New Hampshire Fish and Game Search and Rescue Funding Hearing

[bikehikeskifish]

I still do not understand where the money will come from. A one-time card, purchased by frequent hikers who are unlikely to use it does not make for an on-going revenue stream. It may cover the current deficit but unless it is annual, how can you count on future revenue?

Can you please provide cost-of-card x number-of-sold with some data to support each? I don't, for example, know where the number 5167 came from in the committee recommendation, or if that number is believable.

I am an annual fishing license holder going on, oh, 30 years now So I should be covered.

Tim

 

[Creag Nan Drochaid]

Casual hikers get envelope at kiosk

Peakbagger,
Casual hikers can buy short-term SAR cards at the same places they buy "pay-and-display" parking tickets, put the pay envelope in the same iron ranger, and take the flap from the envelope with them as proof of payment. The SAR is provided by F&G, so separate payments for different agencies and the envelopes are different colors to make sorting easy, or F&G can provide their own iron warden.

Camps, Scouts, and other groups might arrange for a seasonal card with F&G.

 

[Creag Nan Drochaid]

too many variables

bikehikeskifish,
I do not know, or pretend to know, whether or when this one source of revenue will erase the annual deficit in the SAR fund. I do know that present license holders pay only $1/yr, and a $20 card would cover 20 years' worth for admin costs of 1 year. I also know that no one knows how many people would buy their SAR card on the terms I have outlined, since it has not been tried in NH, although it seems to work in CO.
I also figure that every bit helps, F&G is still free to recover expenses from rescuees judged to be reckless or negligent and cardless, and I am trying to be proactive in coming up with a fairer resolution of this issue than the study committee did. A voluntary card seems much fairer and easier to administer than (may God forbid) a hiker's license you have to have to step onto a trail, or a mandatory SAR card, with all their enforcement issues.

 

[Craig]

I still do not understand where the money will come from. A one-time card, purchased by frequent hikers who are unlikely to use it does not make for an on-going revenue stream. It may cover the current deficit but unless it is annual, how can you count on future revenue?

Can you please provide cost-of-card x number-of-sold with some data to support each? I don't, for example, know where the number 5167 came from in the committee recommendation, or if that number is believable.
Tim

Tim - You're a linear thinker, aren’t you?

What if funding wasn't the main issue. Would that create a paradigm shift for you?

 

[bikehikeskifish]

Hiker Card example - 15.00 per card x 5167 card sold = $77,500

Your proposal SAR funding shortfall = $89,492

...

Tim - You're a linear thinker, aren’t you?

What if funding wasn't the main issue. Would that create a paradigm shift for you?

The thread title is about funding. The core of the issue is about who pays for rescues. If they were fully-funded, we would not be having this discussion.

Not too many replies ago you were asking where the rest of the money would come from (presuming that 5167, a number which is unsupported, times $15 produced almost half of the 2011 shortfall.) And many replies earlier, you were chiding me for not dealing in facts. So it seems like a logical question to ask for support for the numbers. In that regard, I guess it is a linear thought progression.

I'm somewhat shocked you aren't all over this too.

Tim

 

[Craig]

Tim -

Being a linear thinker isn't a bad thing. I hope you didn't take offense.
I wasn't chiding you earlier. I was trying to shake your linear thinking.
Trying to put this issue on a spreadsheet is like trying to get Rick Perry to list 3 things. Oops.

I happen to be viewing this issue in a different light.
I don't believe the main issue is balancing the SARs fund and apparently Creag Nan Drochaid doesn't either.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

No offense taken. I appreciate the angle you've put on all of this, actually. I'm not so sure the committee or the legislature will take such a 'non-linear' approach, however.

Tim

 

[Craig]

I'm not so sure the committee or the legislature will take such a 'non-linear' approach, however.
Tim

Similar to other threads, these folks don't think like you and I.

You've got to think like the 3 major players in this game.

1. The legislature – politicians don't think for themselves. They think what their constituents think.
2. The F&G Commission – good ol boys that are working for free and care about their clubs.
3. The F&G Department – professionals that want to do their jobs and do it well, money be damned.

The study committee doesn't matter.

See my post #11

 

[RoySwkr]

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

There have been others that want to fund SAR's completely from the general fund.

I'm not sure that hunters can't be charged if they engage in truly reckless behavior but I don't believe they have been - in effect hunters as a group have been overcharged for years and deserve a little slack unless other hunters think they should be made an example of.

Advantage of funding from general fund - covers all sorts of incidents and everyone (or close to it) pays in. Disadvantage - plenty of other ways to spend the money with more popular support.

I still do not understand where the money will come from. A one-time card, purchased by frequent hikers who are unlikely to use it does not make for an on-going revenue stream. It may cover the current deficit but unless it is annual, how can you count on future revenue?

If you sold the cards as "lifetime" at $20 and invested the money at 5% that would generate $1 per year per card and eventually the cardholder would die hopefully of other causes

That is a much fairer system than charging the $10/yr or more that some folks advocate when $1 is closer to the annual cost per hiker and wsimilar to what other groups pay.

 

[Craig]

The Honeymoon Is Over

Creag Nan Drochaid -

I have summarized the proposal, as I understand it.

1. Establish a voluntary hiker card that would be valid for:

Lifetime or until you require rescue – Cost TBD – available at vendor locations
6 months or until you require rescue – Cost TBD – available at vendor locations
1 month or until you require rescue – Cost TBD – available at vendor locations
1 day or until you require rescue – Cost TBD – available at trailheads and vendor locations​

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 the duration of the valid card.
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 hiker card holders(from item #1) and license holders (from item #2).

The following are the dollars we're playing with.

Hunters, fisherman and Off road vehicle user annual contribution to the SAR fund = $195,700.00
Hikers annual contribution to the SAR fund = $0
Annual cost of SAR = $317,100.00
Difference = -121,400

By percentage, hikers annual contribution to the SAR fund should be = $177,500.00 yet hikers contribute $0

Now it's time for the tough questions.
Because you threw your proposal into the lions den, that is VFFT, I have to assume you are prepared to sell it. If not, it may be eaten.

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.

You obviously understand the need to satisfy the concerns of the varies constituents groups involved in this issue. If you don't satisfy them, any proposed solution will face much greater scrutiny by the legislature.

I still do not understand where the money will come from. A one-time card, purchased by frequent hikers who are unlikely to use it does not make for an on-going revenue stream. It may cover the current deficit but unless it is annual, how can you count on future revenue?

As you can see, there are VFFT members that feel any solution be capable of balancing the SAR fund. I'm sure this sentiment is held by many folks outside this community.

If you sold the cards as "lifetime" at $20 and invested the money at 5% that would generate $1 per year per card and eventually the cardholder would die hopefully of other causes

That is a much fairer system than charging the $10/yr or more that some folks advocate when $1 is closer to the annual cost per hiker and wsimilar to what other groups pay.

IMO any statement that addresses balancing of the SAR fund, will need to be easily understandable, clear and concise. Any attempt at creative accounting will be met head on by the interest groups that don't like hikers.

I do not know, or pretend to know, whether or when this one source of revenue will erase the annual deficit in the SAR fund. I do know that present license holders pay only $1/yr, and a $20 card would cover 20 years' worth for admin costs of 1 year.

I don't think you're going to sell your proposal by simply saying, "I do not know". Your going to have to do a lot better than that.
You're going to have to replace those "TBD" (to be determined) costs in you're proposal with real numbers and demonstrate the potential yearly revenues of your proposal.

According to the study committee report, any proposals will need to create yearly revenues of $121,400 to balance the SAR fund.

Obviously, this is a collaborative effort. No one person is going to have all the answers, but this issue seems to be the current stumbling block to pushing your proposal forward.

 

[Creag Nan Drochaid]

Hiker numbers unknown

Craig,
Like you, I would very much like to know how many hikers and tourists there be out there so it would be easy to calculate how many SAR cards at what price would raise $121,400/year. It may be possible to estimate from such measures as tourist numbers, WMNF parking passes sold, numbers of cars in trailhead parking lots over a year. I do not have access to such numbers, and must leave that to others. It is quite possible that no one knows these numbers, and no one will know those numbers if the SAR card is not tried, but does that mean we must not act when we have a part of the solution that is better than what we have now? I am only trying to propose a part of the solution that relies on voluntary contributions rather than a tax or license. I believe the Legislature is quite likely to impose some sort of tax or license (it is what they do well), which would make NH the only place in the world where you need a special license to go hiking I am trying to help hikers be seen as contributors to the solution rather than parasites.

 

[Craig]

I am trying to help hikers be seen as contributors to the solution rather than parasites.

Nice pitch line, but those will only get you so far.

Unfortunately, you can't go to the legislature with a half loaf of bread and expect everyone will be happily fed.
You're going to have to bring a full loaf with peanut-butter and jelly. If you really want them to listen to you, bring coffee and donuts too.

The study committee has published numbers that came from somewhere.
If you're pitching this to the legislature, why wouldn't you use the numbers that are already provided to them? Using “their” numbers is preferable, because you don't have to defend their origin, someone else does.

The study committee has publicly published that (someone estimates) 5167 cards will be sold. Although they didn't say it, I think it's reasonable to assume they meant annually.

Run with it dude.

 

[Creag Nan Drochaid]

From study committee's report

Craig,
Very smart strategy to use the study committee's own numbers. Their recommendations result in an income of $200,000/yr to the F&G SAR fund.
I advise readers to go back to page 14 of this thread and review them.
Where I have to differ from them is on the SAR card they propose. They would sell it online only to limit admin costs, never mind the fact that it would add much more to the SAR fund than its costs. Such limited distribution also limits most of the income from the many vendors as I propose, and it also limits most of the education/risk awareness for the buying public that having many vendors facilitates.
The committee doesn't actually say so, but let us assume they propose this card be good only for one year like a license is now. Very few people would want to pay $15 for only one year's rescue insurance. At the low end of the committee's recommended flat fees for rescues you would pay 3%/yr when most hikers hike their whole lives and never need rescue, thank God. Even worse is the notion that F&G will still bill you for your rescue if they can allege you were somehow "negligent." Earlier posts on this thread have mentioned what a vague gray area that is, and no one wants to have to decide "negligence" on the hill in a series of court cases. What the committee proposes is that the hiker pays 15 times what the hunter pays for SAR insurance and then is still at the mercy of F&G for the cost of their rescue while the hunter is exempt from same. At that point the rational choice of the hiker is to buy an annual fishing or hunting license to avoid the rescue fees entirely. Better to go with my proposal for a SAR card like an insurance policy good for your next rescue whether you were "negligent" or not. At $20 it is 20 times more money in the SAR fund from each buyer, and with many more vendors is quite likely to raise far more money for that fund than the committee's proposal.
Of course if the committee's real goal is to punish hikers who need rescue by treating them worse than hunters while denying them the chance to prove they are responsible members of the community by denying them the chance to contribute to the fund UNDER THE SAME TERMS AS HUNTERS, then their proposals are just about perfect...

 

[Little Rickie]

Even worse is the notion that F&G will still bill you for your rescue if they can allege you were somehow "negligent." ...

I don't think they would shoot themselves in the foot like that. They would take away the incentive to buy the card..

 

[Craig]

Craig,
Very smart strategy to use the study committee's own numbers. Their recommendations result in an income of $200,000/yr to the F&G SAR fund.
I advise readers to go back to page 14 of this thread and review them.
Where I have to differ from them is on the SAR card they propose. They would sell it online only to limit admin costs, never mind the fact that it would add much more to the SAR fund than its costs. Such limited distribution also limits most of the income from the many vendors as I propose, and it also limits most of the education/risk awareness for the buying public that having many vendors facilitates.
The committee doesn't actually say so, but let us assume they propose this card be good only for one year like a license is now. Very few people would want to pay $15 for only one year's rescue insurance. At the low end of the committee's recommended flat fees for rescues you would pay 3%/yr when most hikers hike their whole lives and never need rescue, thank God. Even worse is the notion that F&G will still bill you for your rescue if they can allege you were somehow "negligent." Earlier posts on this thread have mentioned what a vague gray area that is, and no one wants to have to decide "negligence" on the hill in a series of court cases. What the committee proposes is that the hiker pays 15 times what the hunter pays for SAR insurance and then is still at the mercy of F&G for the cost of their rescue while the hunter is exempt from same. At that point the rational choice of the hiker is to buy an annual fishing or hunting license to avoid the rescue fees entirely. Better to go with my proposal for a SAR card like an insurance policy good for your next rescue whether you were "negligent" or not. At $20 it is 20 times more money in the SAR fund from each buyer, and with many more vendors is quite likely to raise far more money for that fund than the committee's proposal.
Of course if the committee's real goal is to punish hikers who need rescue by treating them worse than hunters while denying them the chance to prove they are responsible members of the community by denying them the chance to contribute to the fund UNDER THE SAME TERMS AS HUNTERS, then their proposals are just about perfect...

Creag Nan Drochaid -

You're preaching to the choir right now. Leave the bullsh@t at the door for now.

We want to see numbers. Show us your yearly revenues using your 4 different hiker cards x the cost per card x the number of cards sold annually.

 

[Kevin Rooney]

...I advise readers to go back to page 14 of this thread and review them.

Since each user can set the "Number of Posts to Show Per Page" (and mine is set at the max - 40) my page 14 is probably not the same as your page 14.

Rather than refer to a page #, can you refer to a post #? Thanks.

 

[Maddy]

I just sent this message to Col Garabedian at NH F&W.


"This message if for Col. Garabedian.

There are ongoing intense discussions on our hiking forum "Views from the Top" re: paying for rescues. I had written to you previously offering some input and you were kind enough to respond to my email. I want to share with you a posting to the forums which I just submitted.


"People caught on to buying parking passes, so they will "catch on" to buying a license, card, or insurance once they comprehend what the consequences will be if they don't.

There needs to be a serious consequence if they do not. Perhaps not being able to renew your car registration would be a good one. Game over. Pay up or HIKE to work.
Problem solved!"


I think the most important thing is whatever law is passed re: SAR reimbursement, there has to be a consequence if you choose to ignore it, or we are all wasting our time.

Good luck with the upcoming legislation.

Respectfully submitted.......

 

[bikehikeskifish]

I strenuously object to there being consequences for simply hiking without a SAR card. Parking without paying results in a ticket and fine. Fishing without a license, hunting without a license, etc., ditto. Hiking without a card should not be a civil (or criminal) infraction of any kind. By consequence, I assume (and HOPE) you mean a cost-recovery process if found, uh, negligent.

Tim

 

[Tim Seaver]

There needs to be a serious consequence if they do not. Perhaps not being able to renew your car registration would be a good one. Game over. Pay up or HIKE to work

Well at least that isn't extreme. Basically the same penalty as for driving under the influence. Yeah. let's try that.

vs. the Colorado approach...

What happens if I don't have a COSAR card?

If someone does not have a Colorado Outdoor Recreation Search and Rescue Card (or one of the licenses or registrations) the county or its search and rescue team bears the expenses that might be incurred in a search or rescue. If a financially-strapped county or SAR team accrues previous un-reimbursed extraordinary costs, it may be difficult for them to properly respond to your emergency.

===

Is this "insurance?"

NO. The COSAR Card is not "insurance" nor is "insurance" needed. Sheriffs and SAR teams do not charge for SAR in Colorado, so never hesitate to call for help. Delaying a call for a SAR team can cause needless danger in a rescue, or unnecessarily complicate a search for a missing party. Always err on the side of caution and call 911 as soon as possible. County sheriffs and their search and rescue teams will respond to your emergency whether or not you have a COSAR Card.

NH seems fixated on keeping this issue as contentious as possible: retaining the right to charge victims, while continuing to deny the historical reality of delayed rescues caused by fear or repayment. Low expectations abound.

 

[J.Dub]

...[EDIT]... politicians don't think for themselves. They think what their constituents think.

Man, Craig...I laughed so hard at that one that coffee almost came out my nose!!


This is a very interesting (and pretty civil, ta boot) thread about a complicated topic.

Carry on.