Home » Opinion » Editorials
Billing hikers: The future of search and rescue?
Rep. Chandler, R-Bartlett, has introduced a bill (House Bill 256) that would charge, on a sliding scale, everyone who has to be rescued by the state if lost in the woods, capsized on a lake, etc. Currently, the state charges only those who are found to be negligent, and for the most part they do not pay.
It is not Chandler's proposal to charge for all rescues that has the most merit. There are some good reasons why the state might not want to do precisely that. Rather, the strength of Chandler's bill is that it begins moving the state away from its long-standing practice of funding searches and rescues with fees on people who make up fewer than half of all rescues: hunters, fishermen, boaters, snowmobilers and ATV riders.
The existing funding structure is a matter of convenience. It is easy to charge people to register vehicles or obtain licenses. There is no easy way to charge people for hiking or walking in the woods. The state cannot put a toll booth at every trail head. It cannot very well make hikers obtain licenses to use public lands, either. But hikers account for more than half of searches and rescues. What is the state to do?
We could simply pay for them with general taxation. Or we could dedicate a portion of the rooms and meals tax, as Susan Arnold, vice president for conservation of the Appalachian Mountain Club, has suggested. But both of those go against the old-fashioned New Hamsphire tradition that the user should pay, to the greatest extent possible, for specialized services.
Chandler would combine his minimum rescue fee ($350-$1,000) with a "hike safe card" available to hikers. Buy the $18 card, and if you have to be rescued, it's covered. That is a creative idea well worth considering. It would give hikers peace of mind while also encouraging them to think more seriously about trip preparation.
HB 256 will not provide full funding for searches and rescues, and more deliberation is needed about the pros and cons of the plan. But Chandler has moved the conversation in a new and promising direction, and legislators need to give this proposal serious consideration.
READER COMMENTS: 4
- USNH's raw deal: Part deux - 2
- Every vote counts: Here is the proof - 5
- Burning rubber: And public dollars - 0
- Hassan was right: 'Bullying' bill goes too far - 12
- Strategery: A war by any other name - 30
- Freeh dumb: Favoritism in Vt.? - 6
- Public be damned: Litchfield latest example - 2
- NH's 9/11 victims: We cannot forget - 0
- Celebrating Stark: And America, in Manchester - 0
READER COMMENTS: 0
- Kuster, Shea-Porter split on vote to arm Syrian rebels - 0
- Man arrested in White Park stabbing in Concord - 0
- Motorcyclist in serious condition at Maine hospital following crash on Route 125 in Rochester - 0
- Rochester 10-year-old, grandmother escape fire in home with no smoke detectors - 0
- Two arrested, car and cash seized in SWAT raid, drug bust at South Mammoth Road home in Manchester - 0
- Dean Kamen is a genius inventor, and he's pretty good at oratory, too - 3
- Tom Herzig's Trackside: Modified tour is shortened - 0
- Patriots Notebook: Pats wary of veteran playmaker Woodson - 0
- College Football: Expect offense when Richmond, UNH meet - 0
Two arrested, car and cash seized in SWAT raid, drug bust at South Mammoth Road home in Manchester
Keene man charged with assault on 2-year-old
Another View -- Bill Duncan: What did the NH Supreme Court really say about private school funding?
Every vote counts: Here is the proof
Casino gambles: Hopes dashed all over
Havenstein says Christie backing a 'boost'