Maybe New York State Could Learn from New Hampshire

[sukigraybaby]

http://www.unionleader.com/article/2...WS07/706179926

With the ever increasing amount of inexperienced and flagrantly unprepared hikers putting rescuers and others in harms way, perhaps there is a lesson here for NYS and it's antiquated approach to these careless individual. Hunters and fisherman have a legitimate gripe caring the load for those that pay nothing. A dedicated, lock box fund funded by a $10.00 license for anyone who hikes a state trail seems an appropiate place to start.

[procook131]

Here we go......

[FlyingCow]

Originally Posted by procook131

Here we go......

Once a year, every year...

[Pathgrinder]

I know a lot of people here will be against this idea but, I have no problem with it. I happen to think I am prepared, informed and careful but, anything can happen out there. If I ever did need help, it would be nice to know the funding was there for a rescue. Secondly, some information could be included with the license that could possibly educate an inexperienced hiker and help avoid a situation. Seems a small price to pay. I'm not a hunter or fisherman anymore but think it's only fair that we hikers pay our fair share. Bear containers are now required and bear encounters have been greatly reduced. If licenses were required would rescues be reduced? I don't know, just posing the question.

[Rik]

Hmmm, state owned land in a state that I pay taxes in. A license to walk on said land? No thanks. Hunters and fisherman are removing resources from that land as the primary objective of their activity. Can I start taking things I find home with me if I have a license?

Let's see how things play out a little longer in the "Live Free or Die" state before adopting that idea...

[sukigraybaby]

Originally Posted by procook131

Here we go......

I'm truly sorry reasonable, adult, factual and non confrontational dialoge disturbs you to the point of that "response".

[sukigraybaby]

Originally Posted by Rik

Hmmm, state owned land in a state that I pay taxes in. A license to walk on said land? No thanks. Hunters and fisherman are removing resources from that land as the primary objective of their activity. Can I start taking things I find home with me if I have a license?

Let's see how things play out a little longer in the "Live Free or Die" state before adopting that idea...

False! Please goggle the Robertson-Pittman Act and research NYS funding for ENCON, land accusition and the like.

http://www.fws.gov/southeast/federal...robertson.html

[DSettahr]

Originally Posted by Pathgrinder

If licenses were required would rescues be reduced? I don't know, just posing the question.

A very valid question. I think maybe the point isn't to reduce the number of rescues, though, but to provide better funding for those rescues that do occur and would occur anyways.

The article also raises a good point about fines for getting rescued... if people are aware that they might be fined for being helped out of the woods, will that delay their requesting assistance because they are wary about the bill?

I personally wouldn't have a problem with paying a modest fee ($10-20 a year), but I honestly don't see how it could be enforced. There are so many ways on to state land, so many places to go... and the number of hikers is significantly larger than the number of hunters, so checking permits would become tiresome. Are we going to expect that a ranger would sit at Marcy Dam all summer checking permits? I think that the costs of enforcing a "hiking permit" would cut pretty significantly into the revenue raised from such a permit right of the bat.

I also understand (and emphasize) why some people would be wary about such a program. Regardless of the cost, being forced to pay somewhat undermines the aesthetic of our wild lands. Are they as "wild" if you have to pay to use them? And what happens when people start demanding improved facilities now that they have to pay to use those lands?

Does anyone know where the funding for Search and Rescue operations in NYS actually comes from? Is it money from the Environmental Protection Fund? Or does it have a different source?

[DSettahr]

It sounds like the EPF is pretty specific in what it can be used for: http://www.adirondackcouncil.org/EPF%20info3.html

History. New York's Environmental Protection Fund (EPF) was created in 1993 during an economic recession. The idea was to create a pay-as-you-go capital projects fund. It was reserved for large, one-time purchases such as land for parks, recycling facilities, landfill closures and historic preservation. At the time it was clear that these needs weren't being met through the year-to-year spending of state agencies. Major environmental priorities had been left unfunded.

Where does the money come from? The EPF is funded by a portion of the revenues from the NYS Real Estate Transfer Tax (RETT), to ensure a reliable stream of revenue. Each year during the budget negotiations, the Legislature and Governor must agree on the level of funding that will go into the EPF and assign specific amounts for various categories such as land protection, land stewardship and water quality.

So Search and Rescue funding must come out of the operating budget of the DEC.

[Rik]

Originally Posted by sukigraybaby

False! Please goggle the Robertson-Pittman Act and research NYS funding for ENCON, land accusition and the like.

http://www.fws.gov/southeast/federal...robertson.html

Which part of my statement do you believe is false?

[Jack7957]

Originally Posted by DSettahr

I personally wouldn't have a problem with paying a modest fee ($10-20 a year), but I honestly don't see how it could be enforced.

I would make it a voluntary contribution. If someone needed a rescue because they decided to climb Allen at 4pm with only sneakers, shorts, t-shirt, no flashlight and a 16oz bottle of water, records could be checked and if they had made the contribution, they wouldn't be billed for the services rendered.

[Pathgrinder]

Maybe instead of a fine, community service equal to the man hours involved in a rescue as the result of irresponsible behavior would be a better alternative. This would be pretty easy to enforce and relative to the extent of the resources expended. Still OK with a nominal yearly fee though. C'mon, we live in NY State, we ought to get a patch just for that!
If you can't cough up the extra $10, you don't deserve the patch!

[Commissionpoint]

Originally Posted by Rik

Hmmm, state owned land in a state that I pay taxes in. A license to walk on said land? No thanks. Hunters and fisherman are removing resources from that land as the primary objective of their activity.

Don't those who hike/camp/backpack also have an impact on the resources too?

Originally Posted by DSettahr

The article also raises a good point about fines for getting rescued... if people are aware that they might be fined for being helped out of the woods, will that delay their requesting assistance because they are wary about the bill?

I personally wouldn't have a problem with paying a modest fee ($10-20 a year), but I honestly don't see how it could be enforced. There are so many ways on to state land, so many places to go...

I have often wondered about the fine/penalty idea discouraging folks from calling assistance when they really DO need it. I am further curious if serious injuries/fatalities would increase or decrease from such a policy. It would take decades to collect enough data to make a reasonable determination as to the effectiveness/ineffectiveness of such a policy.

As for enforcement of a permit..... Fishing is far more popular than hunting these days and they seem to be able to enforce that requirement well enough. Water is everywhere too, way more water to fish than trails to hike in this state. They seem to do ok making sure fisherman are licensed. I really don't see how a hiking license would be that much harder to enforce. Sporting licenses must be shown to ANYONE who asks to see it by law, not just ECO's or other officials. I would think there would be a similar provision on a hiking license. Additionally, once word got around as to fines or other penalties for being caught without one I would think most would pony up the 10 or 20 bux you have proposed in order to avoid a potential hassle on the trail.

For the record I think its a great idea. People will certainly bitch about it, but then again people bitch about everything so why should this be any different. I am also all for having the reverse of said license contain infor about bear cannisters, LNT principals, camping regs, etc. which all seem to be questions that are asked ad nauseum, and not just here on the forum.

Maybe backpackers could get an exemption or dayhikers could pay triple or something like that just to keep it fair.

[sukigraybaby]

[QUOTE=Rik;194408] Hunters and fisherman are removing resources from that land as the primary objective of their activity.QUOTE]

If all they did for their "primary objective" was "remove resources" all game species and fish would be gone in a very short period of time and funding would collapse via no one purchasing hunting/fishing licenses. Then animals like deer would skyrocket in population causing even further damage to crops, car collisions and speading tick bourne disease at epicdemic rates.

Hunters and fisherman contribute to their use of resources in triple; Robertson-Pittman Act, state taxes and state licenses where as hikers pay nothing. Hikers are the ones removing the resources such as diverting investigations into pollution control to monitor, rescue irresponsible hikers and maintain a presense on NYS trails.

[sukigraybaby]

Originally Posted by Jack7957

I would make it a voluntary contribution. If someone needed a rescue because they decided to climb Allen at 4pm with only sneakers, shorts, t-shirt, no flashlight and a 16oz bottle of water, records could be checked and if they had made the contribution, they wouldn't be billed for the services rendered.

Super idea!

[sureño]

We could keep stretching this logic out. Maybe DAs should demand the victims of sexual assault who were intoxicated at the time of the attack pay a fee prior to any prosecution of the crime.

Sometimes people knowingly or unknowingly put themselves in danger. That says something about them as individuals. Whether our institutions are funded to help them afterward says something about our society as a whole.

[Commissionpoint]

Originally Posted by sureño

We could keep stretching this logic out. Maybe DAs should demand the victims of sexual assault who were intoxicated at the time of the attack pay a fee prior to any prosecution of the crime..

Sorry dude. Your analogy is offensive and inapropriate. Its also hardly germain to the discussion. Perhaps you could edit your comment in a way which is more sensitive to victims of violent crime.

[sureño]

Originally Posted by Commissionpoint

Sorry dude. Your analogy is offensive and inapropriate. Its also hardly germain to the discussion. Perhaps you could edit your comment in a way which is more sensitive to victims of violent crime.

But as someone who has worked in a courtroom setting I feel no need whatsoever to demonstrate to you or anyone else that I am not insensitive to victims of violent crime.

And it is germane (but not germain) to the discussion. People who need help need help. Whether and how our institutions prioritize the help they do or do not receive says something about all of us.

[sukigraybaby]

Originally Posted by sureño

But as someone who has worked in a courtroom setting I feel no need whatsoever to demonstrate to you or anyone else that I am not insensitive to victims of violent crime.

And it is germane (but not germain) to the discussion. People who need help need help. Whether and how our institutions prioritize the help they do or do not receive says something about all of us.

Just a personal opinion, your statements seem wayyyy off topic! :wtf

[sureño]

Originally Posted by sukigraybaby

Just a personal opinion, your statements seem wayyyy off topic! :wtf

Some of them are more informed than others.