CHP Stations / authorized Ca Fish&Wildlife TX

Status
Not open for further replies.

scottyhetzel

Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2011
Messages
1,408
Location
Palm Springs Area / OrCo
I noticed searching fcc licenses near my local CHP station is authorized to TX on CaF&W frequencies. Since they are under the same State depts. it makes since, or it might be possible if a warden screamed for help the CHP could respond via radio. Has anyone else heard CHP x talk with wardens? I understand traffic is quite low on the F&W freqency as it is.
 

RolnCode3

Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2004
Messages
2,253
Location
Sacramento/Bay Area, CA
CHP Stations / authorized Ca Fish&Wildlife TX

I have heard rumors persist from wardens that chp might be dispatching for them at some point in the future. I've heard it more than once, but nothing official.
 

Sac916

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
1,400

Kirk

DB Admin
Moderator
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
783
I believe CHP used to dispatch F&W back when they were called Fish & Game, prior to their move to the State Parks consolidated dispatch. I remember jokes about Fish & CHiPs.
 

SCPD

QRT
Joined
Feb 24, 2001
Messages
65,126
Location
Virginia
California Fish and Game was dispatched in a variety of ways, depending on what part of the state is considered. Same with State Parks. Some state parks were dispatched by local sheriff's departments, some by a single state park that dispatched for other nearby state parks. In the eastern Sierra the local Fish and Game field office would track the status of field units, but the counties ran 10-28's and such. The field office was only open 8-5 Monday through Friday so field units would use the local county sheriff's department dispatch the other times.

In some areas perhaps the CHP did dispatch for DFG. I would imagine that DFG had to pay the counties for their service. I suspect that they didn't get a free ride with the CHP either, but I don't know that.

I heard the rumor of the CHP dispatching DFW in the future. It has been a year or more since. I think it would not be a good move as the CHP might tend to rank DFW much lower in priority. During busy times in a CHP dispatch center I could see DFW units having to wait for a long time. Also some DFW law enforcement districts might have several CHP dispatch centers instead of one of the three regional State Parks-DFW centers.

I'm only speculating here as I no longer have contact with anyone that hasn't retired from each agency.
 

RolnCode3

Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2004
Messages
2,253
Location
Sacramento/Bay Area, CA
CHP Stations / authorized Ca Fish&Wildlife TX

I bet Ant nailed it on the head. It's an interoperability move by CHP. Makes a ton of sense in that regard. More than rumors about contract dispatching.
 

pepsima1

Completely Banned for the Greater Good
Banned
Joined
Nov 19, 2008
Messages
1,076
Location
Pimp County, Neveda
I think Governor Brown needs to give The CHP some grant money to upgrade their old VHF radio system statewide. Trunk it all and put up all new towers statewide. Wow that would sure bankrupt the state for sure.
 

K6CDO

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jan 12, 2003
Messages
1,141
Location
San Diego, CA
I think Governor Brown needs to give The CHP some grant money to upgrade their old VHF radio system statewide. Trunk it all and put up all new towers statewide. Wow that would sure bankrupt the state for sure.
Their less-than-6-years-old VHF lowband system that they have spent more than $500M on, and still don't have it working well "old VHF radio system statewide"? That radio system?
 

Bruce42

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Apr 19, 2004
Messages
52
Location
California
Old VHF?

Come on, Don, the VHF system is 40 or 50 years old. CHPERS replaced all the old fixed hardware in the last 5 years but did not replace the mobiles [CPVE is a different program] or add sites so coverage did not improve. Adding new sites is what improves coverage. Going to trunking at 700/800 MHz would only require tripling or quadrupling the number of sites, at a minimum. You remember how well Caltrans and P&R did with that?

Bruce...
 

SCPD

QRT
Joined
Feb 24, 2001
Messages
65,126
Location
Virginia
Come on, Don, the VHF system is 40 or 50 years old. CHPERS replaced all the old fixed hardware in the last 5 years but did not replace the mobiles [CPVE is a different program] or add sites so coverage did not improve. Adding new sites is what improves coverage. Going to trunking at 700/800 MHz would only require tripling or quadrupling the number of sites, at a minimum. You remember how well Caltrans and P&R did with that?

Bruce...
The Caltrans 800 MHz system in District 9 in Inyo, Mono, eastern Kern and a portion of San Bernardino Counties works well. There are three vexing exceptions due to significant topographical features, with two of those being relatively small areas. They didn't need to add many sites when they converted from their old 47 MHz system and in one case, just had to move to a higher and previously developed electronic site.

The Sierra District of State Parks did not have to add sites. The only reason they did was to tie the 800 MHz system to the state's microwave backbone. Previously the remote bases on VHF Low were only local and sheriff's department dispatch centers provided limited service to the parks. From Tahoe south all they had to do was put in three sites, two of which were on previously developed sites. One covers all the west shore of Lake Tahoe, one covers eastern Alpine County and a new site was placed to cover both Bodie State Park and the Mono Lake Tufa State Reserve. The existing remote base location, that ties the new repeater into the state's microwave system was used.

I think you may be referring to the problems both State Parks and Caltrans experienced in the northwest portion of the state. In dense tree cover pine needles attenuate short wavelength RF, which would require far more than a mere tripling or quadrupling of sites. The 800 MHz conversion there could be considered a failure, but I would not generalize that situation to include the entire state, where in some areas a doubling of sites was required. Of those areas in Caltrans District 9 something short of a doubling was required, however, coverage that VHF Low did not provide was provided by 800 MHz when those sites were added. Not only that, but 800 MHz provided repeater coverage and handhelds that could actually be carried on a persons body.

This was one of the reasons State Parks converted to 800 MHz. I knew some rangers at Bodie State Park well and my wife worked there as a park aid. The VHF Low handhelds were terrible. When they were worn on the belt the antenna extended above the shoulders of shorter people and right up to the shoulder on a 6 foot individual. Their range was dismal and could not access the old remote base to call the sheriff's department in Bridgeport in spite of a remote base on Conway Summit, closer to the park.

On the flip side, the CHP should not be criticized for staying on low band. Their extenders solve the handheld problem and have done so for nearly 30 years now. A feasibility study done in San Diego showed that an 800 MHz system in that county alone would have required more than a quadrupling of sites. San Diego has topography, but it pales in comparison to other areas in California. The ability to add new sites is not a guarantee either. Many mountain tops can't be developed due to a whole host of reasons, not the least of which are environmental issues having to do with scenery, wildlife habitat and migration, highly erodible soils, as well as access issues and land ownership of the top of the peak. Some road access to the sites would require extensive engineering and expensive construction and maintenance. Then there is the issue of providing commercial electricity at the site. Another issue is how to get fuel for a backup power source to the site. If its propane, can a propane truck make it to the site or, if diesel is involved, can a fuel tank truck get there?

Another issue is statewide frequency availability. In a state of 36 million people frequency availability is complex and difficult. California has the most special district, municipal, county and state jurisdictions west of the Mississippi and perhaps even further east. The topography of the eastern states is mild when compared to the western U.S. and a comparison of what has been done east of Denver with 700/800 MHz systems is invalid for locations west of there.

I think that the communications people in California made the correct decisions when considering the needs of the CHP. They are going to have handhelds and mobiles that will be fully interoperable with nearly every system in the state, with the exception, I believe, of being able to have each handheld operate on most of the trunked systems in the state, given all the proprietorial systems in existence. I would have loved to be able to talk directly with CHP officers when I worked for the Forest Service on large and small incidents. That can be done with the new mobile, extender radios.

With all due respect, given the constraints, the sum of which are unique to California, I think criticizing the CHPERS program sounds a bit like Monday morning, arm chair quarterbacking to me.
 

Kirk

DB Admin
Moderator
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
783
Count me in w/ExSmokey as a fan of the CHP system. It's a hard system for the scanner user, because proper low band antennas are large and it makes listening on a handheld scanner a pain, but the system wasn't designed for us. It's hard to beat the punch of a high power low band unit to cover outdoors in the varied terrain of CA.

I don't know much about how the new extenders work, but I'm hopeful they can select other mobile radios (other than the lowband) so they can interop on the HTs as well as they can while in the car.
 

scottyhetzel

Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2011
Messages
1,408
Location
Palm Springs Area / OrCo
Count me in w/ExSmokey as a fan of the CHP system. It's a hard system for the scanner user, because proper low band antennas are large and it makes listening on a handheld scanner a pain, but the system wasn't designed for us. It's hard to beat the punch of a high power low band unit to cover outdoors in the varied terrain of CA.

I don't know much about how the new extenders work, but I'm hopeful they can select other mobile radios (other than the lowband) so they can interop on the HTs as well as they can while in the car.
The mobiles have clemars, allied agencies and station base frequencies. I imagine they have Some of the freq. from Cal-ifog too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top