Please help NH F&G this Christmas

vftt.org

Help Support vftt.org:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Hmmm, maybe I am naive. Maybe I think I live in a "Semi-perfect" world and can not see the reasoning. But can someone please explain why:

The NH Fish and Game department is given the responsibility of providing search and rescue service on FEDERALLY owned land using the F&G BUDGET MONEY?

Why can the Federal Government spend $50 on a roll of toilet paper, $100,000 to pay for a senators business trip (i.e. vacation), trillions on stealth bombers when our current worst enemy does not even have radar, yet....YET.....can not slide a few hundred thousand a year to the F&G department to compensate for the SAR costs incurred?

I don't blame the Fish and Game department. I can't. They are playing the hand with the cards delt them. But I find it funny that this state relies so heavily on its tourist trade, yet ignores the F&G who contribute just as much to the industry itslef as does the Hotels, Motels and gift shops. Perhaps when the Fish and Game department goes under thanks to the bumbling of our inept state government, we can then enjoy a F&G department that sees all its budgetary needs met.

So sad :(

Brian
 
NewHampshire said:
...can someone please explain why The NH Fish and Game department is given the responsibility of providing search and rescue service on FEDERALLY owned land using the F&G BUDGET MONEY?
Click to expand...
This is connected to the fact that National Forests were established without infringing specific state's rights, such as fish and game management. And since F&G has statewide S&R responsibility, there wasn't really any impetus (or opportunity) to change the rules in the WMNF. After all, its the hunting, fishing, and snowmobiling licenses that pay for F&G, and therefore for S&R. If they gave up WMNF S&R, they would propably be expected to share this revenue with whatever agency picks up the S&R duties.

This is not to say that an alternate structure might not be better. It's a just a comment on why we have the existing system.
 
Doa

Sen. Gottesman Moved Inexpedient to Legislate, MA, VV === BILL KILLED ===

Dead 22 - 0.
 
cantdog said:
A HUGE thanks to everyone who helped campaign against it.


"Paddle free or drown!"
Click to expand...

Congradulations. Now the thousands of dollars per year spent on paddling trips won't be increased by ten dollars.

The boat tax would not have saved NH F&G, but it needs to be saved. I hope all the paddlers are as concerned with saving F&G as much as saving the ten dollars.
 
It will be saved, if the cost of saving it warrants it. It shouldn't be saved on the backs of a small few (paddlers) or a larger, but still small few (hunters and anglers) beneficiaries. F&G themselves admit they can't increase license fees there because license sales are already on the decline. If NH wants to be (and face it, is) a tourist-based economy then they need to base their infrastructure on that market segment, i.e., the rooms & meals tax. They could, at the risk of inciting a riot, start charging a fee (parking?) at Franconia Notch State Park, which would target the beneficiaries of service a little bit better.

You are never sure you have reached the best solution to a problem until you have considered several.


Tim
 
I've had to listen to people here complaining about the AMC and how they don't pay taxes as there tax exempt and they should rescue there own..Not the fish and game. And that some of the snowmobile money goes to the hiker community and nothing coming from the hiking community,boaters,etc.

I guess now they want to increase the registrations for Snow Machines and ATVs.. Since they can't get any direct money out of the above.
We'll be more expensive than Me. then..the Southerners will go to Me. to register and stay.. To save the 10 bucks or so..

Funny everyone will spends lot's of bucks on stupids things and lavish living but don't want to spend 10 bucks on a fee. Me included.. When I was in Ma. I raised up on a Salt Water license.. But would spend Thousands on fuel,tackle,etc..Dinner... Shame on all of us.

Survival of the fittest I guess.
 
CaptCaper said:
I've had to listen to people here complaining about the AMC and how they don't pay taxes as there tax exempt and they should rescue there own..Not the fish and game. And that some of the snowmobile money goes to the hiker community and nothing coming from the hiking community,boaters,etc.

I guess now they want to increase the registrations for Snow Machines and ATVs.. Since they can't get any direct money out of the above.
We'll be more expensive than Me. then..the Southerners will go to Me. to register and stay.. To save the 10 bucks or so..

Funny everyone will spends lot's of bucks on stupids things and lavish living but don't want to spend 10 bucks on a fee. Me included.. When I was in Ma. I raised up on a Salt Water license.. But would spend Thousands on fuel,tackle,etc..Dinner... Shame on all of us.

Survival of the fittest I guess.
Click to expand...

I don't know if this will get me in trouble by crossing the political line but it isn't about the $10. It’s about mismanagement of the money and resources. I don't particularly like the fee for trailhead access and I believe that I can get away with not paying it to be honest. I still pay it because while I find it onerous I believe that most of the money is going back to the NH FS for their use or at least that is what I have read. The money is being returned for something I believe in and I trust the FS to use it wisely. If it gets to the point where I don't believe that, I will complain loudly about it and may refuse to support the program by not paying. Again, it’s not the money per se. It is holding government and its agencies to some form of accountability. I don't blame FS for the problems, I do blame a government that can't keep track of its money and how to properly disperse and apply it. If there are problems with the SAR aspects of the FS or F&G then fix that. Make the offenders pay, or take money from trail maintenance or sign replacement or try to make the hikers pay, but don’t rob kayakers to fix a problem in the hiking fraternity. Place the burden in the area that it belongs so the system can respond properly.

Just my $.02,
Keith
 
Lots of false assumptions here...

..."F&G doesn't manage funds properly/wastes money". Could anyone here please explain and demonstrate where the waste is? Exactly what should be cut? Have you bothered to examine the budget before commenting?

...''F&G benefits hunters and anglers" or "F&G benefits hikers, not paddlers".
F&G rescues paddlers and snowmobilers, not just hikers. Seems like every spring melt there is someone who gets their canoe stuck in the river with tons of water pounding down on them, waiting for F&G to resue them.

Those who campaigned to kill the boat tax, did you campaign for any solutions as well, or did you just try to save the ten bucks? Did you campaign for HB376, which would have captured just 4% of the 8% Rooms And Meals Tax? This would have have sustantially helped F&G funding but it was also killed.

I would like to think that VFTTers are environmentally conscious people who care about the wildlife and habitat, not just there own personal good time floating down one of our rivers or bagging list peaks. Maybe I'm wrong. I don't read much concern for F&G here.

web.jpg


What stands between them and the filthy poachers? Hikers? Paddlers? Sierra Club? Bumper stickers? The only thing that protects wildlife from the filthy poachers are brave, armed F&G officers. Nothing else. Moose would be gone in a decade without F&G. You won't see poachers at the trailhead or the trendy taverns, but they do lurk. Without F&G, they would be free to poach.

I wish people cared as much about saving F&G as saving ten bucks.
 
Last edited:
forestgnome said:
...The only thing that protects wildlife from the filthy poachers are brave, armed F&G officers. Nothing else. Moose would be gone in a decade without them.
Click to expand...
...as well as the black bears. :(

Contrary to what is written in that article, it is unlawful to "buy, sell or offer for sale a deer, bear, moose or any part thereof, other than the head, hide or feet;" in N.H. The article does however show the scale of the black bear poaching problem.
NH F&G link
 
Last edited:
forestgnome said:
...''F&G benefits hunters and anglers" or "F&G benefits hikers, not paddlers".
F&G rescues paddlers and snowmobilers, not just hikers. Seems like every spring melt there is someone who gets their canoe stuck in the river with tons of water pounding down on them, waiting for F&G to resue them.
Click to expand...

I pay for a fishing license. I receive stocking and fisheries management in return ((theoretically, I don't trout fish so I don't partake of stocked fish, and I've never seen any enforcement of licenses except one time smelting on Great Bay). There is a direct correspondence between the fee and the activity, and improvement of that activity.

And for every canoe stuck in the ice, there are thousands and thousands which come out for a week or two per year from people's cottages and never involve a ramp, an 'improved facility' or a rescue, so there is a much lower correspondence (perceptually at least) between the fee and the activity. We have 5 such 'boats' combined at my father-in-law's cottage (2 canoes, 2 kayaks and a dingy). On top of the two sailboats and two powerboats that are already registered.

forestgnome said:
Those who campaigned to kill the boat tax, did you campaign for any solutions as well, or did you just try to save the ten bucks? Did you campaign for HB376, which would have captured just 4% of the *5
Click to expand...
I wrote that I strongly support, instead of the boat tax, appropriating a percentage of the meals and rooms tax. There is, at least, a stronger relationship between those fees and the activities. Tourists need rescues, tourists pay the rooms and meals tax.

I would likewise support use fees at state parks where rescues are known to be likely, as at Franconia Notch State Park.

Without espousing one particular political view or another, suffice it to say that I am generally a believer in self-reliability, self-responsibility, and paying for what you use. This includes the wild notion that if you are out hiking and you need rescuing you should be responsible for some portion of it. Likewise, if you are driving and have an accident and aren't wearing a seatbelt, you should pay more for your insurance and/or hospital bills. If you smoke, your premium should be higher than a non-smoker's.

You yourself stated the boat tax wouldn't have saved F&G. Therefore killing it raises the hope of finding a method that will actually save them, rather than creating the illusion that the problem is solved.

forestgnome said:
What stands between them and the filthy poachers? Hikers? Paddlers? Sierra Club? The only thing that protects wildlife from the filthy poachers are brave, armed F&G officers. Nothing else. Moose would be gone in a decade without them.
Click to expand...

I thought you weren't suppose to come between mother and cub? ;-) Seriously though, great picture!!

Just so there isn't any misunderstanding -- I support the F&G and do not want them to disappear. I want them to be funded in a fair and equitable manner.

Tim
 
I don't view opposition to a tax on unpowered boats as apathy or enmity towards F&G at all.

Personally, I would find it to be an inconvenience far beyond the $10 out of pocket cost. There is the time and effort to register, something at odds when the purpose of paddling in NH is to get away from time and effort demands. This is especially aggravating for that time and effort as well as the out of pocket cost when any or all of several different boats might be subject to that tax, be they owned, borrowed or rented.

I think there is a genuine and well earned suspicion of any government agency when it comes to spending money wisely and carrying out basic services effectively. F&G probably stands above this but taxpayers, ratepayers and licensees have seen too many abuses and too much politicization of the mission to easily trust any agency, no matter how competent it may be.

Finally, those tax and spenders who are spreading like a cancer in New Hampshire are in danger of biting the hand that feeds them. Wholesome outdoor activity is a big tourist draw ... too much red tape and extra costs and we can easily take our boats elsewhere.
 
Stan said:
I don't view opposition to a tax on unpowered boats as apathy or enmity towards F&G at all.
Click to expand...

Neither do I. I view the lack of concern for F&G as a lack of concern. Of all the points made, noone expresses appreciation for the importance of the services of F&G. All I read is reasons why people shouldn't have to pay for it.

In fact, I can't find a complimentary word about F&G, while on another thread brewpubs are lavishly praised for their services. $10.00 for two pints is definately a worthy purchase.

A general suspicion of wasteful spending by a gov. agancy is fine, but have you examined the budget and found waste? Please describe it.

Again, did anyone here campaign for HB376? Has any positive effort been made to help F&G?
 
Maybe F&G should hire you (forestgnome) to market them to the masses. I think they may have an image problem. Or maybe it's a labeling problem--they ought to be renamed to something else, like GO - Guardians of the Outdoors. Or how about GORP -- Guardians of the Outdoors, Recreation, and Playing.

When the general population hears "F&G is in trouble" they think "I don't fish or hunt--I don't care".

I did write in support of HB376, as I noted above.

Tim
 
I don't think a lot of people realize that F&G and NH Parks are "self funded" (I prefer 'user-funded'), meaning little to no General Fund (tax based) money makes it towards operation of these agencies. I think suspicion and aggravation towards government agencies is more pervasive and more easily justified towards a tax funded agency. Even though F&G does not benefit from tax based funding, they are under an incredible burden of administrative procedures and obligations created by the state's Administrative Services that is an incredible strain on budgets. The state government is not one big family that directs individual agencies to assist all others as a matter of State, F&G and Parks have to pay other state agencies for work and procedures they are obligated by Administrative Rules to perform. I think it is a mistake to blame waste directly on the agencies (this is very offensive to the individuals who work very hard and give a lot of uncompensated effort), but may certainly be blamed and analyzed at a higher level of state government.

Now I would be very careful about sending random small donations to F&G- A friend works for them and just told me a shocking fact. I was told that any donations deposited to the State Treasury had an administrative fee that F&G has to pay. So if you walk in and hand the receptionist in Concord a donation, it would actually cost F&G more money. So make any donations significant if you want it to matter. The way this is handled with day to day business in the agency, is to 'bundle' transactions and deposits to more significant levels, but then there is the Administrative Rule which requires that any amounts collected by a state agency above $150 must be deposited daily. I'm not sure if General Funded state agencies have to pay all these fees.


I see F&G suffering from unfunded mandates. I don't know the details as far as periods of time, but will write from assumption. When NH State Legislature by law made bodies of water greater than 10 acres "Great Ponds" and the water therein open to public use, eventually (or immediately) created a state law obligating F&G to provide public access with boat ramps (expensive!). Don't you love those new outhouses at many of the F&G improved boat ramps!

With mountain S&R when legislation was written putting F&G in charge, this was an earlier time when the majority of this type of response was for the dominant woodsman, the hunter. Makes sense for this but times have changed and the hiker has become the dominant woodsperson, but no funding from this user type. This has obviously become an ever increasing burden, and it is not fair for the burden of this cost to fall increasingly on the sportsman through higher license fees.

Personally I would be more than happy to pay a $10 fee for my canoe for an annual put-in sticker, but then I would become more upset with the swimmers that clog the boat ramps illegally. I'm actually considering purchasing a hunting license to help F&G out even though I'm a vegetarian- but I apparently don't have my priorities straight- I'll just spend it at one of those brewpubs instead.
 
Andrew said:
With mountain S&R when legislation was written putting F&G in charge, this was an earlier time when the majority of this type of response was for the dominant woodsman, the hunter. Makes sense for this but times have changed and the hiker has become the dominant woodsperson, but no funding from this user type. This has obviously become an ever increasing burden, and it is not fair for the burden of this cost to fall increasingly on the sportsman through higher license fees.
Click to expand...

Actually, the SAR responsibility was put on Fish & Game because of an aircraft crash, not because the "dominant" woodspeople were the ones getting lost.

A friend of a NH governor was among the passengers on the plane. Things were fairly chaotic in the response. A Fish and Game officer knew a guy who knew the area, and they went right to the crash scene. When the governor saw how competent the officer was, in contrast to the chaos he otherwise witnessed, he designated Fish & Game the lead agency henceforth for SAR response in the state. This was later formalized by statute.
 
Andrew, great post, even the 'brew pub' dig. ;)

I reread the entire thread and did find some words of support, but not very much. That just bums me out. Sorry to be cranky. It's a complicated issue. The big picture, IMO, is that the funding structure needs to be changed within state govt. Too many resposibilities for the present funding scheme.

I want a healthy F&G proptecting the wildlife and habitat. It means alot to me. WMNF is a huge part of my life. Done whining.

Happy Trails :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

ChrisB
Latest F&G Study Makes Surprising Recommendations
Replies
2
Views
7K
peakbagger
P
bikehikeskifish
NH F&G Press Release: Commission to study funding issue
2
Replies
26
Views
8K
Paradox
Paradox
forestgnome
an example of the value of NH F&G
2
Replies
37
Views
9K
Trail Bandit
Trail Bandit

Latest posts

Top