As Haines Borough Government Affairs and Services (GAS) Committee members decide whether to change code to allow a fourth heliski operator in the borough, they have to weigh a variety of concerns: skier safety, environmental impact, neighborhood noise and the industry’s needs. But a researcher in the Lower 48 says a major obstacle stands in the legislators’ way: there’s little data to inform them how their decision could impact key aspects of the heliski industry, like safety and terrain choices.
At the end of the last GAS Committee meeting, on Aug. 17, committee chair Cheryl Stickler said she was going to try to separate “objective” and “subjective” points made at the meeting. This week she told the CVN that “there is not a lot of objective data” on the issue. But she said she’s confident that the assembly will “strike a balance” between industry and community needs.
Similarly, borough resident Thom Ely, who has followed the heliski issue closely for two decades, said at the Aug. 17 meeting that “the borough’s job is to strike a balance between industry, conservation and quiet rights.”
Although both Stickler and Ely would like the assembly to find that balance, the two feel differently about how heliskiing should be regulated. “We just have to be careful how much government overreach or government involvement we can support or allow in private business,” said Stickler, who declined to comment on how she is leaning on the fourth operator question.
Ely, who opposes raising the permit cap, said, “These are public lands. They are not the private playground for the heli-recreation industry. It’s not the borough’s job to fill up skier days or change code to accommodate a business that wants to do so.”
Do officials have the data they need to find a balance among conflicting perspectives and make an “objective” decision on heliski code?
Residents, particularly hunters and conservationists, who worry that adding a fourth operator would lead to more skiers and helicopter use in the borough, can point to scientific studies about how helicopters impact mountain goats. Biologists have extensive data on goat populations near Haines.
Local heliski guides have said that their terrain choices are limited, and some have suggested that if the assembly permits a fourth operator it should also widen terrain boundaries to reduce conflict among operators and improve safety. But there is minimal literature that might explain how adding a fourth operator or expanding skiable terrain would affect guides’ terrain choices, conflict or safety.
“From a science perspective, I see this mismatch,” said Jordy Hendrikx, a snow science professor at Montana State University.
Hendrikx is working to collect data on heliskiers in the Haines area, like biologists have on goats, to track, record and analyze their movements to better inform policymakers about the potential impacts of regulatory decisions.
It’s well-documented, in several scientific peer-reviewed articles, that helicopters have negative effects on mountain goat behavior, said Kevin White, wildlife biologist at the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Biologists have tracked more than a hundred goats with GPS radio-collars near Haines. They also have done aerial surveys, data analysis and spatial mapping. “Our study (in the Haines area) probably represents one of the more extensively researched populations in North America,” White said.
Yet there have been few, if any, peer-reviewed studies or scientific analyses that investigate the effects of government policy on the safety and decision-making of heliski guides — and none about Haines. “The piece of the puzzle that I think is missing is really good user data from the heliski operators,” Hendrikx said. Without having spatial data to analyze how management affects guides’ terrain choices, it’s hard to anticipate how a policy change, like adding a fourth operator, would affect field practices and safety.
While the regulatory debate has at times pitted goat hunters and conservationists against those in the industry who believe there’s room for competition and economic growth, Hendrikx’s intention isn’t to help one side or the other. It’s simply to balance out the data imbalance and ensure that policymakers have the information they need to make decisions like the one that the borough currently faces.
White said that Hendrikx’s research might help his goat study. Mountain goat populations have declined by 56% in the Takhinsha Mountains since 2016, White said, but limited data on where heliskiing occurs “hamstrings our ability to understand what’s causing that decline.” Hendrikx’s research incidentally might close White’s data gap.
“This isn’t the case of goats versus heliskiers,” Hendrikx said. “It’s just a case of we’ve got two different groups that have different views on this land-use management. One has great data and good models. The other one has some strong opinions and thoughts but not really a lot of data to support that.”
While the question in front of the GAS Committee is narrow—should the borough extend its statutory limit on the number of operators it can permit each season?—the decision could have wide ranging consequences.
Striking a balance among various interest groups and community needs appears to be a shared goal. But with complicated and competing values at play, and minimal data to cut through the fog, finding that balance before the next GAS Committee meeting on Sept. 7 will be anything but straightforward.