New Hampshire Fish and Game Search and Rescue Funding Hearing

[Little Rickie]

Granite Headed State

don't expect a resolution that makes sense financially and socially

Excelent, just excelent. My complements!

 

[Red Oak]

regarding the recent lost boy scouts and troop leader...what will they be charged?I heard on the news they were "cold"...Does that mean they were unprepared?Should they get charged more now?Why do prepared hikers get charged also....If these kids did not have adequate packs and were up in the mountains without proper gear does nh fish/game go after the national or nh boy scouts for cash!Maybe all hikers should carry more then 10 pounds....very complex questions here....:

 

[J.Dub]

I second Maddy's comments re: SARDOG1's excellent post.

Thirded!

 

[bikehikeskifish]

We don't send a bill in these cases because most of us realize that some societal costs are best shared, not allocated down to the individual level, for all kinds of reasons.

Additional societal costs we share include those additional costs imposed by lack of a primary seat belt law and motorcycle helmet law. Despite nearly annual efforts to create laws for each, the residents of NH have consistently rejected them.

http://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/Traffic Injury Control/Articles/Associated Files/810934.pdf

In sum, the State of New Hampshire could expect to save at least $400,000 ($800,000 gross) from injuries prevented this year alone on its Medicaid budget. The total savings to all payers will be at least $7.9 million.

And similarly for motorcycle helmets (this source is national, not NH):

http://knowledgebase.findlaw.com/kb/2011/Feb/222853.html

In addition to the tragic loss of life, the economic cost to society is enormous. In 2005, motorcyclists without helmets were involved in 36 percent of all motorcycle crashes, but represented 70 percent of the total cost of all motorcycle crashes – $12.2 billion.

...

Motorcycle rights advocates have pushed a well-orchestrated campaign of “Freedom to Ride,” but their freedom comes at a high price. Medical costs for unhelmeted riders involved in crashes, according to the NTSB, are “staggering, estimated at $310,000 per crash-involved motorcyclist.”

Wear A Helmet

The NTSB’s overall guidance is that helmets are very effective at reducing risk of dying in a crash by 37%. They also reduce the need for ambulance service, hospitalization, intensive care, rehabilitation and long-term care that results from motorcycle crashes.

Tim

 

[Craig]

SB128 established a study committee to recommend funding sources for F&G.

Final Report of the Study Committee - Time well spent

I couldn't find the Study Committee meeting minutes nor the F&G testimony.

It's interesting to note that although this bill was originally proposed to involve the AMC and RMC in the funding solution, the committee made no recommendations to involve the AMC and/or RMC in the funding solution. Additionally, conspicuously absent from the "Findings" is the % of non-resident rescuees.

It will be interesting to see what the legislature does with this.

Question: Does the "Total estimated income from proposal 2" refer to "Proposal #2" or is it the sum of the "Recommendations"? I assume it's the sum of the recommendations.

 

[RoySwkr]

Final Report of the Study Committee

where did some of these come from?

It will be interesting to see what the legislature does with this.

yup

I predict they will pass 1 (bad guys have no clout) and 3 (voluntary), but 2 will die without wide exemptions

Question: Does the "Total estimated income from proposal 2" refer to "Proposal #2" or is it the sum of the "Recommendations"? I assume it's the sum of the recommendations.

It seems to be the total of 1-3, no amount given for 4

 

[Creag Nan Drochaid]

Watch for the actual bill

We will all have a better chance to weigh in on this issue when we can read the text of whatever bill comes out of Legislative Services. Stay alert in January.

As to the committee report, it reflects the fact that substantial concerns about funding and justice simply were not heard if indeed they were offered. There is no doubt in my mind that a way must be found the raise SAR $ from what the state calls "hikers" although they use the word as a catchall to include everyone from ten-minute tourists looking at a waterfall to wilderness travellers out for a week and as self-sufficient as possible. There is also no doubt that charging fees for every SAR response will be a HUGE deterrent to reporting difficulties early enough to need only minimal response, and it will take but few such incidents to make people shun NH if they are going to be so punished for mere "negligence." That may not matter to bureaucrats caught between the rock of required response and the hard place of too little money, but it is a big concern to everyone else, even including tourist-dependent businesses and the state's rooms and meals tax.

I expect that few object to charging for SAR of people who are reckless, but the concept of "negligence" is much broader and grayer than recklessness. The inherent uncertainty and risk of all outdoor activities means there is much room for debate as to what constitutes "negligence" versus what would be the acts of a reasonable and prudent person.

It is for this reason that I proposed in an earlier posting on this thread that SAR cards be sold widely through F&G license agents, tourist info centers, country stores, outdoor gear stores, online etc. all proceeds for the F&G SAR fund, and the owner exempt from all SAR charges unless proven reckless. There has to be a benefit for the buyer: why buy an SAR card if you will be charged for your rescue anyway? Hunters can be negligent yet be rescued free of charge, so why not us too?

This will raise the most money most efficiently for the one fund that matters here. Under the committee's report, we hikers could accomplish the same thing for ourselves by buying a hunting or fishing license, but then our money is diluted for other uses and the same cast of outraged characters will still be howling that hikers don't pay for their share of SAR. Well, says I, are you against giving us the opportunity to pay our share? Your claim is true and just, and we want to fix the injustice by paying our share, but we want and deserve the same benefits as other outdoorspeople.

So, wild land wanderers, is this a good resolution of these issues? We need to speak loud and clear to the Legislature, there is strength and power in numbers, and the time to formulate and agree on a position is NOW, or at least soon.

Creag nan drochaid

 

[Craig]

Creag Nan Drochaid - Consider the following comments.

As to the committee report, it reflects the fact that substantial concerns about funding and justice simply were not heard if indeed they were offered. There is no doubt in my mind that a way must be found the raise SAR $ from what the state calls "hikers" although they use the word as a catchall to include everyone from ten-minute tourists looking at a waterfall to wilderness travellers out for a week and as self-sufficient as possible. There is also no doubt that charging fees for every SAR response will be a HUGE deterrent to reporting difficulties early enough to need only minimal response, and it will take but few such incidents to make people shun NH if they are going to be so punished for mere "negligence." That may not matter to bureaucrats caught between the rock of required response and the hard place of too little money, but it is a big concern to everyone else, even including tourist-dependent businesses and the state's rooms and meals tax.

Although this is a popular concept, there is no evidence it is true. I suspect, in practice, that this would not be as much of an issue as some think.

I expect that few object to charging for SAR of people who are reckless, but the concept of "negligence" is much broader and grayer than recklessness. The inherent uncertainty and risk of all outdoor activities means there is much room for debate as to what constitutes "negligence" versus what would be the acts of a reasonable and prudent person.

As a matter of law, what constitutes "negligence" in this context may be easily distinguishable.
By applying the "reasonable person standard" to a particular incident and using "hikesafe" as a standard of preparedness and behavior you can determine negligence easier than you would think. Remember, F&G determines negligence, with the concurrence of the Attorney General.

It is for this reason that I proposed in an earlier posting on this thread that SAR cards be sold widely through F&G license agents, tourist info centers, country stores, outdoor gear stores, online etc. all proceeds for the F&G SAR fund, and the owner exempt from all SAR charges unless proven reckless. There has to be a benefit for the buyer: why buy an SAR card if you will be charged for your rescue anyway? Hunters can be negligent yet be rescued free of charge, so why not us too?

Can you clarify this statement. I don't believe hunters get a free rescue under current law.

This will raise the most money most efficiently for the one fund that matters here. Under the committee's report, we hikers could accomplish the same thing for ourselves by buying a hunting or fishing license, but then our money is diluted for other uses and the same cast of outraged characters will still be howling that hikers don't pay for their share of SAR. Well, says I, are you against giving us the opportunity to pay our share? Your claim is true and just, and we want to fix the injustice by paying our share, but we want and deserve the same benefits as other outdoorspeople.

When you buy a hunting or fishing license, $1 goes into the SARs fund. It is not diluted for other uses.

So, wild land wanderers, is this a good resolution of these issues? We need to speak loud and clear to the Legislature, there is strength and power in numbers, and the time to formulate and agree on a position is NOW, or at least soon.

Your proposal certainly has merit. I haven't finalized my opinion and I'm sure others haven't as well so I ask the following.

There have been others that want to fund SAR's completely from the general fund. Can you explain why your proposal is preferable?

 

[bikehikeskifish]

I'd also love to know how one can predict and rely on revenue from the voluntary purchase of these SAR cards? The most-likely people to have heard of them are the ones who are least-likely to need them (most likely to pass the negligence test by the reasonable person standard.) Unlike the fishing license/hunting license, there is no penalty to be caught hiking without your SAR card (whereas there is a fine for fishing or hunting without a license.)

I too very much want to know what the standard IS so I can be sure I am not going to be negligent.

Oh, and I buy a fishing license every year, so hopefully, even if I am hiking, I would not be charged.

Tim

 

[Creag Nan Drochaid]

Replies to Craig

Your concerns in the order listed:

Yes, it remains an open question.

If negligence is so easily determined then the "reasonable person standard" and "HikeSafe" should be incorporated into the statute and SAR cards/literature so people may more easily determine how to best follow the law.

Under the SB128 committee's report they would, unless reckless.

If we buy a license to hunt or fish, only $1 goes to SAR. If we could buy a SAR card, ALL of it goes to SAR, and we hikers would be buying only what we are likeliest to need instead of spending mostly on services we don't use. A win for everyone.

Perhaps in an ideal world the general fund would cover SAR. Here in NH we pay for as much of our government services as we can with user fees not taxes. Those who benefit pay. I am not interested in trying to claim SAR costs from the general fund when the national recession plus past overspending has already forced large cuts in the state budget. No such claim has any chance of passing out of committee alive, rather it would be killed with a vote of "inexpedient-to-legislate (ITL)" I want to see this issue resolved with justice for all, and buying SAR cards seems to me a fair way to do that.
If all proceeds go to the F&G SAR fund, your children hiking with you are covered too, and it is like an insurance policy bought and then good until used with no other expiration date, it is very cost-effective. If it had to be bought annually or for shorter defined periods then it would have to cost much less. In any event I see injustice if the annual cost is any higher than a resident hunting license.

 

[Little Rickie]

I think buying a card is a great idea! I'd buy a card to support the cause even though I have a fishing license. I don't mind and actually feel good about covering the cost of saving a life...even if it's a dumb ass life. Seriously

Can they put little vending machines at trailheads to sell the card along with soda/water and candy machines. Surcharge the soda/water and candy to help cover litter clean up. Not so seriously.

 

[Tim Seaver]

As a matter of law, what constitutes "negligence" in this context may be easily distinguishable.
By applying the "reasonable person standard" to a particular incident and using "hikesafe" as a standard of preparedness and behavior you can determine negligence easier than you would think. Remember, F&G determines negligence, with the concurrence of the Attorney General.

If negligence was so easily distinguishable, there would not have been a "Scott Mason Controversy". As it was, the only thing that was proved negligent was the amount on $$$ in the F&G piggy bank. The "HikeSafe" is a great set of guidelines, but it's pretty general and vague.

The "negligent or not?" question is much harder to resolve than you suggest.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

The "HikeSafe" is a great set of guidelines, but it's pretty general and vague.

1. With knowledge and gear. Become self reliant by learning about the terrain, conditions, local weather and your equipment before you start.
This one is wide open to interpretation - how much knowledge is required? What gear?

2. To leave your plans. Tell someone where you are going, the trails you are hiking, when you will return and your emergency plans.
This one is pretty solid.

3. To stay together. When you start as a group, hike as a group, end as a group. Pace your hike to the slowest person.
This one is solid, but not rock solid. If you're willing and prepared to go solo, then leaving a group (by mutual consent of course) should be 'allowed'. Many times I've seen a group split into 2 or 3 smaller groups with everyone's blessing.

4. To turn back. Weather changes quickly in the mountains. Fatigue and unexpected conditions can also affect your hike. Know your limitations and when to postpone your hike. The mountains will be there another day.
Still pretty solid, but certainly some gray area here.

5. For emergencies. Even if you are headed out for just an hour, an injury, severe weather or a wrong turn could become life threatening. Don’t assume you will be rescued; know how to rescue yourself.
Well, this one is a buzzkill, eh? How many people actually know how to and are prepared for self-rescue? I'm not sure I would pass this one 100% of the time...

6. To share the hiker code with others.
This one doesn't seem to apply to negligence with respect to a SAR reimbursement action. I mean if I pass 1-5 but didn't share the code with anyone, am I negligent

Tim

 

[Kevin Rooney]

Regardless of the source of SAR funding, I think it's short-sighted to have a hiker awareness program without putting some sort of signage right at the point of entry - the trailhead.

There should be a simple metal sign - nailed securely to a tree - which says:

Regardless of the season or weather, or length of hike, do you have?​

1) A waterproof windbreaker, hat & gloves?
2) Food & water?
3) Flashlight?
4) Map?​

Don't clutter it up with all the HikeSafe bullets - nothing wrong with them in the right context - but just listing the above subset of the 10 Essentials will go a long way towards towards getting people out of the woods safely.

 

[Craig]

Perhaps in an ideal world the general fund would cover SAR. Here in NH we pay for as much of our government services as we can with user fees not taxes. Those who benefit pay. I am not interested in trying to claim SAR costs from the general fund when the national recession plus past overspending has already forced large cuts in the state budget. No such claim has any chance of passing out of committee alive, rather it would be killed with a vote of "inexpedient-to-legislate (ITL)" I want to see this issue resolved with justice for all, and buying SAR cards seems to me a fair way to do that.
If all proceeds go to the F&G SAR fund, your children hiking with you are covered too, and it is like an insurance policy bought and then good until used with no other expiration date, it is very cost-effective. If it had to be bought annually or for shorter defined periods then it would have to cost much less. In any event I see injustice if the annual cost is any higher than a resident hunting license.

Very persuasive.

I'm unclear on a couple of things.

1. Would your proposal rescind the $1 fee now imposed on hunting, fishing and off road licenses or keep it?
2. Would your proposal rescind the recovery for negligence statute or keep it?

 

[Creag Nan Drochaid]

Present laws

1) The $1 surcharge on licenses to hunt/fish stays as is. After all, they do sometimes get lost or hurt too.

2) The recovery for negligence statute would have to be amended to exempt SAR card owners and their minor children in their hiking party. Why bother to buy a card if F&G can allege you were somehow "negligent" and hands you the bill for your rescue? The card has to work like an insurance policy or it is of no benefit to the buyer.

Please note that the SAR card is VOLUNTARY. We are free to hike without it, but that means we do get charged for our rescue if we are judged to be negligent. We choose how we pay, or we choose to trust to our luck.

Creag nan drochaid

 

[Craig]

You've obviously done your homework

Please note that the SAR card is VOLUNTARY. We are free to hike without it, but that means we do get charged for our rescue if we are judged to be negligent. We choose how we pay, or we choose to trust to our luck.

Creag nan drochaid

If you don't mind, I'm going to summarize your proposal to make sure I understand it.

1. Establish a voluntary hiker card that would be valid for 1 year. The cost of this card TBD. The entire cost of this card, minus vendor and admin fees, would be put into the SAR fund. Having a valid hiker card would give you and your children a free pass from S&R cost for that year.
2. Do not change the existing $1 surcharge statute on hunting, fishing and off road vehicle licenses.
3. Amend the existing statute for recovering SAR costs from negligence folks to exclude card and license holders.

If the above is true and according to the committee report, the SAR fund would still be short. How would you address that?

2011 SAR fund deficit = $166,992
Hiker Card example - 15.00 per card x 5167 card sold = $77,500

Your proposal SAR funding shortfall = $89,492

Are you relying on the recovered SAR cost from negligent folks to cover the $89,492?

 

[Creag Nan Drochaid]

SAR card good until used

Thank you for the summary, Craig.

I titled this post to show that IMHO the SAR card should be a one-time purchase that would cover the cost of your next F&G rescue, not an annual card. It should work like a group insurance policy, especially those life insurance policies sold at airports: many subscribers, small chance any one of them would actually need the rescue, therefore a low cost to each to be covered. It is also much lower admin costs for one purchase than for annual ones.

Each license F&G now sells is charged $1 for the SAR fund, but hikers pay nothing yet are 56% of the cost. I have no idea where anyone got the idea there would only be 5167 people willing to buy a SAR card, and no one will ever know if this will work if it is not tried, but my bet is there will be many more people buying SAR cards, especially since they will be sold at so many places outdoorspeople spend money. If F&G is happy with each hunter throwing in one dollar on their annual license, they ought to be even happier with hikers volunteering ten or even twenty dollars for the SAR fund, and yet taking no services from F&G unless rescued.
This card rewards prudent people by exempting them from SAR costs even though they may be "negligent", gives more cash to the SAR fund from a now-untapped source, leaves F&G free to go on charging for reckless rescues or negligent ones for uncarded people, and tells the rest of the outdoor community that we are willing to invest in SAR and stop taking advantage of their money. Let them focus their ire on people who had the chance to buy a SAR card but chose not to, another reason that more points of sale is better than online only.

Creag nan drochaid

 

[peakbagger]

This concept may work although selling the concept to casual hikers who hike a couple times per year is going to be difficult. Unlike the forest service, there doesnt appear to be a parking lot option for someone who only occasionally comes to hike in the mountains. Given that the WMNF parking permit confusion still exists despite ten plus years of exisitence, I expect the SAR card will take a awhile to catch on. The likelyhood that they will arrive at the trailhead and read a sign on the trailhead Kiosk and then turn around and go look for a place to buy a SAR card is low. A casual hiker most likely has a higher chance of needing rescue (pure speculation on my part) so the people who are most likely going to need rescue are going to be the least likely to buy a card.

There will have to be some discussion on rescues associated with state properties that charge entrance fees. An example is Monadnock, should everyone who pays to park also be encouraged to buy an SAR card? Obviously its voluntary but if they have to be rescued, which happens on occasion, does Fish and Game charge whatever state entity receives the revenue for parking or do they charge the person rescued?. In my opinion, I would rather surcharge the parking fee to cover rescues than try to sell SAR cards as a day user is unlikely to buy a SAR card for a dayhike and if they need to be rescued without a SAR card, I expect there may be litigation and definitely bad press.

What about youth groups, will there be a group SAR card? When the local bible camp/boy scout troop/girl scout troop decides to take 30 kids up a mountain in sneakers without water bottles or other appropriate gear and they need a rescue, did all the parents of the children need to be advised that a SAR card was needed?. Is the group responsible or is it the individual children?

I still feel that rescues are best paid for by access to the rooms and meals tax accounts with the option to go after obviously negligent hikers. Hiking is part of NH's tourist draw and if people hike some small percentage will need rescue.

 

[Craig]

I titled this post to show that IMHO the SAR card should be a one-time purchase that would cover the cost of your next F&G rescue, not an annual card. It should work like a group insurance policy, especially those life insurance policies sold at airports: many subscribers, small chance any one of them would actually need the rescue, therefore a low cost to each to be covered. It is also much lower admin costs for one purchase than for annual ones.
Creag nan drochaid

Before your post I had scratched the SARs card from my list of possible solutions. Now it is on my short list.

Thanks for your well informed posting. That’s what this thread needs.

Hmmm – “SAR card until it's used” I'm going to have to chew on that one for a bit.