Charge Hikers F&G rescue Fee

[jrc]

Well we can't just let people decide on there own what's safe or not. We have to have fixed numbers otherwise it willl never stand up in court. I think you should have to pay for your own rescue if you venture out when it below 45 degrees or when it's below 25 at night. After all 45 degrees is cold enough, why should we have to risk people to rescue daredevils hiking in the cold.

[AC2717]

Originally Posted by jrc

Well we can't just let people decide on there own what's safe or not. We have to have fixed numbers otherwise it willl never stand up in court. I think you should have to pay for your own rescue if you venture out when it below 45 degrees or when it's below 25 at night. After all 45 degrees is cold enough, why should we have to risk people to rescue daredevils hiking in the cold.

While I do not agree with the notion to charge people to hike, I do agree with charging them for their own stupidity they do it if I sink a Ford Explorer into the lake to remove it or if I sink my boat because it hurts nature, (no the Explorer was not me, and I did not sink my boat), by having these ridiculous rescues it is taking money out of F&G for other things, the rescue is important to save a life but the reasons need to be assesed and charged accordingly. Lets face it no one should have been out on Sunday, hence why they were the only ones that needed to be rescued, just like the lake or the sea, watch and listen to the weather reports, no one is above Mother Nature, no one!

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by jrc

Well we can't just let people decide on there own what's safe or not. We have to have fixed numbers otherwise it willl never stand up in court. I think you should have to pay for your own rescue if you venture out when it below 45 degrees or when it's below 25 at night. After all 45 degrees is cold enough, why should we have to risk people to rescue daredevils hiking in the cold.

A person can hike or mountain climb at temperatures below 45 degrees but not be a suicidal daredevil. With the proper equipment, training and experience it is possible to travel in extremely low temperatures in relative safety.

People ski, downhill and cross-country, at temperatures well below 45 degrees. The risks are comparable with hiking.

And I think you might be overstating the danger the rescuers are in. People called on to rescue climbers are climbers themselves, they understand the risks, and have volunteered for the duty.

If the rescue teams themselves start complaining about the risks, then it would be appropriate to listen to them. The opinion of the inexperienced that were not there is doubly suspect.

[Treerider]

So did the Helicopter pilot volunteer too? Who PAID for the fuel for the chopper? I can assure you it wasn't cheap......what if the chopper had crashed in the wind???

[fatlazyless]

Slightly off topic here...probably you've heard of the NH 4000'er club, and the NH Winter 4000'er club.After hik'n all 48 of the NH 4000'ers you can purchase a small patch for your backpack, after undergoing a 2 day, interrogation procedure that affirms you have honestly done all 48 mountains..

Did you know that there is now also a NH midnight 4000'er club. To get the midnight patch, you have to be on the summits at midnight.

What's next? .....a Winter midnight 4000'er club!

Hiker's already pay the US Forest Service either $3.00/day or 24.00/year for trail head parking.

Instead of sending out a rescue team, why not just leave the frozen hikers out there for the Canadian Jays, red squirrels and maybe an American Eagle? Would winter hikers think twice if they knew they were all on their own?

[hockeypuck]

Charging for a rescue may sound good on the surface, but where does it start or end. I agree that there seems to be something wrong with the public having to bear the expense for the poor judgement of others, but I think there is a social contract here that all states adhere to; that is to provide aid to those in distress, no matter what actions initiated the problem. Are we going to charge swimmers who swim out over their head, or pilots that crash in the mountains or skiers caught in an avalanche and the list goes on an on. Kinda gives a new meaning to "Live Free or Die."

[Weirs guy]

Originally Posted by hockeypuck

Charging for a rescue may sound good on the surface, but where does it start or end.

Unfortunately it starts with things like outlawing skimming. Whether you agree with nightrider or not, he does use that as a point in his argument, and the slippery slope goes down hill from there.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by hockeypuck

"...I think there is a social contract here that all states adhere to; that is to provide aid to those in distress, no matter what actions initiated the problem..."

California has just had a law proposed today to recover expenses following a government-provided entourage that cost $24,000.

It's to named "The Britney Spears Law" in her honor.
http://www.inform.com/Britney+Spears

[jrc]

I'm just trying to find consistent logic:


A person can boat at speeds above 45 mph but not be a suicidal daredevil. With the proper equipment, training and experience it is possible to travel at extremely high speeds in relative safety.

People boat, and waterski, at speeds well above 45 mph. The risks are comparable with swimming.

And I think you might be overstating the danger that other lake users are in. People called on to police boaters are boaters themselves, they understand the risks, and have applied for the duty.

If the marine patrol themselves start complaining about the risks, then it would be appropriate to listen to them. The opinion of the inexperienced that were not there is doubly suspect.

[froggy]

In the Swiss Alps at a full ski area a friend broke leg. He had to reimburse all costs incurred, by the ski patrol. The higher up we were, the more the fee as there were gondola rides down. Food for thought!

[Lakegeezer]

Originally Posted by froggy

In the Swiss Alps at a full ski area a friend broke leg. He had to reimburse all costs incurred, by the ski patrol. The higher up we were, the more the fee as there were gondola rides down. Food for thought!

You can buy rescue insurance from the Swiss Air Rescue Service. Check out http://www.rega.ch/en/goenner/start_goenner.aspx If you become a "patron", for $30, they wave the rescue fee. Not a bad idea for NH rescues that require more than local town resources.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by jrc

I'm just trying to find consistent logic:


A person can boat at speeds above 45 mph but not be a suicidal daredevil. With the proper equipment, training and experience it is possible to travel at extremely high speeds in relative safety.

People boat, and waterski, at speeds well above 45 mph. The risks are comparable with swimming.

And I think you might be overstating the danger that other lake users are in. People called on to police boaters are boaters themselves, they understand the risks, and have applied for the duty.

If the marine patrol themselves start complaining about the risks, then it would be appropriate to listen to them. The opinion of the inexperienced that were not there is doubly suspect.

There are laws and rules that regulate hikers and mountain climbers. Where you can go, what you can bring, what you can't do along the way. Boating on public waters should also have regulations consistent with that activity. That includes speed and horsepower limits in certain places at certain times.

As an additional argument I will point out there are many, many places you have a "right" to go on foot, but are not allowed to bring a vehicle.

[AC2717]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

There are laws and rules that regulate hikers and mountain climbers. Where you can go, what you can bring, what you can't do along the way. Boating on public waters should also have regulations consistent with that activity. That includes speed and horsepower limits in certain places at certain times.

As an additional argument I will point out there are many, many places you have a "right" to go on foot, but are not allowed to bring a vehicle.

JRC and BI might be getign alittle off topic here, I think what the original things is that go and do what you want when you want, but you might have to pay for it if somethign goes wrong, here is your possibilities, yes there is a social issue with yes everyone should be protected, and those that hockypuck mention like the plane crashign most of the time is an accident and in that case no charge should be considered, but when you knowing have all the rsik infront of you you should bear the risk that goes along with it. Boaters have to pay to be on the lake with registration, have to pay for gas and have to pay to be rescued via tows and or other issues, like boat and environmental repairs and insurance.

Hikers do not have insurance costs except for themselves as life insurance, no insurance to reimburse the costs no real fees for doing somethign in the environment like boating, and likely so that is fine. But for a rescue effort and I think this is what thread is trying to discuss. And on this point, YES, the costs of fuel and resources and materials should be accounted for in situations like this. Now if it could be deemed a "true accident" like a leg being broken on a hike up the mountain on a non life endangering day then it is another story and they should be held accountable.


Also the volunteer's risk, they do know and that is not what I care about, they want to do it, they are better people than I am, I also have no experience.

On last thing and I will stop and read reactions - Skiers pay to ski mountains via lift tickets, and those mountains that do not have lift for real skiing, they have to pay to get up there somehow via helicopter or guides, there are costs involved.

[jrc]

My point was you can't pick arbitrary numbers for either deciding when it's too cold to hike or what's too fast a speed to travel in a boat. Both are based on the skill of the person and the conditions, not on a number decided by people who aren't there.

I'll drop this because it's off topic and I'm being rude to the people looking for information on hiking. Just to be clear, I only think people should be charged for their rescue, if they do something reckless, negligent and un-safe based on the conditions and their skill. This would be something that the rescuers or other professionals thought a reasonable and prudent person would not do.

[Weirs guy]

The dumbing down of society?

Seat belt and helmet laws, free rescues, forcing workmen to wear hard hats... At some point does our responsibility as a society change from "protecting everyone" to "thinning the herd"? I'm not saying that we should abandon people left and right, but at some point doesn't it become self destructive to save everyone from themselves?

[fmgate]

Nightrider brings up some interesting points. I certainly agree that if you are rescued, you probably should incur the costs of that rescue. And the hiking pass or "pay to play" idea is intriguing and may need to be scrutinized more closely. Certainly, many may find the idea abhorrent. Just look the controversy with the pay-to-play plans in cash strapped school systems where families are expected to pay for their children's involvement in extracurricular sports. But having Fish & Game patrol hiking trails sounds like a logistical and bureaucratic nightmare (not to mention expensive). And who is to judge when conditions are dangerous and life threatening? Nightrider's legislative solution is probably unfeasible, or impossible to enforce. Pay-to-play seems to be the most viable option.

To add fodder for the discussion, here are some interesting stats:

-- For FY 2007, the search and rescue surcharge on boats, OHRV, and snowmobile registrations totaled $257,659.

-- Between 2002-2007, 822 rescue missions were conducted by Fish & Game;48.2% of those missions involved hikers. Hikers incurred 46.1% of the rescue mission costs.

The first stat is interesting because the surcharge collected for rescue missions account for about 1% of the entire Fish & Game budget. Not too big if you ask me.

The second set of stats is interesting because it shows that hikers are certainly assessed fees. Furthermore, the amount paid by hikers is roughly proportional to how often they are involved in a rescue. [I say this with the caveat that not all rescue missions are created equal. Some are more expensive than others.] Finally, can one assume that the remaining 51.8% of rescue missions involve non-hikers, such as boaters, snowmobilers, and the like? If so, then there is some justification for keeping some sort of surcharge on boats, OHRVs, and snowmobiles.

I think the reason nightrider doesn't hear about the monetary recovery is because it often occurs privately between Fish & Game and the entity that was rescued, often months after the event. Well after everyone has forgotten about the rescue, the collected fees are slipped into a budget or a line item buried deep within some report. And like any budget or year-end report, it makes for boring journalism. Certainly not as sensationalistic as the original rescue!