Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 73

Thread: Moose federation article

  1. #1
    Member Roger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Sunshine Alaska
    Posts
    2,049

    Default Moose federation article

    Any read the recent article ? I'm not judging anyone just posting the link.

    http://www.alaskadispatch.com/articl...tate-subsidies
    PEOPLE SAY I HAVE A.D.D I DON'T UNDERSTA.....OH LOOK A MOOSE !!!

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    6,031

    Default 1/3 million dollars per moose to save? Bullets are cheaper

    As much as I'm pro-wildlife and conservation, I can't stomach that much of my/our money being spent like that article suggests. Both the moose herd and we would have both been better off if we'd have spend half that amount on habitat restoration/enhancements, plus 30 bucks for some bullets to deal with those moose individually as they arose.

    I'd like to hear AMF reply to that article's author's points, so as to better understand their side of the story. Just hearing one side of the story can lead to a lopsided conclusion.

    The comments at the bottom of that story only seem to have one AMF supporter, and I'm pretty sure he doesn't represent AMF (sorry if I'm in error there) - and clearly that same person is very anti-Rick-Sinnott, so again, that could also be one side only.

    Has AMF ever posted to this forum before? Anyone know Gary Olsen and want to give him a personal invitation to come here and help to clarify this?

  3. #3
    Member PG13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    342

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FamilyMan View Post
    Anyone know Gary Olsen and want to give him a personal invitation to come here and help to clarify this?
    AMF probably wouldn't respond in a timely manner as they just burned a bunch of fuel taking some of their toys up to Arctic Man. I didn't know they were installing diversionary routes up there. I'm probably jealous I didn't think of a way to bleed taxpayer dollars to buy toys and play around under the guise of saving moose calves and reintroducing entire populations. I do appreciate their salvage work but congregating moose at what amounts to a bait site doesn't make any sense biologically (grow more moose?) and the high cost of their calf care and relocation makes my stomach turn.

    Rant over (on paper).
    Go Big Red!

  4. #4
    Member Vince's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Fairbanks most the time, Ancorage some of the time,& on the road Kicking Anti's all the time
    Posts
    8,989

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PG13 View Post
    AMF probably wouldn't respond in a timely manner as they just burned a bunch of fuel taking some of their toys up to Arctic Man. I didn't know they were installing diversionary routes up there. I'm probably jealous I didn't think of a way to bleed taxpayer dollars to buy toys and play around under the guise of saving moose calves and reintroducing entire populations. I do appreciate their salvage work but congregating moose at what amounts to a bait site doesn't make any sense biologically (grow more moose?) and the high cost of their calf care and relocation makes my stomach turn.

    Rant over (on paper).
    nice comment... do you really know or are you speculating?

    AMF has been building private/business partnerships for the last few years... and the fuel used to groom the race trail.. is not paid for by the state.. in fact the fuel insurance and maintence of any of the equipement is not under the state grant moneys.. nor is the fuel used for the habitat project they just finished in Houston... or for the project that will be done in unit 13.. or in 20A this year..

    rick clearly made up a ton of information and put a spin on the rest of it.. gary has routienly NOT replied to the press of Sinnott or Medrid.. he prefers to just show them what he can do... 2 years ago.. everyone said it was not going to work.. 2 years later AMF has made a lot happen...

    i already commented some on the moose moving..( on the dispatch) Sinnott put a great spin on that one.. as he clearly does not understand the grant process or procedures.. and habitat work.. is not bait sites.. it is hundreds of acres of new growth.. a few miles OFF the highway in heavily trafficed areas... and as the AMF is the only org that has spent the last 2 winters GPS mapping every road kill its picked up.. the state ADFG is really paying attention and helping with the planning..

    as for Sinnott... the only ones against the AMF anymore are Himself.. Medrid.. and a few other orgs more interesed in making their name known for stopping things then they are for helping out..

    heres a news bit done recently on the habitat project in Millers reach area... at a cost of less then $200.00 per acre.. the state can't do it that cheap..

    http://www.ktuu.com/videogallery/751...hancement#gl-0
    "If you are on a continuous search to be offended, you will always find what you are looking for; even when it isn't there."

    meet on face book here

  5. #5
    Member homerdave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    homer, alaska
    Posts
    3,922

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FamilyMan View Post
    The comments at the bottom of that story only seem to have one AMF supporter, and I'm pretty sure he doesn't represent AMF (sorry if I'm in error there) - and clearly that same person is very anti-Rick-Sinnott, so again, that could also be one side only.
    seems all has been revealed....
    Alaska Board of Game 2015 tour... "Kicking the can down the road"
    http://www.alaskabackcountryhunters.org/

  6. #6
    Member martentrapper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Fairbanks, Ak.
    Posts
    4,190

    Default

    Rick Sinnott never writes anything with much truth. He skews facts to meet his agenda. Anyone who believes his writings is naive!
    I bet he's a ABHA member!!
    I can't help being a lazy, dumb, weekend warrior.......I have a JOB!
    I have less friends now!!

  7. #7
    Member hodgeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Delta Junction AK
    Posts
    4,055

    Default

    While I have no opinion on AMF because I'm simply unfamiliar with their operation in detail...their business model isn't particularly unusual or controversial in the greater scheme of things. There are a whole slew of private entities soliciting funding (public and private) to do some form of public resource work- some stellar and some much less so.

    Government folks generally take shots at them because they usually make government work appear pretty inefficient (it is) and the private sector usually takes shots at them because the numbers sound outrageous from a private enterprise perspective (they are).

    My guess would be the full accounting of AMFs operation is considerably more complicated than Sinott's op-ed allows for...
    "I do not deal in hypotheticals. The world, as it is, is vexing enough..." Col. Stonehill, True Grit

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    2,084

    Default

    So Vince, what is this project doing that the Miller's Reach fire didn't already do?

    Also, is this public or private land? Some of it appears to be on a powerline right-of-way.
    An opinion should be the result of thought, not a substitute for it.
    - Jef Mallett

  9. #9
    Member ak_cowboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    1,196

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by martentrapper View Post
    Rick Sinnott never writes anything with much truth. He skews facts to meet his agenda. Anyone who believes his writings is naive!
    I bet he's a ABHA member!!
    Would you mind substantiating your claims? How many moose calves have AMF received and how many have they released?

    Vince - You should provide sources that prove Ricks's information is inaccurate. Just saying someone is wrong doesn't mean that they are...

  10. #10
    Member dkwarthog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Mat-Su
    Posts
    2,150

    Default

    As far as I'm concerned, the only thing the AMF does that is worth a pinch of schit is the road salvage moose program.

    So what should it take to salvage say 400 moose annually statewide? What, dozen flatbed F350s with winches and a couple dozen guys who are smart enough not to cut themselves with a knife or pinch their fingers in the winch? Pay them 8-12 bucks an hour, heck its wintertime work, should find enough unemployed guys to fill that many positions.

    Schitcan Gary Olson and all the fat cat chest thumpers who have stolen multi millions of dollars from the state.

    Orphan calves? Diversionary feeding? Adult moose relocation? Give me a frickin break!!!

    I loved it this winter, watching AMF snowcats burning fuel pushing trails from the highway into the woods while Hydro Axe was clearing the utility ROW right along the highway dropping poplars, birch and cottonwoods right next to the highway.

  11. #11
    Member bushrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Now residing in Fairbanks from the bush
    Posts
    4,363

    Default Don't let facts get in the way of efficacy and cost/benefits <grin>

    Let me preface what I'm about to contribute by saying, first off, all this is my own personal opinion. I think the AMF roadkill salvage program is fantastic, and kudos to AMF and all the volunteers who participate in that. I support funding that effort with our public monies.

    Now here comes the "however" part. The other two programs, the moose calf relocation, and ostensible habitat work, have such high costs compared to any real benefit (efficacy), they should not be funded by the legislature.

    I think the low # of moose calves that AMF has received, compared to how many they have successfully relocated to so-called low abundance areas, should speak for itself. The rationale behind it, to take moose calves (calves mind you, without a mother) and transplant them in winter or spring when they are less than a year old to low-abundance areas with wolves and oncoming spring bears, and expect them to survive and then breed to create more moose for the ruralites to eat, is one of the most ridiculous ideas out there if you want to just look at the facts and science (lack of) behind it. That is why so many at F&G scoff at it.

    As to the ostensible habitat work, here's one example from the Miller's Reach work Vince mentioned, from this article:
    http://www.alaskapublic.org/2013/04/05/ak-moose-federation-breaks-new-ground/

    "State Fish and Game assistant director of wildlife conservation, Tony Kavelok says the program is on private land, and Fish and Game has not been consulted.

    We have a question about the value of doing that specific for moose in that area. I cant imagine that its going to have a significant increae in moose use. This will be a small postage stamp in a bigger area, Kavelok said.

    And it is not certain that the land in question has the biological potential for enhanced habitat. Fish and Game wildlife physiologist Bill Collins, with the Palmer office, says moose may linger in a area where food is tasty, but in general the animals have fixed habits, and tend to traverse the same terrain year after year. He says it is not likely they will stay in one place for long."

    Meanwhile, the AMF now has a paid lobbyist in Juneau, Ted Popely ($24K/year), to lobby for them so they can get more monies from the state.
    http://doa.alaska.gov/apoc/pdf/2013LobbyistDirectory.pdf

    Nothing personal against Gary or any other AMF folks, again thanks for the salvage work. But man, to any AMF supporters, if you really want to debate this, at least come up with some facts that prove the relocation and habitat work has real world benefits compared to the money AMF has gotten and hopes to pull in now for it.


  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    6,031

    Default my 2 pennies. Sorry AMF

    Well I was going to wait until AMF posted their side before I said my piece, but Vince says they won't speak here and I believe him. So here it is:

    AMF is a nice idea sorta, but I find their habitat work a bit lacking and so far as their roadkill removal, they're solving a problem in just a few areas of AK only and solving a problem that already had a workable and for the most part working solution in place and in operation and it didn't cost taxpayers a dime.

    And so far as AMF's relocation program, that travesty speaks for itself.

    Seems to me that we shouldn't throw millions at this like we are; there are far more pressing priorities for us (Alaska) to spend our money on.

  13. #13
    Member dkwarthog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Mat-Su
    Posts
    2,150

    Default

    Ok, Familyman said it how I SHOULD have worded it. I may go overboard on the rhetoric a little, but I think anyone who looks at the AMF objectively will come to the same conclusion...

  14. #14
    Member thewhop2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    2,366

    Default

    All I can say is I have been defending SCADA the last week and don't even want to add to the above posts. I am just still waiting for AMF to drop a cow into or onto my driveway, I would take it from there, LOL. Knives are already sharpened!!!!! With the amount of moose I have seen, it is somewhat scary, compared to last year. I just hope the resource overcame last year's conditions. My own opinion.
    If a dipnetter dips a fish and there is no one around to see/hear it, Did he really dip?

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Juneau
    Posts
    459

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FamilyMan View Post
    Well I was going to wait until AMF posted their side before I said my piece, but Vince says they won't speak here and I believe him. So here it is:

    AMF is a nice idea sorta, but I find their habitat work a bit lacking and so far as their roadkill removal, they're solving a problem in just a few areas of AK only and solving a problem that already had a workable and for the most part working solution in place and in operation and it didn't cost taxpayers a dime.

    And so far as AMF's relocation program, that travesty speaks for itself.

    Seems to me that we shouldn't throw millions at this like we are; there are far more pressing priorities for us (Alaska) to spend our money on.
    Also, even if there was a problem with wasted Trooper time on the side of the road, wouldn't it be cheaper to contract moose removal out to a towing co??? Even if they salvaged "over 400 moose", that's still $900+ per moose...wonder what the private sector would bid on that contract per moose. Hmm...And even then, this "problem" wasn't costing the state anything extra until AMF came along...

  16. #16
    Member thewhop2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    2,366

    Default

    How can you say that? The troopers sat on the side of the road for hours, waiting for the charities to pick up said moose.
    If a dipnetter dips a fish and there is no one around to see/hear it, Did he really dip?

  17. #17
    Member homerdave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    homer, alaska
    Posts
    3,922

    Default

    The whole road kill thing just chaps my azz. First, there was no "problem" that needed to be solved, at least not down here. I have been in on numerous road kill moose, and there was NEVER a trooper waiting for us. Usually they would call on the phone, and tell us to call them if we had any trouble finding it. I never heard of anyone getting hit by a car while they were dealing with a road kill, must be because folks were careful.
    As far as I'm concerned this is just a privatization of the big brother nanny-state telling us we are no longer capable of safely doing what we have been doing with no problems.
    Alaska Board of Game 2015 tour... "Kicking the can down the road"
    http://www.alaskabackcountryhunters.org/

  18. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    6,031

    Default

    I do suppose that AMF being in place here now does save some trooper time. I sure don't know how much; that would be an interesting figure, if anyone has it.

  19. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Juneau
    Posts
    459

    Default

    Didn't cost the state extra because the Troopers get paid if they're patrolling or if they're sitting there. I find it hard to imagine they would sit there if they had anything better to do...

  20. #20
    Member Frostbitten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Alaska - I wasn't born here, but I got here as soon as I could!
    Posts
    3,279

    Default

    Saving trooper time seems like rationalization to me on the part of AMF. The troopers are on duty, whether sitting on the side of the road, back at the office or on a high speed chase.

    edit- sorry, the previous post already made the same point.
    Last edited by Frostbitten; 04-11-2013 at 20:10. Reason: Redundant

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •