Proposed fees for Search and Rescue in NH

[Remix]

Well why not have fees for police, ambulance and fire calls?

 

[TrishandAlex]

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?

Saw a great example of the Lakes croo doing a stellar job the night the girls and I stayed there in September. It was a nasty day with cold rain and low visibility. Just an awful day to be above treeline, perfect conditions for hypothermia. An elderly guest slipped going down the Ammo and broke his arm. Two of the croo hiked him all the way down (they went down instead of up to the Auto Road because SARS felt it better to get him below treeline ASAP). After hiking the fellow out, the two croo members came back up the Ammo (which resembled a mile long waterfall) and jumped right into their dinner duties, barely missing a beat.

 

[SAR-EMT40]

Well why not have fees for police, ambulance and fire calls?

As I have mentioned, we do.

Keith

 

[smitty77]

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?

And to piggy-back on that thought... I don't think the following scenario has played out yet, but: Say a hiker requires a rather involved rescue, is deemed negligent, and is charged by the state. Let's also assume resources were donated by the AMC or RMC to rescue said hiker, as is often the case. Does the AMC or RMC then get a reimbursement from the fines the hiker paid for his gross negligence?

My guess is no.

 

[RoySwkr]

If anything, guests of the hut facilities are probably better prepared in general than those without an inkling of the facilities available.

I would say that backpackers are probably the best prepared with survival gear and day hikers the least, hut users may not be carrying food and shelter and they may travel in unusually bad weather because they have a prepaid reservation - would the Madison guy have turned around sooner if he wasn't expecting a warm bed? Gene Daniell once wrote a letter to the AMC Bulletin that the existence of huts attracted relatively inexperienced people farther into the outdoors, and many of the angry responses actually proved his point. "Boy was it nice when I broke my ankle to have a hut close by."

Hut users probably generate more S&R responses than couch potatoes which is probably the 1st reason this tax is proposed.

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.

Demographically I'm sure you'll find that AMC hut users tend to be in higher income brackets, lesser true for RMC. Many taxes are based on "soak the rich" and that is probably the second part of why this tax is being proposed.

The fairest might be to charge all hikers but since the appropriate amount would be less than $1/year it would be prohibitively expensive to collect. If you surcharge ORV registrations or hut stays they are already making payments so the overhead is much less.

Note that the incoming Senate has vowed "no new taxes" so this willl probably die just because nobody wants to be able to have their next opponent point to their vote for this

 

[sardog1]

And to piggy-back on that thought... I don't think the following scenario has played out yet, but: Say a hiker requires a rather involved rescue, is deemed negligent, and is charged by the state. Let's also assume resources were donated by the AMC or RMC to rescue said hiker, as is often the case. Does the AMC or RMC then get a reimbursement from the fines the hiker paid for his gross negligence?

My guess is no.

Your guess is correct but not for the reason you probably envisioned. The collected reimbursements go into a fund from which remittances could be made to the member agencies of the New Hampshire Outdoor Council (an umbrella organization for the major SAR groups in the state.) Because the Fish and Game SAR budget is under such pressure, no such remittances have been made in the last several years that I'm aware of. But I'm out of the loop these days on that question.

 

[Kevin Rooney]

Do we have any lawyers out there who wish to comment upon the possible constitutionality (I think that's a word) of this proposal? That issue was my second reaction to the proposal. My first reaction was an old one - NH politics are, and always have been, such a muddled mystery to me.

 

[Bob Kittredge]

Charitable Donations

I'm sitting here thinking I would be happy to kick in $1 for SAR everytime I hiked in NH. Is there a recognized charitable organization in this field where I could send a yearly check and get a little tax break as well?

 

[sardog1]

I'm sitting here thinking I would be happy to kick in $1 for SAR everytime I hiked in NH. Is there a recognized charitable organization in this field where I could send a yearly check and get a little tax break as well?

Sending you a PM to avoid breaching the "no solicitation" rule here (even though I'm not seeking funds, only directing you.)

 

[Bob]

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".

They don't call it the "Highlife Center" for nothing...

 

[griffin]

Hut users probably generate more S&R responses than couch potatoes which is probably the 1st reason this tax is proposed.

If couch potatoes are the comparison, this also applies to all hikers, not to mention walkers, hunters, campers, bird watchers...why single out the huts?

I agree the huts help less experienced people get out in the woods, but I absent actual data, I don't buy that this automatically leads to these specific people getting in more trouble than the average hiker/backpacker.

You could just as easily argue that the people relying on the huts are more likely to stay within their limitations (the AMC huts being reasonably accessible and easier to find by direct trail) and out of trouble than someone with the experience to take themselves into the back country and relatively higher-risk situations.

As an AMC member, and someone who stays in huts on occasion, I honestly wouldn't mind coughing up an extra dollar to support Search & Rescue (although I'd rather see it come out of the parking fees). But I haven't seen anything to justify the idea that hut users are more prone to needing rescue. If anyone has such data, please do share.

 

[RoySwkr]

Do we have any lawyers out there who wish to comment upon the possible constitutionality (I think that's a word) of this proposal? That issue was my second reaction to the proposal.

I am not a lawyer (although I was talking to several last night including a retired NH Supreme Court justice) but why would you think this tax is unconstitutional? There are any number of oddball taxes out there.

My first reaction was an old one - NH politics are, and always have been, such a muddled mystery to me.

Sure (and I've only lived there 40 yrs) but not as confusing as MA or the US Congress.

If couch potatoes are the comparison, this also applies to all hikers, not to mention walkers, hunters, campers, bird watchers...why single out the huts?

Because huts already pay taxes so it's much easier to tack on more than to figure out a way to collect from every bird watcher, and its alleged hut users tend to be wealthy and out of state so they make nice targets.

 

[Peaks]

Parking fees

I seems to me that taxing huts (both AMC and RMC) is putting the burden on a snmall and narrow percentage of users. If you want to tax a broader base of recreational users, why not make it part of the WMNF parking fees?

 

[bikehikeskifish]

I seems to me that taxing huts (both AMC and RMC) is putting the burden on a snmall and narrow percentage of users. If you want to tax a broader base of recreational users, why not make it part of the WMNF parking fees?

Parking fees are collected by the WMNF, a federal agency. SAR is performed by NH F&G, a self-funded state agency.

Any questions?

Tim

 

[griffin]

It would hardly be the first time that the feds and the states both applied a tax, tariff or fee on the same item. There's no reason they couldn't add a buck to the parking fee and have the feds divert an appropriate amount of the monies collected to New Hampshire.

Other than not having the political will to do it, that is.

 

[sardog1]

It would hardly be the first time that the feds and the states both applied a tax, tariff or fee on the same item. There's no reason they couldn't add a buck to the parking fee and have the feds divert an appropriate amount of the monies collected to New Hampshire.

Other than not having the political will to do it, that is.

Well, actually, the Forest Service lacks the authority to do this without an act of Congress, and Fish and Game couldn't accept the funds without an act by the New Hampshire Legislature. And that sequence of events ain't gonna happen any time soon.

 

[griffin]

I did not say I was holding my breath

 

[Kevin Rooney]

I am not a lawyer (although I was talking to several last night including a retired NH Supreme Court justice) but why would you think this tax is unconstitutional? There are any number of oddball taxes out there.

It would seem to me that whatever establishments (at this point just RMC & AMC) who are required to assess/collect/remit this extra tax/fee/whatever could make a case that they were being singled out and that was in violation of their rights under the Equal Protection Clause, part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

But then again, I not a lawyer, and I don't play one on TV.

FWIW - I don't have a problem with NH trying to come up with a method of raising $$ for SAR, especially if that meant they'd drop the policy of charging victims for their rescue. But, there are better ways than targeting the AMC and RMC.

But, as others have pointed out, the whole issue may have more to do with dinging MASS residents.

 

[Ed'n Lauky]

But then again, I not a lawyer, and I don't play one on TV.

But you did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night didn't you?

 

[SteveHiker]

It would seem to me that whatever establishments (at this point just RMC & AMC) who are required to assess/collect/remit this extra tax/fee/whatever could make a case that they were being singled out and that was in violation of their rights under the Equal Protection Clause, part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

But then again, I not a lawyer, and I don't play one on TV.

Very weak case, I'd think. Then again, I could use it as precedent and sue to get into BSP for free!

Perhaps the Feds could turn the entire forest over to the state. Then there'd be no issue with multiple levels of government getting in each other's way. And then, taking a cue from BSP, you'd need either a parking pass or a NH license plate to park.