Would you pay for hiker insurance?

[sardog1]

At the risk of repeating myself, I'm going to repeat myself on the subject of underwriting and pricing such insurance.

 

[sardog1]

If you want to make a contribution, buy a fishing / hunting license. I do.

Tim

Yeah, what he said. You can do it online in a couple of minutes. Not interested in fishing or hunting or holding either license? How about simply buying a chance in the moose hunting permit lottery? Scroll through this old thread for details.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

I believe that most of the "problems" and "questions" and "debates" about our (this) pastime ("hiking") apply equally well to other similar pastimes, i.e., fishing, skiing, cycling, and by extension, to a whole host of other activities. People who don't ride or fish or ski (or hike) don't "get it". I "don't get" golf, NASCAR, horse racing, quilting, ... but I understand by extension that others do. One of the seemingly unique issues to hiking (winter in particular) is SAR, although I am sure that hunters and anglers require it on occasion, but perhaps with a lower average (and total) cost.

What happens when a member of one of these other populations needs to be rescued? Do the Union Leader posters get all up in arms about that?

I checked "no" because I don't believe that the honest, well-behaved and responsible minority should pay (yet again) the cost for everyone else. Which is the greater total cost to society? An occasional rescue or the health care costs related to inactivity? I said it earlier but I'll repeat it here - as much as I am opposed to (new) taxes in general, I think that in the tourism-based economy of NH, it makes sense to fund some of F&G through rooms and meals taxes. I am a resident.

I do buy a NH fishing license every year and I try to spend some money in the north country when I have a chance. My gripe with parking fees isn't the $3 (or $25 annual), it's the fact that the money isn't (perceived or real) spent in the manner for which it was intended and that the rules required to collect it are not followed by the collectors. I would hazard a guess that any insurance product we could get a company to provide would have enough loopholes that they wouldn't have to pay a claim - "Oh, it was icy, sorry", "Oh you didn't carry a -20 bag and full crampons? Sorry."

On the drive in this morning, a driver near by broke four different laws in the span of 1 mile / 2 minutes - passing on the right, crossing a solid white line, speeding, and running a red light. What cost does that behavior have to society? When that driver causes harm to someone, who complains about them being a yahoo or irresponsible, or putting other in harm's way?

Tim

 

[DiamondRidge]

Here's another solution for the SAR funding debate:


T-shirts....


I was in palm springs on a business trip recently at a street fair (you could move this enterprise to pinkham notch, busy gift shops etc..) where the Palm Springs SAR team was selling t-shirts for $20. It was less money than your typical concert tee, with a cool logo, and a good portion of the price went to the SAR group. I got a cool T, they got my money.

I'd certainly rock a NHFG hat/shirt for $10/$20 knowing that a portion of that would go directly to their budget (same goes for NYSDEC). Plus if they made a $5 profit on each item, that would cover 5 years of the $1 registration surcharge.

(Don't forget water bottles, pins, patches, and anything else you could slap a logo on)

I'd be down with that

 

[Paradox]

Just bought my first fishing licence. Maybe I'll try it.

 

[RoySwkr]

I'd certainly rock a NHFG hat/shirt for $10/$20 knowing that a portion of that would go directly to their budget (same goes for NYSDEC). Plus if they made a $5 profit on each item, that would cover 5 years of the $1 registration surcharge.

You want it, you got it...
http://yankeemarketplace.com/YMPSTORE/stores/1/NHFG-Official-Merchandise-C138.aspx

Another option is to contribute to the non-game wildlife fund, if you disapprove of consumptive activities and already own enough stuff
http://wildlife.state.nh.us/Wildlife/nongame_and_endangered_wildlife.htm

 

[RoySwkr]

I wonder when a boater, snowmobiler or orver was determined to be neglegent and fined anything at all? Since they pay a buck a year does that get them $25,000 rescues.? Maybe we should get in on the act too and somehow pay the buck a year too? Sounds like he cheapest insurance I have ever heard of.

The second most expensive SAR after Mason that year was a lost hunter who wasn't found (dead) until the next spring. F&G doesn't charge the deceased or their relatives, but nobody complained because he had a hunting license and died from a medical condition not reckless behavior.

 

[Grumpy]

Because in NH it's no longer free. You could be told you were negligent and have to pay thousands of $$$$ for your rescue.

One could always hope that after a year of so of worrying how you were going to pay the bill they would find you innocent and write it off. You also have to think about the cost of the lawyer or you have to get yourself a really good "extenuating circumstance".

I would rather pay the $20 up front.

With all due respect, I'd rather not pay protection money and thus be victimized by an extortion racket at all.

G.

 

[Snowflea]

Posted by sardog1:
The AAC plan is not insurance and does not provide any coverage for search expenses.

That's why I put the word insurance in quotation marks. It does not provide for search, but it does provide for rescue. Of course, everyone will be carrying SPOT trackers, GPS units, and what-have-you, so their locations will be known... hence, no search required.

Posted by Tim Seaver:
...the comment section is not exactly brimming with brilliance, and I am being charitable.

Funniest thing I've read here in a long time. Thanks!

 

[Little Rickie]

Here's another solution for the SAR funding debate:


T-shirts....


I was in palm springs on a business trip recently at a street fair (you could move this enterprise to pinkham notch, busy gift shops etc..) where the Palm Springs SAR team was selling t-shirts for $20. It was less money than your typical concert tee, with a cool logo, and a good portion of the price went to the SAR group. I got a cool T, they got my money.

I'd certainly rock a NHFG hat/shirt for $10/$20 knowing that a portion of that would go directly to their budget (same goes for NYSDEC). Plus if they made a $5 profit on each item, that would cover 5 years of the $1 registration surcharge.

(Don't forget water bottles, pins, patches, and anything else you could slap a logo on)

Does SAR really have time for this stuff? I think they have enough to do.

You want it, you got it...
http://yankeemarketplace.com/YMPSTORE/stores/1/NHFG-Official-Merchandise-C138.aspx

Do they make contributions to SAR from every purchase?

How about simply buying a chance in the moose hunting permit lottery?

Get a permit. Don't hunt. SAR gets the money. Saved a moose. Sounds like a good plan to me.

 

[David Metsky]

Mod hat
Just a gentle reminder to discuss the points people have raised, not the people involved. The discussion is very civil so far, it's a good thread.

 

[Brambor]

no way

I take responsibility in living and dying out there. fees sour the pot. IMHO. I don't even pay for the stupid conservation sticker.

 

[Elizabeth]

Defining "hiking"

Whether it is insurance or a license or whatever other means of paying to put one foot in front of the other, defining "hiking" confounds the issue. Is it walking in the woods? Anything not on pavement? What about people who drive up Mt. Washington and get out of their cars to noodle around the summit? They may be less prepared than regular hikers and more likely to get in trouble. How far from the parking lot do they have to be to call it "hiking"? Would a permit or insurance or license only count for trails that are in national and state parks and forests? If you walk in to a lake to go fishing, do you need to have both a fishing license and a hiking license (or insurance or permit)? I don't see how it would work.

 

[Craig]

Rescues are not funded with "taxpayer money", so all the outrage is badly misplaced. It's the kind of thing your average UL reader is blissfully unaware of.

This statement is incorrect.

The outrage nation wide is because taxpayers money is used to fund search and rescue operations, even in NH.

The Fish and Game Department states this bill provides for state general funds to be used for funding search and rescue operations of the Department. This bill appropriates $200,000 annually to the fish and game search and rescue fund from the state general fund beginning in FY 2008. The bill also provides that if the Department’s executive director determines that if the portion of private boat registrations, OHRV registrations, and snowmobile registrations which are deposited into the search and rescue fund along with the proposed $200,000 general fund appropriation are insufficient to pay for search and rescue operations activities in a fiscal year, the executive director shall certify to the state treasurer who shall pay such sums as necessary to fund such activities from the state general fund. The Department is unable to determine if and when there may be insufficient funds for search and rescue operations over and above the amounts deposited in the search and rescue fund, and are unable to determine the exact fiscal impact at this time.

For F&G search and rescue budget breakdown for FY2008 & 2009 see page 226

NH is not unlike every other state that has search and rescue. We have a government agency that is in charge of search and rescue. In NH the agency is the State F&G. In western states it's usually the county sheriff's department. In National Parks it's the federal government.

If the search and rescue operation looks like it will exceed the capabilities of the agency in change then they can call in a 3rd party SAR organization to help. This 3rd party is usually a non-profit and is funded privately (not by tax dollars) with mainly volunteers.

NH and some other states have passed laws to recover costs of rescues if the rescuee really screws up bad. (These laws are meant to be punitive and have nothing to do with budgetary shortfalls, IMO)

So, there is no doubt that our tax dollars are being spent on search and rescue operations.
The question in my mind is this public outrage real or perceived.

Is the media kindling the flames of outrage for the general public or is it the other way around.

 

[Billy]

Nope. I'm not paying for insurance to go for a walk in the woods.

What's the deductable, and what's the max it will cover?

 

[erugs]

Since they're not stocking our trails, maybe they want to manage our herds? Or are our trails stalked and heards managed?

 

[TEO]

Ah, the Federal Government... our savior, model of efficiency and effectiveness they would certainly do this right. They get everything right. Look, what starts as a "nice idea" usually turns into disaster with the feds.

I'm sorry that you've never had the opportunity to enjoy: the Smithsonian Institution, a National Park, a Forest Service road that provides access to a remote trailhead, the interstate highway system, skiing a CCC trail, a mountain pond in the 'Dacks that is recovering from the devastating effect of acid rain, clean tap water, having a two-day weekend, watching films of moon-walks, flying on an airplane, weather forecasts, etc.

 

[Tim Seaver]

This statement is incorrect. The outrage nation wide is because taxpayers money is used to fund search and rescue operations, even in NH.

Pretty much a technicality - the bulk of the funding comes from OHRV and sno-mo regs. And as far as "nation-wide outrage, where do you get this impression from? Do you have a source for this statement?

Provide $200,000 in General Fund dollars to fully pay program expenses for Search and Rescue operations. Fish and Game currently gets funds for search and rescue through a $1 surcharge on each private boat, OHRV and snowmobile registration. On average, this annual revenue is $190,000, but the cost of search and rescue is $220,000.

Oh, the horror of $30,000 out of the general fund. What does that break down to per taxpayer?

Answer: Probably less than a vein-popping phone call to express your "outrage" over the matter.

Ridiculous. NH spends millions promoting tourism, but you don't hear a peep about it from those-oh-so-burdened taxpayers. Why is that?

Meanwhile , the state continues to gather bad publicity over the Mason fiasco, scaring those precious tourist dollars elsewhere.

 

[Craig]

Pretty much a technicality - the bulk of the funding comes from OHRV and sno-mo regs.

You may want to go back and read that again.

And as far as "nation-wide outrage, where do you get this impression from? Do you have a source for this statement?

Are you telling me you haven't heard of public concern in other parts of the country regarding public funds being used for search and rescue?
Are you telling me you think this concern is unique to NH, or maybe unique to the Union Leader?

 

[NewHampshire]

This statement is incorrect.

The outrage nation wide is because taxpayers money is used to fund search and rescue operations, even in NH.



For F&G search and rescue budget breakdown for FY2008 & 2009 see page 226

NH is not unlike every other state that has search and rescue. We have a government agency that is in charge of search and rescue. In NH the agency is the State F&G. In western states it's usually the county sheriff's department. In National Parks it's the federal government.

If the search and rescue operation looks like it will exceed the capabilities of the agency in change then they can call in a 3rd party SAR organization to help. This 3rd party is usually a non-profit and is funded privately (not by tax dollars) with mainly volunteers.

NH and some other states have passed laws to recover costs of rescues if the rescuee really screws up bad. (These laws are meant to be punitive and have nothing to do with budgetary shortfalls, IMO)

So, there is no doubt that our tax dollars are being spent on search and rescue operations.
The question in my mind is this public outrage real or perceived.

Is the media kindling the flames of outrage for the general public or is it the other way around.

I am pretty sure the Bill you have posted was ruled inexpedient to legislate. I am not positive (but it's existence must prove) that a later bill was introduced that gave the F&G the $1 surcharge, but excluded the $200,000 transfer from the general fund. Again, I have seen plenty of funding charts, etc. from the F&G, and except for the OHRV transfers I have yet to see the State itself willingly give money to F&G.

Brian