Would it happen in NH? S&R tells someone to hunker down for the night
- Thread starter peakbagger
- Start date
Help Support vftt.org:
TEO
Well-known member
Do parking fees cover the entire cost of operating a beach? I assume that residents typically have a discount in part because a portion of their taxes go towards municipal beach expenses. If parking fees cover the entire operating cost, then locals who live within walking distance are just free-loaders, no?
Last edited:
Mike P.
Well-known member
Correct, and the vast majority of lifeguards train and take the job seriously. I grew up at unmaintained beaches and we all swam well, took lifeguard training in New England. If I had a knock on LG's is that at the Jersey Shore, the beaches and water access is monitored like BSP. That's because I wasn't doing anything dumb but they regulate based on lowest common denominator. BTW, It's not all like Seaside but please lets all keep pushing that narrative.
On the other hand, pools have a specific access point, the WMNF has 100's (An infinite amount if you figure I can park on the side of the road and walk in the woods or up a cliff...) They don't gate the beach, if you go in at night, there is no rescue unless you can scream above the surf and a passerby is near by which is unusual and by the time any trained rescue could be arranged it would be far too late.
If you charge for access, how strong is your liability if someone gets hurt? Not everyone gets a ticket with a printed waiver. Ski areas aren't liable for your injuries; however, they provide Ski Patrol, The WMNF has rangers, different, but is my safety on your managed property something you have some small amount of responsiblty for? Any duty? Back in the 1990's one of the Washington fatalities did sue the USFS, she fell behind the snow built up on the Tuckerman Headwall as it had opened up at the lip. Their theory of liability was that snow rangers which are employed there should not have allowed people above the headwall or it should have been roped off. (If it was roped off, with more of a deterrent than some rope. I believe they lost or it was settled, however, legal fees aren't cheap & the lawsuit would not have qualified as frivolous.
What might be of interest, is if rule 230, the one that limits liability of internet service providers that from time to time have been more for political reasons recently, is repealed> Do people's social media posts and blogs count as attractive nuisances that tempt the unskilled to pursue dangerous activities, that they have no qualifications for? Each person's profile would have to include a waiver.
Apparently more than icy slopes are slippery.
hikerbrian
Active member
Fair question, and every town has to decide what is worth their time and what is fair. In my town, you pay to enter the beach, and you pay extra for a parking pass. Together with the snack bar, that covers the entire cost of the town's management of the lake. That only applies in-season and from 8-6. The town has decided it's not worth the effort outside of that time to try to collect any fees.
JoshandBaron
Well-known member
Funds collected at one state park don't necessarily stay with that park. Someone paying a fee at a park that does make money is paying for the lifeguards at the ones that don't. Hampton Beach doesn't turn a profit, your Lafayette Place fees and Cannon lift tickets are paying for it.
TEO
Well-known member
Speaking of skiing, it’s about time that the freeloaders who ‘need’ ski patrols to give them toboggan rides down the hill start paying there way instead of making the rest of us to pay for their ineptitude.
hikerbrian
Active member
That would be one way to do it. But most (all?) resorts figure it's better business to roll the cost of ski patrol and a modest first aid station into lift ticket prices. But you know who's not paying ski patrol to haul anyone's sorry butt down Wicked Haahhd? Snowmobilers, fishermen, and couch potatoes. The benefit is realized in close proximity to the fund collection.
Last edited:
hikerbrian
Active member
Sure, I get it, it happens everywhere. That doesn't make it good policy - it depends on a lot of factors. The issue with funding SAR is not lack of funds in the state coffers, which are filled from multiple sources, as you point out. It's the perception among NH residents that NH taxpayers are paying for a benefit (SAR services) that is disproportionately used by others who don't pay state taxes. The money is collected from a different set of people than the ones who realize the benefit. At least that's my read based on a lot of conversations, news articles, and comments on social media. I sympathize with that viewpoint.
Mac
Member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2003
- Messages
- 316
- Reaction score
- 22
Here's another one.
https://globalnews.ca/news/9183216/hiker-accident-highlights-limitation-bc-rescue-rules/
"...helicopter dropped down a bag of supplies...."
https://globalnews.ca/news/9183216/hiker-accident-highlights-limitation-bc-rescue-rules/
"...helicopter dropped down a bag of supplies...."
JoshandBaron
Well-known member
SAR services aren't funded by taxes, so I don't understand why taxpayers who don't hike/fish/hunt/etc (the folks who would need the service) are upset.
Last edited:
Tom Rankin
Well-known member
Listen!
I can hear it!
It's getting louder!
It's the death knell of VFTT.
I can hear it!
It's getting louder!
It's the death knell of VFTT.
hikerbrian
Active member
That's not quite true. According to NH F&G, general funds are used in (small) part to keep the department in the black. It's also worth noting that fees added to the sale of hunting and fishing licenses also fund NH SAR. As most are aware, again, it's an issue of who is funding (hunters and fishermen) and who is benefitting (disproportionately 'hikers'). The AMC has a pretty good overview article.
How does that work, with the dashes, capital letters and more than 10 digits?
Listen!
I can hear it!
It's getting louder!
It's the death knell of VFTT.
Why? If everyone behaves themselves and doesn't post anything overtly political or make personal attacks I don't see the problem. These posts are interesting and certainly attract more posters than "what's the best disinfectant for my smelly boots?"
TEO
Well-known member
Hikerbrian, thanks for sharing the article.
It reënforces my argument that NH doesn't properly fund NHFish & Game and to do so would be a minimal burden on taxpayers. It makes the point that seeking to make up that funding by billing people is not reliable, nor are the Hike Safe Cards. (If the Hike Safe program isn't realiable, because it is a voluntary progam, how is seeking donations at outdoor gear stores, as at least one politician has proposed?)
According to the article, only 14% of SARs are the result of poor judgment/lack of preparation and roughly half of SARs are for NH residents, the latter of which I would argue is not disproportionate, as the NH economy relies heavily on the tourism industry. It would be interesting to know how the rate of SARs resulting in poor judgement/lack of preparation has changed over time.
FWIW, I'm all for billing those whose SAR is the result of intoxication or reckless endangerment, and I also think, though I don't have the data to back it up, that the ubiquity of cell phones have led to an increase in SARs. But, as I've said before part of the problem with financial penalties for negligence is that the definition of negligence is up to one person. Plenty of us have hiked solo, off-trail, and/or with nagging or recovering injuries, and I would argue that it is reasonable for us to do so. Yet these have been cited as evidence of negligent behaviour by individual F&G leaders.
hikerbrian
Active member
TEO, I'm in agreement on pretty much all of that, even if our underlying philosophies are different. I do wonder if the noise from NH about paying for rescues is a case of a vocal minority being, well, vocal. I suspect most in the tourism industry want to preserve their businesses, and they recognize the importance of the line of cars on 93 every weekend, while retirees and others wish there was more quiet. From my vantage point, NH has an awful lot of revenue coming in from outside its borders, and the tiny amount of money that is SAR is a little bit silly to be shouting about. But that's what people do, and railing against human nature is not the path to happiness.
You're right that volunteer funding programs aren't reliable, and billing everyone creates its own issues. I think at the end of the day I want consistency, and the prospect of a single person or small group - one that clearly has a conflict of interest - deciding who is negligent is, IMO, not the best choice. I know I was heavily influenced by the Scott Mason case, which I did not think was fair. Jordan also is quoted in the article as saying "It really comes down to if people can pay." That does not seem fair to me either, even if it is pragmatic. Billing everyone probably is most fair, but it's probably not the best choice if your objective is to minimize conflict and court cases. There are many parameters to optimize here, and we'll never get them all.
You're right that volunteer funding programs aren't reliable, and billing everyone creates its own issues. I think at the end of the day I want consistency, and the prospect of a single person or small group - one that clearly has a conflict of interest - deciding who is negligent is, IMO, not the best choice. I know I was heavily influenced by the Scott Mason case, which I did not think was fair. Jordan also is quoted in the article as saying "It really comes down to if people can pay." That does not seem fair to me either, even if it is pragmatic. Billing everyone probably is most fair, but it's probably not the best choice if your objective is to minimize conflict and court cases. There are many parameters to optimize here, and we'll never get them all.
Looks as if Vermont has a similar problem. Guess it's time for Vermont residents and taxpayers to ante up since it looks as if their now fiscal schemes are unreliable. Especially since they market themselves so much as a Ski destination statewide and depend on the out of staters to provide the influx of dollars. Should really be a minimal burden on those already living there.
https://www.npr.org/2013/01/23/1695... is one of a,is controversial and rarely used.
TEO
Well-known member
While they do have a similar problem of too many SARs, I didn't see where it said that Vermont's fiscal scheme is unreliable. The VT State Police may or may not need to increase the funding, the article doesn't say so. (I'd rather have them out doing SARs, than have them speed around with no emergency lights between setting up speed traps, as is their wont.) In Vermont SARs are already publicly funded through taxes. Although, if you duck a rope and aren't prepared for backcountry skiing, that is a stronger case for reckless endangerment. Signage and ropes around Cooper Lodge, IIRC, and at Jay, certainly, are much more blatant and explicit than they used to be.
Last edited:
Tom Rankin
Well-known member
Similar threads
