New Hampshire Fish and Game Search and Rescue Funding Hearing

[Maddy]

Why not a bake sale?

Our local canine officer, Rocky, has a spaghetti supper.
It's always a big success. Great for carb loading if one is hiking.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

If NH needs to raise revenues, sales and income taxes are an option.

New taxes are political suicide in NH, so that is not very likely.

Tim

 

[bandana4me]

Can someone please tell me when people stopped taking RESPONSABILITIES for their OWN actions?

To me this is the key issue in rescues! When a person, hiker or tourist makes a decision to enter the woods under his/her own power are they NOT responsible for the decisions they make? Whether it is turn back, go right, go left, continue on…..ect. They ARE putting rescuers and volunteers in harms way and there should be no compensation for that effort?

Now on the other side of this debate is why do hunters, fisherman, ATV/snowmobile/dirt bike registrations and boaters get to fit the bill for lost hikers? If there was a FEE charged to hikers and a portion went to “free NRA training”, more ATV trails and building of docks for boats on lakes, would the hikers tolerate it or would they scream from the mountain tops? Based on responses (some not all) I see on this forum, I don’t think the hikers would stand for it!

The free lunches are over.

We do NOT need more taxes or revenue increases. We NEED for people to take responsability for their actions and PAY any fees due.

 

[Stash]

Can someone please tell me when people stopped taking RESPONSABILITIES for their OWN actions?

Personal responsibility is gone.

Opened a phone book lately? Both covers and the first 50 pages are ads for attorneys offering to represent you if you slipped on a wet floor or got in a car accident that might, if you look at it from the right angle, not be your fault. No one is responsible for making a mistake and, quite possibly, they can profit from it with the right lawyer.

How many lawsuits have already been brought forward because SAR didn't get there fast enough? Pretty soon they'll need more funding just to cover the cost of malpractice insurance.

 

[dug]

The question for me, Bandana, is not if there should be a fee, but how? I don't think the S&R charges are allocated evenly. More $$ is spent looking for people who are not "hikers" (someone please define a "hiker" for me).

If you want to take all the mystery out of it, just have a bill for 100% of the time a S&R through the F&G is used. Fine. Bill everyone who needs to be saved from the woods, trails, mountains, rivers, streams, lost old ladies, kids riding bikes in rivers, capsized canoes, etc.

 

[skiguy]

If I decide your car needs an oil change while you're out on the trail, and provide that service (whether or not you think you need it), can i bill you anyway? Just a thought.

Sure go ahead;but only if I've been negligent in my thinking.

 

[Chip]

Now on the other side of this debate is why do hunters, fisherman, ATV/snowmobile/dirt bike registrations and boaters get to fit the bill for lost hikers? If there was a FEE charged to hikers and a portion went to “free NRA training”, more ATV trails and building of docks for boats on lakes, would the hikers tolerate it or would they scream from the mountain tops? Based on responses (some not all) I see on this forum, I don’t think the hikers would stand for it!.

Many, if not most, hikers would stand for it so little it's laughable.

The free lunches are over.

We do NOT need more taxes or revenue increases. We NEED for people to take responsability for their actions and PAY any fees due.

It's already been determined SAR expenses can't be billed out per occurance, that'll never happen. You'd need to divide out a states total annual SAR operating expenses (buildings, vehicles, utilities, personnel, etc) and attempt to make only those people who need/use the service pay for it. In addition to SAR, in my mind, is also the expense of building and maintaining trailheads and trails. I think charging everybody, maybe, $50 per year for a sticker/license that pays for SAR and maintenance is fair. If separately you also have purchased a hunting and/or fishing license, you'd get some break on that, like happens now with combo licenses.

 

[Snowflea]

CORSAR card

I have climbed over 100 peaks in Colo and never saw anyplace where it was suggested I buy one (a CORSAR card), nor do I know anyone who has one.

Hardrock 100 runners are required to purchase a CORSAR card, so now you know someone who has had one, Roy. To my knowledge, no HRH runner has ever had to be rescued, however. The fee is ridiculously reasonable: $3 for a whole year! IMO, a program like this seems to be the best solution to the problem. More info here:

http://www.coloradosarboard.org/csrb-COSARFund.asp

(Edit: Oops, I see Tim S. has already linked it.)

There is one 14er in Colorado, Culebra, that is $100 to buy a pass to climb it.

This is a landowner fee that has nothing to do with S&R. It is the only legal access to the peak. If one wants to climb the adjacent high 13er, it's an additional $50. In my CO 14er quest, I chose not to climb Culebra - a matter of personal principle.

It's interesting to see the differing attitudes on S&R throughout the country. Where I now live (Ventura County, CA), a woman I know had to be helicoptered out of the Los Padres backcountry due to a very bad asthma attack. Her bill? $0. Apparently in Ventura County, helicopter rescues are covered by tax dollars. I'm not saying this is the way to go (we know what a budgetary mess California has gotten itself into!), only how attitudes w/regard to S&R vary widely across the country.

If NH needs to raise revenues, sales and income taxes are an option.

That statement is blasphemous in New Hampshire!

 

[Maddy]

Personal responsibility is gone.

.

Stash... you speak the truth!
And I doubt it's ever coming back.

 

[Kevin Rooney]

It's interesting to see the differing attitudes on S&R throughout the country. Where I now live (Ventura County, CA), a woman I know had to be helicoptered out of the Los Padres backcountry due to a very bad asthma attack. Her bill? $0. Apparently in Ventura County, helicopter rescues are covered by tax dollars. I'm not saying this is the way to go (we know what a budgetary mess California has gotten itself into!), only how attitudes w/regard to S&R vary widely across the country.

It's not just Ventura County. In California, nearly all Sheriff's Departments, and some Fire, have helicopters which are used in a variety of capacities, including SAR. There's a recent article outlining rescues and recoveries, with references to sheriff county helos, CHP helos, different Air National Guard unit helos, and a USNF helo. I know that the nearby Navy NAWS station at China Lake is often used for SAR work in the Sierra and Death Valley. The military units often comment that they'd rather be running a real mission than a training exercise. Again - it's a question of funding. California has a well-defined county government system, and the non-Federal SAR units report to the county sheriff.

http://www.inyoregister.com/node/1858

If this were to happen in NH, I suspect there'd be an epidemic of exploding heads.

 

[Tim Seaver]

From your link, Kevin:

Helicopters and rescue parties were too late in reaching a 65-year-old man from the Czech Republic. The Sheriff’s Department got a call at 6:30 p.m. on Wednesday, Oct. 5 that the man was possibly suffering from high-altitude cerebral edema on the Mt. Whitney trail.
The U.S. National Library of Medicine defines high-altitude cerebral edema as swelling of brain tissue that is usually fatal.
A hiking companion stayed with the man through the night as Inyo SAR and China Lake Mountain Rescue Group hiked through the night to the victim. When the teams reached the victim, a press release states, “he was listed as critical.”
Army National Guard of Stockton was scheduling an airlift of the victim, but the man died before the helicopter’s arrival. A CHP H80 of Victorville recovered the body that was then transported to Lone Pine Mortuary. The victim’s 58-year-old hiking companion suffered mild frostbite but was able to walk out with the SAR team.

Let's say this did happen in NH.
What do the "pay-your-own-way" people have to say about cases like this?
Should his widow or family be given the bill? What's the "responsible" thing to do when people have the temerity to die in the back country without their own private helicopter service?

At least the Western US has evolved on this issue. On this coast, not so much.

 

[Maddy]

The day has come when someone has to pay for rescues. That is a given. If it's not taxes, and not insurance, when all is said and done, the cost should fall back on the person who is rescued. "No free lunch."
"No free ride." Personal accountability.

I would prefer it to not include hikers who are injured or who die on the mountain, but at this time I see no recourse except to charge everyone. It would be too costly to have to defend each case in court when people refuse to pay, even when they are fully responsible and their own negligence resulted in their needing to be rescued.

IMHO this has been a long time coming and my gut tells me that the "Scott" case was the breaking point in NH. The powers that be resolved to deal with this problem.

If a patient has the temerity to die as h/she arrives in the ER, the hospital will bill for services rendered. The person still has to be processed, declared dead, moved to the morgue, family notified, etc. What is one to do? It is sad when the grieving family has to deal with this yet one would not say "poor guy, we don't want to upset the family so we won't send them the bill".

If h/she dies in the ambulance on route, they still bring them to the hospital. They will be charged for the ambulance and the hospital.

Years ago, our town ambulance was free but that didn't last long. You buy the yearly "pass" or pay the big bucks.

You pay for your funeral even if you are dead. They will come after your estate. They now encourage the prepay options. We can't even get out of this world on the saddest day of our lives without paying.

This day has been coming for a long time. Whatever they decide, I think the process will most definitely continue to evolve.

 

[Stash]

SAR on the (salt) water is called Coast Guard. I can't recall of a bill being sent by them - no matter the lack of experience or common sense of the boater. This is the case no matter the state or distance from shore (within the 200 mile limit). What's the real difference between being lost on the water and on land? Should the Army come after you? They're paid by federal funds and we all know those are unlimited (satire - not politics intended)

 

[roadtripper]

Where is all the money going from The Flume?? That place must rake in millions in profit each year.

 

[roadtripper]

If they determine that they absolutely have to institute some sort of fee, I'd like to see it in the form of something like a $1 per person surcharge for camping in a NH state park.

I don't want there to be any sort of charge that people would really actually notice. There shouldnt' be ANY hindrances or excuses for not getting outside. We are already a nature-deficit culture and anything that makes it worse is just completely backwards.

 

[Tim Seaver]

No, the Coast Guard does not charge for rescue. Same for the Canadian Coast Guard. And the National Park Service.

This isn't some watershed moment of personal accountability, these positions have been staked out for a LONG time.

Here is the National Association for Search and Rescue's Position Statement:

Billing for Search and Rescue (SAR) Operations - April 2009

"...A perceived or actual belief that the subject of a SAR mission will be billed for the lifesaving actions undertaken on their behalf must not delay or interfere with a timely call for help. Such delays 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. Because of these factors, and to eliminate the fear of being unable to pay for having one’s life saved, SAR services should be rendered to persons in danger or distress without subsequent costrecovery from the person(s) assisted unless prior arrangements have been made. The mission of SAR organizations is to save lives, not just the lives of those who can afford to pay the bill. As such, methods and means should be developed and used that diffuse the cost of humanitarian SAR operations among the many, allowing anyone to reasonably expect emergency aid without regard to their circumstances.

..."

And the Mountain Rescue Association:

The MRA, Rocky Mountain Region wishes to remind the public that while many governmental agencies have a need to address cost defrayment, there are already alternatives to the issue of charging for rescue - nearly every county in Colorado has an expert wilderness search and rescue team that provides professional search and rescue at NO cost and with NO plans to charge in the future. MRA, Rocky Mountain Region is composed of teams from the states of Colorado, New Mexico and Wyoming. The Teams and the Region have a long-established policy opposing charging people for the cost of search and rescue missions. These teams undergo the most rigorous accreditation process in the entire nation in technical rock rescue, search and avalanche rescue. In Colorado alone, member teams perform on average 1,000 missions per year at no charge to their subjects, or cost to taxpayers, or local government. The MRA Rocky Mountain Region is deeply concerned that the recent media focus on some municipalities and agencies policies of charging people for rescue has given the public an incorrect and potentially dangerous view of outdoor safety; and it is the clear and consistent policy of the MRA that people should never and will never be charged with paying for rescue.

Note that both position papers were put forth in April 2009, in the wake of the Scott Mason "rescue".

Can someone tell me why all these rescue organizations are wrong in their thinking, beyond throwaways about "free lunches" and the like?

 

[roadtripper]

And if they were to add a hiking fee somewhere, I think it should be somewhere where the "bang-for-the-buck" is just absolutely outstanding and the fee would not reduce the amount of visitors going to it, nor make them angry for paying.

I'm thinking something like the Falling Waters-Franconia Ridge-Old Bridle Path loop. $2 to hike that classic loop seems like quite a deal to me.

 

[RoySwkr]

SAR on the (salt) water is called Coast Guard. I can't recall of a bill being sent by them - no matter the lack of experience or common sense of the boater. This is the case no matter the state or distance from shore (within the 200 mile limit).

Ah, but the CG has decided in some instances to not provide services - if a boat has engine failure or runs out of gas in good weather, they may tell the owner to engage a private tow service or row themselves ashore.

A similar thing in NH might be that somebody who was benighted on the trail in summer might be told to either wait until daylight or hire a trail runner to rush out with a flashlight - fortunately one of the best apparently thinks this service should be free and hopefully will provide it for such.

 

[RoySwkr]

http://www.coloradosarboard.org/csrb-COSARFund.asp

(Edit: Oops, I see Tim S. has already linked it.)

That page doesn't have the statement that it raised $62k last year which might be of interest to the NH legislature, which has sworn off new fees and taxes but might well support enhanced donations

 

[Tim Seaver]

A Distortion in Every Pot!

Nobody is suggesting that the rescues should be "free". Anyone suggesting so is simply distorting the issue.
What I am against is charging the victim, as are almost all the large rescue orgs.