Go Back   Winnipesaukee Forum > Winnipesaukee Forums > General Discussion
Home Forums Gallery Webcams Blogs YouTube Channel Classifieds Calendar Register FAQDonate Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-13-2010, 08:17 AM   #1
Skip
Senior Member
 
Skip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Dover, NH
Posts: 1,615
Thanks: 256
Thanked 514 Times in 182 Posts
Post Fish & Game rescue fund troubles

We have discussed in the past the limited funds Fish & Game has when it comes to their rescue fund. The fund remains tied to boater and OHRV registration surcharges, although most rescues are for folks that don't boat or operate OHRVs.

An excellent article talking about this particular issue can be found on-line in this morning's edition of the UNION LEADER.
Skip is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Skip For This Useful Post:
Jonas Pilot (09-13-2010)
Old 09-13-2010, 09:30 AM   #2
Pineedles
Senior Member
 
Pineedles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Moultonborough & CT
Posts: 2,534
Thanks: 1,058
Thanked 652 Times in 363 Posts
Default

Interesting article, particularly the part where when funds run out, the hunting and fishing licenses are tapped. I paid for a Non-Resident fishing and hunting license and was under the impression it went to conservation and enforcement issues. I truely hope that most search and rescue incidents are adjudicated as reckless. Hiking up Mt. Washington in shortsleeves and shorts anytime other than late July or early August would constitute reckless behavior IMHO.
Pineedles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2010, 09:31 AM   #3
jrc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: NH
Posts: 2,689
Thanks: 33
Thanked 439 Times in 249 Posts
Default

Ok who needs search and rescue?

Boaters: Power, sail and paddle
Hikers
Climbers
Hunters
Anglers
Mountain bikers
Snowmobilers
ATVers

Who pays for search and rescue?

Boaters: Power, and most sail
Hunters
Anglers
Snowmobilers
ATVers

We've talked forever about taxing the paddlers, and you could expand that to other human power activities but how practical is that? How will you enforce and collect fees from hikers for example?

It seems like the list of people needing help is fast becoming everyone and therefor should be paid by the general fund. As much as I dislike the lack of accountability that will bring.
jrc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2010, 12:26 PM   #4
fatlazyless
Senior Member
 
fatlazyless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 8,506
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 291
Thanked 950 Times in 692 Posts
Default

Raising money for the state could be done the same way the federal gov does it. By using those green steel, cash-money, deposit tubes at boat launches. The U S Forest Service charges three dollars per day to park at a trail head parking lot in the White Mt National Forest, and the Forest Service just built a 2 1/2 mil dollar new headquarters building at Exit 27, so those three dollar payments must have been a-piling up.

By charging all boaters who use the ramps five bucks, launch or retrieve- 5 bucks in & out, either way-ten dollars total, into a green steel, state or town pay tube, it will eliminate paying someone to sit there and collect fees, and it will obviously be 24-7-365. The pay tubes work for the Forest Service in remote locations so they should work better for the state or town boat launches because the locations would get eye-balled by the local cops as they roll past.

And, a pay deposit outdoors all-weather security tube can be purchased and installed for short money. Just google forest service fee pay tubes .... . Also, by creating an honor system fee pay process it will enable the vast majority of people to be respectfull of the lake as a public resource. To get respect, you give respect.
__________________
... down and out, liv'n that Walmart side of the lake!
fatlazyless is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2010, 08:09 PM   #5
VitaBene
Senior Member
 
VitaBene's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 3,527
Thanks: 1,561
Thanked 1,599 Times in 820 Posts
Default Percentages

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skip View Post
We have discussed in the past the limited funds Fish & Game has when it comes to their rescue fund. The fund remains tied to boater and OHRV registration surcharges, although most rescues are for folks that don't boat or operate OHRVs.

An excellent article talking about this particular issue can be found on-line in this morning's edition of the UNION LEADER.
Seems like it should be a percentage of the fee rather than a flat fee.

Also, we need to truly chase and charge the truly negligent and unprepared. It seems every time I read about a S&R fee being levied, I read a few months later the fee has been reduced.
VitaBene is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 09-14-2010, 06:59 PM   #6
4 for Boating
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 210
Thanks: 1
Thanked 37 Times in 25 Posts
Default Total Budget?

So I understand the $200,000 aspect but why would the media not post the entire budget for this service? How much money is raised via the licenses? Would be interesting to understand the total budget for this service I think. Is this listed on-line?

On a related note, down in Florida and pretty much across the country, they have solar powered pay stations that collect fees for everything from boat launching to use of ATV trials to entry into national parks…… Seems to work if it’s done correctly.

I know this may get a very negative reaction, but I’m a proponent to having a pay station at some of the town docks that you would buy a ticket and attach it to your boat windshield. Not a lot of money to park and might help with people staying some 3-4 hours. (Fire away)
4 for Boating is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2010, 07:32 PM   #7
SAMIAM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 2,834
Thanks: 326
Thanked 1,625 Times in 561 Posts
Default

How about this.....next time somebody calls from a cell phone half way up Mt Washington.....stuck in a spring snow squall, dressed in shorts and a t-shirt. Let's just ask them for a credit card number and we'll send somebody right up.
SAMIAM is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to SAMIAM For This Useful Post:
jmen24 (09-15-2010), Meredith lady (09-18-2010), RI Swamp Yankee (09-17-2010), VitaBene (09-14-2010)
Old 09-15-2010, 04:32 PM   #8
MAXUM
Senior Member
 
MAXUM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Kuna ID
Posts: 2,755
Thanks: 246
Thanked 1,942 Times in 802 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fatlazyless View Post
Raising money for the state could be done the same way the federal gov does it. By using those green steel, cash-money, deposit tubes at boat launches. The U S Forest Service charges three dollars per day to park at a trail head parking lot in the White Mt National Forest, and the Forest Service just built a 2 1/2 mil dollar new headquarters building at Exit 27, so those three dollar payments must have been a-piling up.

By charging all boaters who use the ramps five bucks, launch or retrieve- 5 bucks in & out, either way-ten dollars total, into a green steel, state or town pay tube, it will eliminate paying someone to sit there and collect fees, and it will obviously be 24-7-365. The pay tubes work for the Forest Service in remote locations so they should work better for the state or town boat launches because the locations would get eye-balled by the local cops as they roll past.

And, a pay deposit outdoors all-weather security tube can be purchased and installed for short money. Just google forest service fee pay tubes .... . Also, by creating an honor system fee pay process it will enable the vast majority of people to be respectfull of the lake as a public resource. To get respect, you give respect.
Whoa wait just one second.

OK I'm sorry maybe I'm the only one who finds these ideas repugnant, but I vehemantly disagree with the whole concept of charging for such things. Is it me or does the thought of a 2.5 million dollar HQ for the forest service seem just a wee bit excessive?

Access to the national forest should always be free, afterall they already have tax dollars to blow on this stuff. Now we have to pay for access for something we already pay for? Am I the only one that sees a problem here. Now let's compare how things are done here with elsewhere. When I lived in Colorado I could pack up the truck with my camping gear, six shooter and 4wheel wherever I saw fit, pitch a tent, have a fire and spend the weekend for FREE. Why is it free there yet in the White Mtn national forest I have to pay to park, can't camp wherever I want to and deal with all the stupid restrictions that seem unique to this area of the country?

I find it ironic that the state and federal government are spending more and more money and we end up seeing less and less in return. When there are shortfalls the first idea is to just whack everyone cause it's far easier than going back and seeing where all the gobs of money they have at thier disposal is going, no doubt stuffing the pockets of lawmaker's friends and associates.

Same can be said for charging to launch a boat. What the heck is the access fee on my boat registration used for then if I have to pay even more every time I want to use it to access what is supposidly a "public" resource.

I have no problem with spending money to support that which I directly benefit from. Yeah I grumble when I have to shell out for my sled registrations and club memberships every year, but at least the majority of that money is turned right around to support the trails, grooming and maintenance. I can't say the same for my hunting and fishing licenses.

If some crack pot tree hugging whack job flat lander decides to go do something stupid like as already mentioned climb Mt Washington and not go prepared then I find it perfectly acceptable to have them die doing so. The general public should not be forced to foot the bill to bail out or rescue stupidity. If that's where all the money is going then that should immediately stop and we need to go back to the way things used to be, engage in this activity at your own risk or peril.

What is sad about these ideas is that the whole notion of the national parks, state parks and publically owned property was so that everyone could enjoy them, not just those who could afford to. Now we start associating fees with access to these resources and who does it hurt? Those that these places were originally set aside for in the first place, the less fortune. Every time a fee is instituted or raised it prices more people out of that activity. No shocker it's the liberal way...
MAXUM is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to MAXUM For This Useful Post:
LakeSnake (09-16-2010), Seaplane Pilot (09-15-2010)
Old 09-15-2010, 06:32 PM   #9
Pineedles
Senior Member
 
Pineedles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Moultonborough & CT
Posts: 2,534
Thanks: 1,058
Thanked 652 Times in 363 Posts
Default Ntl. Parks

National Parks are not free to visit, as I found out 2 years ago when visiting the Wright Brothers Memorial in the Kitty Hawk, NC. Uh Oh, I mentioned something outside of the Lakes Region, like I did when I was there.
Pineedles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2010, 06:52 AM   #10
fatlazyless
Senior Member
 
fatlazyless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 8,506
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 291
Thanked 950 Times in 692 Posts
Default

One can either pay three dollars/day to park in the WMNF at a pay deposit tube located at the trailhead parking lot, or pay 20-dollars for a windshield sticker, good for a year, or 25-dollars for two vehicles. At 20-dollars per year, that's a low price for what you get.

The WMNF is extremely clean with pretty much zero litter. What had been eroded and worn out trails have been rebuilt by paid trail crews working on the trails so they don't get washed away or walked away. It makes a big difference on all the hiking trails, and rebuilding trails is slow, tedious and difficult work using railroad crowbars, picks, shovels, and elbow grease.

The White Mountain trails system used to be all rocks, roots, and erosion; about 30-40 years ago in the 1970's, and now the trails are in much better shape thanks to both volunteer and paid trail crews.

What's the better way to go? 3-dollars/ visit or $20/year or paying zero? Whatcha thinkum? Unless you are a teenager, there's no free rides....
__________________
... down and out, liv'n that Walmart side of the lake!
fatlazyless is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to fatlazyless For This Useful Post:
Jonas Pilot (09-16-2010)
Old 09-16-2010, 07:04 AM   #11
MAXUM
Senior Member
 
MAXUM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Kuna ID
Posts: 2,755
Thanks: 246
Thanked 1,942 Times in 802 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pineedles View Post
National Parks are not free to visit
National parks and to some degree state parks I can understand an access fee, as they do have services and facilities provided which require maintenance and care. Even so both the state and national parks already get money to support them from the local and federal level so it's a little tough in my mind to justify these additional fees. Clearly it makes sense for example to pay a fee for a camping spot in Yellowstone national park since you are directly using something there but to be charged just to enter the park to me is just plain ludicrous. Especially the entry fees, you see how much they charge now? I'd love to see the operating budget and see where all this money they got is going. IF some here have thier way there will be all weather security pay tubes at every corner, and token based turn styles on every trail head and toll booths at every scenic view. That'll discourage more and more visitors from coming. Then who you going to hit up for money?
MAXUM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2010, 07:18 AM   #12
MAXUM
Senior Member
 
MAXUM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Kuna ID
Posts: 2,755
Thanks: 246
Thanked 1,942 Times in 802 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fatlazyless View Post
One can either pay three dollars/day to park in the WMNF at a pay deposit tube located at the trailhead parking lot, or pay 20-dollars for a windshield sticker, good for a year, or 25-dollars for two vehicles. At 20-dollars per year, that's a low price for what you get.

The WMNF is extremely clean with pretty much zero litter. What had been eroded and worn out trails have been rebuilt by paid trail crews working on the trails so they don't get washed away or walked away. It makes a big difference on all the hiking trails, and rebuilding trails is slow, tedious and difficult work using railroad crowbars, picks, shovels, and elbow grease.

The White Mountain trails system used to be all rocks, roots, and erosion; about 30-40 years ago in the 1970's, and now the trails are in much better shape thanks to both volunteer and paid trail crews.
You know what FLL, Pike National Forest in central Colorado is just as clean and well kept, very heavily used yet is FREE. That is just one of many many examples. The same problems exist, if not to a greater degree since out there, huge trail systems (miles and miles) are made available for OHRV riding and 4WD vehicles. If you think repairing damage from a little foot traffic on a hand full of trails is expensive how about hundreds of miles of trails at times tore up by off road vehicles. Yet for some mysterious reason they don't seem to have the need to charge people. Why is that?
MAXUM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2010, 07:21 AM   #13
Jonas Pilot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Wolfeboro, New Hampshire is my home, 24-7-365
Posts: 1,686
Thanks: 1,047
Thanked 336 Times in 189 Posts
Default You got me thinking...

... about what a tremendously difficult job the running of Yellowstone National Park must be. I found this and thought it was pretty enlightening. I wish everyone could have a chance to visit this national treasure.

http://www.yellowstonenationalpark.c...afffunding.htm
Jonas Pilot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2010, 08:39 AM   #14
MAXUM
Senior Member
 
MAXUM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Kuna ID
Posts: 2,755
Thanks: 246
Thanked 1,942 Times in 802 Posts
Default

This is kind of getting off topic, but I will leave this thread with a few final thoughts. The operating costs of all these parks is increasing but why, how many visitor centers does a place like Yellowstone really need? What was the cost of building them, maintaining them, the more they expand this stuff the more staff they need and the more the costs go up never mind the fact government employees are given obscene benefits packages and pay. These places were never intended to be amusement parks, rather large areas of natural beauty set aside in their pristine condition for the enjoyment of future generations.

If it really is that necessary to create all these "services" and employ all these people to be there, fine I would consider that to be in the best interest of the general public. Therefore it should be enacted that the funds to pay for this should come directly from the welfare system. Put a cap on all the current welfare benefits to 12 months, beyond that you're on your own. Take the savings from that and put half towards something that REALLY benefits the general public - the national parks service, the other half return back to the tax payers. At least that would eliminate career welfare slobs who exist on the public dole at the expense of hard working people.

Off my soap box now.
MAXUM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2010, 09:37 AM   #15
Skip
Senior Member
 
Skip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Dover, NH
Posts: 1,615
Thanks: 256
Thanked 514 Times in 182 Posts
Post Use genearl fund to assist after 200K...

Back on the topic at hand.

As a sledder and a boater I have no problem contributing to the current $200,000 rescue fund. Many rescures indeed involve boaters & sledders.

That said I do oppose the raiding of hunting & fishing funds each year when the original rescue account is depleted.

Obviously the entire system of funding needs to be examined, but in the interim once the $200,000 is reached I believe the Legislature has a duty to fund any additional rescues out of the General Fund.

Remember, even though the State politicians cry poverty most of the time, each 2 years as we approach re-election day these same politicians boast about the excess funds they have returned annually to the General fund due to their fical conservatism!

Why the General fund? Because too many very expensive rescues involve folks that don't boat, sled, fish hunt or hike. The current search going on for an alzheimer's patient in Waterville Valley shows that no matter what scheme is proposed to tax outdoor recreationalists, expensive rescues for those that would never be taxed or pay a fee will still occur.

Don't know what the best answer is, but do not believe the current process is fair or correct...
Skip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2010, 10:48 AM   #16
Lakegeezer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Moultonboro, NH
Posts: 1,656
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 342
Thanked 614 Times in 277 Posts
Default

When paying for a license or "lift ticket", I expect rescue to be part of the deal, so feel my skiing, boating and snowmobiling rescue is covered. In Switzerland, there is insurance to buy on top of a lift ticket, which goes to defray rescue costs. You do not have to buy insurance, but you do have to pay for a rescue.

Hikers are the problem. They don't pay any state fees to use the woods, yet are rescued by state and local funded agencies. Perhaps an insurance or hiker license system would work. The national park fees are probably not relevant here. As far as I am aware, the national park fees don't get funneled to the local rescue squads or F&G.

It is unfair to put the true rescue cost on the persons being rescued, because they have no control over the services rendered, however, the money has to come from somewhere. Rescuers can be counted on for a lot, but need the proper resources to conduct their job safely and effectively.

I disagree strongly with the attitude of "let the fools die". I would rather have my tax dollars go to rescuing a "crack pot tree hugging whack job flat lander" than see my town's "donor dollars" go to Manchester so they can divert school tax dollars to trash collection.
__________________
-lg
Lakegeezer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2010, 11:24 AM   #17
John A. Birdsall
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Norwich, CT
Posts: 599
Thanks: 27
Thanked 51 Times in 35 Posts
Default donations

For the last four years when I file for the gas rebate I earmark 25% of the return to go to Marine Patrol, it is not a large amount, it comes out to be 4 cents on the gallon. Now if everyone did that the Marine Patrol would have a better operating budget.
John A. Birdsall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2010, 02:06 PM   #18
MAXUM
Senior Member
 
MAXUM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Kuna ID
Posts: 2,755
Thanks: 246
Thanked 1,942 Times in 802 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lakegeezer View Post
When paying for a license or "lift ticket", I expect rescue to be part of the deal, so feel my skiing, boating and snowmobiling rescue is covered. In Switzerland, there is insurance to buy on top of a lift ticket, which goes to defray rescue costs. You do not have to buy insurance, but you do have to pay for a rescue.

Hikers are the problem. They don't pay any state fees to use the woods, yet are rescued by state and local funded agencies. Perhaps an insurance or hiker license system would work. The national park fees are probably not relevant here. As far as I am aware, the national park fees don't get funneled to the local rescue squads or F&G.

It is unfair to put the true rescue cost on the persons being rescued, because they have no control over the services rendered, however, the money has to come from somewhere. Rescuers can be counted on for a lot, but need the proper resources to conduct their job safely and effectively.

I disagree strongly with the attitude of "let the fools die". I would rather have my tax dollars go to rescuing a "crack pot tree hugging whack job flat lander" than see my town's "donor dollars" go to Manchester so they can divert school tax dollars to trash collection.
LG- I guess you didn't appreciate some of my comment, yeah maybe over the top but it is a legit beef IMHO. How many times do we read about people doing crazy stuff, get in trouble then just expect that help is just a phone call away? While the ability to carry a cell phone, GPS and all sorts of other gadgets certainly can be useful when venturing into the outdoors, there has become a comfort level with many (often times inexperienced) that the level of risk involved with wandering into the back country somehow are less of a concern and they are not. Hey look at how many have died trying to conquer Mt Everest. Is it sad that they don't make it, of course, but let's face it doing so carries significant risk and if you choose to roll the dice and make a bad decision, well there are real consequences to those actions. Why some think they are impervious to this is beyond me but neither you nor I should be expected to foot the bill for their gambling.

There is the expectation that the government has unlimited resources to do anything and everything including bailing people out every time they mess up and this way of thinking has got to change.

I do agree with you that if donor town money is being spent by others to provide local community services that is not only wrong, it's unconstitutional.
MAXUM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2010, 04:59 PM   #19
CanisLupusArctos
Senior Member
 
CanisLupusArctos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Center Harbor
Posts: 1,049
Thanks: 15
Thanked 472 Times in 107 Posts
Default

Say what you want about the dangers of going into the outdoors -- even unprepared for the weather -- but the fact remains that riding in a car is much more dangerous than most everything else people do. When I first volunteered for the Mt. Washington Observatory in the mid-90s, the snowcat loaded at Glen House and actually crossed Rt 16 to start the trip up the Auto Road (they don't cross anymore.) The snowcat driver said, "Here comes the most dangerous part of the journey" as we crossed the highway. I laughed. He indicated that he wasn't joking. There are all kinds of things that can go wrong on the higher slopes in winter, he said, but it STILL doesn't even come close to the danger level that exists on a highway. Being on the mountain IS dangerous. But being on the highway is even more so.

Riding in a car today is still more dangerous than flying was, prior to the 9/11 security restrictions. Therefore, lots of people need rescue from motor vehicle situations. In many areas, the rescue crews send them a bill for the rescue. Most ambulance services do that anyway. The recieving hospital is definitely going to start a tab on those people, the minute they roll through the door.

These charges have nothing to do with whether or not the people were smart or stupid. It's just the way those rescue agencies operate. Some do it for free, and some don't. Some send bills knowing that only a certain percentage of them will come back paid, and they let the unpaid bills go.

If you're on the road, or if you're at home when you need to call for rescue, as most people are, you can expect in most places to get at least one bill, maybe more. Why should it be any different in the mountains? Why conduct labor-intensive mountain rescues for free, when in so many places roadside rescues and backyard rescues aren't?

Post a sign at the trailheads that says backcountry rescue costs money -- for everyone -- just as it does in non-wilderness settings.

Never mind the debate over how dangerous the wilderness is. They who shout such things the loudest are forgetting the fact that when they drive on a 2-lane road, they have no idea who's driving the oncoming vehicles or what kind of day/night those people are having.
CanisLupusArctos is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to CanisLupusArctos For This Useful Post:
DRH (09-16-2010), jmen24 (09-17-2010), MAXUM (09-16-2010), trfour (09-16-2010), watrskir (09-16-2010)
Old 09-17-2010, 07:33 AM   #20
jmen24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,139
Thanks: 223
Thanked 319 Times in 181 Posts
Default

Canis, great post.

If you have ever been hiking in Quechee Gorge, you will know that there is a sign at the top of the gorge under the bridge that notifies anyone that is heading down that the dam can and will be opened at any time. If you are caught down in the gorge after the horn blows and require rescue, you will be charged for the task of getting you out.

The folks that volunteer to search for missing persons in the backcountry, don't do it for money or fan fair. They are there for the sole purpose of using their experience to help another person. Most do not get paid, by anyone. But the organizations that they below to require some money to get people mobilized and equipment in the air or on the ground.
jmen24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:06 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.

This page was generated in 0.32475 seconds