New Hampshire Fish and Game Search and Rescue Funding Hearing

[Maddy]

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

YES...most definitely. I should have been more specific. AT the time that your are rescued it would become apparent that you do not have a card.

Emailed my clarification...

"A slight correction. I did not meant to imply that the rangers would be out checking cards.
It would become apparent at the time of rescue that you did not have what is required, and at that time if you refuse to pay for your rescue, you would not be able to register your vehicle. Same as traffic violations!"

 

[Creag Nan Drochaid]

report post # 205; numbers

Mr. Rooney, the post with the link to the study committee's report is # 205.

Craig, I simply cannot provide those numbers because they'd require surveys of hikers etc., especially for a voluntary SAR card. No one else can provide anything more than guesstimates of such numbers either, too many variables. Therefore I have followed your suggestion and relied on the numbers from the study committee. It is the best I can do.
What is more important than the numbers is the justice (or the lack thereof, open to debate) in the committee's recommendations.

 

[Craig]

Craig, I simply cannot provide those numbers because they'd require surveys of hikers etc., especially for a voluntary SAR card. No one else can provide anything more than guesstimates of such numbers either, too many variables. Therefore I have followed your suggestion and relied on the numbers from the study committee. It is the best I can do.
What is more important than the numbers is the justice (or the lack thereof, open to debate) in the committee's recommendations.

Creag Nan Drochaid -

The problem is, Tim gave you the heads up on Friday that this would be an issue. You had all weekend to do your homework.

Here I am on Monday asking important, substantive questions that you can't answer.
I'm going hungry on your half of loaf.

 

[Chip]

I'm not pretending to have read and incorporated every post in this excellent thread, and yet I am still compelled to chime in . Sorry.

In my mind there are 2 separate issues; First is that hikers don't contribute like hunters, fishers and ORV'ers do with some annual license. If I want to hunt, fish or operate my quad or sled anywhere other than ON MY OWN PROPERTY, I need a license or registration. That guarantees and insures me for NOTHING. It only grants legal access to the area. Hikers are spoiled if they don't think they should pay a penney towards land acquistion, trailhead and trail maintenance. It just puts that burden on "someone else".

The second issue is funding SAR every year. Their expenses continue to exist even if they never perform a Search and Rescue, so you can't just bill/fine offenders. I would pay for some sort of insurance, but then that service would need to be administered, managed and edjudicated ("I'm not paying for the ambulance, I have a SAR card !") So for every dollar the insurance costs, SAR would get some severely reduced amount.

I also feel the AMC and RMC and their members are probably providing enough financial, personnel and facilities support towards the cause.

I really feel SAR needs to get more creative with some sort of ongoing program that funds their reasonable expense fairly and voluntarily. If there were NH SAR tee shirts, mugs, stickers and patches available in most consumer businesses that operate in and around the lakes and forests, they'd probably operate at a profit.

 

[Maddy]

I really feel SAR needs to get more creative with some sort of ongoing program that funds their reasonable expense fairly and voluntarily. If there were NH SAR tee shirts, mugs, stickers and patches available in most consumer businesses that operate in and around the lakes and forests, they'd probably operate at a profit.

YES!!! I totally agree. At one time (years ago) the AMC sold really nice SAR bandanas. They appeared to be very popular and sometimes hard to come by. I used to buy them for my dogs!

I think this kinds of thing would be a great help.

 

[Kevin Rooney]

... First is that hikers don't contribute like hunters, fishers and ORV'ers do with some annual license. If I want to hunt, fish or operate my quad or sled anywhere other than ON MY OWN PROPERTY, I need a license or registration. That guarantees and insures me for NOTHING. It only grants legal access to the area. Hikers are spoiled if they don't think they should pay a penney towards land acquistion, trailhead and trail maintenance. It just puts that burden on "someone else".

I think the hiking community DOES contribute in much the same way as hunters, fishers and ORV'ers thru the various user fees of National Forest Service parking passes, and National Park Service entrance fees or yearly passes. This is real money spent by the hiking community. Granted, little of it may find its way directly to the State of NH F&G SAR fund, but that's an issue of resource distribution that our elected officials have to remedy.

Before I turned 62 I paid far more in USFS and USPS fees than I ever paid in annual hunting and fishing licenses.

Sorry, Chip - I think your first point doesn't hold up.

 

[daxs]

Unless there is some type of federal regulation allowing it, the CG is never going to charge for a rescue. Here in Cape May NJ, the CG works closely with SeaTow for non emergent situations. However, the CG has towed in boats that have run out of gas or lost power. It depends on the situation. Also, the CG will go out in weather that no private operator would consider. For medical rescues requiring a helo, the case must be discussed with an aviation medical officer before the helo can be deployed. BTW, the CG is responsible for some "non salt" water safety. Bodies of water that lie on state lines are CG responsibility. Think Lake Champlain, The Hudson and Mississippi rivers etc.

 

[Little Rickie]

Drift

http://www.vftt.org/forums/showthread.php?t=42663

 

[Chip]

Sorry, Chip - I think your first point doesn't hold up.

Maybe not ! I was speaking soley of hiking in New Hampshire. If I only hike in the WMNF, don't visit another NP, don't belong to AMC or RMC or stay at their facilities, don't register an ORV, fish or hunt, how am I contributing to the costs of land acquisition, trailhead and trail maintenace...in the WMNF ? Again, this is separate from SAR expenses. I apologize if this has already been specifically discussed. If so, please point me to Post #.

 

[Craig]

Lets look at this together

Creag Nan Drochaid -

I hope you weren't offended by my course responses. If you were, I apologize.
I like your proposal, but I didn't want to sell it. I wanted you to sell it.

If this issue was easy, it would have been solved long ago.

I've put some numbers together base upon your proposal and come up with the following.

Total Yearly Hiker Cards Sold = 5167

Lifetime or until you require rescue – Cost = $50 x (5% of yearly cards sold) 258 = $12,900

6 months or until you require rescue – Cost = $20 x (5% of yearly cards sold) 258 = $5,160

1 month or until you require rescue – Cost = $5 x (10% of yearly cards sold) 517 = $2,585

1 day or until you require rescue – Cost = $3 x (80% of yearly cards sold) 4134 = $12,400

Total Yearly Revenue = $33,045

Does that sound about right?

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.

Lets collaborate on these numbers, shall we?

 

[bikehikeskifish]

IF this system came to play, and IF I were to participate, I would like the annual option (I doubt that any agency would want to commit to a lifetime option), AND I would like to be able to settle this at the same time and on the same schedule as my annual parking pass.

Tim

 

[Maddy]

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...
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.

I think there is an expectation in life that we pay our way. I have paid out close to$10000 for my 1yr old Berner in the last year. I knew from past experience that vet care was very costly. I hoped she would be healthy. She was not. It is now MY responsibility to find the money to pay these bills.

If they establish a "law" that we pay for our rescues, we would (I hope) be warned. If for any reason we don't feel we can afford it, we can go walk in the local park. Did the vet hospital say "fear not, we will not charge you to treat your dog. You made a bad decision knowing you could not afford her, and now we will pick up the tab. I think not.

We venture out knowing full well that something untoward and most undesirable might happen on our hike. If we need to pay for our rescue, so be it.
If your finances are such you cannot afford it, go fishing.

My neighbor told me he has no collision on his $25000 brand new car. He does not believe in it. Some uninsured driver totals it and he is out a very large some of money if he cannot recoup those losses. Could be that very soon, if we are "uninsured" hikers, we just might have to do the same. We will know in ample time if we need to protect ourselves from a great financial loss if we need a rescue. The rest is up to us.

I think it's really lame if you get yourself into a situation where you know right well that something bad can happen, and when it does you turn the onus back on SAR, saying "I cannot call for a rescue because I can't afford it". The fact that you are not calling implies to me that you knew you would be charged if your luck ran out and you engaged in this activity regardless.

 

[Tim Seaver]

I think it's really lame if you get yourself into a situation where you know right well that something bad can happen, and when it does you turn the onus back on SAR, saying "I cannot call for a rescue because I can't afford it". The fact that you are not calling implies to me that you knew you would be charged if your luck ran out and you engaged in this activity regardless.

And I am sure that there are many people that share that viewpoint. Especially among longtime Union Leader readers.

Personally, I am going with the position of NASAR and the MRA:

Charley Shimanski, president of the Mountain Rescue Association, echoed Rollins when he told me, “I once led a rescue of a climber at 14,000 feet in a raging blizzard at 1 a.m. Conditions were horrific. The man’s wife knew he was overdue six hours earlier—when the weather was great—but did not call for help because she thought we charge a fee.”

A position paper released around the same time as Mason’s ordeal by North Shore Rescue in Vancouver, British Columbia, states, “It is essential that the team be called out as quickly as possible . . . There have been instances in the past where the subject has deliberately tried to avoid the searchers . . . thinking, If I get to the car park before they find me, then I won’t be charged. This makes our job substantially more difficult.”

The same month, the National Association for Search & Rescue issued its own statement against charging for rescue. It said that delays in calling for help, “can, at the minimum, cause further danger to the person in peril and, at the maximum, place their life in jeopardy. Delays can place SAR personnel in extreme danger and unnecessarily compound and extend the length of the SAR mission.”

These aren't the positions of responsibility shirking freeloaders, they are the words of people who are actually engaged in SAR.

 

[Maddy]

I think it's really lame if you get yourself into a situation where you know right well that something bad can happen, and when it does you turn the onus back on SAR, saying "I cannot call for a rescue because I can't afford it". The fact that you are not calling implies to me that you knew you would be charged if your luck ran out, and you engaged in this activity regardless.

Let me go back to my "pup" analogy. You buy a dog, you know you have no money to pay for it's health care if it gets sick. You ignore that fact, take it home and bingo... the little lady becomes gravely ill. You don't take her to vet because you have no money. Does this make an ounce of sense?
I bring this up because it's a great example of "I WANT" and that takes precedence over reality.
Now on to hiking...
You go hiking when conditions were most likely forecast to be horrific. You totally disregard the fact that you could be injured/lost and need a rescue. You know you have no money to pay for that rescue and that the policy is they charge for rescues. You go regardless because your personal "wants" takes precedence over the mess you could very well be getting yourself into, and the lives that will be endangered when you fail to call for a rescue in a timely way.
Is this responsible behavior??? It seems like a legitimate question.

BTW...I don't read the Union Leader comments. If they are advocating personal responsibility and respect for others who might be involved in SAR missions, I'm all for it.

 

[Kevin Rooney]

...You go hiking when conditions were most likely forecast to be horrific.

Hmm ... do you know of anyone who has done this and needed SAR efforts? I mean, deliberately, after obtaining a weather forecast? Some have been caught in bad weather and it could be argued they should have obtained a weather forecast first, but you're suggesting someone deliberately goes out in bad weather.

Sorry, Maddy - I think you're grasping at straws to support your "pound of flesh" point-of-view.

 

[Maddy]

Hmm ... do you know of anyone who has done this and needed SAR efforts? I mean, deliberately, after obtaining a weather forecast? Some have been caught in bad weather and it could be argued they should have obtained a weather forecast first, but you're suggesting someone deliberately goes out in bad weather.

Sorry, Maddy - I think you're grasping at straws to support your "pound of flesh" point-of-view.

I have a two different friends who did it several years apart. Fortunately they did not need a rescue but I can tell you that it could have gone either way. Close calls both times.

The second one, on her return came to me and said..."Your prediction came true. I almost died on Mt W. I was never more scared in my life and I will never go back there again. " She never did.

The other learned his lesson to.

I don't know exactly what you mean by my "pound of flesh point of view". Is that worse that being compared to the "longtime Union leader commentators"?

If you all think I am making this up to support my point of view, or my "pound of flesh point of view" (whatever it means), so be it.

Speaking only for myself, I can honestly say that I have given a lot of thought to what I would do if I needed a rescue. I came to the conclusion that if they felt I was negligent for any number of reasons, I would do whatever it took to pay my bill (even if it was cruel and excessive). I insist on it! I would be very grateful for the help. No whining, no lawyers.

Sorry if I offended anyone. I was just trying to make a point about personal accountability. Seems I might have crossed the line by bringing this up.

I certainly hope they can work it all out and we can all move on from there.

ADDENDUM: THANKS WWW
"In a figurative sense, then, "a pound of flesh" can be used to describe payment which is excessive or cruel. Likewise, a person who insists on an excessive or unfair payment can be said to be insisting on his pound of flesh as Shylock did."

 

[Tim Seaver]

Sorry if I offended anyone. I was just trying to make a point about personal accountability. Seems I might have crossed the line by bringing this up.

No harm done - I am all for a spirited conversation on the matter

I guess what I am trying to figure out is how people can reconcile their "personal responsibility" angle on this with the clearly stated wishes of the major SAR groups.

Are you saying that they are all wrong ( the major SAR orgs) when they speak in essentially one loud voice that says "Please don't charge people for rescue, because the end result is that it puts US, the SAR people, at risk?"

For me, it's less about holding people accountable, as noble and universal as that notion may be, and more about listening to what the experts in the field are saying.

 

[dug]

Sheesh, I've been caught in a storm that got much worse than it was forecasted when I left the trail head 4 days earlier. I've slipped on a rock and fallen, and almost smacked my head on the way down. I could've very easily laid there for hours, freezing in the process.

I'd hate to think I was considered negligent because I was out in that weather.

Is there a means of communication that requires I check before going out in the weather. Shall I search for the best, most optimistic forecast I can find, and keep a copy with me so if they do try to charge me, and I produce my printout from WYXZ's "Sunny Sam the Weather Man"?

 

[Craig]

Although I think it's clear that revenues from a hiker card aren't going to balance the SAR fund, I do believe there is value in its implementation.

I am a firm believer in education as a component of lowering health and safety accidents/incidents.
Therefore, I believe any long term solution to this problem will/should have a heavy educational component.

A hiker card would:
1. Generate revenue for the SAR fund from specifically hikers
2. It would get the word out about SARs underfunding, SAR cost recovery for negligent hikers and hiker responsibility.
3. The increase in education and awareness is likely to lower the yearly hiker SAR incidence, thereby saving money.
4. It would give folks a guaranteed “security blanket” from a potentially large SAR charge.

Because there seems to be interest in this concept and for the reasons listed above, I believe it should be on the short list of solutions and I'm going to keep this as part of the solution for now.
I agree with Tim in that there is no incentive to have a lifetime hiker card. In fact there is a disincentive in that a lifetime hiker card will limit future revenues.
In an attempt to make this as simple as possible I'm going to show it the way the study committee recommended. Additionally, for clarity, I have removed the free pass for hunting, fishing and off road vehicle licenses holders to reflect current law.

I have summarized the proposal

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

1 year from date of purchase - Cost = $18.00

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 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).

The following are the dollars we're playing with now.

Hunters, fisherman and Off road vehicle user annual contribution to the SAR fund = $195,700.00
Hikers annual contribution to the SAR fund via Hiker Card = $77,500.00
Annual cost of SAR = $317,100.00
Difference = -$43,900

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.

We should look at the hunting, fishing and ORV user yearly contributions next. Is it fare they are paying $195,700 per year?

 

[Maddy]

Tim...I reconcile it by looking at it this way.

If you know you have absolutely no money to pay for your rescue, yet you make a conscious decision to hike in an area where you are well aware that they charge for rescue, you bear responsibility if things don't work out so well. You, and you alone made the decision to take it on regardless of the outcome. We all know we can sustain a serious injury in a split second.

Now you are injured or the storm blows in. You did not carry enough gear to stay warm. You thought you could beat the storm that you hoped would not materialize. Now you are way too slow and very cold. You make another decision that you will not call for rescue because you can't afford it. You knew this prior to leaving the house. This for me is where the personal accountability comes in.

The end result is you risk other people's lives by waiting it out and create an ever bigger mess for all concerned. And for this reason they should not charge for rescues? Great idea if they can find funding elsewhere. It appears that NH cannot.

Do we have any real numbers, percentages of people who do not call for rescue in all these areas where people have to pay? I am not saying they are wrong but perhaps it can no longer continue at least in the areas when the organizations are having serious financial difficulties.

I would much rather not have to pay for rescue. It would not make my day but it appears that something has to give. We live in different times now. There is no more "All the soup you can eat and free bread for 3 bucks at Pinkham until 4pm". Those days are gone.

What other activity can one engage in where services are provided and one does not have to pay?

Soo this is where I am coming from. I don't want this any more than any one else does but I see no other way out. Tshirts and bandanas would surely be nice though.