Would you pay for hiker insurance?

[RoySwkr]

Are you telling me you think this concern is unique to NH, or maybe unique to the Union Leader?

Actually, the UL seems to feel that Mason should not be billed, and most readers seem to agree
http://www.unionleader.com/article....rticleId=86347b20-3b66-4318-9b47-07363b15dc28

 

[Craig]

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

You may want to look at the F&G search and rescue budget I linked to. Pg 226.

 

[Tim Seaver]

Are you telling me you think this concern is unique to NH, or maybe unique to the Union Leader?

Yes, and it's a fact, not just my opinion pulled from thin air:

Only New Hampshire has consistently billed people. Last year, lawmakers increased the likelihood of being billed when they lowered the legal standard from reckless to negligent to make it easier to collect.

NH is the "leader" in actually pursuing $$$ from victims, and they have been roundly slammed for it by almost all the major SAR orgs and media across the country. Colorado tried recovering money until they figured out it was a bad idea, and then they reversed course - and now they have a program that provides adequate funding.

Richard Solosky, chairman of the Rocky Mountain Region of the national Mountain Rescue Association said, “We are very pleased that the city took into account the unintended consequences of the city’s practice of billing for rescue, which put hikers and climbers in the dangerous position of wondering if they could afford to call for help if they had an accident.”

======

Across the nation, local SAR teams and state and national search and rescue organizations have long opposed billing for rescue because the fear of being unable to pay the bill has deterred victims from calling 9-1-1.

The issue received national prominence in June, 2007, when Golden Fire Department billed David Seals, a visitor from Kansas, $5,905 for his rescue after he sprained his ankle while hiking above Clear Creek Canyon.

Here's Mountain Rescue Association:

The issue of local, state or the federal government billing victims when SAR units save their life goes back decades. Because it had become an issue then, the Colorado Search and Rescue Board took a position on the topic in 1987,led by MRA Legal Counsel and then-CSRB President David Thorson and CSRB Public Affairs Manager and soon to-become MRA President Hunter Holloway.

Today the public’s perception is anchored at three points: not understanding the actual costs, distressed government budgets and anger against some of those we help. Often these points are worsened by unwitting comments by someone that does not understand the unintended consequence of allowing the public to expect an insurmountable bill from “someone” if they call SAR, which is to delay calling for, refusing to call for or not
accepting help:

++++++++++++++

In a notorious 2009 case, the New Hampshire Fish and Game Department fined a then-17 year-old Eagle Scout more than $25,000 for a three-day search. Seems he sprained his ankle and chose to go crosscountry
as a shorter route back, but was stopped by a stream swollen with spring run-off. A NH Fish and Game official decided he was negligent for “leaving a marked trail.

Same thing with the Coast Guard and the NPS. Opposed to charging, all for the same exact reasons.

 

[Craig]

OK, I understand your position on recovering cost for rescue. No new news there.

But I was talking about taxpayer money being used for search and rescue.

 

[Tim Seaver]

To be clear, that's not just MY position, it's the position of every major SAR organization.

As far as the "taxpayer" issue, that's pretty trivial in the larger scheme of things, generating more noise than solutions.

But I would be happy to read any stories about this national outrage you speak of if and when you can link to them.

 

[Craig]

As far as the "taxpayer" issue, that's pretty trivial in the larger scheme of things, generating more noise than solutions.

Unfortunately, that's the problem in IMHO.

When you have two sides to an issue, like you have here, to trivialize the other sides concerns doesn't bolster your position....it weakens it. And when you offer inaccurate or incomplete information it weakens your position further.

The fact is taxpayer money is being used for search and rescue and for some folks that's a big problem.

 

[Tim Seaver]

When you have two sides to an issue, like you have here, to trivialize the other sides concerns doesn't bolster your position....it weakens it. And when you offer inaccurate or incomplete information it weakens your position further.

The fact is taxpayer money is being used for search and rescue and for some folks that's a big problem.

I think you are misreading me, but as I said, when you can bolster your position by including some links that show that this "taxpayer" issue is something beyond a few irate posts on a local newspapers message board, I will be all ears.

 

[Paradox]

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.

I concur, and the list goes on and on. Some of my additions to the list would be a reliable set of GPS satellites, an F16 that kicks a$$, and plenty of turkey on Thanksgiving.

 

[Craig]

I think you are misreading me, ....

Perhaps I did misread you.

I know there are folks that don't like the idea that their hard earned money is being used to rescue folks that get into trouble in the woods. Some of these folks live from paycheck to paycheck and don't even have enough money for gas to get to the food store say nothing of driving to the mountains. Some of these folks forsake dental and health care because they can't afford it but they are paying for folks that get into trouble having fun in the woods.

Perhaps you would like to clarify your position for those folks.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

I know there are folks that don't like the idea that their hard earned money is being used to rescue folks that get into trouble in the woods. Some of these folks live from paycheck to paycheck and don't even have enough money for gas to get to the food store say nothing of driving to the mountains. Some of these folks forsake dental and health care because they can't afford it but they are paying for folks that get into trouble having fun in the woods.

Perhaps you would like to clarify your position for those folks.

Would these folks be poor enough to fall into that 47% (1) of Americans who pay no federal income tax at all? I don't care for a substantial portion of the programs I am forced to fund as a tax-paying member of society. I do enjoy benefits from other programs.

Tim

(1) http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nearly-half-of-US-households-apf-1105567323.html?x=0&.v=1

 

[Tim Seaver]

Perhaps you would like to clarify your position for those folks.

I would be happy to. (Feel free to mass email this)

Dear Handful of Concerned and Impoverished Taxpayers,

It has been brought to my attention that a few of you have been asserting that your hard earned tax dollars are going towards rescuing irresponsible "ya-hoos" (sic) or "wanta -be's" (sic) in the fair hills of NH - people who have been engaging in the "very foolish, and selfish sport" known as hiking. These concerns should not be dismissed as the rantings of a tiny and misinformed fraction of the population over an insignificant percentage of their tax dollar which may or may not being actually going to NH F&G!

What I suggest is having your accountants call the Fish and Game department and demand to know exactly what percentage of the tax you paid last year went directly to funding state SAR operations, and furthermore, what percentage of that percentage went towards SAR efforts to assist hikers, and even more specifically, what percentage of that percentage (of the first percentage) went towards hikers who acted irresponsibly. Once armed with this information, you can then surely create a media firestorm that will sweep the nation and forever crush the notion that this is a tempest in a Taxpayer Tea-Pot.

Hope that helps.

 

[Click Clack]

Speechless..... (but laughing quite hard)

The point has been made though, hiking rescue monies are such a small drop in a big bucket that it shouldn't matter. Just call everything that's not walking on a paved road, "hiking", tack an extra $5 bucks onto our driver's license renewals ($1 per year) and take from there. I guarantee there's a surplus in that, and then they can distribute the rest as they see fit to benefit others who don't hike. Several problems solved for $1 per person per year. If you can afford to drive and buy gas, surely you can afford fractional cents a day to support several causes. Or perhaps $2 on our car registrations? Even bigger pot, still less than 1 cent a day!

Anyone remember the fisherman last year (or 2 years ago) around Lafayette. It went from a hiker being lost and people up in arms, to an elderly fisherman who lost his way. Those people get in trouble too, they just get branded as irresponsible hikers.

I'd love to get a listing of IP addresses from commenters on the UL website. I'd be willing to bet it's the same 20 people causing a ruckus, every time. Before I got into hiking I never once heard anyone say, "Damn those irresponsible hikers, we need to do something about them!"

 

[dug]

Speechless..... (but laughing quite hard)

The point has been made though, hiking rescue monies are such a small drop in a big bucket that it shouldn't matter. Just call everything that's not walking on a paved road, "hiking", tack an extra $5 bucks onto our driver's license renewals ($1 per year) and take from there. I guarantee there's a surplus in that, and then they can distribute the rest as they see fit to benefit others who don't hike. Several problems solved for $1 per person per year. If you can afford to drive and buy gas, surely you can afford fractional cents a day to support several causes. Or perhaps $2 on our car registrations? Even bigger pot, still less than 1 cent a day!

Anyone remember the fisherman last year (or 2 years ago) around Lafayette. It went from a hiker being lost and people up in arms, to an elderly fisherman who lost his way. Those people get in trouble too, they just get branded as irresponsible hikers.

I'd love to get a listing of IP addresses from commenters on the UL website. I'd be willing to bet it's the same 20 people causing a ruckus, every time. Before I got into hiking I never once heard anyone say, "Damn those irresponsible hikers, we need to do something about them!"

I'm not in favor of paying anything extra, no thank you. I already work Tuesdays and Thursdays for somebody else. You want outrage...people who never leave their couch will now have to contribute for rescuing hikers? That won't go over well. Out-of-staters, won't pay anything to a rescue fund, but could still need the services.

Car registration...If I own three cars, I pay three times to the rescue fund for a service I will never use? (speaking as a couch potato now). Business owners with fleets of services pay even more? If I don't own a car, and bus to the trailhead...I don't pay at all?

So, everything not on a paved road is considered hiking...I lived off a dirt road for 8 years, does that count? How about rescuing kayakers/canoeists? Skiers?

Nothing is simple that there is a blank and white answer...

 

[dug]

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.

There's no possible way to reply to this without it descending into the depths of a political discussion. I will only comment that there are both good and evil in the federal government and how it spends my cash. It ain't all roses.

 

[sardog1]

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

Well, not exactly. You're buying a chance for a permit, not a permit. If you are chosen in the lottery but don't buy the offered permit before the deadline (at $150 for residents, $500 for nonresidents), then a permit is offered to the next person in line in the drawing.

 

[WhiteMTHike]

NO WAY!

If it were up to me I'd have ZERO insurance on anything. Whenever I have needed my insurance company (thankfully not too often) I call them , get some good service then a rate increase. I have no doubt that this would be the same deal.

I also believe in personal responsibility, thoughtful planning and being properly equipped. Therefore, if I get lost it is on me.

 

[Tim Seaver]

There are many hidden perils in this discussion, issues that could spawn far beyond New Hampshire.

Fox example, it has been determined that the National Park Service has to exact approximately 1.5 cents per visitor to cover SAR efforts within the park system! Outrageous!

If word gets out on this, it could doom visitation across the country.
People who would otherwise visit knowing this, might just take their 1. 5 cents and go elsewhere.

 

[TEO]

I will only comment that there are both good and evil in the federal government and how it spends my cash. It ain't all roses.

Indeed. What I object to is the notion that the Federal Government can do nothing good or that the private sector can inherently do a better job. Does the FG do things that make me angry? Does it do things that seem to make little sense? Of course. But, it also does many extraordinary things. I think it is sad when people don't realize or ignore how fortunate we are to have these benefits.

At the conclusion of an extended backcountry ski trip to the Eastern Sierra a couple years ago, my friends and I stopped by to visit the Ancient Bristlecone Pine Forest in the Inyo National Forest, which is on the eastern edge of California, just North of Death Valley. The ABPs are the oldest known non-clonal organism on the planet, with some trees more than 5,000 years old. That there are maintained, paved roads to this protected area, trails, and a visitor center in what would seem to be one of the most god-forsaken places in the country, is incredible. One of my friends pointed out that day that for all the things that we disparage the Federal Government for, here was just a small example of something it has done right and rarely do we stop and realize how grateful we should be for something like this place.

 

[dug]

Indeed. What I object to is the notion that the Federal Government can do nothing good or that the private sector can inherently do a better job. Does the FG do things that make me angry? Does it do things that seem to make little sense? Of course. But, it also does many extraordinary things. I think it is sad when people don't realize or ignore how fortunate we are to have these benefits.

At the conclusion of an extended backcountry ski trip to the Eastern Sierra a couple years ago, my friends and I stopped by to visit the Ancient Bristlecone Pine Forest in the Inyo National Forest, which is on the eastern edge of California, just North of Death Valley. The ABPs are the oldest known non-clonal organism on the planet, with some trees more than 5,000 years old. That there are maintained, paved roads to this protected area, trails, and a visitor center in what would seem to be one of the most god-forsaken places in the country, is incredible. One of my friends pointed out that day that for all the things that we disparage the Federal Government for, here was just a small example of something it has done right and rarely do we stop and realize how grateful we should be for something like this place.

Again, to avoid a politically charged post, I suggest we let it slide. By only attempting to point out the positives, that isn't happening. If one were to reply with the negatives, this would go down a horrible path that none of us want.

 

[TEO]

Again, to avoid a politically charged post, I suggest we let it slide. By only attempting to point out the positives, that isn't happening. If one were to reply with the negatives, this would go down a horrible path that none of us want.

Dug, you're missing the point of my argument. It's not, "Government is good." Dr_wu002 suggested that the Federal Government can do nothing right, sarcastically saying, "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 disagree, I believe that they actually do some things well and I have given what I think are some examples.

If someone disagrees with me, pointing out the things he/she doesn't like about the Federal Government, or providing examples of things that he/she feels it does not do well will not bolster his/her case. Rather, he/she should try to show why my examples do not demonstrate that the Federal Government can do good things and do them well.

Arguing a point does not have to inevitably go down a horrible path. (We can argue about that, too, if you'd like. )