Would you pay for hiker insurance?

[Grumpy]

I couldn't support a plan to pay on a per-state basis. I frequently hike in CT, MA, NH, and VT. I occasionally make trips to ME and NY. To be "properly" covered, I'd have to shell out $120 a year for a service I will most likely never need.

If it were a federal program, it would make more sense. If the feds collected a fee and then dispensed it to the state entities that needed it while putting any excess into legitimate USFS/NPS projects, I could get behind it.

I agree that having to pay in each separate state would be excessively burdensome.

The problem with a federal SAR "insurance" program -- or a state program, for that matter -- is the modern reality that general fund support to an agency's operations tends to get cut by the amount an agency brings in with fees. Then, when general budget cuts are made the agency takes yet another licking in the funding department. It becomes a shell game of sorts.

For example, I remember when we were guaranteed that the huge bulk (85% ?) of funds raised through the USDA Forest Service "Recreation Fee Demonstration" program, which now evidently is a permanent fixture, would go to improving facilities and opportunities and services directly related to where the fees were collected. Then we had the wildfires out west the FS found itself strapped for funds, and guess what happened. Yep, funds were diverted to cover the fire fighting budget, and projects that were to be funded by the Rec Fee got scrubbed, severely reduced in scope or deferred indefinitely.

That is one of the reasons I am very reluctant to endorse a SAR insurance program. I don't think it really resolves the problem of inadequately funded public programs.

G.

 

[dr_wu002]

If it were a federal program, it would make more sense. If the feds collected a fee and then dispensed it to the state entities that needed it while putting any excess into legitimate USFS/NPS projects, I could get behind it.

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 hope there's never any such thing as "hiker insurance"

I'd much rather have a guy like TC from Magnum PI. You get in trouble, he's got his own helicopter service and charges you for a pickup... even has his own credit card swipe.

Privatize it baby!

-Dr. Wu

 

[peakbagger]

I am not sure of the details, but while on my recent New Zealand trip, it was explained by the oufitter that medically neccessary rescues and medical fees were covered by a countrywide "no fault" insurance plan funded by some sort of tax on recreational fees. I

If on the other hand someone decided they didnt want to hike out and it was not deemed neccessary, the cost was around $500 to be picked up and hauled out by the companies helicopter while it was delivering supplies. Apparently this "no fault" plan applies to bunji jumping, jet boating, water fall scrambles and other more extreme activities that NZ generally invents. Note that being a "no fault" plan, it would be exteremely diffcult to sue anyone unless extreme negligence could be proven so that keeps the costs down.

Of course I saw an article somewhere while down there how the plan was running a deficit as the revenues were far below the payouts.

 

[Craig]

Why would you want to pay for a service you now get for free?

It must be group hysteria at work here.

 

[Maddy]

Why would you want to pay for a service you now get for free?

It must be group hysteria at work here.

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.
I think that by deleting Scott's fine they did set a precedent for hikers to have their fines deleted if they were caught in a similar situation.

 

[Craig]

There are millions of folks using the woods and waterways state wide for hiking, climbing, fishing, hunting, biking, motoring, birding, sight seeing, boating, canoing, kayaking, snowmobiling, sledding, backcountry skiing, cross country skiing, etc etc etc. yearly. Out of those millions how many SARs operations are there in a typical year. Out of those SARs operations how many are deemed negligent and eligible for reimbursement. Of those how many are actually paid?

Those odds are what insurance companies make vast amounts of money on.

Rescue service in NH is a free service...

 

[Ed'n Lauky]

Rescue service in NH is a free service...

That's not the way I read it here: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/29/national/main5451330.shtml

 

[Billy V]

Oh Boy ... Here we go........

Why would you want to pay for a service you now get for free?

It must be group hysteria at work here.

This is not to pick on you Craig.

OK, I can't hold this back. There is no free "lunch" or rescue. Someone has to pay for it. If any of you read the Union Leader comments about the last rescue of the felow that slid 1500 feet you would realize that the citizens of NH are fed up with the "free" rescues and want the rescued people to pay for gettng in trouble in the NH mountains. The NH citizens don't want their tax money going to rescue somone that they consider has got themselves into trouble and they don't care if it is a well trained boy scout, an AMC hut caretaker or a TV announcer from Boston.

The way I see it is that the citizens of NH are eventually going to REALLY get fed up with $25,000 rescues comming out of their pockets and mandate by law the hikers pay for their rescue!

I Don't live in NH and I believe that, since I hike in may states, I should have insurance if I get myself in trouble on a hiking trail. Either through an accident, an error in my judgement, breakdown of equipment, it doesen't matter, someone has to pay for time , rescue equipment, lost time at work for volunteers, ambulences, helicopters, fuel, etc., nevermind someone endangering themselves to get me out of trouble, expenses have to be paid.

Some of you may not realize it that NH has no sales tax nor income tax and all expenses that the state, cities and towns have are paid almost totally by property taxes. The citizens of NH pay a whopping big property tax and the citizens are getting fed up with interlopers , us hikers, comming into the state and getting a free ride when they have to be rescued.

It behoves us as a community of hikers to stand up and do our part to make sure that if we are caught in a situation that we never thought we would ever be in through no fault of our own that we can call on SAR and not worry on how they or the community will be reimbursed. I believe this is our responsibility.

I could go on about other factors but one thing is for sure that if we wait for the Feds or the States to do it we will wait a very long time considerng the current economic conditions. If we just sit around and avail ouselves of the "free" service someone in NH will make a law that none of us will like. Obtaining our own rescue insurance is the only way as it stands now to avoid a large public backlash against the hiking community.

My 2 cents resptfully submited
Billy V

Happy Hiking... and safely

 

[Tim Seaver]

If any of you read the Union Leader comments about the last rescue of the felow that slid 1500 feet you would realize that the citizens of NH are fed up with the "free" rescues and want the rescued people to pay for gettng in trouble in the NH mountains. The NH citizens don't want their tax money going to rescue somone that they consider has got themselves into trouble and they don't care if it is a well trained boy scout, an AMC hut caretaker or a TV announcer from Boston.

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.

Fish and Game currently gets funds for search and rescue through a $1 surcharge on each private boat, OHRV and snowmobile registration.

 

[Craig]

That's not the way I read it here: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/29/national/main5451330.shtml

The only time you are required to pay is if you have acted negligently in requiring a search and rescue response.

Prior to 2008 the only time you were required to pay is if you acted Recklessly or intentionally.

Other than that you don't get charged, therefore it's free.

 

[Tuco]

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.

Thanks for the link Tim. Interesting fact - 89% of those receiving SAR assistance did not help pay for that assistance through a registration (as of the date the link was updated).

Yes, I'd pay as long as the per state issue were resolved....

 

[Click Clack]

People are trying to tell me they wouldn't pay $20 bucks a year to hike? Are you serious? You could hike once a month that's less than 2 bucks a day. Totally worth it.

Much better value than my crampons and I could just dump those since I paid for insurance....

 

[Billy V]

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.

That backhanded comment on the UL readers may not be appreciated by them but still they are the outspoken ones that get their local representitives ears. NH has a lot of very local representation in the state house. Much more so than most state house's.

You rightfully pointed that SAR is funded by $1 surcharge on boat, snowmobile and ORV registrations. I believe that one of the UL comments also pointed this out . Also it was pointed out that hikers were not contributing to the SAR pot. It doesn't change the fact that even the non UL readers are upset about the hikers not paying the fees like boaters , snowmobilers and ORVers are doing

I have discovered the hardway in my short foray in to politics that it is not what really "is" but what people think "is". So I know that if enough people make it look like that hikers are takers and not contributors that is all it will take for the state of NH to "tax" hikers in some way. I believe that will be the worst way possible.

Happy Hiking

Billy V

 

[SteveHiker]

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.

True. But watching the televised Senate hearings would be an awesome side benefit.

What did the reckless hiker know? And when did he know it?

 

[bignslow]

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)

 

[Tim Seaver]

That backhanded comment on the UL readers may not be appreciated by them ...

I am OK with that...the comment section is not exactly brimming with brilliance, and I am being charitable.

To wit, comments from from the Adams rescue:

1. If hikers are acting irresponsibly, then NH should make more of an effort to enforce the $25,000 rescue fine

2. what a very foolish, and selfish sport, don't hikers know they're putting S.A.R. in harms way?

3. Absolutely, make them pay DEARLY for a hiking license. We pay license fee for fishing, hunting, driving, snowmobiling, boating, campers, and on and on, it's time these ya-hoos pay for hiking and using their bicycles on our roads that we pay to ride on.

4. No crampons, no ice-axe. That's like racing without a helmet and seatbelt.

5. Never, never hike in the presidentials without a sleepinng bag!

6. It never ends with these people.. Sooner or later I fear one of the conservation officers will get hurt saving these wanta -be's then it will not be a joke anymore.

Being outspoken and having a valid point are obviously miles apart.
Who knew there was a $25,000 "rescue fine"? Perhaps if enough people repeat that piece of nonsense, that will become the "truth".

You rightfully pointed that SAR is funded by $1 surcharge on boat, snowmobile and ORV registrations. I believe that one of the UL comments also pointed this out . Also it was pointed out that hikers were not contributing to the SAR pot. It doesn't change the fact that even the non UL readers are upset about the hikers not paying the fees like boaters , snowmobilers and ORVers are doing

I don't think a handful of comments made by a few unhinged UL readers really represent the opinion of most residents in the state. A poll among a cross section of more rational people would be need to be conducted to determine such a thing.

 

[Billy V]

Tim,

I like your research. You found the comments exactly as I remember them.

They do speak for themselves.

Don't forget the Boyscout was fined $25,000 but after the hue and cry went out (ie. political pressure) the state dropped the fine.

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.

Lastly what got me started was the comments that something was free and nothing is ever free. As stated in a previous posting link over $400,000 was spent in rescuing just over 200 hikers in the last 2 years in NH.(0ver $2000 per rescue) You can bet some NH politician in looking at that figure right now and has made a note that no hiker has paid 5 cents to anyone like the boaters, orvers and snowmobilers have. We cannot underestimate a government that is looking for money in every possible place it can find it.


Happy Hiking
BillyV

 

[bikehikeskifish]

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

Tim

 

[sardog1]

"Insurance," but only $5000 worth w/general membership ($75/year, less for seniors/juniors), already exists if one is a member of the American Alpine Club. See
http://www.americanalpineclub.org/globalrescue
Anyone here a member? If so, have you ever used it?

As a Hardrock 100 runner, I was required to purchase the CO "hiking license" each time I ran the race but fortunately never heard of any of the runners needing rescue.

The AAC plan is not insurance and does not provide any coverage for search expenses.

The "CO hiking license" is a voluntary contribution to fund SAR groups, not a license, and is not insurance.

 

[Maddy]

I have discovered the hardway in my short foray in to politics that it is not what really "is" but what people think "is". So I know that if enough people make it look like that hikers are takers and not contributors that is all it will take for the state of NH to "tax" hikers in some way. I believe that will be the worst way possible.

Happy Hiking

Billy V

Agreed!

I was at the gym in my small town ~200 miles away from the Rockpile when the media was covering a rescue in the Whites on the news. There were nothing but derogatory remarks being made regarding "unreasonable hikers expecting to be rescued when they should not have been there in the first place." This is not by a long shot a hiking community, but they certainly did seem to stand by their convictions that hikers are not entitled to a "free ride". I attempted to utter a few words but I was way outnumbered. No one uttered one word of concern about hoping that the one survivor would get out of there alive.

I think the writing is on the wall and and I would hate to see the "worst possible" solution for hikers implemented.
We often discuss how our friends and acquaintances don't "get" what we do, and think we are mostly out of our minds going into the deep dark woods, exposing ourselves to great harm,risking getting eaten alive by a bear. I don't think we can expect any sympathy when we do encounter disaster and they call a $25000 helicopter to pluck us out.

We might think we deserve a free ride. Many don't agree.
Each time someone needs a rescue it's more fuel for the fire.