NH Proposes Fee If People Need To Be Rescued

[RoySwkr]

Actually, you said this in part:
"The year the Eagle Scout got lost in the Great Gulf, the second most expensive incident was an elderly hunter lost near Bear Brook SP who wasn't found until the next spring - but because he had a hunting license and turned up dead there was no furor over sending him a bill"

That's exactly what I said, but I never said he should receive a bill (nor did Maddy)

I meant that the statewide media did not get into a months-long frenzy over the incident, which I still believe to be true

I will put your mind at rest. Maddy did hear of both cases. I would LOVE to know where you got the idea that I had never heard of the case.

How many hikers are rescued as compared to fisherman and hunters in the Whites.
We don't seem to hear of very many of those types being airlifted into choppers, and requiring high tech rescues, and/or rescues involving lots of searchers, some lasting for days on end. It would be most interesting to see what the numbers are.
Last edited by Maddy; Yesterday at 02:52 PM.

It appeared to me from your statement that you were not aware of that very expensive case, apparently I was wrong

 

[Maddy]

Quote by Fish and Game Maj. Kevin Jordan "Hunters, anglers, boaters, snowmobilers and all-terrain vehicle riders pay 100 percent of the rescue costs through license fees but averaged only 14 percent of the rescues since 2006. Hikers pay nothing toward the agency's search and rescue fund but averaged 57 percent of the rescues, Jordan said."

Read more: http://www.wmur.com/news/nh-news/Hi...17796880/-/7htn25z/-/index.html#ixzz2GMZepBVV

I don't care about media frenzy, but I do care about data like this. These numbers are most likely quite accurate. Close enough. Even if they provided hard data, case by case to us, I have to believe that hikers would win the most rescued status.
"Hikers pay nothing toward the agency's search and rescue fund but averaged 57 percent of the rescues, Jordan said."


I believe the free ride is over. The END! Time to hop off the train and pay up. Either thru a charge for our rescues or with a yearly contribution of 5 cents per day.
$250 /18=~14 rescues (13.8 to be exact)
$1000/18= ~55 rescues

To fully reimburse a 50000 rescue, it would take 2777 hikers paying $18/yr. That is one single very costly rescue. Does not account for all those in between.

I think this $18/yr is a real bargain! Quote: "Recent rescue costs ranged from about $200 to more than $50,000."

I must be missing something but I don't see what on God's green earth we have to complain about.

 

[Raven]

Quote by Fish and Game Maj. Kevin Jordan "Hunters, anglers, boaters, snowmobilers and all-terrain vehicle riders pay 100 percent of the rescue costs through license fees but averaged only 14 percent of the rescues since 2006. Hikers pay nothing toward the agency's search and rescue fund but averaged 57 percent of the rescues, Jordan said."

Costs can be measured in many ways other than financially. Of the volunteers who make up the vast majority of those actually doing the rescue work, what percentage of them are hikers as compared to anglers and hunters? My guess is well over 57%. What is the financial value of that service that is provided for free by the hiking community and how will that be taken into account when charging hikers?

 

[Maddy]

Costs can be measured in many ways other than financially. Of the volunteers who make up the vast majority of those actually doing the rescue work, what percentage of them are hikers as compared to anglers and hunters? My guess is well over 57%. What is the financial value of that service that is provided for free by the hiking community and how will that be taken into account when charging hikers?

I think we need to look at the SAR group as a separate entity. It matters not it they are hikers, off duty firemen , fisherman, dog owners, skiers, runners, etc. They have been trained to do SAR work and they choose to volunteer. It's a group who is highly trained to find lost souls.

I have been relating this back to my volunteer position working with sick, injured, orphaned wildlife.
The clinic where I work is supported mostly by donations, and they have a good number of very dedicated, hard working volunteers. Some have a history of working with animals, most of us do not.
There is a lawyer, college students, nurses , office workers, we even had an architect, etc. All of us are trained at the clinic to do the actual job. We are all wildlife volunteers.

SAR people are all trained volunteers. Some might be avid hikers, others walkers, bicyclists ,etc. Is it a requirement that all SAR people be hikers in the Whites to be on an SAR team? I wouldn't think so but I could be wrong. Even if they were, they want to do this line of work and they are really dedicated. I don't think we all need to get a discount because they want to do rescue work. I don't get a discount when my dog goes to the hospital because I am a volunteer there. It doesn't work that way.
We work at the clinic so they can keep their cost down.

When it's all said and done, it would seem logical to calculate what they charge us based on their expenditures, and not the entire teams qualifications both on and off the job.

 

[Ed'n Lauky]

Personally I think there should be insurance and even at $18 I would buy it today. It will cost me almost that much in gas just to make a round trip to most parts of the Whites.

My statement that I would buy it is conditioned by one thing: that I am covered!!! I don't want to be told after the fact that they're going to charge me anyway because I went out solo or didn't have my lip balm with me or whatever. If I have the assurance that I'm covered I would pay. If they want to lower it to $10 so much the better.

 

[JCarter]

Personally I think there should be insurance and even at $18 I would buy it today. It will cost me almost that much in gas just to make a round trip to most parts of the Whites.

My statement that I would buy it is conditioned by one thing: that I am covered!!! I don't want to be told after the fact that they're going to charge me anyway because I went out solo or didn't have my lip balm with me or whatever. If I have the assurance that I'm covered I would pay. If they want to lower it to $10 so much the better.

++++ Would agree again.

If the $18/yr is unconditional, I'm there. I already pay $25/yr on the WMNF parking pass, plus at least $40/round trip on gas every time I hump it up from MA to go hiking. $18 is chump change.

But I know of at least one recent case where an experienced, reasonably-well prepared hiked was whacked over $7K for being "negligent", even though the only thing she did wrong was call for assistance. And yes, I'll hike with her again next chance I get.

I'm not really concerned with the bill for when somebody actually saves my worthless carcass, but from when someone decides on their own that I "need" saving, and then wants to bill me for it. That Eagle Scout that keeps getting referenced is a perfect example (Scott Mason) -- he didn't call for help, and ultimately, he self-rescued even though he was injured, but they wanted to bill him essentially because he was hiking solo. Eff that. Almost all AT thru-hikers are solo. Are they all negligent?

But you know what? If F&G starts bringing in funding through this, they had better find a way to feed some of it to the currently free, volunteer SAR groups that actually do the work. If they don't, I can imagine a lack of enthusiasm that will result in increased costs long-term.

 

[peakbagger]

Aha, therein lies the rub on the fee, what does it cover? Is is a "get out of jail free" card where all sins are forgiven including egregious contempt for basic hiking standards? Do I really want to be subsidizing the AT hiker from long ago who bought a fifth of whiskey and proceeded to Moriah to get drunk and wander around and ultimately need to be rescued, if not does the "person of authority" decide that the dayhiking gear a hiker had in her possession was "inadequate" for the conditions (per last years rescue on Jackson) and charge anyhow despite a fee?

In any case it comes down to judgement call with no defined limitations except that the total collected has to at least cover the cost of S&R initially and then become a revenue source to subsidize other efforts when the F&G budget is cut. Its a slippery slope. Will the fee be applicable to someone going out of bounds at a ski area and will ski areas elect to include the fee in the lift tickets? On a more practical front does the fee cover the elderly individual that decided to walk home to down south when he went on a hike or the youngster who wandered into the woods?

 

[Raven]

I think we need to look at the SAR group as a separate entity. It matters not it they are hikers, off duty firemen , fisherman, dog owners, skiers, runners, etc. They have been trained to do SAR work and they choose to volunteer. It's a group who is highly trained to find lost souls.

The paid people also choose to go out. No one's arm is forced to rescue anyone. We are each responsible for our own choices and that includes the choice to go out after someone needing rescue. I have the utmost respect for the peope in SAR but it's still a choice to do.

I can agree with the above point to a degree, but if we're all treated the same, then why aren't we all treated the same? Licenses for some (fishing/hunting), "insurance" for others? It's likely I wouldn't buy one on principle alone. I can afford $18. But if I need a rescue, I'll drop the $500 or $1000 if I am found negligent which is highly unlikely if they use a reasonable definition of negligence. To address another point, calling solo hikers negligent is unreasonable if based solely on the fact they are hiking solo (or bushwhacking, or out on a really cold day, etc).

IMO nickel and diming various groups in various ways to try to pay for this is silly in particular when some groups are paying more than others. Inconsistency will breed contempt.

 

[RoySwkr]

Quote by Fish and Game Maj. Kevin Jordan "Hunters, anglers, boaters, snowmobilers and all-terrain vehicle riders pay 100 percent of the rescue costs through license fees but averaged only 14 percent of the rescues since 2006. Hikers pay nothing toward the agency's search and rescue fund but averaged 57 percent of the rescues, Jordan said."

Ah, some numbers

So the "Hunters, anglers, boaters, snowmobilers and all-terrain vehicle riders" are 14% of the rescues and hikers are 57%, that leaves 29%

Some notable (and expensive) cases include:
* Learjet that missed landing at Lebanon and wasn't found for months, probably the most expensive search ever in NH but most paid by others than F&G
* Murder victim found in Ct. R. by F&G divers
* Confused elderly people including one recently in Waterville Valley
* Kid staying at condo in Lincoln who got lost walking home
* Drownings involving inebriated midnight canoeists - only powerboats pay fee
* Man who fell overboard after party on cruise ship (oops, maybe the Mt Washington pays the $1 fee)
Why not extend the $18 fee to pilots, murderers, condo renters, canoeists, partiers, etc.

I agree that hikers should pay, but something closer to their fair share - if $1 per year covers a boat owner and everybody aboard plus everybody they lend it to, while hikers are asked to pay $18 each and if you loan your snowshoes that person needs their own coverage, that seems like a ripoff to me

 

[bikehikeskifish]

But if I need a rescue, I'll drop the $500 or $1000 if I am found negligent which is highly unlikely if they use a reasonable definition of negligence. To address another point, calling solo hikers negligent is unreasonable if based solely on the fact they are hiking solo (or bushwhacking, or out on a really cold day, etc).

The new law removes the negligence clause. IF you get rescued, you WILL get a bill. If you are negligent, it will be towards the $1000 end, and if not, towards the $350 end, or so Jeb suggested. Again, it is still all in draft form.

Tim

 

[Maddy]

There is no denying the numbers. As could have been predicted we are at the top and have enjoyed freebie rescues for some time. It's only fairly recently that they have come looking for some reimbursement. If the new proposal is unfair and prejudicial against hikers, perhaps those who feel this way could form a group, hire a good attorney, and take it to the judge. Why not? The problem will not be solved discussing it here. You need an action committee to get the ball rolling and get this gross injustice reversed. It seems like that would be the next logical step to take.

Why be angry, upset, and bitter about something if you can change it. We don't know until we try.
Some folks have made some great arguments against the proposals so why not take it that one step further and present them to the appropriate people for revision. IMHO it's worth a shot! There is nothing to lose and all to gain.

Personally I don't agree with it, but I do respect that others have a different POV and encourage them to do whatever it takes to be heard by the powers that be. "Treating us all the same argument is a good one.".

 

[Raven]

The new law removes the negligence clause. IF you get rescued, you WILL get a bill. If you are negligent, it will be towards the $1000 end, and if not, towards the $350 end, or so Jeb suggested. Again, it is still all in draft form.

Tim

Thanks for that clarification Tim. Yes, I'll be interested to see how much the law, if it comes to pass, actually resembles the draft.

As far as paying for any rescue, that brings us full circle back to the injured/lost now possibly considering his or her financial situation before making a call putting the hiker/angler/sledder/snowman-maker/bush-pilot in more jeopardy and in some cases putting the rescuers at greater risk by postponing a call that could have been made earlier.

I certainly don't pretend to have the answers but I don't think this is good practice and neither do many other SAR groups from what I have seen. Of course, I'm for an entire paradigm shift. How many times over could all the rescues in NH be paid for by the lowest salary in the NBA? Just saying' Priorities and values.

 

[RoySwkr]

If the new proposal is unfair and prejudicial against hikers, perhaps those who feel this way could form a group, hire a good attorney, and take it to the judge.
...
Some folks have made some great arguments against the proposals so why not take it that one step further and present them to the appropriate people for revision. IMHO it's worth a shot! There is nothing to lose and all to gain.

Taking it to a judge is a waste of time, I don't believe a law is unconstitutional just because it is unfair or stupid or there would be a lot fewer laws

Last session I went to 2 of the state house hearings from which the original bill was referred for study, as I said in an earlier note I intend to testify against this one. As for "nothing to lose", one can spend a lot of time waiting for a hearing to actually begin although the testimony itself is usually interesting.

One thing nobody has mentioned is that the reason there are more rescues of hikers is that there are a lot more hikers! While fishing gear may be relatively cheap an ATV is not, you need to take a course to hunt or operate a boat while even Sen. Bradley would agree that anybody with a T-shirt and a pair of sneakers can call themselves a hiker with no knowledge required That's why $1 per hiker would be plenty since the _proportion_ requiring help from F&G is minimal.

One last question: if you have a hunting license, you still need to buy another license to fish and yet another for your ATV. So why don't hunters, etc. also have to buy a hiking license if they aren't genuinely hunting? (Sure, officer, there are so many fish on Mt Lafayette in January that I just brought 6" of line with a hook on it.)

 

[rocket21]

The agency has operated at an average annual deficit since 2006 of $101,446, he said.
http://www.wmur.com/news/nh-news/Hi...57858/17796880/-/item/0/-/uh2osn/-/index.html

There is over $600K in annual revenue in the State Parks department that could be used to cover this. This was proposed in the 2011 budget, however a special interest group associated with Cannon Mountain was able to get it shut down, as that money is currently funnelled into debt payments the ski area is unwilling (and unable, due to continued spending) to make out of its operating budget.

 

[Maddy]

Taking it to a judge is a waste of time, I don't believe a law is unconstitutional just because it is unfair or stupid or there would be a lot fewer laws

Last session I went to 2 of the state house hearings from which the original bill was referred for study, as I said in an earlier note I intend to testify against this one. As for "nothing to lose", one can spend a lot of time waiting for a hearing to actually begin although the testimony itself is usually interesting.

One thing nobody has mentioned is that the reason there are more rescues of hikers is that there are a lot more hikers! While fishing gear may be relatively cheap an ATV is not, you need to take a course to hunt or operate a boat while even Sen. Bradley would agree that anybody with a T-shirt and a pair of sneakers can call themselves a hiker with no knowledge required That's why $1 per hiker would be plenty since the _proportion_ requiring help from F&G is minimal.

One last question: if you have a hunting license, you still need to buy another license to fish and yet another for your ATV. So why don't hunters, etc. also have to buy a hiking license if they aren't genuinely hunting? (Sure, officer, there are so many fish on Mt Lafayette in January that I just brought 6" of line with a hook on it.)

I do hope this all works out for you and have a resolution that you can live with. I did think the discriminating against other groups, (i.e. hikers vs boaters/ hunters, etc) was an issue but perhaps it is not "unconstitutional". Maybe it would be more like "favoritism". I am not saying that is what is going on, but legally it might not be considered discriminatory.

You do have all that personal time to lose having to take time out to present your argument, but you are on a mission so putting forth all that energy is worth it. Any other hikers going?

I think the bottom line for me is regardless of the fact that "we have the "least" rescues because "proportionately" we have the most hikers", we still cost them oodles and have a negative effect on the budget. When I think about Scott's mom, desperate to know where her son was, and the time and effort it took to find him, I doubt they would have said to Scott, "keep up the good work boy, you are doing great at self rescue. We apologize for interrupting your hike and will report back to mom that you are lookin' great." I have no idea Scott had "self rescued" until I read it here a few posts back. I know he did a great job surviving. Don't know if I would have done as well as he did but seriously, I would not have been up there doing that particular hike either solo in winter at his tender age.

Warning...I use satire in the next two paragraphs to make a point.

Perhaps they could insert a clause that they will wait 72 hrs before "initiating" a missing hiker rescue. No point in rushing into anything and then getting bashed because they made a decision to respond. Give 'em a little time to work their way out and then go seek and find.

The ones who call for rescue are a big problem. Keep the panic under control and your finger off the 911 option. It was mentioned that a woman hiker "had to pay $7K for doing nothing more that calling for a rescue". I think I recall that case. Wasn't she lost and not equipped to spend the night, or is that different one? Could have hunkered down and tried again in the morning. Saved herself a few bucks. Hopefully she would have lived to enjoy her savings. Wasn't it chilly out?

As for the murdered folks and those who drowned, lost Alzeihmer people, and little kids....I don't want to go there. Too sad!

I look forward to how this is resolved. I sure do hope that those of us who want the "get our of jail free card" have that option. Why not in a democracy? I am going to email F&G again to share my POV. They always respond and are very polite.


I hike in my most beautiful state of VT so my chances of getting lost there are much greater. Can't help but think back to the poor buy who was left to die of hypothermia be.cause no one could figure out who was responsible for doing the SAR. State Police? Fire Dept? Locals? Hikers? I believe they did solve that dilemma.

Anyone watch Coast Guard Alaska and Alaska State Troopers. They are really on top of their game. Most everyone out and about in the bush have PLB's unless of course they are "runnin' from the law." When they don't have a PLB it gets downright scary.
It's not a bad place to live.

Last but not least our big fella, who was rescued by F&G, will be released soon to hibernate in a den provided for him by F&G. He will be returned to the area from whence he came. He is in fact quite taken with his barrel and scoots in and out of it.

 

[Raven]

is there an official way to donate money to search and rescue such that the entirety of the donation goes directly toward the cause? I would send a $20 check tomorrow.

under principle I will not support another insurance. My mother in Florida pays over $4,000 per year for homeowners on a modest home to crooks who actually differentiate hurricane insurance from wind insurance from flood insurance. It matters also whether you are flooded from below or above. My prediction is insurance will start cheap and sound fullproof. Once the 'insurance train' begins to roll, however I expect the same type of differentiation to occur and rate hikes to be common place. It is always in the insurance company's best interest to find ways to not pay. If privatized, it will be about making a profit.

 

[Tim Seaver]

The ones who call for rescue are a big problem. Keep the panic under control and your finger off the 911 option. It was mentioned that a woman hiker "had to pay $7K for doing nothing more that calling for a rescue". I think I recall that case. Wasn't she lost and not equipped to spend the night, or is that different one? Could have hunkered down and tried again in the morning. Saved herself a few bucks. Hopefully she would have lived to enjoy her savings. Wasn't it chilly out?

I have posted it too many times to remember, but it evidently needs repeating:

....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 cost recovery
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.

( From NASAR's position paper )

Of course everyone is entitled to their opinion on this - I just happen to value the opinion of the people actually doing the SAR work a bit more.

 

[Tim Seaver]

Helos - They save money or cost too much?

Possibly of related interest

The state also owns a Bell helicopter, used primarily for rescues, purchased for $1.6 million from a combination of federal drug forfeiture, state drug forfeiture, federal Street Sweeper grant funds and some state highway and turnpike funds, Sweeney said. Sweeney said the helicopter - which is equipped with forward-facing infrared equipment that enables it to detect a person's body heat - costs a lot less than the expense involved in using only people on foot.

One ground search that covered 2 square miles required 110 searchers and took 921.5 person/hours to complete at a cost of $75,000. "By contrast, the copter can cover 30 miles during a three-hour flight at a cost of $2,064," Sweeney said in an email."On another occasion, a hiker having a heart attack on a mountaintop was rescued quickly at a cost to the state of $1,921, where an exclusively ground rescue mission would have taken at least 18 people eight hours at a cost of $9,936 for manpower, or 417 percent more, and the hiker would have likely died," Sweeney wrote.

Renting a helicopter and loading the required gear "would be impractical," he said. The operating budget for the aviation unit is $177,590 a year in current expenses, repairs and maintenance, aviation fuel and other expenses, he said. He estimates the salaries and benefits of the two pilots could add up to an additional $150,000 annually.

 

[Maddy]

I have posted it too many times to remember, but it evidently needs repeating:



( From NASAR's position paper )

Of course everyone is entitled to their opinion on this - I just happen to value the opinion of the people actually doing the SAR work a bit more.[/

And well you should and so do I. Surprise? I don't think so. I think you know right well that I have the highest regard for them and the work they do.

In my last post I made suggestions because their seem to be complaints that F&G presses on to do rescues and then are criticized for having "jumped the gun", sought out folks who did not need to be rescued, and then billed them for their efforts and hard work. I used satire but I think that was quite obvious. I'm not foolish or dumb enough to think that they would consider delaying a rescue. However some of the folks on these boards seem to believe that they are very foolish for wanting to be paid. I presented a ridiculous solution because of comments like Scott being billed when he "self rescued", and the bill sent to the hiker "who did nothing wrong except call for a rescue". IMHO those comments are pathetic thank you's for all the hard work those people did. Anyone reading this who does not know the real facts of both of these cases would most likely conclude that F&G were out to get money from poor helpless souls who did everything by the book and then were fined. Not true.

When they are criticized for what they did, what is the option? I presented a few, and yes they are absurd, but I was making a point. We can't have our cake and eat it to.

I want to make one thing very clear. I absolutely value the work of the rescue teams, be they F&G or volunteers. I have tremendous respect and admiration for all of them. I trust their judgment implicitly and don't appreciate reading posts that imply they are foolish, and jump the gun to rescue people who don't need rescuing, and then bill them. IMHO once a rescue call comes, they respond. And yes, I think they should be reimbursed for their efforts. Making glib comments that effect people's perception of them is not a nice thing to do and I will support and defend t hem any way I can.

I am going to go back and clarify that I used satire to make a point in my last post.

F&G even saved our little black bear juvy and he didn't even call for his rescue. Those folks are just plain hard core.

 

[expat]

I have another couple of questions about all of this.

1) The state provides free rescue if you're in trouble in the water when you're at the Hampton Beach or Wallis Sands as well as other state parks, why would the mountains be different? Just due to cost? What would be the impact of a rescue fee at the beaches?
2) Does the rescue fee apply to only rescue-needing individuals in a group, to an entire "group"? Say one member of a group is injured and nobody has bought a card. One member is injured and needs a rescue. Would the other members wait until rescuers were nearby, then leave the injured individual to get rescued, and that person pays the fee (or maybe they split it up after the fact) to keep from each having to pay a separate rescue fee? Could a group buy one card, and then leave it with the one person who is injured, while the rest don't need rescue and do as I mentioned above?