dr. Dasypodidae]

If an individual would not purchase voluntary, affordable insurance to protect themselves, why would they be any more inclined to give a donation ("buy a card") to support S&R groups directly?

Exactly what I meant; people will voluntarily buy neither. Fish & Game needs to be funded like any other emergency work force, like police or fire brigades, hence part of a tax is needed. In New Hampshire, that probably means a small percentage of the Rooms and Meals Tax, given that there are not any other broad-based taxes in the state. The other alternative is hit up the USFS, but that is unlikely to get anywhere, and would not cover SAR on non-federal land.

 

[Dr. Dasypodidae]

If I'm reading that correctly, SAR is 1% of F&G's expenses. I have a hard time believing 1% is a major factor in making or breaking F&G's financial situation, so I must be missing something.

I do not think that you are missing anything. NH F&G barely balances their budget each year because of the large voluntary contribution from the SAR community and free National Guard helo support. But, they did not have the funds in their budget to cover a private helo from Maine ($25k) for the SAR on Mount Washington last April. So, the question remains: why did NH F&G request a private helo that they knew they could not afford? Now that the attempt to recover costs has been dropped, we will probably never know.

 

[paul ron]

National Forest, not National Park. They are administered by different organizations, the Forest Service vs. the Park Service, and even offer an example of how they are very different.

I see, but both still fall under a Federal designation whether it's Dept of Interior or Dept of Agriculture and both still recieve my hard earned American tax dollars. So either way, federal tax money bought that land for all Americans, not for NH to turn into it's very own junglejim and then have the nerve to ask me to pay for service I already paid for. If they choose to cut their federal tax income to pay for snowmobiles n hunters spend huge amounts for fish but not for SAR... well I say lets see some accountability.

Also as a forest I now understand why the lumber and paper industry has rapped the moutanins of trees in NH at a very big discount.. yet you want me to pay for SAR.... something is wrong in them hills.

 

[NewHampshire]

25% of your funding is Federal money (see your chart).

Well, I can tell you did not actually read the entire page or you would have seen that that federal money is earmarked for specific federal programs (administered by the F&G). Once again (for perhaps the millionth time) not one single penny of your tax money is used for SAR.

You had the option of getting government funding but split off with a few other states by pushing the law through to take care of business yourself. So my tax money bought the property, and now as the appointed stewards (the special law NH is under), you wanted all the tax profits from tourism n wahtever to recoup costs. Yet it seems you can't afford the up keep, or are you just hiding the profits someplace else?

This is so rediculously deluded a statement I can even think of a serious response to what has to be a joke...right?

You have privatly owned mom n pop hotels in the sky, the puffer dragon, timber, and whatever else suposedly bringing in revenue to defray the costs. Where is all that money going, administrative costs, educational fees, stamps? Get rid of a few administrators n better manage your funds but you aren't going to get a red cent from me crying you're broke. Can't build bridges n properly maintain the land my tax money bought in the first place. You didn't get a National Park for free, it belongs to everyone, that's Federal land not NH's land and see's my tax money.

Alright, now your really starting to irritate me because I have had to expline this to you as well. The hut's are owned my a MASSACHUSETTS based organization on FEDERAL land. New Hampshire gets NOTHING...NADA....from the huts. You have a problem with the huts go whine to the federal government who issues them their permits and quit taking your misplaced ire out on New Hampshire. It is the same thing with "the bridges that we can't maintain". Federal Government Agency. Not New Hampshire....FEDERAL. Spell it with me F...E...D...E...R...A...L...New Hampshire has nothing to do with that. And unless you are like 100 years old your tax monet did not buy anything.

Live free and die poor. If people are going to pay for SAR, they may not call for help n fatalities will rise. OTOH Charge for SARs n watch the law suits pile up. Suits for not providing quality service, lacking certain equipment or too slow, not having certain training... your SAR will have to be a professional run unit with helos n planes with the latest equipment on board. What will that cost NH on a beer bottle budget?

I'll have you know there are some fine Search and Rescue groups here that are volunteers. They risk their lives (for people like you) for free assisting F&G when assistance is needed. I happen to know some of these people, and you insult them and me with yet more rude and ill informed ravings.

Now on to people who actually are calm and reasonable.....

If I'm reading that correctly, SAR is 1% of F&G's expenses. I have a hard time believing 1% is a major factor in making or breaking F&G's financial situation, so I must be missing something.

Yeah, the chart is from 2006. Not sure why they have not updated it, and I know they have because just last year I saw a similar pie chart (in the back of thier magazine "Wildlife Journal") that for 2008 it had jumped to 6%. I can only imagine what it was for last year, and possibly could have been skewed higher because of the Mason case. As Dr. D noted, the $25,000 was a major hit. Why did they do it knowing they could not afford it? The only thing I can think of is at the time they felt it necessary. Was that a bad call? Sure. Unfortunately hindsight is 20/20. And he is also right that with the case now dropped we may never know the answer......

 

[NewHampshire]

Exactly what I meant; people will voluntarily buy neither. Fish & Game needs to be funded like any other emergency work force, like police or fire brigades, hence part of a tax is needed. In New Hampshire, that probably means a small percentage of the Rooms and Meals Tax, given that there are not any other broad-based taxes in the state. The other alternative is hit up the USFS, but that is unlikely to get anywhere, and would not cover SAR on non-federal land.

You know, another good idea may be perhaps to take the current volunteer SAR groups here in New Hampshire, put them in charge and fund them through the state (thus now making them paid volunteers). I don't know how it would work logistically, but it seems that turning the reigns over to professionals who do this already, but this time pay them for it would be a good option. But, alas, most likely to go anywhere either.

Brian

 

[Craig]

Once again (for perhaps the millionth time) not one single penny of your tax money is used for SAR.

Of course it could be argued that the 1.6M dollars payed to the State of NH in 2009 under PILT could have been use to fund SARs. If the counties chose not the use the money for SARs that was at their discretion.

So under this argument my federal tax dollars are going to every state, that has federal land, in order to help fund SARs, for a total of 381M in 2009.

What say you to that?

 

[NewHampshire]

Of course it could be argued that the 1.6M dollars payed to the State of NH in 2009 under PILT could have been use to fund SARs. If the counties chose not the use the money for SARs that was at their discretion.

So under this argument my federal tax dollars are going to every state, that has federal land, in order to help fund SARs, for a total of 381M in 2009.

What say you to that?

Alas, this is another aspect of the "problem". Since the F&G is self funded the State does not give them any money. Indeed it has been speculated in the past that there are those in the State Government that want to intentionally cause the F&G to go bankrupt so that they can be absorbed into the State government (all the better to have access to their funding, which as usual politicians in the State could reappropriate where they feel it could be "better" used.) So if the State of New Hampshire itself received any money then F&G would not see any of it. Now I could be wrong, since I have not seen any numbers from F&G for FY 2009 yet, so maybe just maybe the State has actually relented and started giving F&G money for SAR, but as far as I know right now the state does not transfer any money to F&G (except of course for the OHRV registration transfers, etc.) Indeed if the State were actually boosting F&G budget for SAR then there would actually be no problem. Something I had mentioned towards the beginning of this thread (or maybe another...there have been many of these )

Brian

 

[Dr. Dasypodidae]

You know, another good idea may be perhaps to take the current volunteer SAR groups here in New Hampshire, put them in charge and fund them through the state (thus now making them paid volunteers). I don't know how it would work logistically, but it seems that turning the reigns over to professionals who do this already, but this time pay them for it would be a good option.

Bad idea, imho, as NH F&G are the pros, and deservedly so. SAR units are the volunteers, but while on missions are covered by Workmen's Comp. Even on technical missions, Mountain Rescue Service personnel answer to NH F&G, which is the only viable way, imho. Huge can o' worms if volunteer SAR groups were to be "paid."

 

[smitty77]

Huge can o' worms if volunteer SAR groups were to be "paid."

I used to be a volunteer EMT for the town rescue squad and I quit when a rift developed inter-squad over the decision to go from 100% volunteer to paid volunteers. We were a lot like F&G - no funding from the town, operating budget came from donations and a 1-day-per-year door-to-door pledge drive which covered all of our training costs, supplies, and the upkeep on 2 ambulances. Anyone calling for treatment was given a free ride. We did our own extrication and search-and-rescue and covered calls 24/7/365.

Then the town got the crazy idea they could make money by taking over the squad, putting it under the total jurisdiction of the fire department, and charging folks for services. The end result was the loss of several good EMTs (due to politics mostly), which resulted in a loss of coverage across town, requiring a private company from the next town over to handle a portion of the calls. It was a losing proposition all around, IMHO.

 

[jniehof]

Yeah, the chart is from 2006. Not sure why they have not updated it, and I know they have because just last year I saw a similar pie chart (in the back of thier magazine "Wildlife Journal") that for 2008 it had jumped to 6%. I can only imagine what it was for last year, and possibly could have been skewed higher because of the Mason case.

Thanks for the explanation. I can definitely see the urgency to controlling an item that jumps from 1% to 6% in short order, or even something that's 1% +/- 10% of the budget when that budget doesn't have any padding.

 

[Craig]

Mason Family Statement dated 4/2010

I ran across the Mason Family (press release?) during a google search.
Not much new info but I thought I would attach it to this old thread for future reference.

 

[paul ron]

I gave at the office.

This was an old dead thread.. let's let it die in peace.

.