New Hampshire Fish and Game Search and Rescue Funding Hearing

[Chip]

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?

Hunting, fishing and OHRV lecenses, fees and registrations guarantee/insure the user nothing, other than access to the land. If a hunter, fisher, or OHRV'er becomes lost or injured, they are essentially a hiker looking for help. The fact that those user fees support SAR does nothing towards the potential cost to locate and extricate the user.

 

[Craig]

Hunting, fishing and OHRV lecenses, fees and registrations guarantee/insure the user nothing, other than access to the land. If a hunter, fisher, or OHRV'er becomes lost or injured, they are essentially a hiker looking for help. The fact that those user fees support SAR does nothing towards the potential cost to locate and extricate the user.

Additionally, for clarity, I have removed the free pass for hunting, fishing and off road vehicle licenses holders to reflect current law.

Chip - you are correct.

Hunters, fisherman and ORV users do not get a free pass if they require rescue and are found "negligent" under current law.

We were only proposing that as part of Creag Nan Drochaid proposal.

 

[dug]

I would go as far as to say the only reason there are licenses required for hunting and fishing is because there are resources that are removed if successful. Therefore, they need a method to track those, so you don't go over your limit. OHRV are licensed because they are a vehicle, I presume?

Maybe a fee for peakbagging, so you don't go over your limit? (No, I'm not serious.)

 

[Little Rickie]

So much of these discussions seem to be based on this being a perfect world or should be. That's just not possible. Any proposal/action will have flaws and holes that human nature will discover. It's inevitable. The best we can do is get started with a card system and tweek it as we go along. Awareness will take years to build up but with consistent effort it can work.

 

[Chip]

I would go as far as to say the only reason there are licenses required for hunting and fishing is because there are resources that are removed if successful. Therefore, they need a method to track those, so you don't go over your limit.

Partially, I guess. There are expenses associated with stocking and limit enforcement. I think most Check Stations are done by volunteers, sporting stores, etc. I still believe hiking trail and trailhead maintenance and monitoring is more expensive, but there are more volunteers to offset that, and more tourist traffic generated.

This site may have been presented before. It breaks down income and expenses for NH Fish and Game.

OHRV are licensed because they are a vehicle, I presume?

It doesn't need to be registered if I'm going to use it on my own property. Registration and joining a local club allows me access to the trail systems.

 

[Chip]

The best we can do is get started with a card system and tweek it as we go along. Awareness will take years to build up but with consistent effort it can work.

The easiest thing to do is add access to state and federal lands for hiking to Fish and Game licensing. If you're stopped without one, you buy a day pass on the spot. Like you said, though, it would take years to build awareness and acceptance by the hiking community.

 

[Craig]

I would go as far as to say the only reason there are licenses required for hunting and fishing is because there are resources that are removed if successful.

The Fish and Game department provides services related to Fishing and Hunting. The culture is, that the legislature wants the individuals receiving those services to pay for them. They achieve that through fishing and hunting licenses.

The entire Fish and Game department is set up this way.

Hence, the Fish and Game department is “self funded” (but not really, IMO)

So it is with the SAR fund. The culture is that the folks that benefit from the SAR service should pay for the service.

 

[Chip]

The Fish and Game department provides services related to Fishing and Hunting.

...and hiking.

 

[erugs]

If I needed and received a rescue, I would hope to be in a position to send SAR, or whatever group assisted me, an appropriate donation.

 

[walker]

I'm a Hiker and I Contribute

First is that hikers don't contribute like hunters, fishers and ORV'ers do with some annual license.

I disagree with this statement. Every time I hike I contribute. HOW???

I buy gasoline to get to the mountains. This includes county and State tax.

I eat. Sometimes before, sometimes after (in local restaurants), and always during my hike. These purchases always includes taxes, as well as contribute to the LOCAL economic base.

I buy supplies for my adventures. Again, I pay taxes on these items.

What am I getting at here???

Search and Rescue can be looked at as "The price of doing business". The local economy make a lot of money off of hikers, backpackers, bikers (both mountain and street), backwoods skiers, and the lonely tourist. The hell with taxing the hiker. Why are you not asking why the State of New Hampshire isn't coming up with the monies needed?

Any business person will tell you, you have to spent money to make money. And the State of New Hampshire is in the business of making money.

This is just my personal opinion. As I've stated in the past...The State of New Hampshire has to step up to the plate and start contributing to the F&G budget. Pure and simple!


I'm stepping off my soapbox now, and going back to walking in the woods and enjoying the forest. And if by chance, I need to be helped out in the forest, I know there are people out there (most of them are volunteers... THANK YOU) that will take time out of their life and come and help. And I know I will not be fined or billed, or what ever you want to call it, because I go into the forest prepared.

See you on the trail.....Walker

PS...How come no one has brought up the "What if" when it comes to the fall leaf peepers that get lost and need to be "helped out"? They (the peepers) only bring somewhere between 3 & 5 MILLION DOLLARS per season into the local economy. You want to start fining them? I think not.

 

[griffin]

I disagree with this statement. Every time I hike I contribute. HOW???

I buy gasoline to get to the mountains. This includes county and State tax.

I agree with you in general, but I think Chip meant we don't contribute directly to Fish & Game's SAR budget under the current funding scheme (for that matter, I don't think hunters do either - isn't SAR funded by a portion of OHRV fees? $1 per?)

 

[RoySwkr]

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?"

I am in no way doubting that SAR groups believe this, or that it's actually true.

Compare this to the belief of many physicians that free preventive medicine would save money on later care, and the lack of states providing such care without means testing.

Partly it's a budget issue, and partly it's a "user pays" philosophy. It's not limited to SAR. And I doubt it will change.

1 year from date of purchase - Cost = $18.00

How many people do you think hike in NH every year? It's something like 250,000 for Monadnock alone. So if every hiker paid 50 cents it would balance the budget! Suggesting $18/yr is outrageous!

The question is: is there any reasonable way to collect $1/yr from somebody except as part of another license? That's why I propose a lifetime license - by charging $20 or so you can get an income stream of $1 and ultimately the person will die or otherwise cease hiking in NH.

Hunting, fishing and OHRV lecenses, fees and registrations guarantee/insure the user nothing, other than access to the land. If a hunter, fisher, or OHRV'er becomes lost or injured, they are essentially a hiker looking for help. The fact that those user fees support SAR does nothing towards the potential cost to locate and extricate the user.

All quite true. But because these people are already paying toward SAR there is no public outcry when SAR funds are expended on them, and I haven't heard of them actually being billed.

 

[Chip]

Just playing Devil's Advocate here, mostly I agree.

First is that hikers don't contribute like hunters, fishers and ORV'ers do with some annual license.

I disagree with this statement.

You can't . It's a fact. Hikers don't contribute like hunters, fishers and ORV'ers do with some annual license.

Every time I hike I contribute. HOW???

I buy gasoline to get to the mountains. This includes county and State tax.

I eat. Sometimes before, sometimes after (in local restaurants), and always during my hike. These purchases always includes taxes, as well as contribute to the LOCAL economic base.

I buy supplies for my adventures. Again, I pay taxes on these items.

So do hunters, fishers and ORV'ers. Perhaps multiples more than hikers.

As I've stated in the past...The State of New Hampshire has to step up to the plate and start contributing to the F&G budget. Pure and simple!
.

If this were CT we were talking about, the state and local gov'ment would just raise our taxes. But expenses increase and eventually exceed the resources allocated them and you can't just keep raising taxes (although CT hasn't realized that yet).

PS...How come no one has brought up the "What if" when it comes to the fall leaf peepers that get lost and need to be "helped out"? They (the peepers) only bring somewhere between 3 & 5 MILLION DOLLARS per season into the local economy. You want to start fining them? I think not.

Great point.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

Maybe it's as simple as collection logistics? There already exists a fee for fishing, hunting, OHRV, boats, etc., and it's not a stretch to add $1 to (or subtract $1 from, if you want) the registration fee to cover SAR. I haven't seen a practical method to collect from hikers. As I mentioned before, and as Craig pointed out has been rejected by the legislature, parking fees would hit the target audience in a manner in which they are accustomed and which isn't a difficult stretch to collect on.

I started looking last night for some statistics on how much each group contributes to the economy to hopefully answer Craig's question about is it fair that the current funders pay as much as they do. I haven't found an answer yet, but I would suggest that if fair is what you want, then each group ought to pay a percentage equal to their contribution. Or maybe we use that information to lobby for general fund funding of SAR as the cost of doing business. Yes, I know this is another-lap-around-the-track (been discussed before). I suspect that the lost dementia patient may even contribute to the economy in that their housing pays taxes, and the caregivers are employed and they spend money (maybe hiking, or leaf peeping)...

Tim
p.s. Chip - a fisher is a mustelid - angler is the generic term you want
p.p.s. "Bikers" wear leather and ride Harleys. "Cyclists" wear spandex and pedal their bicycles.

 

[Craig]

More Examples

The Fish and Game department provides services related to Fishing and Hunting. The culture is, that the legislature whats the individuals receiving those services to pay for them. They achieve that through fishing and hunting licenses.

The entire Fish and Game department is set up this way.

The Fish and Game department has 22 different funds (aka dedicated accounts).
Each account serves a specific user group and each account is funded from that user group.

Examples:

Account: Statewide public boat access - RSA 233-A:13
Purpose: Public Boat Access Program
Fee: Five dollar surcharge on boat registrations

Account: Moose management fund - RSA 208:1-a III
Purpose: Comprehensive moose management program
Fee: Fees collected from moose licenses and applications

Account: Propagation of wild turkey - RSA 206:35-b
Purpose: Restoration and management of wild turkeys
Fee: Fees collected from wild turkey licenses or permits

Account: Search and rescue fund - RSA 206:42
Purpose: Search and rescue operations
Fee: The collection of an additional one dollar fee from OHRV, snowmobile, and boat registrations (doesn't include hikers, although they are 56% of the problem)

I agree with you in general, but I think Chip meant we don't contribute directly to Fish & Game's SAR budget under the current funding scheme (for that matter, I don't think hunters do either - isn't SAR funded by a portion of OHRV fees? $1 per?)

Important Note:
In my past posting I have been erroneously stating that Hunters and Fisherman contribute to the SAR fund through their license purchases.
This is not the case under current law.
When the SAR fund was established in 1989 I thought it was originally funded from hunting and fishing licenses also. It appears it has been amended 4 times since 89. I can't find that information now.

Hunters and Fisherman don't contribute to the SAR fund.

It is now only, OHRV (off highway recreational vehicles) snowmobile and boat registrations are surcharged $1. This does not include canoe or kayaks.

 

[dclynch]

Finishers Fee!

How about a fee on those who want a patch for finishing a list? Say $2 for a winter peak and $1 for the rest. This brings an annual income and targets heavy users. It is also voluntary. Guesstimate 400 finishers times 50 peaks yields about $20,000 per year. Not a full solution, but a contribution.

 

[griffin]

How many people do you think hike in NH every year? It's something like 250,000 for Monadnock alone. So if every hiker paid 50 cents it would balance the budget! Suggesting $18/yr is outrageous!

The question is: is there any reasonable way to collect $1/yr from somebody except as part of another license?

Maybe it's as simple as collection logistics? There already exists a fee for fishing, hunting, OHRV, boats, etc., and it's not a stretch to add $1 to (or subtract $1 from, if you want) the registration fee to cover SAR. I haven't seen a practical method to collect from hikers.

Sure you have! Fee tubes at trailheads or other parking areas. This would allow for a smaller, per-use fee; gets at all potential service users, whether or not the consider themselves someone who would need an SAR card or license to hike ("hike? schmike! I'm just going for a walk..."); and in some cases the collection method is already in place.

You wouldn't need them at all parking areas given the volume at some locations (which would help if you dont think we can get the Feds to cooperate in the WMNF itself), and if you had a yearly pass option (a la WMNF passes) you could give them out with OHRV decals so people who are already paying in don't get whacked twice.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

Sure you have! Fee tubes at trailheads or other parking areas.

I meant a new (as in not previously mentioned, like parking fees, and not previously rejected by the legislature) method. In fact, I mentioned this in my post in the sentence after the one you quoted.

Maybe it's as simple as collection logistics? There already exists a fee for fishing, hunting, OHRV, boats, etc., and it's not a stretch to add $1 to (or subtract $1 from, if you want) the registration fee to cover SAR. I haven't seen a practical method to collect from hikers. As I mentioned before, and as Craig pointed out has been rejected by the legislature, parking fees would hit the target audience in a manner in which they are accustomed and which isn't a difficult stretch to collect on.

There are the obvious stipulations - no overlap with WMNF parking areas (which is currently the case), i.e., state-owned parking areas like Franconia Notch, Appalachia, Bowman, etc., and the legislature would have to reconsider its previous decision rejecting parking fees.

You (griffin) have been replying about parking fees all along...

Tim

 

[griffin]

Well yes, there are a lot of ideas that some of us keep returning to (and I'm sorry I missed that part of your post)

 

[Chip]

p.s. Chip - a fisher is a mustelid - angler is the generic term you want

Those who hunt are not Huntermen. Those who hike are not Hikermen.