New Hampshire Fish and Game Search and Rescue Funding Hearing

[Brambor]

That would really tick me off.

Furthermore, from a user standpoint, why should someone have a chopper rescue shoved down his/her throat if neither s/he nor any family/friends requested it?

 

[Stash]

911 responses (police, fire) are paid for my local/municipal/town/property taxes
The Coast Guard is paid for by federal taxes
...
NH F&G is self-funded - they get no money from taxes. THIS is the crux of the problem.

Note my earlier statement...

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)

As for the details of MAYDAY, PAN PAN, 911, etc the point is the authority is contacted and they respond. In the two instances I had direct communication with CG I contacted them on ch 16. We discussed the situation. In once instance they retrieved an injured crew member. In the other I contacted them hourly with position and status during a rather nasty storm. In neither case was I or the boat's owner billed.

 

[MichaelJ]

Let's take this up a notch. Fish and Game, along with many other organizations, is now involved in the search for Devin Frenette, age 9, missing from his home in Hampstead since Monday afternoon.

If "everyone across the board" has to pay for search and rescue services, then shouldn't this family have to pay Fish & Game for their contributions to the search for their child?

I'm guessing a lot of people would say no they shouldn't, and I would then ask them to justify why the difference.

Then again, maybe I'm guessing wrong. What do you think?

 

[Chip]

What about a toll ? I admit to feeling (slightly) guilty driving through VT on 91 to 302 or 93 to get to Bethlehem. No toll and we rarely stop in VT for anything (though there's a good, convenient station in Wells River I may use more). There's no toll on northern 93, either. EZ Pass is pretty ubiquitous. Why not merge the budgets of SAR, Trailhead Maintenance and the Highway Dept ? Why not throw up a couple tolls on northern 93, 95 in NH and 89 ? You could even eliminate 1 or 2 on 93 then, make that commute easier. I'd put one on 2, 302 and 16 too, to catch the Mainers, but that may be onerous.

 

[Tim Seaver]

The question here again is: Why is there no personal responsibility for those who REQUESTED assistance? The person is asking for and is in need of assistance and yet there should be no compensation from the person asking for help?

Simple - because the specter of possible reimbursement has been proven to make people in trouble delay their call for assistance to the point that it endangers their lives and the lives of the SAR folks. there is no shortage of supporting documentation for anyone that genuinely is interested in the "facts".

Human behavior doesn't magically change inside NH's hallowed borders, so I reject the notion that NH can create it's own alternate reality.

Maybe NH could just secede and that would solve this whole tempest a teapot?

 

[RoySwkr]

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.

That's a very clever idea, as the public might object to paying for a rescue of someone they saw as reckless even though the race statistics show the opposite.

Similarly, the "Eagle Scout" case doesn't seem to have kept families away from NH because most people see that as an extreme event they would never be involved in - they would object if NH charged for helping people who twisted an ankle or whose flashlight conked out which is something they see as possibly happening to them. To the extent that this policy gets reckless people lost in VT instead, I'm all for it

Furthermore, from a user standpoint, why should someone have a chopper rescue shoved down his/her throat if neither s/he nor any family/friends requested it? I agree wholeheartedly with paying one's way, through insurance and/or reasonable user fees, but it's not reasonable to have a $25000 expense descend upon you like Special Forces with lame-o due process (F&G is both judge and jury?). It's unAmerican, xenophobic and infantile.

In the "Eagle Scout" case, it was the "helicopter mother" who insisted on hiring an expensive helicopter that proved useless, too bad F&G didn't tell her in advance to pay

More significant, there is at least as much due process here as in any legal matter. F&G decides who and how much to charge, but this request is reviewed by the Attorney General's office who must decide if they can defend it, and it can be challenged in court.

If "everyone across the board" has to pay for search and rescue services, then shouldn't this family have to pay Fish & Game for their contributions to the search for their child?

First off, at present not everyone has to pay - only those deemed negligent. Presumably nobody will deem a 9-year-old negligent. I'm not sure whether the law allows charging someone for a search caused by their negligence if it wasn't them that got lost. In a case a few years back, some "better" party members continued with a thru-hike as planned and some "lesser" party members turned back and got lost. The "lesser" members got a bill while the "better" ones did not although some might say that leaving the others to find their way was negligent.

 

[Brambor]

I have issues with tolls and available pods of money. Once the public is taxed and the money is there then the 'shopping spree' begins, people get hired full time, 'directors' get raises and SAR resources get used even when there is NO work for them. We all know how police/ambulance and firefighters all come to the scene where only one of these is needed.

Practice for firefighters but money wasted.

What about a toll ? I admit to feeling (slightly) guilty driving through VT on 91 to 302 or 93 to get to Bethlehem. No toll and we rarely stop in VT for anything (though there's a good, convenient station in Wells River I may use more). There's no toll on northern 93, either. EZ Pass is pretty ubiquitous. Why not merge the budgets of SAR, Trailhead Maintenance and the Highway Dept ? Why not throw up a couple tolls on northern 93, 95 in NH and 89 ? You could even eliminate 1 or 2 on 93 then, make that commute easier. I'd put one on 2, 302 and 16 too, to catch the Mainers, but that may be onerous.

 

[Little Rickie]

Maybe it would be best to direct all this energy here?

The hearing is tentatively scheduled for Tuesday October 18 at 11 AM; location is so far undetermined, but would most likely be either the State House or the Legislative Office Building in Concord. Since day, time, and place of such meetings can change, it would be best for anyone planning a trip to Concord to keep an eye on the Committee’s webpage at

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/statstudcomm/details.aspx?id=2059&rbl=1&txtreportduedate=11/01/2011

even up to the morning of the hearing.[/FONT]

 

[Chip]

Maybe it would be best to direct all this energy here?

The hearing is tentatively scheduled for Tuesday October 18 at 11 AM;

only if the DeLorean is gassed up .

I have issues with tolls and available pods of money.

I get that. Bureaucracy eats cash and I prefer less government, but certain services need to be funded equitably.

 

[TCD]

The health care copay analogy might not be perfect - but I believe there IS a middle way. Discussion on this has become quite polarized between two positions:

"Jam a helicopter charge down everyone's throat and drive these Mass. people out of our state."

"All rescues have to be absolutely no charge to the rescuee, NO EXCEPTIONS, regardless whether its a prank call, deliberately hiked into closed area, injured themselves while vandalizing a facility, etc. Taxpayers and responsible users will happily carry all of this."

Good luck finding the middle ground at the hearing.

(On a disappointing, but typical note, I see that the hearing is scheduled at a time when most working taxpayers will be *working*, and unable to attend.)

 

[dr_wu002]

"Jam a helicopter charge down everyone's throat and drive these Mass. people out of our state."

I have a question about this though. Will this really stop Massholes from coming to NH to hike? I sort of doubt it. If people list pro's and con's of coming up to hike in the Whites, I'm sure the "being charged $8 million for a helicopter rescue" would be on the list but not in the top ten, maybe. Also, what % of people that are coming up from parts of New England (even NH) are actually aware that they can be charged.

I don't really have an opinion on this stuff at all. If I get picked up by a helicopter I hope they get up to 10,000' and fling me out the door...

-Dr. Wu

 

[Craig]

Still spinning our wheels

To Craig and his request for facts. This wasn't a fact-finding thread (per-se) to begin with. It was notice of a hearing to discuss funding options, which we have done. There have been several suggestions discussed. I suggested earlier:

Of course the problem with discussions comprised entirely of opinions is, opinions may be based upon information that is incorrect, misleading or otherwise erroneous. Therefore the discussion may be meaningless and fruitless.

...after 6 pages of graffiti and no facts I'm so spun around I've forgotten what the issue is.

NH F&G is self-funded - they get no money from taxes. THIS is the crux of the problem.

Thank you for concisely defining the issue.

For the sake of the readership, that may be trying to understand this issue, can you provide facts to support the statement "they get no money from taxes"?

You'll continue to get extra points for being succinct and using no big words or idioms.

 

[Little Rickie]

only if the DeLorean is gassed up .
.

Smart ass.

I'm just saying if people did something about this it would be a much better use of time and energy if they directed it toward the people that need to hear it the most.

I am also quite confident there will be more meetings about this.

So gas up folks!

 

[DougPaul]

The health care copay analogy might not be perfect -

The commonality is that the copay/fee encourages the customers to let the situation get worse before calling for help.

but I believe there IS a middle way. Discussion on this has become quite polarized between two positions:

"Jam a helicopter charge down everyone's throat and drive these Mass. people out of our state."

"All rescues have to be absolutely no charge to the rescuee, NO EXCEPTIONS, regardless whether its a prank call, deliberately hiked into closed area, injured themselves while vandalizing a facility, etc. Taxpayers and responsible users will happily carry all of this."

The NH economy is highly dependent upon tourism. Supporting tourist (from Mass. or any other place) emergencies is a cost of tourism and should be funded as such (ie out of taxes obtained directly or indirectly from tourism).

Good luck finding the middle ground at the hearing.

This problem is rooted in a deficient structure for funding of the state functions in general and mountain rescue in specific. I agree that the situation has become so polarized that reaching a rational solution is unlikely or at least very difficult.

There used to be a web page by a respected NH mountain guide stating that NH not only had a poor structure for funding rescue but had structured their rescue system in a way that needlessly increased the costs. Unfortunately it appears to have been removed so I cannot post a link.

Doug

 

[bikehikeskifish]

For the sake of the readership, that may be trying to understand this issue, can you provide facts to support the statement "they get no money from taxes"?

You'll continue to get extra points for being succinct and using no big words or idioms.

http://www.wildlife.state.nh.us/Inside_FandG/funding.htm and more specifically http://www.wildlife.state.nh.us/Inside_FandG/pie_charts.htm:

Income

Expenses

From http://www.wildlife.state.nh.us/Inside_FandG/funding_QandA.htm:

Less than 0.2% (two-tenths of a percent) of the department’s revenue comes from the state General Fund, and that is earmarked for the Nongame and Endangered Species Program. Most people don’t know that their tax dollars do not fund the department.

Tim

 

[Craig]

Thank you for being concise, unfortunately that doesn't answer my question.

...can you provide facts to support the statement "they get no money from taxes"?

http://www.wildlife.state.nh.us/Insi...pie_charts.htm

 

[bikehikeskifish]

I decided I was too concise, so I edited my reply to include the last quoted statement, including a link to the page from which I quoted it. And so everyone didn't need to click the links, I included the pie charts directly.

Thank you for being concise, unfortunately that doesn't answer my question.

From http://www.wildlife.state.nh.us/Inside_FandG/funding_QandA.htm:

Less than 0.2% (two-tenths of a percent) of the department’s revenue comes from the state General Fund, and that is earmarked for the Nongame and Endangered Species Program. Most people don’t know that their tax dollars do not fund the department.

Tim

 

[Craig]

Thank you for being (not so ) concise, unfortunately that doesn't answer my question.

Less than 0.2% (two-tenths of a percent) of the department’s revenue comes from the state General Fund, and that is earmarked for the Nongame and Endangered Species Program. Most people don’t know that their tax dollars do not fund the department.

That quote speaks to the F&G department not the SARs fund.

 

[Tim Seaver]

Most people don’t know that their tax dollars do not fund the department.

...and that's a huge part of the problem, I think.

The ignorance on the funding issue is quite widespread - I have even encountered a person within the NH SAR community who was under the impression that "their tax dollars" were funding SAR.

The funny thing, even if it WAS entirely funded by taxpayer money, the amount paid per person would be measured in pennies if not fractions of a penny. Whole lotta hollering about nothing.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

Thank you for being (not so ) concise, unfortunately that doesn't answer my question.

My statement, which you asked me to support was

NH F&G is self-funded - they get no money from taxes.

I did not say SAR operations were self-funded, only that F&G was, which I think I have substantiated, or attempted to at least as much (or more) than any other claim or opinion in this thread.

However, by transitivity, from http://www.wildlife.state.nh.us/Inside_FandG/division_duties.htm

The Law Enforcement Division enforcement all laws, rules and regulations pertaining to fish and wildlife. They also, by law, have responsibility for search and rescue operations and for enforcement of off-highway recreational vehicle regulations.

we can learn that SAR operations are the mandate of NH F&G and from the pie chart we can see that in FY2010 they spent $5,220,738.

The only thing that is questionable (in my opinion) is the taxes from unrefunded gas taxes. This applies to road taxes on fuel sold at marinas, which is refundable if one applies to have it refunded. If everyone did, then this amount would go to zero, and the word "taxes" would not appear at all in the income pie chart. I will concede that 0.2% comes from the general fund, but that specifically is earmarked for use other than SAR.

Finally, I found it interesting that the license fees generate 30% of income while SAR accounts for 20% of expenses.

You can poke around the F&G site for yourself, you know

Tim