Proposed fees for Search and Rescue in NH

[Al Sochard]

Anyone have any further information about this?

2011-S-0418-R
title: establishing a fee on occupancy of sleeping accommodations of the Appalachian Mountain Club and the Randolph Mountain Club to fund search and rescue operations by the fish and game department.

Sponsors:
(Prime)Lou D'Allesandro

 

[RoySwkr]

It isn't listed here yet:
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/

 

[Little Rickie]

Anyone have any further information about this?

2011-S-0418-R
title: establishing a fee on occupancy of sleeping accommodations of the Appalachian Mountain Club and the Randolph Mountain Club to fund search and rescue operations by the fish and game department.

Sponsors:
(Prime)Lou D'Allesandro

Don't they do that in Vermont?

 

[sardog1]

Pretty obvious who this is aimed at, and I'm not talking about hikers as a class. The anti-Mass. resentments run deep in this state and are apparently irresistible even for a Boston-born pol who sits in the Granite Headed State's legislature.

Quick, name the last three instances when a lodging guest of either organization was the subject of a SAR mission in NH. Nah, I didn't think you could, and he can't either.

 

[Al Sochard]

Sorry, but

There are many documented cases of and I can attest to, rescues needed for folks who were guests of both the AMC and RMC. Either on there way to such facilities, staying at the facilities or having just left.

 

[sardog1]

Let's hear three, please.

Here's a Google search of all of Fish and Game's news media releases for "hiker" -- http://tinyurl.com/25rc85o. Maybe you'll have better luck finding a connection to the lodging facilities than I have had.

 

[Kevin Rooney]

... Maybe you'll have better luck finding a connection to the lodging facilities than I have had.

Am not sure there is a connection per se. But, it's an identifiable revenue source. Wonder if Hiker's Paradise, the White Mountain Hostel and other facilities which cater to the outdoorsy crowd would be targets?

And FWIW - the AMC Crawford Notch facility caters to more than just the outdoorsy set. One of the times I was there recently the place was nearly full - booked by the NH Council on the Arts. As best I could determine, their multi-day stay had little to do with the outdoors. Rather, it was a gathering one might expect to find at many "destination resorts".

On balance, however - most of the people who stay at AMC and RMC facilities are probably hikers and climbers.

 

[Dr. Dasypodidae]

Am not sure there is a connection per se. But, it's an identifiable revenue source. Wonder if Hiker's Paradise, the White Mountain Hostel and other facilities which cater to the outdoorsy crowd would be targets?

And FWIW - the AMC Crawford Notch facility caters to more than just the outdoorsy set. One of the times I was there recently the place was nearly full - booked by the NH Council on the Arts. As best I could determine, their multi-day stay had little to do with the outdoors. Rather, it was a gathering one might expect to find at many "destination resorts".

On balance, however - most of the people who stay at AMC and RMC facilities are probably hikers and climbers.

I wonder if the proposed bill is only targeting the eight AMC and four RMC "high" huts?

 

[DrJJFate]

In searching for the NH legislative bill mentioned above, I discovered a Fish & Game pdf which discusses funding and expenditures.

Fish & Game Dept Presentation

 

[griffin]

Am not sure there is a connection per se. But, it's an identifiable revenue source. Wonder if Hiker's Paradise, the White Mountain Hostel and other facilities which cater to the outdoorsy crowd would be targets?

Not to mention campgrounds...

It's no more unfair than making ORV licenses pay for all S&R operations, but I'm with sardog1 thinking this is meant to target out-of-staters.

 

[sardog1]

To be clear about this -- I'm not disputing that the category "hiker" comprises a large part of the SAR missions in the state. But I don't recall any noteworthy (read: expensive) incidents involving AMC or RMC lodging guests or any significant frequency of minor incidents involving them.

OTOH, I do recall LOTS of noteworthy incidents involving folks who were (1) planning on staying in the woods on their own or (2) dayhikers who clearly had no connection to any of the lodging locales in question.

 

[TCD]

The merits of fees, or the lack of merits of fees, does not really matter here. Politics is about looking like you are doing something, while actually doing as little as possible, so you can increase your name recognition without stepping on any real toes. 99% of what happens is driven by that approach. (Not intended to be a political post - it's the same for all locations and parties.)

 

[RoySwkr]

Pretty obvious who this is aimed at, and I'm not talking about hikers as a class. The anti-Mass. resentments run deep in this state and are apparently irresistible even for a Boston-born pol who sits in the Granite Headed State's legislature.

Quick, name the last three instances when a lodging guest of either organization was the subject of a SAR mission in NH. Nah, I didn't think you could, and he can't either.

Guests at AMC huts are generally well-to-do and adding a buck wouldn't even be noticeable, RMC facilities are substantially cheaper but maybe the fee is a percentage. (Of course hut guests already pay R&M tax.)

As to the 2nd question, one nasty operation was the guy who had a reservation at Madison and was left to die 1/4 of a mile away because the weather was too bad for rescue.

 

[HAMTERO]

Roy, what were the details on the Madison guy?

 

[MichaelJ]

As a side note, when was the last time a lodging guest of one of these establishments was the subject of a search & rescue, and one of these establishments didn't contribute either employees (croo) or volunteers to assist?

 

[sardog1]

Roy, what were the details on the Madison guy?

The incident in question was in August 1986 -- in other words, the last century. You can find details in "Not Without Peril" by Nicholas Howe.

 

[Papa Bear]

Roy, what were the details on the Madison guy?

Peter Busher - September 11, 2002

 

[bikehikeskifish]

The incident in question was in August 1986 -- in other words, the last century. You can find details in "Not Without Peril" by Nicholas Howe.

MacDonald Barr, pp. 221-254

Tim

 

[Stan]

To be clear about this -- I'm not disputing that the category "hiker" comprises a large part of the SAR missions in the state. But I don't recall any noteworthy (read: expensive) incidents involving AMC or RMC lodging guests or any significant frequency of minor incidents involving them.

OTOH, I do recall LOTS of noteworthy incidents involving folks who were (1) planning on staying in the woods on their own or (2) dayhikers who clearly had no connection to any of the lodging locales in question.

I share sardog1's intuition about the source of lost hikers. If anything, guests of the hut facilities are probably better prepared in general than those without an inkling of the facilities available. On the contrary, it might be argued that a disproportionate number of cases are dayhikers unaccustomed to conditions and navigation. Someone else might argue that those who push the limits of conditions and endurance represent the highest proportionate risk.

In the end, it really doesn't matter to me, these statistics being subject to many variables and probably changing from time to time.

It is punitive, if not counterproductive to attracting visitors to NH, to tack an additional fee on selective accommodations. The 9% accommodations tax already gives me pause to think I'm better off staying elsewhere for long periods.

I disagree with the notion that guests of the hut facilities can better afford the additional tax and I don't think that is relevant either. We are all in this together and these things ought to be paid out of general funds, not by some preconceived notion of who can or can't afford the tax.

What I do think is unfair is that, in many jurisdictions, the bulk of SAR budgets come from hunting, fishing and other outdoor recreation licenses. Hikers, rightfully so, need no license. This is a cause of resentment (and probably behind the proposed legislation). I think the former source of revenue should be dedicated to conservation, SAR costs from the general funds.

We can perceive many ridiculous ways governments at all levels spend revenues. I think public safety would have a legitimate priority in the claim for public funds.

 

[SteveHiker]

OMG!!

A tax on one segment of the population that may benefit another segment. Surely this unprecedented historic event will precipitate the downfall of western civilization.

Oh wait, that's what the case already is.

Besides wouldn't the fairest thing to do would be to send a nickel from each parking pass to SAR. After all, there is likely a strong correlation to needing a rescue and having a pass, right? (forgetting the lack of amenities at most parking lots for the moment).

But alas, as I found out a long time ago, life isn't fair.