What about those of us who are just going for a walk in the woods and not hiking?
F&G at Breaking Point for Rescue Funding
- Thread starter ChrisB
- Start date
Help Support vftt.org:
What about those of us who are just going for a walk in the woods and not hiking?
JoshandBaron
Well-known member
That has been an issue, older folks with dementia have led to several high profile S&R events are they hikers?. There was a S&R for some folks who got lost coming back from Diana's Baths this weekend. Were they hiking?. At least Monadnock has a parking fee to raid.
It would be interesting if someone has attempted to pay for a NH S&R with third party rescue insurance? There has been a least one carry out where the person being carried had a Hike Safe card.
It would be interesting if someone has attempted to pay for a NH S&R with third party rescue insurance? There has been a least one carry out where the person being carried had a Hike Safe card.
Brambor
Well-known member
I'm perplexed (a little bit) at why should going to the mountains and making good decisions somehow result in the considering it a privilege to be rescued - otherwise getting an earful from those who like to lament S&R costs?
Playing High School Football, for example, where hi speed impact is actually expected which by itself is a p r e t t y d u m b d e c i s i o n , is not lamented ? Calling an ambulance for concussions and fractures during a football game is not frowned upon even though it costs at least $1000 and goes up from there. In many cases it is actually covered within one's health insurance.
On one hand a mountain rescue is an unintended accident of non impact sport (hiking) whereas a football game is a is an occasional result of a sport that smashes two bodies together.
Seems like a weird logic to me.
Playing High School Football, for example, where hi speed impact is actually expected which by itself is a p r e t t y d u m b d e c i s i o n , is not lamented ? Calling an ambulance for concussions and fractures during a football game is not frowned upon even though it costs at least $1000 and goes up from there. In many cases it is actually covered within one's health insurance.
On one hand a mountain rescue is an unintended accident of non impact sport (hiking) whereas a football game is a is an occasional result of a sport that smashes two bodies together.
Seems like a weird logic to me.
JoshandBaron
Well-known member
The Hike Safe card only gives F&G $25. For $20 a person can get third party rescue insurance and reimburse the agency for 100% of their costs without having to go through the negligence/recklessness battle. If the card cost is intended solely to fund S&R, I would think an insurance mandate would make a bigger dent in their S&R costs than a Hike Safe card mandate and save F&G the trouble of administering the Hike Safe program.
jfb
Active member
How does third party rescue insurance help fund NH F&G?
jfb
Active member
Mike P.
Well-known member
The Whites do have a parking permit that should be funding some SAR or are they repaving all the lots and the Mt.Clinton Road? Third party rescue insurance would pay for rescue cost if and only if you required a rescue in NH.
In a state that tries to gave lower taxes than others in the region, are funds that were meant to go for rescues getting dropped into the general fund? It seems that when it appears there is a case of sending a bill for a rescue, the case is usually settled for a non-disclosed amount. (Taking a case to trail makes lawyers money and if they lost might jeopardize being able to collect anything.)
Rescues should have multipliers based on stupid you are. Went for a hike greater than ten miles or start when there are just a couple hours of light left and you failed to bring a headlamp, double the fee. First time on a trail or on a mountain without a map, double the cost. (I think I can get up the Crawford Path for the 20th time without a map and know where I am going) Heading up above treeline in the winter traction and you slip and fall, double the fee. Do more than one of these and you better start a go fund me page.
If I slip on a wet or loose rock and think that the damp root was not wet enough to be a hazard (I should know better) that might qualify as an accident. If I head out without a map, without a light when I likely will be back within a couple of hours of dark or don't do any research beyond an Instagram page so I don't know that 2 miles and 100 feet of elevation gain is different than 2 miles and 1900 feet of elevation gain, the idea I may need a rescue is not a chance, it's a near certainty I will have a problem.
In a state that tries to gave lower taxes than others in the region, are funds that were meant to go for rescues getting dropped into the general fund? It seems that when it appears there is a case of sending a bill for a rescue, the case is usually settled for a non-disclosed amount. (Taking a case to trail makes lawyers money and if they lost might jeopardize being able to collect anything.)
Rescues should have multipliers based on stupid you are. Went for a hike greater than ten miles or start when there are just a couple hours of light left and you failed to bring a headlamp, double the fee. First time on a trail or on a mountain without a map, double the cost. (I think I can get up the Crawford Path for the 20th time without a map and know where I am going) Heading up above treeline in the winter traction and you slip and fall, double the fee. Do more than one of these and you better start a go fund me page.
If I slip on a wet or loose rock and think that the damp root was not wet enough to be a hazard (I should know better) that might qualify as an accident. If I head out without a map, without a light when I likely will be back within a couple of hours of dark or don't do any research beyond an Instagram page so I don't know that 2 miles and 100 feet of elevation gain is different than 2 miles and 1900 feet of elevation gain, the idea I may need a rescue is not a chance, it's a near certainty I will have a problem.
ChrisB
Well-known member
The NH (Dis)Advantage?
Folks,
This entire issue (F&G funding) is a sidebar and part of the much larger story / problem with how the Granite State plays financial shell games with its limited resources.
NH's "Low Tax" mantra comes home to roost in many ways: statewide k-8 educational funding, statewide infrastructure funding, state university funding, and even F&G funding.
The NH legislature is fond of down-shifting costs to cities and towns, and then crowing about their balanced budget. They know full well the only recourse municipalities have is to raise property taxes to make ends meet. At the same time the penurious legislature jealously guards the rooms and meal tax, refusing to give a cut to the localities where those $$ are collected.
Our booze profits and lottery windfall are essentially sin taxes that work. And we of course are happy to take any Federal handout we can get (it's not coming out of our pocket, or so the thinking goes).
If you asked many state legislators, I bet they would wholeheartedly endorse the "privatization" of rescue. After all, it works for the prison system.
So Live Free or Die, with emphasis on the latter.
cb
Folks,
This entire issue (F&G funding) is a sidebar and part of the much larger story / problem with how the Granite State plays financial shell games with its limited resources.
NH's "Low Tax" mantra comes home to roost in many ways: statewide k-8 educational funding, statewide infrastructure funding, state university funding, and even F&G funding.
The NH legislature is fond of down-shifting costs to cities and towns, and then crowing about their balanced budget. They know full well the only recourse municipalities have is to raise property taxes to make ends meet. At the same time the penurious legislature jealously guards the rooms and meal tax, refusing to give a cut to the localities where those $$ are collected.
Our booze profits and lottery windfall are essentially sin taxes that work. And we of course are happy to take any Federal handout we can get (it's not coming out of our pocket, or so the thinking goes).
If you asked many state legislators, I bet they would wholeheartedly endorse the "privatization" of rescue. After all, it works for the prison system.
So Live Free or Die, with emphasis on the latter.
cb
roadtripper
Well-known member
Start charging $5/day to park at Arethusa Falls, Falling Waters, and other high-target parking areas in state parks in/near the Whites and use that money to fund F&G better. Problem solved.
I am unsure if the state has the right to charge parking fees on parking lots paid for with federal assistance. It may be state owned land but in the case of the Franconia Parkway that was funded with a big chunk of federal dollars and expect that the existing lots have to be free. Note that there are voluntary donations boxes on both sides of the highway at Lafayette place but expect they collect more trash than money. That does beg the question is that Lafayette campground was there prior to the parkway, could the state elect to bulldoze the sites and put in a paid parking lot? Same thing or the Tram lots. I am unsure the funding sources for some of other high profile state lots like Appalachia or Arethusa or possibly the Pinkham Notch overflow lots that are all on state highway land. I am unsure of the status of the actual Pinkham Notch lot, it was the original state highway but AMC spent considerable dollars upgrading it over the years and did a major investment to reduce run off into the nearby river several years ago so they may have at one point gotten the right of way handed back to them.
In order for it to work I don't see a paid attendant approach working at the hiker lots so it would require a self parking approach similar to the FS lots. That means a couple of paid state employees to drive the lots and match up the hang tags with the envelopes and a major hassle in processing the tickets and getting paid especially for rentals and out of state plates.
As an aside I have heard that with short staffing the FS frequently doesnt not match up the hang tags with the envelopes in the tube and just tickets those cars without any hang tags. They can more effectively write more tickets by sweeping the lots more often than spending the time to actually match up the tags. I wouldn't be surprised if some folks just rip the hang tag off and hang it on the windshield and throw the envelope away.
In order for it to work I don't see a paid attendant approach working at the hiker lots so it would require a self parking approach similar to the FS lots. That means a couple of paid state employees to drive the lots and match up the hang tags with the envelopes and a major hassle in processing the tickets and getting paid especially for rentals and out of state plates.
As an aside I have heard that with short staffing the FS frequently doesnt not match up the hang tags with the envelopes in the tube and just tickets those cars without any hang tags. They can more effectively write more tickets by sweeping the lots more often than spending the time to actually match up the tags. I wouldn't be surprised if some folks just rip the hang tag off and hang it on the windshield and throw the envelope away.
The director of Fish and Game was on the NHPR Exchange yesterday http://www.nhpr.org/post/funding-hunting-decline-and-challenges-facing-nh-fish-game. The show diverged a bit about the financial challenges the department faces but the director did comment that hiker S&R costs are a high profile issue but not the major reason the department is in financial trouble. He didn't go into what were directly but he did indicate that a lot of the money the department takes in is pass through dedicated dollars that are available to the general budget. An example is OHRV registrations, they run the registrations but Bureau of trails gets 70% of the fee. The remaining 30% goes to his department yet F&G is expected to manage the activity. He also noted that the major revenue is still snowmachine registration instead of ATVs
There was a call in question about parking fees for hikers, the answer is that F&G doesn't own the land at many of the popular spots, other state departments, all with revenue issues own or control the lands and therefore any revenue would be diluted among multiple departments.
He definitely didn't state a grand plan for getting out of the budget hole. I expect as a director he has to be careful as to what he says should be done as typically the legislature doesn't like that.
There was a call in question about parking fees for hikers, the answer is that F&G doesn't own the land at many of the popular spots, other state departments, all with revenue issues own or control the lands and therefore any revenue would be diluted among multiple departments.
He definitely didn't state a grand plan for getting out of the budget hole. I expect as a director he has to be careful as to what he says should be done as typically the legislature doesn't like that.
