Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: aerial surveys

  1. #1
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    I am Valley trash.
    Posts
    589

    Default aerial surveys

    Aerial surveys

    What is the problem you would like the Board to address?

    Transporters, air taxi's or flying guides who are contracted or hired by the state to do big game aerial surveys are using the information gathered by these surveys to benefit there businesses.

    What will happen if this problem is not solved?


    Game will continue to be harvested at greater numbers by these users. ADF&G hires them, then you guess it, they turn around and fly hunters guided and un-guided right into the areas they where hired to do game counts...

    Your and my money paid for this flying and then they use it to get there hunters on game and make money on our resources that are already critically low in numbers. Not a good practice when trying to manage a game population.

    What solution do you prefer? In other words, if the Board adopted you solution, what would the new regulation say?

    Transporters, air taxi's or flying guides who are contracted or hired by the state to do big game aerial surveys cannot conduct any commercial related activities in that GMU for 2 years.

    Solutions to difficult problems benefit some people and hurt other:

    A. Who is likely to benefit if your solution is adopted?

    Everyone would benefit.

    B. Who is likely to suffer if your solution is adopted?

    ADF&G will have to hire someone that is not in the hunting industry when they need to do an aerial survey.

    List any other solutions you considered and why you rejected them.

    None

  2. #2
    Member bushrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Now residing in Fairbanks from the bush
    Posts
    4,363

    Default ugh...

    Troy, I honestly don't know how to put this nicely, but a lot of these proposals you are throwing out there are just not well thought out at all.

    On the one hand, there have been complaints that we don't do enough sheep surveys. On the other, you now seek to basically ban the state from doing them by preventing the pilots who participate from also participating in any guiding or transporting services in that area for two years.

    My God, have you ever bothered to research just who is hired to pull off accurate density estimates (population surveys), or just how much flying experience it takes to do this? I've participated in the distant past as an observer and can tell you that I sure as hell would not fly with someone doing this who didn't have thousands of hours and tons of experience. Well guess what that means? Yep, often it is air-taxi transporters or guides who are pilots.

    All we want from a density estimate is accurate numbers, and NO accidents, no deaths of pilots or passengers. Those numbers help everyone; they help the bios and they help hunters. So friggin' what if an air-taxi pilot or guide pilot participated in the survey and later down the line either guides or transports there.

    What bugs me most about this supposed proposal is I don't even think this is something the BOG can address. They can't tell ADFG what pilots they can hire or can't hire. But what also really bugs me is the ridiculous nature of it...
    "ADF&G will have to hire someone that is not in the hunting industry when they need to do an aerial survey."

    So you want ADFG to only hire pilots who are not guides or not air-taxi transporters, eh. What, you want them hiring a pilot with minimal experience to perform what is arguably the most dangerous type of flying done? And hey, guess who most of the pilots are who are doing the aerial wolf shooting? You want to prevent them from participating cuz they may also be guides or licensed transporters? I mean, sheesh, they are seeing what moose and caribou and sheep are around too when they are out looking for wolves, so by God we can't have that, huh.

    Ridiculous,

  3. #3

    Default

    They could contract with the Department of Defense and gain access to their satelites. This would give them pretty exacting numbers to work with. New technologies are not being employed. They would rather stick with the old school methods of hiring more people. That way they too get a pay increase. The more people they manage, the higher the pay grade.
    "96% of all Internet Quotes are suspect and the remaining 4% are fiction."
    ~~Abraham Lincoln~~

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Akres
    New technologies are not being employed. They would rather stick with the old school methods of hiring more people. That way they too get a pay increase. The more people they manage, the higher the pay grade.
    The above is simply not true. Man, this misinformation and anti-ADFG rhetoric is getting really old.

  5. #5
    webmaster Michael Strahan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 1999
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Posts
    5,765

    Default Not sure about that--

    Quote Originally Posted by Akres View Post
    They could contract with the Department of Defense and gain access to their satelites. This would give them pretty exacting numbers to work with. New technologies are not being employed. They would rather stick with the old school methods of hiring more people. That way they too get a pay increase. The more people they manage, the higher the pay grade.
    Ak-

    I'm not sure the DOD has images that would be useful for ADFG survey work at all. And if they did, would they be willing to make those images available to a state agency? I can't imagine THOSE hurdles! By the time the images were authorized to be released, would they still be relevant?

    Second, I disagree with your assumption that ADFG has salary increases in mind here... I have known some of their biologists and have heard that they are among the lowest paid in their field. There has been a drain of biologists from the state to the federal level, and into the private sector, for this very reason.

    -Mike
    LOST CREEK COMPANY: Specializing in Alaska hunt consultation and planning for do-it-yourself hunts, fully outfitted hunts, and guided hunts.
    CLICK HERE to send me a private message.
    Web Address: http://alaskaoutdoorssupersite.com/hunt-planner/
    Mob: 1 (907) 229-4501
    "Dream big, and dare to fail." -Norman Vaughan
    "I have climbed my mountain, but I must still live my life." - Tenzig Norgay

  6. #6
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    I am Valley trash.
    Posts
    589

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bushrat View Post
    Troy, I honestly don't know how to put this nicely, but a lot of these proposals you are throwing out there are just not well thought out at all.

    On the one hand, there have been complaints that we don't do enough sheep surveys. On the other, you now seek to basically ban the state from doing them by preventing the pilots who participate from also participating in any guiding or transporting services in that area for two years.

    My God, have you ever bothered to research just who is hired to pull off accurate density estimates (population surveys), or just how much flying experience it takes to do this? I've participated in the distant past as an observer and can tell you that I sure as hell would not fly with someone doing this who didn't have thousands of hours and tons of experience. Well guess what that means? Yep, often it is air-taxi transporters or guides who are pilots.

    All we want from a density estimate is accurate numbers, and NO accidents, no deaths of pilots or passengers. Those numbers help everyone; they help the bios and they help hunters. So friggin' what if an air-taxi pilot or guide pilot participated in the survey and later down the line either guides or transports there.

    What bugs me most about this supposed proposal is I don't even think this is something the BOG can address. They can't tell ADFG what pilots they can hire or can't hire. But what also really bugs me is the ridiculous nature of it...
    "ADF&G will have to hire someone that is not in the hunting industry when they need to do an aerial survey."

    So you want ADFG to only hire pilots who are not guides or not air-taxi transporters, eh. What, you want them hiring a pilot with minimal experience to perform what is arguably the most dangerous type of flying done? And hey, guess who most of the pilots are who are doing the aerial wolf shooting? You want to prevent them from participating cuz they may also be guides or licensed transporters? I mean, sheesh, they are seeing what moose and caribou and sheep are around too when they are out looking for wolves, so by God we can't have that, huh.

    Ridiculous,
    Thanks for your input!

    Troy

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Strahan View Post
    Ak-

    I'm not sure the DOD has images that would be useful for ADFG survey work at all. And if they did, would they be willing to make those images available to a state agency? I can't imagine THOSE hurdles! By the time the images were authorized to be released, would they still be relevant?

    Second, I disagree with your assumption that ADFG has salary increases in mind here... I have known some of their biologists and have heard that they are among the lowest paid in their field. There has been a drain of biologists from the state to the federal level, and into the private sector, for this very reason.

    -Mike
    No one has asked. Have they? New technologies are not considered in a serious way.

    It is not the Bios that are going to get a pay raise, they are lowmen on the totem pole. It is their supervisors and administrators. The more people you supervise or manage, the higher the pay grade. The more dispersed your subordinates are, the higher the pay grade. The more complex and non-related subordinates, the higher the pay grade. That IS how it works.

    Having 15 people in your office is better than 5, if you are concerned about job security, retirement and pay raises.
    "96% of all Internet Quotes are suspect and the remaining 4% are fiction."
    ~~Abraham Lincoln~~

  8. #8
    Member Rock_skipper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Deltajct
    Posts
    2,499

    Default I know I said I would'nt post on here for awhile, but

    Did you know that they did'nt do a survey last year? there was'nt enough snow at that the time to do the flyover. I'm going to get to the bottom of this subject OF 20D.They do the survey's in oct, and nov.

    Now I've been doing alot of research on this and am meeting with the head of the advisory at the begining of the week. I'm not happy with the weekend warriors that come into town and think this is thier little playground, and neither is anyone on the advisory board. Some of the rivers, and alot of trails will be talked about.

    Guys, There are a whole lot more hunters that are not on the ODD that hunt this area and do not respect private property, the sportjon thing is getting out of hand, the argos going anywhere they want to, and the ATV's are just tearing up the country.

    I'm an avid hunter in this area and I'm going to try to put up a STOP SIGN to this before it gets out of hand.

    Some of you might not agree but it is what it is

    (reps you can take away points ) E.S.

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    1,131

    Default

    Just to support the thinking in this proposition while disagreeing with the result. Alaska is small and a lot of big name guides and transporters do the flying and provide a lot of input to fish and game as was witnessed on the recent shutdown of sheep hunting areas. Such close knit ties create the potential for political and personal decisions as opposed to well researched and scientifically based policies. It would be nice is proposals to decrease hunting opportunities required several years of hard scientific data to implement.

    That said, I would choose the same pilots myself to do any flying in the name of safety!
    I come home with an honestly earned feeling that something good has taken place. It makes no difference whether I got anything, it has to do with how the day was spent. Fred Bear

  10. #10
    Member BRWNBR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Big Lake
    Posts
    8,439

    Default

    "The above is simply not true. Man, this misinformation and anti-ADFG rhetoric is getting really old." bushrat

    Don't forget the anti-guide rhetoric!!! us guides are the problem, when all else fails, dadgum, must be the guides who are good at what they do, and it must be illegal if they are that good at it and they must be the reason i'm not getting sheep and that sheep hunts are getting restricted....

    ahhh better now....
    Www.blackriverhunting.com
    Master guide 212

  11. #11
    Forum Admin Brian M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Eagle River, AK
    Posts
    13,392

    Default

    By the way, Jake, didn't you come up empty on your last personal sheep hunt? With all tht special (paid) access you have, why didn't you bring home that 44" ram?

  12. #12
    Member Chisana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Juneau, Alaska
    Posts
    1,439

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Akres View Post
    They would rather stick with the old school methods of hiring more people. That way they too get a pay increase. The more people they manage, the higher the pay grade.
    You don't know what you're talking about with regard to how state employee salaries are established.

  13. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian M View Post
    By the way, Jake, didn't you come up empty on your last personal sheep hunt? With all tht special (paid) access you have, why didn't you bring home that 44" ram?
    Nice representation of a higher standard Brian.


  14. #14

    Wink

    Quote Originally Posted by Chisana View Post
    You don't know what you're talking about with regard to how state employee salaries are established.
    I would link the Classification Standards to you, but they are exhaustive. I don't have to know, they are written down to refer to, if you wanted to.
    "96% of all Internet Quotes are suspect and the remaining 4% are fiction."
    ~~Abraham Lincoln~~

  15. #15
    Forum Admin Brian M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Eagle River, AK
    Posts
    13,392

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AVALANCHE View Post
    Nice representation of a higher standard Brian.
    It was a joke among friends, Avalanche. Despite my role, I do believe I'm still allowed to make the occasional joke.

  16. #16
    Member AlaskaTrueAdventure's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Paradise (Alaska)
    Posts
    1,543

    Cool Big Name Guides And Transporters...

    Solleybug...post # 9...I do not want to hijack the thread, but here I go again...

    What sheep hunting areas were you speaking of when you mentioned the "recent shutdown of sheep hunting areas"? Were you referring to the new permits areas in GMU 13D and 14A between Glennallen and Palmer?

    Although I do not know every big name guide and transporter, I do not know of any guide-outfitter who completely supported that deal. While many hunters and guides agreed that something needed to be done about Unit 14A (Metal, Friday and Carpenter Creeks) to reduce crowded conditions, none of the small-name guide-outfitters and none of the transporters supported the concept, and the only big name guide-outfitter working GMU 13D, affected by the new permit drawing areas, did not support it. The new permit requirements will keep most small guide-outfitters out of it completely. The transporters dislike it because they can not build a flying schedule years in advance (with you or I as a client, a year or more in advance). The biggest guide-outfitter formerly working 13D is 95% out of the sheep business due to the new permit areas.

    The single, sole, solitary person supporting that giant new drawing-permit area was one cute little biologist from Glennallen, whose daddy used to be the Commissioner Of F&G.

    The commercial big game industry (working those areas) did not support it. FNAWS did not support it (but nobody on the forum likes FNAWS anyway). So I agree with you that it would be nice if proposals that decrease hunting opportunity required several years of hard scientific data prior to implementation . But in fact, all it takes is one cute little biologist, a fist full of "soft" harvest data stats (that can be interpreted several ways to support several views), and a board-of-game staffed with old dudes.

    Clearly I do believe that most of us would agree that hard date should be used to support propasals that will lock many/most of us out of a hunting area.

    Perhaps another "shutdown of sheep hunting areas" was supported by big-name guide-outfitters and transporters. If thats the case...well, then...I apoligize for the rant and the wasted time... and the attempted hijacking...

    Respectivefully,

    Dennis B.
    Alaska True Adventure Guide Service

  17. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian M View Post
    It was a joke among friends, Avalanche. Despite my role, I do believe I'm still allowed to make the occasional joke.
    Re-read the thread; ask brown bear about my rep pts to him on his post and my message that went with it, or read it yourself. Your the administrator and you have access to everything.

    I could have just as easily ramped it up with brown bears sarcasm like he doesn't know the difference between anti-guide rhetoric and anti-commercial hunting rhetoric; but I gave him a rep and what I thought was a friendly comment; privately.

    Your inside joke among friends was not cool in this case....because of your role here. IMO


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
  •