Proposed fees for Search and Rescue in NH

[peakbagger]

While looking over some future hiking plans, a thought regarding the proposed law popped up. I think most folks thinking the term "overnight huts" think of the chain of AMC full service huts along the AT. RMC is mentioned and as they dont have full service huts (no meals), does the fee apply to the the Perch and the log cabin as well as Grey Knob and Crag camp? . If the charge applies then what is the definition of a overnight accomodations? Will the definition include leanto's in the NF where there is a caretaker? AMC supplies caretaker services to several leantos in the WMNF which I beleive are all owned by the national forest. Do they charge the extra $3? If they dont, how can they charge for the Perch and Log Cabin which are essentially identical if not better managed facilities. If there is a charge to stay in a lean to at Guyot, does someone staying on a tent platform also get a charge? To extend the slippery slope analogy, does a established tent site qualify as a overnight accomodation or does the act of camping anywhere out in the woods qualify?

My point is that even though the law initially may be restricted to high profile facilties, it will establish a significant precendent.

 

[Brambor]

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.

I guess that explains why I haven't been staying at these huts in the summer for many years now. At $100 per head a family of 4 doing a 6 night hiking vacation would have to spend $2400.

I must be living in another income bracket.

 

[Stan]

If there is a charge to stay in a lean to at Guyot, does someone staying on a tent platform also get a charge? To extend the slippery slope analogy, does a established tent site qualify as a overnight accomodation or does the act of camping anywhere out in the woods qualify?

My point is that even though the law initially may be restricted to high profile facilties, it will establish a significant precendent.

... and what about bootleg campsites, will we be required to send in a good faith fee based on the infinite value of camping where only outlaws go ... and would that violate our constitutional rights to the 5th amendment?

With respect to Roy's comments, my estimation of the liklihood of hut guests needing rescue is based, purely intuitively so I would accept factual information with ease, on 1) the easier and clear path to these facilities which obviates a major part of SAR, "search", 2) a bit of indoctrination in the website and reservation process about gear and caution which reinforces safety, 3) my experience at a number of hut stays was that the croo's involvement in SAR cases was not related to expected guests or that hikers wandering in on the edge of hypothermia or "lost" were not initially reserved as guests.

While "backpackers" may be theoretically better prepared, they are also more apt to stretch the limits and expose themselves to greater risks.

On the affordability issue, I agree the image is that of the Massachusetts yuppie as guest but 1) my trips have led people there who could marginally afford the accommodations, 2) that the costs, while seemingly pricey, are competitive for what you get and cheaper than comparable accommodations in other parts of the country and world, and 3) people I met there did not strike me as a demographic that should be targeted to pay more than their share. Still, these are personal observations and I am subject to correction by hard factual data and ... as we all know ... figures lie and liars figure.

Bottom line, I oppose this tax but that's not unusual. I do, however, generally favor pay as you go but don't think this really accomplishes that because it targets a rather jaundiced perception and not a reality.

 

[Peaks]

I-93 tolls

If you want to collect more from the flatlanders, just up the tolls on I-93 and Everett Turnpike.

 

[Brambor]

... 2) that the costs, while seemingly pricey, are competitive for what you get and cheaper than comparable accommodations in other parts of the country and world, and ...

I beg to differ. Last summer we stayed 6 nights at German Mountain huts at elevations even higher than the Whites and with DAV (German Alpine Club Membership) our price per bunk was $10. That's 50% off their regular lodging rates. You won't get 50% discount at any AMC hut. That's $30 per night for the three of us. My wife is gluten intolerant so she brought her food with her, my son alternated between her food and hut food and I ate hut specials. For the three of us we never exceeded $100 per night while we ate better food and stayed at cleaner bunkrooms than any AMC huts.

I'm not saying AMC is baaaad but I think there could be better deals for AMC members. I would like to see AMC to institute some kind of CONTINUOUS MEMBERSHIP discounts that accumulate over the years. for those who renew their membership every year. ... but I guess this is hijacking the thread... so I apologize beforehand.

 

[Mike P.]

The german huts rock!

I'd rather pay more at the parking lots or even the tolls before a tax on accomodations. (I've skimmed the reason why it won't work - Fed & State pol's would have to work togther - end that rant here)

For toll's adding a nickel would flood the coffers or course it likely would go to ageneral fun & never get to F&G

parking fees would at least be targeted to all people who park at these places, most of which are using a trail, cliff, or bushwhack.

If you at at PNVC & then Harvard Cabin the next night, you'd get whacked twice? I have to think for every McDonald Barr, you'd have a Tinkham & Haas, a young Mr. Mason or the guys a few years ago on Webster Cliff who fell with their dog.

Since many keep going up Mt. Washington in bad weather thinking shelter is close by, (Dr. B. Dahl & others), I would expect an additional food charge at the summit building or just on warm clothing for those who didn't come prepared. (show your extra fleece & they will waive the tax as you only want a souvenir. )

Considering I have a very attractive rate for renting a house in the ADK's & CT is about as far (time wise) from C-Notch or Keene Valley the extra tax maybe enough for me to go finish the 11 ADK's I need for the 115.

Lets see where gas prices go, I may end up in CT more.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

Senate bill filed to impose $3 overnight-stay fee for SAR operations

Tim

 

[RoySwkr]

Apparently the fee is $3/night not a percentage, that is a lot for RMC but not much for AMC
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2011/SB0128.html

This could be interesting as many of the same people who would like to tax the AMC have pledged no new taxes

Also the state apparently plans to enter the names of all renters in a database - why?

 

[SAR-EMT40]

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2011/SB0128.html

Also the state apparently plans to enter the names of all renters in a database - why?

SB 128-FN-A - FISCAL NOTE

The Department also notes the proposed legislation requires the AMC and RMC to provide names and addresses of lodgers when remitting the revenues derived from the fee to the Department. This will create a demand on the data entry capabilities of the Department as well as a need for data base design services from the Department of Information Technology. The Department states they are unable to determine the extent to which this requirement will increase state restricted expenditures.

I have no clue why they need or want to do this. It over-complicates a simple system and is Orwellian on first blush.

Keith

 

[griffin]

Anyone know if names and addresses are submitted with the existing rooming tax that NH charges?

 

[roadtripper]

This is terrible to the RMC since they are on a first-come, first-served basis. They will have to create a manual system by which they type names into a website or database and upload to the state. That's so ridiculously far from the entire wild and natural spirit of their facilities.

Thumbs down to NH senate.

 

[Brambor]

haha

"No tax" people imposing tax on businesses and increasing the size of government for data entry and IT resources.

Thus introducing an opportunity to further increase this tax and the size of the government in the future for the purpose of keeping the IT technology up to date.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

Or, if you prefer, it is a targeted user fee, so that the hunting and fishing licenses, and recreational craft registrations do not bear the entire brunt of SAR, when hikers pay nothing.

It's a lake if you're selling and a pond if you're buying.

Tim

 

[TEO]

Ah, so if it is a targeted user fee, then shouldn't those of us who don't require SARs be exempt?

 

[griffin]

Or, if you prefer, it is a targeted user fee, so that the hunting and fishing licenses, and recreational craft registrations do not bear the entire brunt of SAR, when hikers pay nothing.

The vast majority of hikers will still pay nothing, as this very specifically targets only people who use the AMC/RMC facilities.

 

[dug]

It's a stupid idea, but "many a great idea was spawned from stupidty" -anon

There is a funding problem, which I think most agree on. They are tossing some idea out there, I don't think it will pass. But, they are looking at options.

 

[Barkingcat]

Anyone know if names and addresses are submitted with the existing rooming tax that NH charges?

They are not.

 

[sierra]

I was very surprised when I read the account of this proposed fee in the paper. While I do not stay at any huts (RMC or AMC ) this seems very unfair to me to those that use the huts. I agree something has to be done, it is not fair charging hunters and fisherman for hiking rescues. One poster suggested a dollar charge per hike? maybe he hikes alot less then me, no thanks. I like the model CO uses and would support it here. They offer a hiker card for 5 bucks, if your rescued and have the card, no charge, if your rescued and did not purchase the card, your charged for your rescue. This is an optional system that allows for accountability for a specific group of forest users. But then again this is NH, why shouldnt we have some screw ball idea to fight about and in the end leaves many unhappy and solves very little.

 

[roadtripper]

How about this idea?:

The WMNF could charge $1 extra on the daily WMNF parking fee (increase from $3 to $4) and remit the entire $1 to F&G. The annual parking pass fees would remain the same price. That way, the people that hike a lot and get the annual pass (who in my opinion are not likely to ever need a rescue) aren't going to be financially hurt by this.

The downside is that its an extra parking fee on people who are trying to enjoy the outdoors. This is bad because there should be little or no obstacles to prevent people from getting outside.

I don't think there is going to be a 100% great solution to this problem of the F&G. A solution that makes 51% of the hiking public happy is about the best I think we can hope for here.

 

[DougPaul]

How about this idea?:

The WMNF could charge $1 extra on the daily WMNF parking fee (increase from $3 to $4) and remit the entire $1 to F&G. The annual parking pass fees would remain the same price. That way, the people that hike a lot and get the annual pass (who in my opinion are not likely to ever need a rescue) aren't going to be financially hurt by this.

The downside is that its an extra parking fee on people who are trying to enjoy the outdoors. This is bad because there should be little or no obstacles to prevent people from getting outside.

I don't think there is going to be a 100% great solution to this problem of the F&G. A solution that makes 51% of the hiking public happy is about the best I think we can hope for here.

This has been suggested a number of times before...

Not a chance--the WMNF is a federal agency and F&G is a state agency.

Doug