NH Hikesafe Card in NH House study committee

[RoySwkr]

It seems to have the amended text now:
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2014/HB0256.html

And maybe Craig should look into this one too:
This bill establishes a committee to study policies and procedures for the development and maintenance of state-owned abandoned rail corridors.
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2014/SB0248.html

 

[Mike P.]

I'm glad the Conservation Officers don't have to work eight hours a month unpaid. (really, I am)

 

[JCarter]

I'm glad the Conservation Officers don't have to work eight hours a month unpaid. (really, I am)

Yeah, WTH. How was that even legal?

 

[Creag Nan Drochaid]

Public Hearing 1/31

On the Gencourt website is the notice that the hikesafe bill (hb256) will be heard by the House Ways and Means Committee in room 307 of the legislative Office Building (LOB) at 230 PM on 1/31/14.

I seriously advise that everyone read the italicised text on that website, then go down to where Fish & Game analyzed the fiscal impact of the bill as introduced.
There you'll note that the flat fee for a portion of the costs of rescue is not in the current version of the bill. The biggest change is this: the bill as introduced offered the hike-safe/rescue insurance card for a one-time fee of $18, but the current version prices it as an annual fee of $25.

To me, $25/year versus $18 or even $25 once and then good until used is a huge difference. It puts much more of a burden on hikers who directly consume no other service from Fish & Game than it does on the other user groups listed, whose licenses/registrations put only $1/year into the SAR fund.

I favor SAR insurance, and I don't mind buying it for one payment that equals 25 years' worth at the same rate as license holders pay. But that I should have to pay 25 times as much for the same coverage as other people have strikes me as failing the equal justice under law test. By all means do charge the rescuees who are proven negligent, but reward people who are prudent enough to voluntarily contribute to the SAR fund 15 or 25 times faster than others.

 

[Mike P.]

Public Hearing 1/31

On the Gencourt website is the notice that the hikesafe bill (hb256) will be heard by the House Ways and Means Committee in room 307 of the legislative Office Building (LOB) at 230 PM on 1/31/14.

I seriously advise that everyone read the italicised text on that website, then go down to where Fish & Game analyzed the fiscal impact of the bill as introduced.
There you'll note that the flat fee for a portion of the costs of rescue is not in the current version of the bill. The biggest change is this: the bill as introduced offered the hike-safe/rescue insurance card for a one-time fee of $18, but the current version prices it as an annual fee of $25.

To me, $25/year versus $18 or even $25 once and then good until used is a huge difference. It puts much more of a burden on hikers who directly consume no other service from Fish & Game than it does on the other user groups listed, whose licenses/registrations put only $1/year into the SAR fund.

I favor SAR insurance, and I don't mind buying it for one payment that equals 25 years' worth at the same rate as license holders pay. But that I should have to pay 25 times as much for the same coverage as other people have strikes me as failing the equal justice under law test. By all means do charge the rescuees who are proven negligent, but reward people who are prudent enough to voluntarily contribute to the SAR fund 15 or 25 times faster than others.

Well put, if i'm paying 15 - 25 X the amount of fisherman or hunters pay for rescues.... (come up with your own movie quote for this kind of treatment)

Remember we pay to park in the USFS already and while USFS does not provide resources for rescue, is all that money going to just pay for plowing lots?

 

[RoySwkr]

Well put, if i'm paying 15 - 25 X the amount of fisherman or hunters pay for rescues....

It is ATVs etc. that pay $1/yr, hunters and fishermen pay no specified amount

Remember we pay to park in the USFS already and while USFS does not provide resources for rescue, is all that money going to just pay for plowing lots?

Very little goes for plowing, in the past it has paid for school programs, etc.

I suggested that responsibility for rescues in Wilderness areas should belong to USFS since the lack of trail maintenance contributes to the need, but the legislature didn't bite

 

[bikehikeskifish]

... The House voted to preliminarily approve the bill that must pass scrutiny from the committee overseeing taxes and fees. ...

http://www.unionleader.com/article/20140122/NEWS07/140129867

Tim

 

[Creag Nan Drochaid]

Be Ready to Send Remarks.

Well, the hearing was on the 21st, not the 31st. I coulda sworn I read 31st when I wrote post # 104 on this thread.

I compared the statements on the F&G website with those in the unionleader.com article, and they match. The only dedicated funding for the SAR fund now is $1 for each registered boat, ATV, and snowmobile. When SAR spending exceeds that amount, the F&G fund from hunting and fishing licenses gets tapped. All those groups together amount to 14% of the rescuees, while the 57% of the rescuees who are hikers pay nothing into the SAR fund unless billed for their own rescue.
It is clear that this is highly unfair and unsustainable.

The proposed solution of $25/year/person for a Hikesafe/rescue insurance card isn't all that fair either, considering the hiker prudent enough to buy one pays 25 times as much as anyone else for the same coverage. IMO it would be much more fair to make the card a rescue insurance card, bought once then good until used. The sliding scale of charges for rescuees by cost of rescue should be put back into the bill, subject to the exemptions for those who buy registrations/licenses/Hikesafe cards that still remain in the bill as it is now. The scale and a Hikesafe poster should be posted and the cards put on sale everywhere you can now buy a hunting or fishing license, as well as at tourist info centers, general stores, tourist lodges like the AMC and others run. Limiting sales to the Fish & Game website deprives the SAR fund of most of its possible new revenue and fails to give the Hikesafe educational message to the very tourists who most need it.
The next chance the public has to comment on this bill is probably after the House passes it on to the Senate. The manifest unfairness of the present arrangements do not justify charging the most prudent hikers 25 times as much per year for the same coverage. We must plan to make reasonable points at our next chance or we can expect to have to pay $25/year for rescue fee insurance. Do you really want that?

 

[IQuest]

The proposed solution of $25/year/person for a Hikesafe/rescue insurance card isn't all that fair either, considering the hiker prudent enough to buy one pays 25 times as much as anyone else for the same coverage. IMO it would be much more fair to make the card a rescue insurance card, bought once then good until used.

I wish my auto insurance worked this way.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

http://www.wildlife.state.nh.us/Newsroom/2013/Q4/license_2014_avail_121713.html

Beginning with the 2014 license year, regular hunting and fishing licenses will be computer-generated and printed by the agent on regular paper. For consumers buying from agents, the license-buying transaction will be faster and easier. In many cases, their information will already be in the system. A $2 transaction fee will be charged per license form. This fee will go to the vendor, Sovereign Sportsman Solutions (S3), to cover the cost of operation of the automated system, just as online license buyers currently pay a transaction fee. The new system will give the New Hampshire Fish and Game Department faster access to critical license sales data, and Fish and Game license agents will find their administrative reporting is streamlined.

Tim

 

[Creag Nan Drochaid]

Interesting, Tim. That makes it even easier for F&G to sell rescue insurance cards anywhere licenses are sold. IF they want to.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

You might even be able to buy one on your smartphone when you suddenly find you need it.

Tim

 

[KRobi]

Interesting point Tim. If you felt you were getting into a "sketchy" situation (assuming you have cell coverage) just call and get a card. State will probably mandate you have the card for at least an hour before you can use it for a rescue.

 

[Creag Nan Drochaid]

Senate Hearing 3/19 0915h LOB 306-308

hb256 has a public hearing by a committee of the NH Senate on Wednesday March 19 at 9:15 AM in Room 306 of the Legislative Office Building, Concord NH.

Details are on the gencourt.state.nh.us website. Just follow the prompts for a House bill.

 

[RoySwkr]

Below is an e-mail I sent to Sen. Bradley. If your own senator is on the committee, you should write to them instead.
Roster: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/senate/members/senate_roster.aspx
Committee: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/Senate/committees/committee_details.aspx?cc=S38

Sen. Bradley:

I am writing to you because I know you care about hikers. I am afraid that if this bill is enacted as written, it won't even raise enough money to cover the cost of administration. That may tend to alienate hikers even more from other outdoor user groups, which is not a good thing.

The large number of hiker rescues is not because hiking is inherently dangerous but because there are so many hikers. If you count anyone with a T-shirt and a pair of sandals who may walk somewhere without sidewalks and get lost, there are probably a million hikers in New Hampshire every year. If each of them paid just one dollar per year towards search & rescue as other users do, that would be ample to cover the deficit.

Unfortunately there is no cost-effective way to pay a dollar annually, so a multi-year card (like a driver's license) makes sense. The $25 proposed charge for one year is just outrageous - that should cover 20 years! Hikers who want coverage under this bill can instead buy a saltwater fishing license for $11 or a waterfowl license for $4.

Has anyone considered how these will be advertised? Does the state really want to pay for an ad campaign that you need to pay $25 to hike in New Hampshire? I'll bet the tourist people in Maine and Vermont would love that!

Lastly, many news media have stated that having this card entitles you to a free rescue regardless of recklessness - if this is true it won't encourage responsible hiking and $25 is cheap for a helicopter ride. On the other hand if "reckless" hikers will still have to pay, people won't buy the card as there is a common belief that fish & game considers ordinary hiking behaviors such as bushwhacking alone to be reckless even though conservation officers do it all the time.

- rs

 

[Raven]

I am afraid that if this bill is enacted as written, it won't even raise enough money to cover the cost of administration.

Bingo. And that doesn't cover the costs this process has already incurred. Senators don't work for free.

The success of this program is going to depend on a minimum number of cards being sold yearly. At $25 a year, I don't expect many sales, certainly not enough to cover costs.

Here's a quick calculation. Let's assume a yearly S & R cost of $300,000. That's probably estimating a little high, but costs won't decrease over time. Let's also assume $20 of the $25 goes directly into the S & R fund. I doubt that much will (there is at least a $3 processing fee).

If that's the case, then every year, S & R only needs to sell a mere 15,000 cards.

BAHAHAHAHA!

Yeah, right. I will believe it when I see it.

Edit: They will need to sell almost 300 new cards every weekend of the year to hit that mark.

 

[hikerbrian]

rs - thanks for sending this, you capture my thoughts quite accurately. Although I've spent the majority of my years on this earth as a resident of the Granite State, I don't currently call NH home. So my thoughts don't carry much weight with the state of NH.

I for one will not be purchasing said card with said provisions, as I feel it's egregiously overpriced, and the probability I'll ever be rescued and deemed negligent is exceedingly low. So good luck with this one, NH.

 

[Creag Nan Drochaid]

Yesterday I testified to the Senate Energy and natural Resources Committee. My remarks mostly followed my post # 108 this thread. Summary:

- The SAR fund gets $1 from each registration of a boat, ATV, or snowmobile. When the fund runs dry, the F&G general fund from hunting and fishing licenses gets tapped. All the people who buy these state papers total 14% of the rescuees. Hikers total 57% of the rescuees, four times as many, but pay nothing to the SAR fund unless found negligent and charged for their own rescue. This is highly unfair and unsustainable.

- If the hike safe card is to cost $25, then it should work like a rescue insurance card, bought once then good until used once. Most buyers will never need rescuing, and their fees are in the fund from the date of purchase.

- If the card must be an annual card, make the fee $15/year with $12 going to the SAR fund. That is $1/month, but still better than $25/year.

- The remainder of my testimony suggested that the card be sold by all F&G license agents, tourist info centers, outdoor gear shops, etc. both to raise revenue for the SAR fund and to improve public awareness of how and why they should hike safely.
Selling the card only on the F&G website deprives the SAR fund of most of the revenue it can generate, and deprives the tourists of a good chance to learn the costs to them of getting rescued and how they can keep themselves found enough that they don't need rescuing.

I regret to say the Senators looked bored and had no questions. Now we will see what they do with the bill.

 

[peakbagger]

Looks like this Thursday is the senate vote

http://www.pressherald.com/news/N_H__Senate_considering__hike_safe__card_program.html

 

[jniehof]

Looks like this Thursday is the senate vote
http://www.pressherald.com/news/N_H__Senate_considering__hike_safe__card_program.html

Fantastic! That's the starting day for my lease, so I can write as a resident, right?