New Hampshire Fish and Game Search and Rescue Funding Hearing

[sierra]

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

angler is reserved for snobby fishermen where Im from.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

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

And fisher is a perfectly good term for one who fishes. But not one I've ever heard someone engaged in fishing (or angling) use. Pretty much 100% of the guys I know who fish will say "fishermen", which of course some will argue is not PC.

And those who play the piano are... not pianoers pianists. Ain't English grand?

Tim

 

[Chip]

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.

Craig, you're way deeper into this than me, and this may have been delineated previously...BUT...there's a whole lot of OHRV revenues and expenditures in the budget. Additionally there are other revenues and income.
Is that $1 surcharge the ONLY thing that funds SAR ?

 

[Craig]

Is that $1 surcharge the ONLY thing that funds SAR ?

Let me just say this first – these funds (aka dedicated accounts) are for accounting purposes. They allow the legislature to see where the money is coming from and where it's going.

RSA 206:42 effectively directs the state treasure to take the $1 surcharge from OHRV, snowmobile and boat registrations and put it in the SARs fund.

At the end of the day, yes that $1 surcharge is the only regular funding of SAR currently = $195,700

However

Money is routinely transfer between funds if there is a shortfall in one or a surplus in another.
Additionally, money is routinely transferred from the general fund (gasp, taxpayer money) to the F&G fund if there is a shortfall. Both of these take the concurrence of the legislature.

The genesis of the issue (IMO) is the legislature established a Fish and Game Department in 1935 using the tradition of “pay for the services you use”. Therefore there is an impregnable mindset (in the legislature) on generating revenues for the SAR fund from the folks that use that service. Right now that stands at 56% hikers.

 

[Craig]

Why is everyone picking on hikers?

The F&G department was established in 1935.

The F&G department was mandated with the responsibility of coordinating SAR operations in 1971.

The SAR fund was established in 1989.

From 1989 – 2006 the SAR fund had a surplus of money at the end of every year.

SAR fund first became insolvent in 2007

It appears hiker related SAR incidence started to increase in the mid 90s and it continues to rise today with no end in sight.

Year end 2007 the legislature transferred 120K from the F&G fund into the SAR fund to balance it.

Year end 2008 the legislature transferred 120K from the F&G fund into the SAR fund to balance it.

Between 2002 – 2007:
OHRV, snowmobiler and boater accounted for 100% revenues and 10% expenditures.
Hikers accounted for 0% revenues and 46% expenditures.

Consider the following summary of F&G data compiled from 2002-2006

Charts found here.

 

[Chip]

That's good info. The Residency Status might quiet a few people; It's not all Flat Landers needing rescue.

I just called Littleton Motor Sports and asked if there were a way, without registering a OHRV, to contribute that $1 surcharge directly (not that anybody would do it anyway ) and there isn't at the local level.

There is a group I haven't vetted, so won't post a link to, that appears to be a conduit for fund raising and contributions to NH SAR.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

Hikers accounted for 0% revenues and 46% expenditures.

Hikers accounted for 0% of direct SAR funding. Hikers certainly contribute revenue to the general fund through rooms and meals taxes.

See this thread and poll which, if you use the low end of everyone's response times the number of responders says they contribute:

57 voters
$12.50 * 11 + $25 * 8 + $100 * 10 + $250 * 19 + $1000 * 9 =
$137.50 + $200 + $1000 + $4,750 + $9,000 = $15,000
$15,000 * 9% = $1,350

I would hope there is general agreement that this is but a drop in the bucket (barrel even) in terms of actual hikers and their real contributions.

Tim

 

[erugs]

Another question to ask: How many "real" hikers are helping "faux" hikers, those just out for a rare hike. How many times have you redirected people (I'm not going to call them hikers just because they are on a woodland or hill country trail) on, say, Monadnock, as to the correct trail down? How many times have you provided something, like water or a bandaid, to a person you have met on the trail. Have you ever hinted that maybe a person doesn't have time to summit and get back to their car before dark and asked if they have a light? Have you ever let someone know that there is no shelter on the trail they are on, that it is on a different mountain that starts out nearby? Of course you have, if you are out as regularly as I expect readers of this posting are. In that way we are all assisting SAR by preventing a rescue.

 

[Craig]

Hikers accounted for 0% of direct SAR funding. Hikers certainly contribute revenue to the general fund through rooms and meals taxes.
Tim

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.

The genesis of the issue (IMO) is the legislature established a Fish and Game Department in 1935 using the tradition of “pay for the services you use”. Therefore there is an impregnable mindset (in the legislature) on generating revenues for the SAR fund from the folks that use that service. Right now that stands at 56% hikers.

Your statement suggests that the legislature will be open to funding SAR through an indirect mechanism. IMO - ain't gonna happen for the reasons stated above.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

Great point, Ellen. I would also suggest that many of us routinely make minor trail improvements - moving loose rocks, or branches, or any one of a bunch of other things which might prevent the next person from turning an ankle and possibly incurring a bigger injury.

Tim

 

[J.Dub]

And fisher is a perfectly good term for one who fishes. But not one I've ever heard someone engaged in fishing (or angling) use. Pretty much 100% of the guys I know who fish will say "fishermen", which of course some will argue is not PC.

And those who play the piano are... not pianoers pianists. Ain't English grand?

Billy Joel plays piano, and is the Piano Man. So there!


The footnote in Craig's chart that shows the SAR costs associated with various types of activities (hiking, boating, hunting, etc.) indicates that the costs are "primarily for personnel and do not include training, equipment or current expenses."

Given that many (most?) of SAR teams are made up of volunteers, and/or may include personnel from other organizations (i.e., state police/sheriff's department/Nat'l Guard/etc.) it makes me wonder what personnel NHF&G is paying for. Is it overtime for F&G employees overseeing/coordinating a rescue after normal business hours? Do they hire the equivalent of temporary workers for each incident to go search the woods?

If you're a F&G officer and one day you're helping bring an injured hiker off Monadnock, say, instead of stocking some lake with fish (or whatever else you'd planned to do that day), aren't you still performing duties for which you are already getting paid?

I guess I'm trying to determine if the $860K number in Craig's chart represents the incremental cost of SAR missions or is just the proportion of F&G's expenses they're allocating to SAR activites, as opposed to fish management activites, wildlife habitat activities, etc. -- i.e., the rest of what F&G does.

 

[Craig]

I guess I'm trying to determine if the $860K number in Craig's chart represents the incremental cost of SAR missions or is just the proportion of F&G's expenses they're allocating to SAR activites, as opposed to fish management activites, wildlife habitat activities, etc. -- i.e., the rest of what F&G does.

Direct costs only, as I understand it.
See my post #139

 

[erugs]

Great point, Ellen. I would also suggest that many of us routinely make minor trail improvements - moving loose rocks, or branches, or any one of a bunch of other things which might prevent the next person from turning an ankle and possibly incurring a bigger injury.

Tim

Yes, I know we are, Tim. All the time. Some of us get really proficient at flicking sticks and branches with our hiking poles, and relish kicking out dams in waterbars to watch the water flow freely on our way up. Then we get to see the difference a little kick start has made on our way down from the summit.

 

[sierra]

Yes, I know we are, Tim. All the time. Some of us get really proficient at flicking sticks and branches with our hiking poles, and relish kicking out dams in waterbars to watch the water flow freely on our way up. Then we get to see the difference a little kick start has made on our way down from the summit.

That is a very interesting observation, I have come across alot of major puddling on trails, I then clear a path off the trail to drain and upon arriving from my summit, happily notice no more standing water.

 

[erugs]

That is a very interesting observation, I have come across alot of major puddling on trails, I then clear a path off the trail to drain and upon arriving from my summit, happily notice no more standing water.

....and that is something that the "faux hikers" would never be aware of.

 

[dug]

I am curious what the $$ resources spent are to find and assist "experienced" vs. "inexperienced" hikers are (keeping in mind we are all experienced, and inexperienced, on some levels).

The flip-flop crowd may got lost or hurt, but I would think that it would be an easier assist than hauling out a grid-bagger on the Davis Path in February with a broken leg.

The largest S&R fee was the Mason case, and one could argue he was pretty experienced, but had not done that exact trip before.

No, Craig, I have no emperical data, pie charts, or graphs to prove one way or another just my curiosity and taking a contrarian view.

 

[Craig]

No, Craig, I have no emperical data, pie charts, or graphs to prove one way or another just my curiosity and taking a contrarian view.

It sucks trying to sway folks to your contrarian POV when you can't flip out reams of data to support it – don't it? lol

 

[dug]

It sucks trying to sway folks to your contrarian POV when you can't flip out reams of data to support it – don't it? lol

True, but I'm not really swaying anyone. I'm here for the entertainment and education, only. This is really good stuff. I just don't see things in black and white. Drives people mad.

 

[Craig]

Gathering factual information is tedious

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.

So why has everyone been saying, for years, that SAR is funded by Hunters and Fisherman?

The F&G department was mandate with SAR responsibility in 1971.

The SAR fund was established in 1989 to (presumably) track the money spent specifically on SAR.

From 1971 – 1989 SAR was funded from the F&G fund (major funding being hunting and fishing licenses)

When they established the SAR fund in 1989 they funded it from $1 fee on OHRV and boat registrations

In 2005 they added a $1 fee on snowmobile registrations.

So it looks like this:

1971-1989 SAR operations were funded by hunters and fisherman.
1990-2005 SAR fund was funded by OHRV and boat registrations
2006-Present SAR fund is funded by OHRV, Boat and Snowmobile registrations.

SAR fund first became insolvent in 2007

Note, they sought additional funding in 2006 just before the SAR fund went insolvent in 2007

 

[Tim Seaver]

It sucks trying to sway folks to your contrarian POV when you can't flip out reams of data to support it – don't it? lol

I disagree. If your POV is well grounded, you don't need to fluff up your post with a lot of "documentation" that doesn't actually buttress your position in the first place.