NH Proposes Fee If People Need To Be Rescued

[sardog1]

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?

Being somewhat familiar with the makeup of the SAR community in NH, I will respectfully disagree. Some of the service is provided by AMC staffers, who for the most part are compensated by the AMC for their time. Some of the rest are paid by their employers but that number is pretty small. Some use their vacation time. From what I know personally of the responders who are not AMC staff, few would refer first to themselves as "hikers", and the number of peakbaggers among them is certainly minuscule as a fraction of the total.

If you're involved in SAR work, a huge chunk of your time is consumed by training and responding. This is particularly the case for the dog handlers (ask my wife what it was like when I was involved ...), but the others probably spend as many (or more) hours on SAR as on many of their other outdoor pursuits.

 

[sardog1]

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.

There is a way, but the VFTT rules probably bar me from mentioning it directly here. I'll leave it to the mods to decide that. I'll send you a PM for your own use in the meantime.

 

[Raven]

There is a way, but the VFTT rules probably bar me from mentioning it directly here. I'll leave it to the mods to decide that. I'll send you a PM for your own use in the meantime.

I appreciate the PM. I prefer to help in a way that impacts as directly as possible. Your suggestion certainly covers that and i was happy to 'put my money where my mouth is.' i would also be happy to share this information with anyone who PMs me so as to not break any VFTT rules.

Thanks also for your comments on the makeup of S and R groups. i appreciate the first hand knowledge.

 

[Andrew]

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?

It can be difficult to understand, but any political subdivision is not one big happy family, I suspect this is true in many states, but in NH with the lack of broad based taxes, it is exacerbated. This comment is not only specific to xpat's comments, but is relevant also to some earlier comments. NH has spoken repeatedly about the preferred direction for funding of government services and fees to funds actions are the current course. Actions are largely determined by legislative law, as are funding methods. That touches on another thread of maybe a supervisor of a specific state park might know that is of significant public benefit to plow a frequently used trailhead but not have the proper equipment to do so, they can't just call DOT and expect a truck to show up. Don't blame the crews on the ground, as it's getting worse as pennies are pinched and people have been pushed out or lost jobs because they have tried to do the right thing towards public service. And luckily there are some high profile people who continue to do this and lives are continually saved.

The "state" needs to be clarified in each situation as actually an agency responsible. The Parks are not F&G and regarding beaches the services charges are implemented specific to the responsibilities that are most reasonably covered by the managing agency. When a situation goes beyond the routine resources, it often steps up a notch to another agencies area of responsibility. More on an earlier comment that just rubs me and steers back to Parks. So they had been almost totally unfunded by the GF for decades and finally get a little help on thing not originally expected to be funded by the operations budget (things like historic sites falling apart, major capital infrastructure investment, etc), and just this year pay off a long-time multi million dollar operational defecit to finally have funds to not be on the brink of destruction. Now a little rainey day fund above the basic needs is seen as a windfall that can be grabbed for something else.

More to say but gotta go. Maddy thanks for the balanced comments and the bear updates. Your pictures made me wonder but now clear, jut finished Ben's book and enjoyed that much of my intuition may be true with this fascinating and mis-characterized creature.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

There is a way, but the VFTT rules probably bar me from mentioning it directly here. I'll leave it to the mods to decide that. I'll send you a PM for your own use in the meantime.

The moderators' interpretation of the rules say it is OK.

Tim

 

[rocket21]

More on an earlier comment that just rubs me and steers back to Parks. So they had been almost totally unfunded by the GF for decades

This isn't the case. Millions of dollars are sent to the Parks from the General Fund for capital improvement (such as Hampton Beach).

The Parks are expected to break even, however the state continues to cut checks when they run a deficit - it's not like they run out of funds and shut everything down.

And finally, if the Parks department wasn't subsidizing the net costs of a major ski area (it's been a net drain on the overall Parks budget 9 out of the past 10 years), it would have a surplus which could finance millions of dollars of capital improvements, as well as perhaps a good faith check to SAR every year.

 

[Andrew]

It is true in that I said "almost". Before the "..finally getting a little help.." from the General Fund for capital improvements over the past few years, the last major capital appropriation was in the 1960's.

It actually does get pretty close to shutting things down and buildings have been falling apart. The park fund does borrow heavily from the GF when in a defecit (had been nearly perpetual), but gotta give credit that they steadfastly finally paid it back (w/ significant help from Cannon).

In a former job with parks on my first day in 1994, my first duty was to straighten bent rusty nails in order to repair picnic tables.

I think F&G does not need to be in a similar situation. I remember helping a sargent get some Stabilicers for Region 4 to replace the only existing gear they had, 1950's era fisherman ice cleats. He had to jump through so many hoops to get a funding stream, which was unfortunate.

 

[rocket21]

gotta give credit that they steadfastly finally paid it back (w/ significant help from Cannon).

In reality, that was a reswizzling of books. Cannon took $1.5M from the general fund that year and $0.5 million from Sunapee, then transferred $0.8 million back to the Parks account. Even if you include the $0.8 million positive transfer to the Parks account (and even exclude the $1.5 million general capital fund expense), Cannon has been a $5.5 million net cost to the Parks over the past decade.

$5.5 million in principal would finance tens of millions in bonds to restore the State Parks, as well as perhaps contributing funds to SAR for operations relating to the parks.

 

[sardog1]

Contributions to support volunteer SAR efforts in New Hampshire

The moderators' interpretation of the rules say it is OK.

Tim

Thanks very much!

For those who wish to contribute directly to the volunteer groups that perform the bulk of the SAR work in NH (in terms of hours spent), you may do so through the New Hampshire Outdoor Council. Full particulars are available at the link. FWIW, I'm not personally involved these days, so I have no personal stake in the matter ... except my status as a potential recipient of their services.

 

[Andrew]

Rocket, I commend your diligence and time in researching details. But back to my original point that the state agencies are not one big happy family, meaning the state budget is not a big pot shared for any need; instead many accounts and specific appropriations, often with the appropriation specific to a source (fee). So much of the lumps you mention are capital investment, specific to infrastructure building, and are to be used specifically. The defecit was in the operations fund, and paid back by operations revenue, and lumping all together in argument is not reality.

But alas we have drifted far from the original intent of this thread, which is about a specific account being in dire straits and another attempt to try and find a fair and balanced funding stream to head off an inevitable disaster. An objective that continues to prove to be terribly difficult!

I'm looking forward to buying my 'card' if the legislation passes.

 

[rocket21]

But back to my original point that the state agencies are not one big happy family, meaning the state budget is not a big pot shared for any need; instead many accounts and specific appropriations, often with the appropriation specific to a source (fee). So much of the lumps you mention are capital investment, specific to infrastructure building, and are to be used specifically. The defecit was in the operations fund, and paid back by operations revenue, and lumping all together in argument is not reality.

Not quite...some bonds are recognized at the State level, some in capital accounts, and some in operational accounts.

There is a stream of revenue being taken from ski area/concessions/zip line leases in Southern New Hampshire that's been sent to Cannon Mountain ski area. There was a handshake agreement in the 1990s that Cannon would become a modern, self-funded ski area, and that after the initial bonds were paid off, the Sunapee lease revenue would be allocated throughout the rest of the Parks system.

This has not happened. Instead, more of this money has been funneled to open a new mountain peak at Cannon, while kicking skinners/snowshoers/hikers out of it.

This revenue stream is now in excess of $600K per year. This revenue could fund massive improvements throughout the Parks system, as well as perhaps allocating funds to cover the SAR deficit.



I think one issue with the data set, in regard to SAR, is the broad use of the term 'hiker.'

- Casual walkers
- Swimmers (ie walking to Diana's Bath)
- Picnic'ers
- Birders
- Causual hikers
- Bushwhackers
- On trail peakbaggers
- Thru hikers
- Trailrunners
- Skinners
- Snowshoers

It would be interesting to see the # of SAR calls per breakout.

 

[peakbagger]

Some details on the Rescue Fee

Here is a link to the Berlin Daily Sun with details on the proposed rescue fee

http://berlindailysun.nh.newsmemory.com/

I really do not like the major loophole that hikers have to pay the entire fee for the rescue if "judged negligent". That is one heck of a slippery slope as F&G appears to have adjusted its definition of negligence over the years as revenue dried up. One persons negligence is another's accident. Sure it will start out with lots of assurances that only the worse cases will be judged negligent but recent history is that the likelihood of charging is somewhat related to the budget cycle or when F&G has too many rescues in a row.

 

[Breeze]

Here's a different link, same article, no password required

http://www.berlindailysun.com/index...s-and-rescues&catid=103:local-news&Itemid=442

Breeze

 

[peakbagger]

Thanks, I thought the first link was public

 

[eddie]

I really do not like the major loophole that hikers have to pay the entire fee for the rescue if "judged negligent". That is one heck of a slippery slope as F&G appears to have adjusted its definition of negligence over the years as revenue dried up. One persons negligence is another's accident.

If you have an accident or medical problem at home, an ambulance with EMTs provided care and transport to a medical facility. This is not free and it shouldn't be if you have an accident or medical problem in the mountains. This risk and related costs should be assumed and paid for by the user, not the state nor the USFS. Maybe the insurance industry could provide backwoods medical care and evacuation insurance for SAR costs and fines?

 

[Tim Seaver]

"The last piece, according to officials, is a voluntary Hike Safe card that hikers could purchase to support the fund. The card would cost $18, and anyone who had one would have their bill forgiven should they need a rescue so long as they weren't found negligent."

So you could buy the card and still get charged the full cost.

Some really great minds behind this.

Yeah..."not optimal".

 

[marnof]

I'm curious what percentage of rescues cost under $1,500, to justify the lower "deductibles." *

I'm also curious how many people on this forum would purchase the Hike Safe card. I'm not sure I'd have much use for it.



* actually a fee, not a deductible

 

[spider solo]

If you have an accident or medical problem at home, an ambulance with EMTs provided care and transport to a medical facility. This is not free and it shouldn't be if you have an accident or medical problem in the mountains. This risk and related costs should be assumed and paid for by the user, not the state nor the USFS. Maybe the insurance industry could provide backwoods medical care and evacuation insurance for SAR costs and fines?

Depending how you view things, the above could also be viewed as... 2 wrongs don't make it right...

True that an ambulance and EMT services are not free...in this county.
Actually it is extremely expensive... perhaps the most expensive in the world.
To carry that same "tradition" into our hiking or back country endeavors, would seem, to me, to just be heaping more expenses onto
private citizens, something I would think that insurance companies would love . $$$$

 

[Ed'n Lauky]

I'm curious what percentage of rescues cost under $1,500, to justify the lower "deductibles." *

I'm also curious how many people on this forum would purchase the Hike Safe card. I'm not sure I'd have much use for it.





* actually a fee, not a deductible

I'd buy it as long as a solo hiker was not automatically considered negligent. Why not do a poll? It would be interesting to see the results.

 

[Breeze]

Diver's Alert Network offers several policies for recreational sports ( hiking is included, technical mountaineering/climbing, is not.) Their cheapest ANNUAL policy is @ 300 bucks. Trying to scrutinize the policy details on this computer ( .pdf) hurts my eyes.

Point being, there is recreational sports insurance available if one wanted to pay for it, and play the " insurance" game. Even insurance has < wiggle room>, the devil is always in the policy details.

I, too, have issues with the " deemed negligent" aspect of the NH proposal, that slippery slope doesn't seem to have any " policy details".

As PB said

"One persons negligence is another's accident. Sure it will start out with lots of assurances that only the worse cases will be judged negligent but recent history is that the likelihood of charging is somewhat related to the budget cycle or when F&G has too many rescues in a row."

Costs are costs, when there is wiggle room for making payment a punitive matter rather than a cost recovery, there needs to be much more definitive oversight than a one word judgment call.

I'm not going to change any minds, and my own mind may be the most difficult .

Breeze