NH F&G in the RED!!!!! Again

[bandana4me]

I know this is a sore subject on this forum but.....

http://www.unionleader.com/article....rticleId=17d3da83-a8b6-4fa1-adde-9387603ba1a3

NH F&G is crying poverty, again.

 

[Tom Rankin]

"The continual cost of the missions is forcing him to make cutbacks in hiker education, including program funding for Hike Safe. "

I think this statement gets the A$$ backwards award. The 'Hike Safe' program should REDUCE the number of calls they will get.

 

[Kevin Rooney]

"The continual cost of the missions is forcing him to make cutbacks in hiker education, including program funding for Hike Safe. "

I think this statement gets the A$$ backwards award. The 'Hike Safe' program should REDUCE the number of calls they will get.

Agreed. But, they're forestry majors, not sociology.

 

[--M.]

"Sore"?

It's da gubbimint gettin' it rong agin: If there's a legitimate need for a program (is SAR a legitimate government program?), then the administrators are charged with the duty of, uh, administering a funding mechanism. Looks like they (F&G) need to do a better job in the halls of Concord finding a way not to be irresponsibly poor.

I know this because in Massachusetts, we aren't afraid of taxes (they way New Hampshirites are fearless in the face of death).

How's that?

 

[SteveHiker]

Best. Union Leader comment. Ever.

Sometimes its good to know what you're talking about - although unfortunately not required for the UL comments section.

 

[peakbagger]

IMHO I am not a fan of stating that NHF&G is "crying wolf". Like any other state department they have to live on a budget approved by the legislature, they dont have a piggy bank to dig into. Hiker S&R is a big unfunded liability that currently is subsidized by fees on other recreational sports. The legislature has elected to impose a unfunded liability for S&R and therefore the department has to cut the remaining available budget. When they do attempt to collect to cover part of the S&R costs, they get nailed in the press and the public.

"Crying Wolf" implies that they are making false statements, I dont see that in the article, they are stating what they need to do to end up the year with a balanced budget, granted its distasteful, but voluntary training budgets are going have to get sacrificed if the alternative is to not fund S&R. I would not want to be the one in a rescue situation that is told that Fish and Game cant do a rescue as there is no funding left in the budget.

As discussed many times on VFFT, inadequate S&R funding in NH is a long term issue, but the solution lies in the legislature's hands, not Fish and Game's and therefore any criticism lies on the legislature.

 

[--M.]

As discussed many times on VFFT, inadequate S&R funding in NH is a long term issue, but the solution lies in the legislature's hands, not Fish and Game's and therefore any criticism lies on the legislature.

No, respectfully, F&G's responsibility as an organism is to get its own food. They need to do a better job designing and selling a funding mechanism. It's their onus, not the legislature's, at least at this stage.

I may be completely ill-informed on this (and therefore qualified to comment), but show me how F&G has done its job in marketing its raison d'etre.

Or are they trying to convince the state/community that they're too incompetent for negotiating state government and therefore shouldn't have responsibilities commensurate with those of the other state agencies?

 

[Bob]

FISH and GAME

I am sick of my fishing license fees paying for rescues.
It's the FISH and GAME dept; not 'outdoor recreation', or 'SAR' department

 

[Maddy]

What could we do to help?

Any suggestions?

I really want them to be available to save my sorry bacon if I desperately need them. I would support whatever it took to keep them in the "black".

From my experience I don't think too many inexperienced hikers have any knowledge that Hike Safe exists and what all it entails. Many wander the Whites clueless thinking it's not a big deal. The sun sets and out comes the cell phone.
It's no wonder they are in the "red".

F&G are not fools. They will find a solution and it might not be one we want to live with but here is our opportunity to help make a difference. We could forward suggestions to them with positive input to help solve the problem. There are lots are very intelligent people on VFTT who have a lot to offer. Why not give it a shot?

We could one day find ourselves in a situation when then are suddenly our "new best friend".
Why wait?

 

[DrJJFate]

No, respectfully, F&G's responsibility as an organism is to get its own food. They need to do a better job designing and selling a funding mechanism. It's their onus, not the legislature's, at least at this stage.

I may be completely ill-informed on this (and therefore qualified to comment), but show me how F&G has done its job in marketing its raison d'etre.

Or are they trying to convince the state/community that they're too incompetent for negotiating state government and therefore shouldn't have responsibilities commensurate with those of the other state agencies?

The problem is not F&G doing little to prove it's own worth, but rather it is the little value eveyone else places in them. Hikers (in the east) turn their collective noses up at the mention of rescue insurance, yet expect rescue when in trouble without financial repercussion; hunters and fisherman/women are a primary source of F&G's revenue through license sales, but are resentful because they see benefits other than regulation.

If they want to prove their reason for being, have them place signs at trailheads stating:

F&G will be happy to rescue you if you are lost or injured. Rescues cost money and you have two options:
1) Buy a rescue insurance card at the Ranger Station for $3.00 for the first week, and $2.00 for each additional, consecutive week.
2) Be billed for full cost of rescue (costs could exceed $5000.00)

Good luck. Happy Hiking.

In this approach, all the hiking public, novices and the experienced alike, know that
1) F&G is involved in rescues
2) Rescues cost money
3) If you choose not to purchase the optional insurance, you will be billed.

 

[erugs]

What could we do to help?...Any suggestions?...Many wander the Whites clueless thinking it's not a big deal....There are lots are very intelligent people on VFTT who have a lot to offer. Why not give it a shot?

We could one day find ourselves in a situation when then are suddenly our "new best friend".
Why wait?

Some good ideas, Maddy. Why spend our efforts complaining when brain storming for ideas could have an effect. Who knows, F&G are outdoors types and may be our friends here.

So here's my thought: As Kevin and others said, I agree education is key, but perhaps a slick "Hike Safe" type program isn't catching the attention it is intended to. I'm not sure the best way to "market" without being slick, though. Every time we're out in the mountains we see the clueless wandering, and I was one myself some years ago. Last weekend we saw a teen sitting along the trail who was suffering with an ugly broken blister on a toe. Though pleasant, he stoically refused my first aid and looked surprised when I asked him if the low-cut, white sock he was wearing was cotton, which it appeared to be. Maybe he'll think about my comment, or the lightbulb will shine brighter if he reads about better socks in the future.

 

[griffin]

I agree education is key, but perhaps a slick "Hike Safe" type program isn't catching the attention it is intended to.

I'm not convinced education is really the issue here. Cluelessness and inexperience (not to mention outright stupidity) certainly play a role in creating rescue situations. But accidents happen and even smart, experienced hikers make mistakes.

Prevention is great, but that still leaves us with the question of, from a public policy and public SAFETY standpoint, what's the fairest and most reasonable way to fund the SAR operations that do happen.

 

[dr_wu002]

I am sick of my fishing license fees paying for rescues.
It's the FISH and GAME dept; not 'outdoor recreation', or 'SAR' department

Exactly. And raising taxes to help compensate is not the solution. Neither is "education" - doesn't seem like it's working so waste of money. Solution: you need to be rescued, you pay the bill like a getting towed by a tow truck or going to the ER. And if that's a problem, F&G can contract out S&R to a private company and they'll bill you. Why is this so difficult to understand?

Morons should pay regardless -- maybe they'll learn that way because the "education" nonsense isn't working. And competent hikers: well, much like getting your car broken into at the trail head, sometimes your unlucky number is called. I would say purchase "hiker" insurance if you want some added protection but then some government moron will legislate that every person that walks into the woods should be required to carry "hiker insurance" which is probably worst case scenario.

-Dr. Wu

 

[griffin]

you pay the bill like a getting towed by a tow truck or going to the ER.

Do you get a bill when the police or the fire department rescue you?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't most SAR outfits (both professional and volunteer) opposed to charging for rescue?

Why not lobby to give F&G a portion of the blasted parking fees? Or allow NH to tack on an extra buck or two? It hits all users equally, doesn't create an undue burden on any specific user, and is probably easier to enforce than a permit or insurance (when does a walk outside become a "hike" requiring insurance or some kind of permit? Is it based on mileage? Terrain? Whether you've come up from Mass to do it? And do you really want to have to get a permit to simply BE on public land?)

 

[dr_wu002]

Do you get a bill when the police or the fire department rescue you?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't most SAR outfits (both professional and volunteer) opposed to charging for rescue?

I think your line of reasoning is not complete. Why is there an assumption that S&R should be treated the same as police and fire department? Why the automatic (and bad) assumption that "the government should rescue me." Why not privatize police and fire departments? That way they do bill you -- last one probably way beyond the scope of this discussion or even web site or even anything I'm advocating but it's not like you can't ask that question.

My point is that people need to start thinking beyond "government = rescue me" because they suck at it and it promotes complacency or at worst idiocy like people walking around the woods and then calling for a rescue on their cell phone. My feeling is if I fall and break my ankle and can't crawl out of the woods, tough crap -- although maybe the thought of paying $5000 would make me want to try harder at crawling or at least practice at home. And if you feel like you were rescued "against your will" or something -- guess it goes to court. It will anyway if the State tries to reclaim some of their fees anyway. But I don't want to pay for you or any other yokel (that's the general "you" -- I'm not taking a swipe at Griffin). Be in control of your own person.

-Dr. Wu

 

[funkyfreddy]

Be in control of your own person. -Dr. Wu

I'm all for personal responsibility, but I think our idea of "control" is often a bit inflated, to say the least......

 

[mookie]

Do you get a bill when the police or the fire department rescue you?

actually, you do get billed when you call for an ambulance in most towns/cities.....

 

[dr_wu002]

I'm all for personal responsibility, but I think our idea of "control" is often a bit inflated, to say the least......

Of course. Accidents happen. But "education" simply does not work... the only way to make people a little more responsible is to make them more responsible. Unfair accidents and other things will happen but that's the way life is and always has been -- we can't necessarily always legislate unfairness away...

-Dr. Wu

 

[griffin]

I think your line of reasoning is not complete. Why is there an assumption that S&R should be treated the same as police and fire department?

Why assume S&R should be treated like and ambulance or a tow truck instead?

And why assume that, while (in your opinion) putting government in charge of providing rescue services "promotes complacency or at worst idiocy like people walking around the woods and then calling for a rescue on their cell phone" but that having people buy a permit or insurance beforehand WON'T? Why wouldn't that be just as likely to make people feel like they're owed a rescue?

Aside from that, I'm less impressed with the ability of private contractors to provide good, across the board, public services when they rely on individuals (as opposed to "the goverment") for their income stream. I think emergency services and thinks like SAR are exactly the kinds of things our government should be in charge of because it allows us to have collective oversight and control over something in a way that would be very hard for individual actors to match.

And I'm generally opposed to creating potential barriers to citizens accessing something that we already collectively own. Asking for a few bucks at a trailhead to help maintain that resource is one thing, making people buy insurance or requiring a permit is another - and again, it's also much harder to enforce.

 

[griffin]

actually, you do get billed when you call for an ambulance in most towns/cities.....

I know, that's why I specifically mentioned the fire and police