NH Proposes Fee If People Need To Be Rescued

[sdways01]

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 wouldn't, but I also already have a hunting/fishing license and an ATV registration. So by their rules I am covered as long as not negligent.

 

[marnof]

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.

I didn't see a guarantee of immunity from negligence fees as part of the deal.

If solo hiking is deemed negligent, I'm in trouble.

Is hiking with four-legged friends considered solo?

 

[bikehikeskifish]

What might happen if the funding issue is unsolved? Would rescues go to 100% volunteer? What would the impact be if there was no state agency (i.e., F&G) responsible for SAR? Would that be better?

I too have an annual license (fishing) so I may be covered by that and disinclined to purchase the $18/year card. In reality, $1000 is not enough to deter me if I am seriously injured.

Tim

 

[RoySwkr]

I wouldn't, but I also already have a hunting/fishing license and an ATV registration. So by their rules I am covered as long as not negligent.

I don't see that in the article.

While I would imagine that an ATV accident would not be billed, it doesn't say that. And if you're hiking and not fishing, it doesn't say you're covered by having a fishing license.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

I don't see that in the article.

While I would imagine that an ATV accident would not be billed, it doesn't say that. And if you're hiking and not fishing, it doesn't say you're covered by having a fishing license.

I spoke with Jeb over the past week, and his story jives with this one I heard today on NHPR, the proposed bill is to charge EVERYONE $350-$1000. There is an $18 "hiker safery card" to cover you in case something goes wrong, or, you will be covered if you participate in any of the current annual funding mechanisms (hunting/fishing license, registered OHRV/boat, etc.)

http://www.nhpr.org/post/bill-proposes-mandatory-fines-all-hiker-rescues

Tim

from the link above, I see the following:

And the proposed rescue fines wouldn’t apply to anyone with a current NH hunting or fishing license, or who had registered their snowmobile, ATV or boat with the state.

It's not in the current article, however.

Tim

 

[Breeze]

What might happen if the funding issue is unsolved? Would rescues go to 100% volunteer? What would the impact be if there was no state agency (i.e., F&G) responsible for SAR? Would that be better?



Tim

The NH volunteer pool is incredibly deep, and not just in numbers. Wilderness First Responder cert gets your foot in the door, for sure, but there are many, many, volunteers between AVSAR, Mountain Rescue Service, Pemi VSAR, UVWRT, MWVSP and so forth whose qualifications are EMT W/ Advanced Life Support, Physician Assistant right up to Board Certified MD's in several specialties. Their " volunteer " status belies their training and professional qualifications.

NHF&G is statutorily " in command" of an SAR, but that can mean anything from one truck 2 agents to 8 trucks 16 agents....... and in at least one emergency I can recall, one person (a member of multiple SAR teams, ski patrols, and the Gorham Ambulance crew as well as a Registered Pharmacist) managed to direct a NH Air Guard BlackHawk evac of a grievously injured BC skier from the west side of MW without ever speaking to NH F&G. He had a portable radio and connectivity to Gorham EMS.

One of the things that stick in my craw concerning the Berlin Daily Sun article is the cavalier attitude of NHF&G towards the volunteers who threaten to cease being of service in the face of the proposed changes.

From my POV, NH F&G will be up sh*t creek without a paddle no matter HOW much money they have or don't have if those volunteers choose to be not available.

Just my 2 cents... and not an answer to your question.

The state of NH could make NHSP the statutory " SAR command", and while that would let NH F&G off the hook, it still would not change the budget puzzle. There is an unfunded mandate.

Breeze

 

[bikehikeskifish]

I suppose I should add that to the question, then... and What would the impact be if the volunteers all quit?

I feel at least like I am getting something for my money when I call for a rescue. Mainly what I want is clarity in the process, so that I (and others) can go about what I (we) love with an understanding of the "rules" we need to play by.

Tim

 

[mtnpa]

I suppose I should add that to the question, then... and What would the impact be if the volunteers all quit?
Tim

Cost of rescues would increase bigtime

 

[sardog1]

"Jordan said he has heard people in volunteer groups that assist Fish and Game say they would likely stop volunteering their time if victims are charged.
'It's been threatened,' he said, but the department has to make the numbers work even if it risks alienating volunteers.
Chandler is also sensitive to that concern. 'Obviously [volunteers] are important,' he said. 'We really need their help.' But again, he said, this is the starting point for the conversation."

Apart from the ethical considerations and the possible effect on delaying calls for help from people fearing a hit to their wallets, there is a small, but not negligible, risk that the collection and redistribution of fees could expose the volunteer groups (and possibly their individual members) to lawsuits involving SAR missions. To this point, the money F&G has been collecting has not been distributed to the NH Outdoor Council (umbrella group for the volunteer groups) because of the budget gap at F&G, so the associated liability risk has been very small. But it could increase enough to cause some to consider not participating if the money starts flowing to the groups. It's a question that the groups need to consider very carefully with the benefit of legal counsel.

 

[Breeze]

Not only cost, but initial response time would increase, as well as duration of the mission, and with longer duration, survivablity decreases for the injured, risks rise for the limited number in the response team, who all have to be out longer.

If F&G gets called for a high ice accident tomorrow,oh, say on Frankenstein or in Pinnacle Gully/Huntingtons Ravine.... their first phone call is going to be to Mark Synnott/Mountain Rescue Services.

Next winter, If Mark says heck with that, you guys now can bill for your time, pfffft.....none of us are getting anything for risking OUR ^^^...... How many ice climbing specialists are there in F&G vs Mountain Rescue Service?

If someone called F&G right now from the obs deck on Mt Washington, or the dungeon of LOC, F&G would be talking to Cyrena of MWOBS , she'd be onto Slim or Chris or Gus to fire up MWOBS snow-cat, pay one of them thru MWOBS to get F&G paid staff PLUS volunteers to the top of Mt W. Thats just what has to happen. F&G doesn't have the equipment or the trained staff, they NEED ASSISTANCE. Right now it is offered and done because it just is part of the territory.

If costs become billable by F&G in all situations, ancillary folks are going to want their share, too. What was once offered on a volunteer, good-will, do unto others, we are all in this together basis will become billable and invoiced line items. Rescue bills will grow faster than dandelions in May.


Summer and Fall , someone goes down on pick-a-trail close to the summit of Washington, Pierce, Jeff, Clay, Madison, Adams... before F&G even gets a unit to the Auto Road, AMC has sent up a van with 8 or more, OBS and MWSP have contributed another 6 between them, bystanders have been recruited, a full 18 person litter carry crew has the injured to available transport off the summit of Washington with an EMT monitoring their condition and Gorham EMS ( or DHART helo) is waiting at the base to transfer. F & G arrives, fills out a report. Hypothermic due to Not dressed for conditions ??? Negligent. Pay the State. But the state doesn't recover anyone's FULL cost, so who gets what orts ? Who decides who gets paid and how

Truly, this is not optimal. I don't blame F & G in the least for any of it, their deck of cards was shorted by the NH Legislature. F&G is trying to find forward movement as are so many others who love the outdoors.

Breeze

Its a crying shame, IMHO.

 

[RoySwkr]

from the link above, I see the following:

And the proposed rescue fines wouldn’t apply to anyone with a current NH hunting or fishing license, or who had registered their snowmobile, ATV or boat with the state.

It's not in the current article, however.

Yup, and that's part of the problem - what's proposed seems to change from day to day and even hour to hour.

If an $18 fee won't cover negligent hikers, why should a $24.50 fee cover negligent hunters? Why should $1 from a boat license cover you if you get drunk and fall overboard? Why is Jeb picking on hikers?

 

[bikehikeskifish]

As I readit, it is Gene Chandler pushing it. I'm not sure it's changing from day to day, it may be that reporters are picking up or reporting different things. It does say it is still a work in progress and not yet a bill, so it could change even still. Jeb is "picking on hikers" presumably because he believes they use a majority of the resources and should pay for it. I've been gently nudging him to participate here... no luck yet.

Tim

 

[Red Oak]

Yup, and that's part of the problem - what's proposed seems to change from day to day and even hour to hour.

If an $18 fee won't cover negligent hikers, why should a $24.50 fee cover negligent hunters? Why should $1 from a boat license cover you if you get drunk and fall overboard? Why is Jeb picking on hikers?

Why I will not pay for "insurance".I would pay for ski insurance though in Vermont to get hot chocolate from that lemonade stand at killington run by sardog if I get "offtrail" by accident or not.{not familiar with any position by jeb on this matter]

 

[Breeze]

There is an unfunded state mandate that the NH legislature refuses to address, despite some alarming facts.

No one should be pickle in the middle, but no one can tell the NH legislature exactly why they need to get over the river and through the woods. Hikers do that, all the time, but not the State Legislature.

Kinda why we kick this can as often as we can, if there is to be a fee for service, there can no longer be any expectation of free service.

Breeze

 

[bikehikeskifish]

I think they are trying to address it, finally. The 2008 law whereby charging is based on the new standard of negligence has not produced enough funding to cover the costs, and so they are moving along to the next thing to see if that will work. I really wish they would outline what the standard is so that people can make educated decisions about risk.

Whether you agree or disagree with the idea that rescues should be free or not free, it is a NH way of life to have many services be funded by user fees. There is ample precedent for charging for rescues, as is the case with ambulances, and there is ample precedent for tax funding, as is the case with police and fire. I happen to think that the NH way of thinking aligns it more with the ambulance side (personal hazard) versus the police / fire side (public hazard).

Tim

 

[Breeze]

Tim, there isn't any graceful way to point to the unrecoverable F&G costs for the multiple searches and eventual recovery of the deceased Peter Shintani or the multiple searches for the elusive and absent Kevin Race, or to the Scott Mason fiasco. Those missions cost big money with no hope of cost recovery.

You and I are so not far apart, both of us want to see a standard so everyone can just go hike their own hike, know what their risks are and go, do, live, be. Or die trying?

Breeze

 

[peakbagger]

The daily sun article mentioned there is a rational solution, fund S&R from the general fund which is partially funded by the room and meals tax. Outdoor activities are part of tourism and tourism is a major business in NH. If someone is negligent to a well defined rational set of standards rather than an arbitrary decision motivated by political expediancy, than bill for it.

The reason the rescue fee is brought up is that the legislature would much rather force a self funding resolution no matter how bad it is as NH bascially runs government in perpetual fiscal crisis. That method allows the state to have no broad based income tax and sales tax but it does shift cost to other areas including user fees.

Folks forget that the majority of the state legislature are mostly retirees as few working folks can afford to be in the legislature, therefore the the folks making the rules may tend to take a very conservative approach to what a negligent act may be. I expect to some, any winter hiking is inherently negligent act.

 

[mtnpa]

...If costs become billable by F&G in all situations, ancillary folks are going to want their share, too. What was once offered on a volunteer, good-will, do unto others, we are all in this together basis will become billable and invoiced line items. Rescue bills will grow faster than dandelions in May...

Hadn't thought about it like that. Maybe I can quit my day job.

...there is a rational solution, fund S&R from the general fund which is partially funded by the room and meals tax. Outdoor activities are part of tourism and tourism is a major business in NH. If someone is negligent to a well defined rational set of standards rather than an arbitrary decision motivated by political expediancy, than bill for it...

This is how it always should have been done.

 

[RoySwkr]

The daily sun article mentioned there is a rational solution, fund S&R from the general fund which is partially funded by the room and meals tax. Outdoor activities are part of tourism and tourism is a major business in NH. If someone is negligent to a well defined rational set of standards rather than an arbitrary decision motivated by political expediancy, than bill for it.

Once the Globe travel section starts reporting the $500 fines along with articles on hiking in VT, the tourist lobby may change their view on this

There is a sort-of rational standard in that the underlying statute defines reckless conduct as a crime, what if a conviction was required before negligence is established?

Just yesterday Susan Lynch was quoted that more outdoor activity was good for general health, but she has no clout any more

 

[sardog1]

Anyone who thinks that a majority of the NH Legislature cares one fig about what some of us call the commonweal hasn't been paying attention over the years: New Hampshire facing crisis in mental-health access

Hikers, especially those who don't vote here, are way, way down the list in Concord.