Comments on: New Hampshire Fish and “Wildlife” Wants to Tax Hikers?

By: mountain pig

mountain pig — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 15:46:15 +0000

F&G should have thier own toll at the border of mass because those fatsos are the ones that keep getting lost!

By: josh

josh — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 01:01:42 +0000

Trails need to be maintained. Parking is provided in most places. I agree the fee shouldn’t be substantial, but I don’t see all hikers just walking. They are enjoying the wilderness and the wildlife it contains. This needs to be protected and maintained somehow. A FEW hunters out of the total number who hunt actually take game yet we all pay and the same goes for fishing. The rest of the time I am merely hiking in the woods and drifting around the lake.
I agree hikers who become lost shouldn’t have to pay the whole cost of the rescue but they should have to pay something. As it stands now hunters and fishermen are paying the bulk.
Do you think anyone who uses public waterways and public launch sites should have to help with the cost of maintaining these facilities and conserving the wildlife? Right now only powerboaters pay registration fees.
Nature comes at a cost and I firmly agree everyone who uses these resources should help maintain them. One can always move to a major city where extermination is move valued than conservation.

By: mpinkeyes

mpinkeyes — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 00:06:02 +0000

I just have a real hard time wrapping my arms around the idea of paying to go walking, or to climb rocks. This is an activity that costs nothing to the state and takes nothing from the environment. I can understand charging hunters and fisherman because they do take something that has to be replenished.
I do think though that if a person does become lost that they should have to pay the total cost of the rescue effort. But why charge all hikers a fee for the stupidity of a small minority?

By: josh

josh — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 23:26:58 +0000

The Fish and Game spent $257,000 on search and rescue alone. I am willing to bet the vast majority of these people were not hunters. This is on top of all the volunteers who sometimes risk their lives. I believe the fish and game has gotten back around 7000 in the last five years in fines.
Shouldn’t those who use the resource pay for them? If you think our tax dollars cover it then I shouldn’t have to pay to hunt, fish, boat, or go atv’ing. NH would be a sad state if we relied solely on the general fund to support conservation and education programs.

http://www.wildlife.state.nh.us/Inside_FandG/pie_charts.htm

Here is a site showing where fish and game money comes from and where it goes.

By: in2thefray

in2thefray — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 19:53:17 +0000

Most lost people are found either through volunteer supplemented operations. Other truths are the military,law enforcement and yes the fish and wildlife folks. In Colorado mountaineers that are without permits and get rescued are fined. Otherwise you get the love of the taxpayer and general fund expenditure. The “wilds” of America belong to the people and are paid for by same. If the government (go figure) can’t manage the $$$ they should get out of the biz.

By: josh

josh — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 18:45:38 +0000

mpinkeyes,
You obviously don’t know the full scope of the work that the Fish and Game Department does and where the funding comes from. This department is funding primarily from hunting and fishing licences. Yet, are we the only ones using the forests and the waterways? No! Canoeists, kayakers, hikers, rockclimbers and so on all use these resources and enjoy our wildlife. Why is it then that this fish and game should be responsible for finding lost hikers? Maybe you should investigate how much money they have spent searching for lost hikers, who don’t pay a dime towards fish and game, and how much money they have recouped due to negligence. So the next time that you see deer or turkeys out in a field, catch a trout with your child/ grandchild, take a drive to view the foliage or just enjoy a walk on the many trails in the state, remember where the funds are coming from to preserve these resources. If you ever get lost maybe someone will remember is was you that did not want to pay there share.

By: Michael

Michael — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 20:17:35 +0000

The White Mountain program charges for parking in designated areas, mostly trailheads for hiking and ski touring. Areas requiring a parking pass are signed as fee areas, unless the sign is missing or covered with snow.
As it stands today when you hike or do activities in the White Mountain National Forest and would like to park your vehicle in a designated WMNF parking lot you have the option to purchase a parking sticker for your vehicle “good for one year” for $20.00. Your other option is to use an envelope that you fill out at the spot of where you are and then deposit it in a fee tube in the parking lot with $3.00 enclosed. When the ranger comes around and opens the collection box and finds that you are parked there without making the deposit you get a ticket.

Most Forest visitors have come to accept the program, although there are occasional incidents of civil disobedience.

Visitors from out of state are often accustomed to paying for parking back home and the fee is only a tiny part of the cost of their trip.
Residents of the counties around the Forest are generally unhappy. They are not used to paying for parking anywhere and feel that the Forest is not paying its fair share of local expenses.
New Hampshire politicians are also unhappy as the fee may discourage tourists. There may also be an unfavorable comparison to Vermont (which New Hampshire sneers at as being spendthrift for having both sales and income taxes), yet the Green Mountain National Forest avoided parking fees by cutting middle management instead. (The GMNF also has much lower camping fees.)
Some national environmental organizations are opposed to the nationwide fee demo as the beginning of privatization of public lands.

So in a sense they are already charging us to hike and soon enough it will be everywhere in the WMNF.

By: in2thefray

in2thefray — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 15:51:36 +0000

Voluntary fee ? Is that like the option in MA for people to pay the 5.95 rate on their income tax ? Fees in an area of tourism are popular but I’d caution those that loose sight that even voluntary fees for hiking etc. can lead to hikers volunteering to hike elsewhere. BTW the 20th is coming so I hope you’re still in for the WPBA bush post