New F&G Brainstorm - Charge EVERYBODY.

[erugs]

I just don't want to see it limited to "hikers" in the "mountains". I want little old ladies lost in the woods charged, autistic kids who run away, teenagers trying to bike across the swollen Dover River, etc.

Agreed. The one search I trampled through the woods and swamps for was not a hiker, but an elderly priest who wandered away from home.

I envision a tag that announces, "I'm a hiker" with a hiker symbol that goes on your pack. It better not weigh much, I tell you.

 

[Remix]

If I broke my leg or worse and I got lifted out by a chopper or carried out I'd gladly pay the $1,000. and thank them very much.

Great but its about $14000 an hour.

 

[Remix]

It is a very slippery slope to start charging people for rescues. Imagine if the u s coast guard charged negligent boaters for rescues. Imagine if your local fire and police departments started to charge for 911 cause if you were deemed negligent.

It is also disingenuous to say that out of staters do not contribute to the revenues of new Hampshire.

Negligence and reckless hiking should be a crime. The facts should be investigated by a judge and jury, and a penalty, if warranted, should be a substantial fine.


Otherwise this is just an excuse for government to suck yet more money out of the taxpayers pockets without addressing the root cause of the problem.

 

[paul ron]

OH OH OH.. how about if they tax everyone in the country n take SAR out of your income taxes?

.

 

[Remix]

They do take SAR out of my income taxes. When the $14000 dollar an hour ANG chopper, which was stationed in one of Canon parking lots next to a National guard fuel truck due to a plethora of rescues and recoveries, the resulting expenses were incurred against federal monies, which were collected from the Treasury. New Hampshire, like all states, gets quite a bit of money from the feds.

 

[erugs]

Shouldnt be much out of mine.

 

[paul ron]

They do take SAR out of my income taxes. When the $14000 dollar an hour ANG chopper, which was stationed in one of Canon parking lots next to a National guard fuel truck due to a plethora of rescues and recoveries, the resulting expenses were incurred against federal monies, which were collected from the Treasury. New Hampshire, like all states, gets quite a bit of money from the feds.

So when they give you a bill, they are double dipping? Isn't that illegal?

 

[JacobH]

Shouldnt be much out of mine.

Hahaha, right? I'm pretty sure F&G would be paying me if that was the case.

 

[Billy]

I just don't want to see it limited to "hikers" in the "mountains". I want little old ladies lost in the woods charged, autistic kids who run away, teenagers trying to bike across the swollen Dover River, etc.

I hope the part about the autistic kids was just hyperbole on your part.
When we start charging autistic kids, we've truly hit rock bottom as a society.
To quote Stevie Wonder, "Heaven help the man who kicks the man who has to crawl".

 

[MichaelJ]

So when they give you a bill, they are double dipping? Isn't that illegal?

The bill usually covers the cost of Forest Service rangers involved in the search, but I've heard reference to being charged for the helicopter and that never made sense to me, as I also always read that the Air National Guard considers these search and rescue operations to be training opportunities, and as noted here earlier, the costs are covered by the Federal government.

So if someone knows a canonical, factual answer to this one, I'd love to hear it.

 

[dug]

I hope the part about the autistic kids was just hyperbole on your part.
When we start charging autistic kids, we've truly hit rock bottom as a society.
To quote Stevie Wonder, "Heaven help the man who kicks the man who has to crawl".

Sadly, no. The reason I brought it up is there were two incidents were a child was lost. It was a known problem with him, and NH F&G had two very exhaustive and expensive rescues to find someone. The parents knew about the problem, but it wasn't revealed until AFTER that he maybe just ran away.

Sorry to be cold in how I termed it, but in the end...if they are going to do this...a rescue is a rescue.

 

[peakbagger]

Fish and Game has stated several times that the National Guard helicopter is not available all the time, when possible they use it and the costs are attributed to "training" but in the high profile boy scout case it was not available and therefore they hired a private helicopter to assist with the search. The option was hire a private service or live without it. So there appears to be the "roll of the dice" on whether the cost for a helicopter is included in the bill for rescue. From a PR/hyperbole viewpoint, I expect that if in doubt, overestimate the potential costs of rescue in order to show the potential economic impact.

It would be interesting if fish and game ran a rescue like a car dealer, do you want the "value" rescue, or do you want the "standard" rescue or maybe even the "super deluxe" rescue. Of course once that is settled do you want the helicopter option?

Luckily it appears that once the rescue starts, its up to the incident commander to decide what he needs for resources but ultimately economics and available manpower figures in as there are only so many fish and game officers available and on some weekends they go from one rescue to another with no break.

 

[DougPaul]

I just don't want to see it limited to "hikers" in the "mountains". I want little old ladies lost in the woods charged, autistic kids who run away, teenagers trying to bike across the swollen Dover River, etc.

Unless everyone or no one is charged, F&G has to draw a line. Any such line is inherently arbitrary...

The decision about how much (potentially expensive) resource to bring to bear is made by an F&G officer and F&G decides how much to bill the victim--so the victim is being charged for something that he may have no say in. Not to mention the conflict of interest in the F&G setting and receiving the charges.


IMO, occasional rescue of visitors is part of a tourism economy and should be funded from tourism-based sources (eg meal and lodging taxes).

Doug

 

[Red Oak]

Sadly, no. The reason I brought it up is there were two incidents were a child was lost. It was a known problem with him, and NH F&G had two very exhaustive and expensive rescues to find someone. The parents knew about the problem, but it wasn't revealed until AFTER that he maybe just ran away.

Sorry to be cold in how I termed it, but in the end...if they are going to do this...a rescue is a rescue.

Parents not charged on that one.F/G ironically was the best organized party imho at that "rescue".Very disappointed here in the other parties involved in terms of their organization.[note;just wanted to add some info to dug's statement.these threads on rescues and insurance are seemingly endless]

 

[Maddy]

I just don't want to see it limited to "hikers" in the "mountains". I want little old ladies lost in the woods charged, autistic kids who run away, teenagers trying to bike across the swollen Dover River, etc.

I recall an~85 yr old woman in NH who was reported missing a short time after 78 yr old Pat O'Hagan was abducted from her home, assaulted, and murdered in the Northeast Kingdom. Turns out they found the elderly woman's remains and posted that she had Alzheimer's, went for a walk in woods near her home, and never returned.

I don't have a good feeling about charging autistic, demented, suicidal people, the mentally ill, or lost kids who need a rescue.
I agree that as a society if we did this, we would have hit rock bottom.

I think if the parent does something to place their child in danger, they should be prosecuted for child endangerment just as any other parent in our society would be. Hiker or not.

 

[RoySwkr]

I don't have a good feeling about charging autistic, demented, suicidal people, the mentally ill, or lost kids who need a rescue.

Then there's the murdered girl found by F&G divers, do you charge her, her parents, or the murderer if caught

It costs money which somebody has to pay, and the general fund has been ruled off limits no matter how fair that sounds

 

[Maddy]

Then there's the murdered girl found by F&G divers, do you charge her, her parents, or the murderer if caught

It costs money which somebody has to pay, and the general fund has been ruled off limits no matter how fair that sounds

I don't have good feelings about charging victims of violent crimes that have to be retrieved dead or alive from the "woods". Should have included them in my first post. I knew I forgot somebody.

 

[dug]

My point, while cold and sounding uncaring (of which I am neither), is that once you make exceptions, I think that slope is too slippery to navigate. There will always be the guy who gets in over his head, wearing rubber boots, trying to climb Mt. Madison in the afternoon. There will always be someone who is incapacitated, challenged, otherwise-enabled, etc. Costs are costs, and they all come out of the same bucket. Once you start to cherry-pick who gets a bill, and who doesn't, based on their perceived abilities, all validity is lost. Charge "EVERYBODY", if that's what they want to do, means "EVERYBODY".

I should note, I am not agreeing with the principal, only where (to me) it's fraught with potential issues...

 

[Maddy]

My point, while cold and sounding uncaring (of which I am neither), is that once you make exceptions, I think that slope is too slippery to navigate. There will always be the guy who gets in over his head, wearing rubber boots, trying to climb Mt. Madison in the afternoon. There will always be someone who is incapacitated, challenged, otherwise-enabled, etc. Costs are costs, and they all come out of the same bucket. Once you start to cherry-pick who gets a bill, and who doesn't, based on their perceived abilities, all validity is lost. Charge "EVERYBODY", if that's what they want to do, means "EVERYBODY".

I should note, I am not agreeing with the principal, only where (to me) it's fraught with potential issues...

Agreed! I do think however that exceptions will be made.
Nothing is ever black and white, and I think they would recognize the difference between charging someone who is ill prepared to spend the night in the woods and calls for rescue, vs an 85 yr old Alzheimer grandma who gets lost and dies in the "NH woods", or the victim of a violent crime, the autistic kid, the despondent person who needs psychiatric help, etc. I doubt they would ever cross those lines and charge these folks. It will be most interesting to see how this evolves. Perhaps they will have to "charge everyone" but I can't see that happening.

I do think paying $1000 for my rescue would be acceptable. If I get caught speeding I will pay for years in insurance cost plus the fine. That's not in my budget but I think most of us would find a way to pay those costs if we want to continue driving.

I read this on CNN today and it is sobering.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/22/us/washington-mount-ranier-death/index.html?npt=NP1
As we could have predicted there is certainly element in society that does not empathize with a hiker/ climber predicament that requires others risking their lives to save our sorry bacon. Not saying they are right but the public certainly has a very strong opinion.

IMHO I think the latest reimbursement plan is very moderate as compared to what it could have been.
It appears that when they charge someone for " not hiking safe" they lawyer up. We can't seem to agree on exactly how to define "hiking safe".
I think they had to devise a "plan" to cover the "damages... but black and white it is not!

 

[MichaelJ]

I don't object to the notion of charging everyone, but if, for example, I were to break my leg out on the trail somewhere and require rescue, being a medical condition I hope my health insurance would cover the costs of the entire operation as opposed to only kicking in starting at the trailhead with the ambulance. If that coverage isn't included, then I don't think I can endorse the idea.