IceShanty.com's Ice Fishing Community
Montana => Ice Fishing Montana => Topic started by: whiptail on Dec 04, 2016, 08:55 AM
-
any one have Info on this sounds like traditionalists want to infringe on peoples rights to use motorized water crafts on 16 Rivers in Montana. The Local news Paper said this is up for public comment. :-\
-
From your FWP folks:
Quiet Waters Proposed Rules
11/25/2016
A petition, known as the Quiet Water’s Initiative, was submitted to the Montana Fish and Wildlife Commission this past spring by Backcountry Hunters and Anglers. The petition states Montana has experienced advanced motorized technology on its waterways, which has potentially opened up waters previously thought to be unusable by motorized water craft. At its regular May meeting, the Commission initiated rulemaking on the petition, stating, in part, the Commission should consider being proactive instead of reactive to the changes in recreation on Montana’s waterways to avoid conflicts and protect traditional and safe recreational uses. Public hearings will be held to obtain public comment.
• Jan. 3 at the FWP Region 1 office, 490 N. Meridian Road, Kalispell at 6 p.m.
• Jan. 4 at the FWP Region 2 office, 3201 Spurgin Road, Missoula at 6 p.m.
• Jan. 5 at the FWP Region 3 office, 1400 S. 19th Ave., Bozemen at 6 p.m.
• Jan. 9 at the FWP Region 5 office, 2300 Lake Elmo Drive, Billings at 6 p.m.
• Jan. 11 at the FWP Region 4 office, 4600 Giant Springs Road, Great Falls at 6 p.m.
• Jan. 11 at the FWP headquarters office, 1420 E. 6th Ave., Helena at 6 p.m.
-
Will this make it so you cant drive snow machines or four wheelers on the lake at night time? Or is this just about boats?
-
no machines below high wtr mark.
-
FISH and WILDLIFE
COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET
Meeting Date:
May 12, 2016
Agenda Item:
Montana Backcountry Hunters and Anglers Quiet Waters Initiative Petition
Division:
Enforcement
Action Needed:
Final
Time Needed on Agenda for this Presentation
:
30 Min
Background
: The Backcountry Hunters and Anglers (BHA) submitted a petition with recommended
restrictions on several major water systems in Montana stating, “each year a different type of watercraft or high
performance craft is introduced, threatening traditional uses or capable of penetrating previously quiet waters”
and that BHA seeks to “close the gaps between those current and potential uses that may
be made possible by
emerging technologies”
Public Involvement Process & Results
: Public comment has not been sought
regarding the specific requests
in the petition
.
Alternatives and Analysis
: The Commission is required to either deny the petition or initiate rulemaking. If
the Commission denies the petition, the recreational use regulations on the
water bodies
listed in the petition
will remain as they are
currently. If the Commission initiates rulemaking, the process outlined by the
Recreational Use rules will be adhered to including environmental analysis, development of a management
plan, and implementing the ma
nagement plan
.
Agency Recommendation & Rationale
: BHA presents recommendations to drastically restrict waterways
without demonstrating any necessity to protect public health, public safety, public welfare, or to protect
property and public resources. A
common theme throughout the petition is the recommendation for no personal
watercraft or motorized watercraft claiming “potential safety issues”. Safe operation of the personal watercraft,
motorboats, or any vessel is addressed in law. A person may not operate a personal watercraft, motorboat, or
vessel in a reckless or negligent manner. Montana Code Annotated §§23-
2- 523 and 23-
2-531.
BHA has titled
the petition “Quiet Waters Initiative” imply
ing that the petition is an objection to motorboats strictly on the
noise they produce.
Using the guidance and requirements established by statute and rule, the commission should deny the petition.
Proposed Motion
: I move the Commission deny
Backcountry Hunters and Anglers
petition regarding quiet
waters for the reasons stated by the department.
Looks like FWP rejected this plan, but our commission has adopted it after Back Country Hunters and Anglers went around FWP and straight to the commissioners.
-
Here is the link for the proposal. Everyone should educate themselves on it before voicing their opinion. The first time I heard of it is when some locals were saying "BHA is trying to close access to the Missouri". I then went and read up on it and that is clearly not the case.
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/backcountryhunters/pages/2831/attachments/original/1476226083/Quiet_Waters_Proposal_MT_BHA.pdf?1476226083
I have mixed feelings. The only affected rivers that I have fished are the Missouri and the Yellowstone, and this initiative wouldn't change anything for me on those rivers. I e-mailed BHA and they said the purpose of the initiative is to stay ahead of technology, similar to when they fought to prevent the use of drones for hunting. As far as I can tell, most of the affected waters aren't big enough for a traditional boat to practically navigate. Picture yourself wade fishing in one of these small streams and then having an air boat come blowing upstream towards you. Like I said though, I have only fished the Missouri and Yellowstone, so I would like to hear from others that have more experience on these other watersheds before I send in my comments.
-
It sounds like to me they do not like personal watercraft. There are alot of people who fish off them and do not race around.I THINK A LITTLE RESTRICTION NOW WILL LEAD TO MORE RESTRICTION LATER.
-
I agree, there is no need for more laws and restrictions. Why should their experience be more important than anybody elses? We do not need to outlaw the safe use of watercraft on montana waters. What's next? A boating restriction on the entire missouri? They have already proposed restricting all use of motorized craft of anything above 10hp on all of the missouri river's tributaries! And some of the missouri itself!
-
Having read the proposal and floating several of the waters named, this sounds just like a proposal that was voiced a couple of years ago by the guides and outfitters on both the Mo. below Holter and the Yellowstone. I have not had a conflict on any of the rivers I have floated and there has been motor boats on several of them. I personally feel it is wrong to restrict someone else from enjoying our public areas unless they do it my way. Just my take on the topic.
-
There has been zero scientific data gathered, surveys completed or any fact gathering done to justify this proposal. This is a power grab, anything they can do to make sure there is no motorized use on these sections. Most of the sections mentioned are too small to boat most 99% of the year, but why are we letting a group with no scientific backing change the way we enjoy the rivers? Hopefully we'll have a good turnout at the meetings with FWP and they can tell us why this is even being considered. FWP's chief warden is against the proposal, but somehow it is still alive. Quote: "FWP chief warden Tom Flowers said FWP didn’t support the petition because there weren’t any conflicts on the proposed streams and the rule-making process is a lot of work for restrictions that FWP didn’t deem warranted."
Hopefully common sense will prevail. Take a look at what BHA is really all about and who funds them. https://www.greendecoys.com
-
Welcome to the era of emotion driven, non-scientific initiatives. Its not going to get any better until someone puts an end to the ability to use initiatives in the fashion that they are being used. Science>emotion
-
Please explain Science>emotion???
-
I'm not gonna push an agenda one way or the other 'cause I'm on both sides of the fence. Just gonna share...
Hunted an island in Lake Superior pretty much my whole life. The Old Man went up first in '45. Special place. Stay in the farmhouse, feed the woodburner for both heat and cooking, go outside to "take care of business", take a wheelbarrow with 5 gallon buckets (metal ones) a quarter mile down the road to fetch water from the lake for cooking and remedial clean up. Shower? Huh?
We'd walk in to hunt, coupla miles and shoot some bucks and drag 'em back and hang 'em on the meatpole. Not a big island but because we were willing, we pretty much had a couple sections all to ourselves.
Fast forward to the near past. Accommodations change, very comfortable. No more chasing water or crapping in the cold. Land becomes public, ATVs, GPS, any moron with that pair can buzz in, beat us to all our spots without breaking a sweat, shoot our deer and drag 'em out, again, without breaking a sweat. Sigh....
I get the quiet water thing. Doesn't mean I necessarily agree with the grab, I just understand. I also hate jetskis buzzing around in circles while I'm trying to fish and enjoy a little peace and quiet. On the other hand, I got a performance fishing boat. Goes real fast. Probably annoys someone......
So. Where to draw the line?
-
Please explain Science>emotion???
Scientific data and facts should make policy, not emotion.
The anti trapping initiative that just failed is a perfect example.
Anti trapping organizations attempting to scare their constituents by telling them the forests aren't safe and that kids are going to get killed by traps. Another favorite is that they can't go into public ground because there are traps everywhere.
All lies meant to scare people into voting the way they wanted them to vote.
-
Scientific data and facts should make policy, not emotion.
The anti trapping initiative that just failed is a perfect example.
Anti trapping organizations attempting to scare their constituents by telling them the forests aren't safe and that kids are going to get killed by traps. Another favorite is that they can't go into public ground because there are traps everywhere.
All lies meant to scare people into voting the way they wanted them to vote.
x2
-
Like esox_xtm, I am on both sides of the fence. I fish for both walleyes and trout, from both jet boats and drift boats. I hope it doesn't become a walleye versus trout thing.
Here is the answer I got from BHA in regards to the Missouri in my area:
"Thanks for contacting us to get the straight scoop. You can be assured Montana Backcountry Hunters and Anglers has no proposal to restrict motorized boat use on the section of the Missouri River below Fort Benton to Robinson bridge, or anywhere near the section you mention. Our Missouri River proposal is limited to restricting the size of motors during the peak summer use period from Pelican Point (Above Cascade) to Holter Dam. As you may be aware, this section of the Missouri during the summer has very little motorized use currently and is heavily used primarily by wading and float boat fishermen as well a locals and their families in innertubes and small inflatables, rafts and canoes as well as driftboats. Our intention is to assure a safe experience for all, and maintain the current spectrum of boating opportunities Montana enjoys. There are a lot of new motorized watercraft technology recently on the market which can go at high speed onto almost any stream, regardless of size, which threaten to change the current balance. Please feel free to contact us if you have further questions."
I wouldn't say this is completely a non-scientific initiative. The tributaries included in the proposal are critical spawning habitat for fish. Spawning beds in a foot of water and air boats or jets don't mix well.
I don't agree with the HP restrictions on the major rivers, but I am all for restricting use on the tributaries. They are some of the few places left where you can put in a little effort to hike and get away from the crowds.
-
Sounds like this is from the guides on the Missouri who look down on anyone fishing not using a fly rod and a drift boat. A lot of people hunt the Missouri in jet boats and fish it don't see a problem with jet boats. maybe if the river is to congested we should limit the amount of trips a guide boats can make a day.
-
Mfish has the proper idea. In regards to the answer Big Sky received, sounds like maintaining current boating opportunities is what I witnessed at the bridge below Wolf Creek when a couple launching a jon boat with a small jet were told that the river was closed to motors and the warden was being called. They did not argue, just launched and headed upriver. I noticed that both men stating the river was closed had drift boats. This was in summer of 2015.
-
Scientific data and facts should make policy, not emotion.
The anti trapping initiative that just failed is a perfect example.
Anti trapping organizations attempting to scare their constituents by telling them the forests aren't safe and that kids are going to get killed by traps. Another favorite is that they can't go into public ground because there are traps everywhere.
All lies meant to scare people into voting the way they wanted them to vote.
100% agree. Divided we will fall. We need to support each other even if we don't trap, fish certain waters, run hounds, etc., etc., etc. As soon as one pin falls others will follow. The precedent has been set in more liberal states like Washington and California. There is no stopping point. Don't give an inch or before you know it you'll have ceded the entire field. Stand united.
I consider myself a level headed and moderate guy, but on this stuff I really believe we just need to say: "NO". No more. No more restricting someone else's access for my benefit. No more not caring because it doesn't immediately affect my preferred recreation. Just "NO".
-
100% agree. Divided we will fall. We need to support each other even if we don't trap, fish certain waters, run hounds, etc., etc., etc. As soon as one pin falls others will follow. The precedent has been set in more liberal states like Washington and California. There is no stopping point. Don't give an inch or before you know it you'll have ceded the entire field. Stand united.
I consider myself a level headed and moderate guy, but on this stuff I really believe we just need to say: "NO". No more. No more restricting someone else's access for my benefit. No more not caring because it doesn't immediately affect my preferred recreation. Just "NO".
Hay folks here is a list of meetings and where to send your comments. We(Flathead Chapter Walleyes Unlimited and our local Bass club) had a meeting with Fwp. on Monday, Fwp. rejected the Quit Waters Initiative so Back country Hunters & Anglers went around them straight to the commissioners and the commissioners adopted it.
We need to get our comments in by Jan. 13. I am pushing for a 60 to 90 day extension.
Below is a list. to get heard.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Public comment sought on Quiet Waters Initiative
Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks will hold public comment meetings around the state in January on proposed rules to limit motorized water craft use on some of the state’s water bodies.
The proposed rules address a petition, known as the Quiet Waters Initiative, submitted to the Montana Fish and Wildlife Commission this past spring by Backcountry Hunters and Anglers.
The petition states Montana has experienced advanced motorized technology on its waterways, which has potentially opened up waters previously thought to be unusable by motorized water craft.
At its regular May meeting, the Commission initiated rulemaking on the petition, stating, in part, the Commission should consider being proactive instead of reactive to the changes in recreation on Montana’s waterways to avoid conflicts and protect traditional and safe recreational uses.
For a complete list of waters considered in the petition, please go online to fwp.mt.gov. Click on the News tab and then click again on “Rules” under “Recent Public Notices.”
Public hearings on the Quiet Waters Petition will be held at the following times and locations:
• Jan. 3 at the FWP Region 1 office, 490 N. Meridian Road, Kalispell at 6 p.m.
• Jan. 4 at the FWP Region 2 office, 3201 Spurgin Road, Missoula at 6 p.m.
• Jan. 5 at the FWP Region 3 office, 1400 S. 19th Ave., Bozemen at 6 p.m.
• Jan. 9 at the FWP Region 5 office, 2300 Lake Elmo Drive, Billings at 6 p.m.
• Jan. 11 at the FWP Region 4 office, 4600 Giant Springs Road, Great Falls at 6 p.m.
• Jan. 11 at the FWP headquarters office, 1420 E. 6th Ave., Helena at 6 p.m.
The department will make reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities who wish to participate in this rulemaking process or need an alternative accessible format of this notice. If you require an accommodation, contact the department no later than December 9, 2016, to advise us of the nature of the accommodation that you need. Please contact Kaedy Gangstad, Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, P.O. Box 200701, Helena, Montana, 59620-0701; telephone (406) 444-4594; or e-mail [email protected].
Concerned persons may submit their data, views, or arguments either orally or in writing at the hearing. Written data, views, or arguments may also be submitted to: Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Attn: Quiet Waters Petition, P.O. Box 200701, Helena, Montana, 59620-0701; or e-mail [email protected], and must be received no later than January 13, 2017.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
resize
Marla Prell
Region 7 Information and Education Program Manager
352 I-94 Business Loop
Miles City, MT 59301
(406) 234-0926
[email protected]
-
Managing for multiple-use and recreation doesn't mean that everyone gets to do whatever they want. I enjoy hunting public lands, on foot, miles from my truck and certainly don't want ATV use being a free for all. I also struggle with wake-boarding boats in my old 16' Crestliner and 28 hp Johnson. I can't get around the huge wake they throw up without swamping my boat and they fully extinguish any sense of peace and fishing enjoyment until their wake (and loud "music") has passed. I'd fully support every-other-day use restrictions on wake boats so that my ability to use the water isn't infringed upon. The restrictions proposed in the Quiet Water petition are a starting point for discussion. Reasonable restrictions allow everyone a piece of the pie. Show up and be heard or stay home and accept the outcome.
-
http://fwp.mt.gov/fwpDoc.html?id=78083
Just making it easy to get to the information.
Voice your opinion, that is all I got. Now, we fish.
-
I have a flat bottom jet boat and if I want to put in at Craig and take it up the MO to Holter dam, why should I not be able to use my boat on our river??!! because it upsets the fly fishermen? That's crap! They do not own the river!!
-
Any new info out there in shanty land?
-
25 Days left to get your comments in, Jan 13th is the deadline. Lets flood the commissioners with our comments
http://fwp.mt.gov/news/publicNotices/rules/pn_0218.html
-
Its all about fly fisherman and the outfitters that cater to them,another economic booster for their wallets,nothing else.
-
Here is the link for the proposal. Everyone should educate themselves on it before voicing their opinion. The first time I heard of it is when some locals were saying "BHA is trying to close access to the Missouri". I then went and read up on it and that is clearly not the case.
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/backcountryhunters/pages/2831/attachments/original/1476226083/Quiet_Waters_Proposal_MT_BHA.pdf?1476226083
I have mixed feelings. The only affected rivers that I have fished are the Missouri and the Yellowstone, and this initiative wouldn't change anything for me on those rivers. I e-mailed BHA and they said the purpose of the initiative is to stay ahead of technology, similar to when they fought to prevent the use of drones for hunting. As far as I can tell, most of the affected waters aren't big enough for a traditional boat to practically navigate. Picture yourself wade fishing in one of these small streams and then having an air boat come blowing upstream towards you. Like I said though, I have only fished the Missouri and Yellowstone, so I would like to hear from others that have more experience on these other watersheds before I send in my comments.
So you dont care because it wont effect you personally?Imagine what will be next if they get their foot in the door...
-
perch pounder mt is right it is about outfitters and drift boats .i loved the upper missouri river had a small jet boat that i used so many times on that section of river that i lost count. it got to be a real pain just to travel up the river with 15 drift boats per mile and one day (my last)17 between holter dam and wolfcreek bridge not to mention the hour it took to get my boat on to the trailer because of the line of outfitters putting in.sold the boat that year and i miss fishing the upper river dearly.they won i did nothing . i payed a big price.one voice is soft but many voices are loud and will be heard so speak up! i did not and i am ashamed.
-
So you dont care because it wont effect you personally?Imagine what will be next if they get their foot in the door...
I do care, that's why I said I want to hear from others before I send in my comments.
-
Let's see both sides.
1. I am fishing from shore or on my small 12 foot aluminum boat, then comes 200 HP of bad a** boat 20 feet from me and 6 jet ski's behind them riding the wake. Being a believer in individual rights to play as wished, I say nothing. I hold on and ride the wakes
2. Others are fishing off shore with bait, fly rods etc. and have the mess of wakes to deal with.
3. Let's just say I'm on the jet ski, young and full of who cares, I decide that riding wakes of 200HP boat in front of me will be a thrill. I see other people on small boats, like my Grandad, fishing, but I don't care. Exercising individual rights.
4.Comes along Trout Unlimited who has lots of money and pads political pockets. These padded pockets talk to the MFWP on behalf of TU.
5. Then comes the need to invade and establish rules for people like the shore fishermen and small boaters like me who unknowingly are being represented by a commie organization.
6. Yet no one is speaking of the rights of the 200HP boaters and the wake riders. Sure, you want your piece and quite but the vigorous younger want their rights to be happy and ride for excitement.
7. So who rights do we want to infringe on? The vigorous or the passive bait and fly dunkers?
8>>>A.My own opinion is that we leave it alone.
>>>>B. Or let the fishing license buyers decide by vote and not by clout or money. Every Montana resident with a valid fishing license should be able to cast a ballot for or against any infringements of rights to use a stream, river or tributary as they chose. For or against and no changes to usage, type of motor etc. Stays as is to vote as for. Against, -Change to lower the HP of boat and the limits as written on the proposed changes. This, in my opinion, is what is fair and conventionally a republic and democratic way of approaching the issue.
-
8>>>A.My own opinion is that we leave it alone.
>>>>B. Or let the fishing license buyers decide by vote and not by clout or money. Every Montana resident with a valid fishing license should be able to cast a ballot for or against any infringements of rights to use a stream, river or tributary as they chose. For or against and no changes to usage, type of motor etc. Stays as is to vote as for. Against, -Change to lower the HP of boat and the limits as written on the proposed changes. This, in my opinion, is what is fair and conventionally a republic and democratic way of approaching the issue.
Agreed. Good to see someone wants to look at it from both sides.
-
quit water initiative is nothing more than the outfitters trying to keep sections of prime river to them selves.1. limit of 10 hp motor,might not make it up river in some sections.2. travel in one direction only on some sections, maybe you can hire a shuttle driver to take your truck and trailer to where you want to take it out.we as sports persons can not let this happen.attend fwp meetings call them let them hear you. the outfitters idea of fairness is ,this river is not big enough for the two of us so get off!so do we want sit on the bank trying to fish while a drift boat floats by 10 yards in front of you or do something.its our choice.
-
The disturbing part is Veterans and others with disabilities that require a larger craft for accommodation will be discriminated against with the passing of this initiative. Reckless disregard by the Governor's staff to let this continue.
-
I agree the fly fisherman are crying about it so they can sell more floats. The rivers are just too busy.
-
Do nothing and 2 years from now we will see the Quiet Mountains initiative where the MT outfitters assc proposes only horses can be used on NF roads and lands,making sure that anyone without a packstring cant get to our hunting spots.
-
I live on the Whitefish River here in Whitefish.
Many years ago there where issues with certain types of motorized boats on the river, there were many meetings and the end was a compromise, a no wake river.
There had never been a warning or citation for a violation on the river as per the FWP.
About five years ago the first mile of the river was cleaned and scoured of all remains of oil contamination.
The river was closed to ALL used for 3 plus years!
Then along comes a group that thinks the river should be closed to ALL motorized traffic.
The main group for the closure was the invasive species I call "paddle boarders".
The argument was "well we haven't seen any motorized boats on the river for over 3 years", FWP said we have been up and down the river (while it was closed) and never saw one motorized boat docked on the rive?
After living on the River for 60 plus years and finally having a clean river I was never able to use my 16" Lund on the river.
Bottom line is they always want a little for a while then it all goes away.
-
Kind of comical that all the people that cater to vacationers and all the people that move here want to change our way of life. Seems like you give them a little they take a lot.
-
Oh yeah, don't get me started on paddle boards.
-
Oh yeah, don't get me started on paddle boards.
That's a whole other rant.
Seems FWP doesn't want to enforce any regulations on the paddle boarders on the Whitefish river?
No PFD, no limits on how many are on one and not night time lights.
The FWP says wellllll they (paddle boards) are fairly new and not everyone is aware of the laws?????
-
The FWP says wellllll they (paddle boards) are fairly new and not everyone is aware of the laws?????
I want to plead ignorance of the law too then. "Sorry, I didn't know 1300HP boats were not allowed here since this motor is fairly new to the industry and who would have thunk you had written that law to include me?"
-
I too live on the Whitefish River in the Evergreen area. The river here is only about 40' across and because in the lower valley, it has a lot of blind sided meandering curves. In the summer we have kayakers, canoes, and kids on an air mattress or inter tubes lazily floating and having "summer fun". Then I see 2 or 3 wave runners together going who knows how fast but fast using the river at the same time. Where they come from I have no idea-maybe the Flathead River or Flathead Lake. I don't know if there has ever been an accident but going that fast on a small river with lots of blind turns is not good.
-
Come to think of it, I might just start duck hunting on those stretches of river!
-
Just got word from a Warden friend that the commission is going to extend comment period but but he doesn't know for how long. They are still keeping public meetings. Here are the dates. We as the public need to take a stand on this Private agenda of the Back country hunters and anglers and say no. We just need FWP to enforce laws on the books already.
A petition, known as the Quiet Water’s Initiative, was submitted to the Montana Fish and Wildlife Commission this past spring by Backcountry Hunters and Anglers. The petition states Montana has experienced advanced motorized technology on its waterways, which has potentially opened up waters previously thought to be unusable by motorized water craft. At its regular May meeting, the Commission initiated rulemaking on the petition, stating, in part, the Commission should consider being proactive instead of reactive to the changes in recreation on Montana’s waterways to avoid conflicts and protect traditional and safe recreational uses. Public hearings will be held to obtain public comment. • Jan. 3 at the FWP Region 1 office, 490 N. Meridian Road, Kalispell at 6 p.m. • Jan. 4 at the FWP Region 2 office, 3201 Spurgin Road, Missoula at 6 p.m. • Jan. 5 at the FWP Region 3 office, 1400 S. 19th Ave., Bozemen at 6 p.m. • Jan. 9 at the FWP Region 5 office, 2300 Lake Elmo Drive, Billings at 6 p.m. • Jan. 11 at the FWP Region 4 office, 4600 Giant Springs Road, Great Falls at 6 p.m. • Jan. 11 at the FWP headquarters office, 1420 E. 6th Ave., Helena at 6 p.m.
-
I was just reading all the posts. We need to get 300 to 400 people to these meeting and let them know we don't want any more special interests groups running our state through sneaky initiatives. Quiet waters means just that QUIET! >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(
-
Quit Hardwater is next.
-
I am a BHA member, but his is not an initiative that I support. If people would use common sense, new rules would not be necessary, but the first time some half intoxicated idiot on a personal watercraft hurts a kid on an inner tube they are going to try again.
-
Hi folks, I'm actually a bit surprised at the opposition here. I see this being unrelated in every way to the anti- trapping initiative. All this really is, is a look into what issues we may have on our waters in the future and an attempt to resolve conflict before it arises. BHA does so many good things for us Montanans who value our natural resources and the greendecoy stuff was actually a well planned attempt from BHA's counterparts to derail them by mudslinging. They really are on the side of hunters and anglers. I fully understand the contentment and the fear of what could be lost and I think it's awesome that we can have a discussion sharing our values and opinions on an important topic with each other. We are all in it together to protect the rights and values we have and if we cannot appease each other then divided we fall as stated above. I think this proposal is actually supportive of that mindset by making an attempt to be proactive on an issue before it is a problem. Have an awesome day everyone!
-
bullnbow the only issues we have on our waters is this initiative.it takes away my right to use parts of of rivers (mostly the best parts) or limits my use.this way the hired drift boats can have the waters for their selves and we can have 20 boats per mile.buy the way do you fish from a drift boat?sounds like it.
-
Those guys on the drift boats probably laugh at my old Ugly sticks that are dull due to lost varnish, scratched up old reels, frozen bait and worm containers in a Walmart bag, 1970's fish net, faded shorts or jeans, torn shirt, grease marks on my cap and duct tape on the straps of my water sandals. ???
I am buying new sandals this spring tho. ;D
-
;D
-
the bha is a liberal front group
-
It is a lot like the anti trapping bill. One group telling the rest of the public how the public areas can be used. Always, only a certain segment seem to reap the rewards.
-
Helena Independent Record story on the initiative. Click HERE (http://helenair.com/news/natural-resources/hearings-set-on-initiative-to-limit-motorized-watercraft-use-in/article_8560acbb-2847-5c0c-9aac-abb3eb9d7503.html)
Direct quote from Executive Director of Trout Unlimited, Bruce Farling...
“Meaningful” solutions often require reducing the use by some groups, he said, adding that the proposals are not “radical.”
mind blown....
tell me again how this is unlike the anti trapping initiative???
SCIENCE>EMOTION
-
Good information! Thanks!
-
lets start a new initiative and call it the crowded waters initiative. limit the use of drift boats to September 15 to June 1 at which time they may use only one oar and only travel one direction(up river).this should resolve any issues that arise in the future.
-
All I can say is go to the meetings. Kslispells meeting is January 2nd. Don't know if it will do any good but I'm going.
-
Thanks for the link. I haven't heard of this. I'll have to read up on it.
-
love it crowded waters initiative
-
Wow I went to the Quiet Meeting in Kalispell tonight. There where a lot of great questions who, what, why, where and how. Not one commissioner or bha member was there at the Kalispell meeting there was (one trout unlimited flathead) guy there but he left before the official meeting started. there where 200+ people there opposed to the initiative. Commissioners sent two people there as representatives and to facilitate the meeting as an open forum . There was a letter read there from 18 legislatures from the Fathead that are opposed and signed the letter. Next meeting on Jan. 4 at the FWP Region 2 office, 3201 Spurgin Road, Missoula at 6 p.m. •
Jan. 5 at the FWP Region 3 office, 1400 S. 19th Ave., Bozemen at 6 p.m. •
Jan. 9 at the FWP Region 5 office, 2300 Lake Elmo Drive, Billings at 6 p.m. •
Jan. 11 at the FWP Region 4 office, 4600 Giant Springs Road, Great Falls at 6 p.m.
• Jan. 11 at the FWP headquarters office, 1420 E. 6th Ave., Helena at 6 p.m.
We need to raley 200 to 300 folks against this unconstitutional land and water grab by special interest group. at all the rest of these meetings. Flathead started it out lets crush this law before it becomes a law its up to you now.
We did get an extension on comment period till Feb 12th 2017.
-
100% agree. Divided we will fall. We need to support each other even if we don't trap, fish certain waters, run hounds, etc., etc., etc. As soon as one pin falls others will follow. The precedent has been set in more liberal states like Washington and California. There is no stopping point. Don't give an inch or before you know it you'll have ceded the entire field. Stand united.
I consider myself a level headed and moderate guy, but on this stuff I really believe we just need to say: "NO". No more. No more restricting someone else's access for my benefit. No more not caring because it doesn't immediately affect my preferred recreation. Just "NO".
I agree with you Wingnutty, and I voted against the anti-trapping initiative, even though I don't trap. But I'm not going to support behind the fence canned hunting over bait, or anything that isn't fair-chase, just to stand in solidarity against the antis. We need to draw the line somewhere, or there will be remote internet hunting on some ranch in Texas without leaving your computer.
-
there where 200+ people there opposed to the initiative.
Impressive!! That will send a message. Pretty lame that the people pushing it can't represent.
-
I will mosdef be at the Helena one with bells and whistles on.
-
I gave all my flies and fly boxes to a friend before Thanksgiving as my inner protest against this Initiative. I'll be at the Jan. 11 at the FWP Region 4 office, 4600 Giant Springs Road, Great Falls at 6 p.m.
Who else will be there? Either for or against. It's your right to voice. Who needs a ride from Conrad to Great Falls area and back? Let me know.
-
And I will be at the Bozeman one opposing it. If the roads are open from the east. How about all the Boz. ice anglers??
-
there where 200+ people there opposed to the initiative.
That's great to hear! It gives me a little more hope that we can all get together and stop this radical thought!!
-
If Greg Munther, chairman BHA, is in attendance at the Missoula meeting, someone should ask him if the is personal like it was when he raised safety issues regarding the closure of the Clark Fork and Bitter Root in 2011.
Here is one of his statements--
"It was brought to us largely as a social concern," Saffel said. "The wildlife and natural resource impacts are plausible, but likely minimal. On other hand, we got lots of input from the public that socially and safety-wise, it's an issue."
Greg Munther was one of those who raised both the social and safety questions. A 35-year homeowner along the Bitterroot near Maclay Bridge, he said the jet-powered boats and personal watercraft were both a nuisance and a threat.
"When we first moved here, there were no motors," said Munther, a retired Forest Service district ranger. "Lately, we've seen the conflicts with canoeists, rafters and tubers and the jet boats. We've observed close encounters with boats and rafts. And another thing I've observed - all the birds, great blue herons, osprey, eagles, geese - have to leave when the boats go by. They're all displaced."
-
I will try to be attending also.
-
I wonder how much uproar there would be if we tried to ban drift boats. This is idiotic, kind of like traditional bow hunters trying to ban rifle season or vice versa. Just because you prefer one kind of outdoors activity doesn't mean someone else shouldn't enjoy a different kind, just be happy we can use the resources at all.
-
Although Montana Trout Unlimited did not develop Quiet Waters, the group is generally supportive of the initiative, said Executive Director Bruce Farling. “Meaningful” solutions often require reducing the use by some groups, he said, adding that the proposals are not “radical.”
Do you suppose he is saying a "meaningful" solution is to reduce the number of drift boats?
See the entire article at http://helenair.com/news/natural-resour ... d7503.html
-
Here is the link for the proposal. Everyone should educate themselves on it before voicing their opinion. The first time I heard of it is when some locals were saying "BHA is trying to close access to the Missouri". I then went and read up on it and that is clearly not the case.
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/backcountryhunters/pages/2831/attachments/original/1476226083/Quiet_Waters_Proposal_MT_BHA.pdf?1476226083
It seems like a good time for a repeat of this request. Please get informed before going off half cocked on this proposal. Also, please make intelligent comments to the FWP, which is to say don't blast the plan in its entirety unless you really do want motorized surfboards flying up the Swan and other small rivers.
If your problem is with the big river restrictions by all means say so, but be sure you really understand what the restrictions are as they are minimal. Mostly though, don't blast the whole plan because you don't don't like the big river restrictions. Get informed and make informed, intelligent comments. A huge complaint among hunters and fisherman is that the FWP doesn't listen to them. However, if you just complain and show your ignorance of the details you have given nothing for them to listen to. Your comments should be substantive, i.e. "Having a firm basis in reality and therefore important, meaningful, or considerable."
Regarding the comments about drift boats, there are several regulations already in place prohibiting the use of drift boats for fishing. Sections of the Madison, Gallatin, and Rock Creek come to mind.
Carry on...
rg
-
I should add that by and large this is about heading off a problem before the use gets entrenched and starts causing problems. It isn't about chipping away your rights.
-
RobG BS there is already a problem!
-
RobG BS there is already a problem!
Uh, ok. If you think there already is a "problem" what is your objection to the proposal?
-
Sounds like Munther is looking for reasons to complain saying propelled water craft displace birds. So do innertubes and paddle boards.
-
I should add that by and large this is about heading off a problem before the use gets entrenched and starts causing problems. It isn't about chipping away your rights.
I live on the Whitefish River.
For the last maybe 10-15 years we had a no wake law in effect and in all those years there was NEVER a citation issued.
That wasn't good enough!
The upper portion is now NON motorized and they want to change the rest.
I have lost MY right to use my gas power fishing boat to navigate the river to the lake and back.
It happens!
-
infringe
You keep using that word, (as a firearm owner) I do not think it means what you think it means.
-
I-177 wasn't about taking rights away either. Still could've trapped on private land if it passed....
-
I own a home on the Missouri River near the Dearborn and we see a steady stream of drift boats and floaters on the river most every day during the summer. Very seldom do we see a jet boat or any other motorized boat. There just doesn't seem to be a problem. The enforcement division of FWP advised the Commission there wasn't a problem thus no need for the petition but they accepted it anyway. Plan and simply not needed on the Missouri River.
-
fishon1054 makes a good point. I have floated several of the rivers in question, in a i6 foot jon, and have had no conflicts with motorized users. The ones I have encountered were respectful of my space on the water and friendly. I can not say that of some of the other non motorized users. Why should one group have the say in how the public uses the public waterways? Also note the downstream only clause on the Mo. If that and the areas that are added on the Yellowstone should make you question who is pulling the strings. The Yellowstone sees very little motorized compared to commercial. The problem may be to many commercial users now and they don't want to share.
-
I just got back from the Bozeman meeting and the FWP presentation was extremely misleading. Most of the regulations they talked about are already in place. I can see why people are flipping out about this since the presentation gives the impression BHA is trying to ban motorized craft from most of the state's rivers.
For what it is worth, I don't agree with some of the proposed restrictions on the larger rivers.
I live on the Whitefish River.
For the last maybe 10-15 years we had a no wake law in effect and in all those years there was NEVER a citation issued.
That wasn't good enough!
The upper portion is now NON motorized and they want to change the rest.
I have lost MY right to use my gas power fishing boat to navigate the river to the lake and back.
It happens!
Whitefish - the proposed changes for the Whitefish River are only for the lower section and are no-wake from 7/1 to 9/15 and no personal watercraft (jet skis). Your problem appears to be with existing rules, not this proposal.
-
Existing restrictions start as proposals...
-
RobG,
The problem with the proposal is it comes down to one sportsmen v. another. we as sportsmen need to ban together to keep and expand access and public land for us and future generations to use. BHA may do some good things but i will not support them due to the fact they are creating a divide among sportsmen. guys who want to motor bike, 4 wheel, and run jet boats have just as much right to as guys who want to pack in 10 miles away from motorized equipment (that's why we have wilderness areas and non wilderness areas). we need to share our lands and respect other peoples right to use it or we will lose it. we are all on the same side and don't need to fight against each other.
FYI a lot of stretches of river had steam boats go up and down them, namely the Flathead and Missouri so i don't think technology has made them more accessible.
-
It seems like a good time for a repeat of this request. Please get informed before going off half cocked on this proposal. Also, please make intelligent comments to the FWP, which is to say don't blast the plan in its entirety unless you really do want motorized surfboards flying up the Swan and other small rivers.
If your problem is with the big river restrictions by all means say so, but be sure you really understand what the restrictions are as they are minimal. Mostly though, don't blast the whole plan because you don't don't like the big river restrictions. Get informed and make informed, intelligent comments. A huge complaint among hunters and fisherman is that the FWP doesn't listen to them. However, if you just complain and show your ignorance of the details you have given nothing for them to listen to. Your comments should be substantive, i.e. "Having a firm basis in reality and therefore important, meaningful, or considerable."
Regarding the comments about drift boats, there are several regulations already in place prohibiting the use of drift boats for fishing. Sections of the Madison, Gallatin, and Rock Creek come to mind.
Carry on...
rg
I agree, one should always be informed and make decisions based on "science" not on emotions but I do not see any science to support the Quiet Water Initiative. In regard to being informed people should also know who some of the backers of this movement are and decide what the real reasons are. https://www.greendecoys.com/decoys/backcountry-hunters-and-anglers/
-
FYI a lot of stretches of river had steam boats go up and down them, namely the Flathead and Missouri so i don't think technology has made them more accessible.
I agree with this, and also the Marias and no doubt other larger rivers. I think it was a mistake for BHA to include those, although the intent was likely just to prevent them from becoming a circus in the future. But I agree with your assessment and how it pits sportsmen against each other. That is what the comment period is for and some good comments were made on it last night.
Most of the proposed regulations are common sense and head off technology that will allow motorized use on very small streams where they will cause problems. An example is the upper Swan River. The river already has restrictions on it from the lake to Porcupine Bridge. The petition simply asks that those restrictions be extended to the headwaters. That's common sense and being proactive before motorized use becomes common up there and we are once again face with pitting sportsmen against each other. Unfortunately, FWP is being very misleading with their information. Their material makes it appear that BHA is proposing changing the entire river from no restrictions to no-wake, < 75dB. In sum with all the other misleading statements it makes it appear that BHA is proposing massive restrictions when in fact most are just common sense tweaks.
-
I agree, one should always be informed and make decisions based on "science" not on emotions but I do not see any science to support the Quiet Water Initiative. In regard to being informed people should also know who some of the backers of this movement are and decide what the real reasons are. https://www.greendecoys.com/decoys/backcountry-hunters-and-anglers/
I am very familiar with BHA and the green decoy lies about them and other groups. If you choose to believe them there is not a lot I can do so I will just note the claims well known to be lies.
-
Calling it “a front group for Washington, D.C.-based public relations firm Berman & Company,” The Huffington Post attempted an outing of sorts on EPA’s parent group, the Center for Consumer Freedom, and its top man, Rick Berman, dubbed “Dr. Evil” on 60 Minutes. The thing is, while both HuffPo and Morley Safer tried their best to convince their “progressive” followers that Berman is devoted only to profits, neither made that case with examples of documented unethical practices, or by refuting anything the man, who decries a government nanny state and endorses personal responsibility, claims.
“Look, once you get past the name-calling, tell me what’s wrong with our statistics,” Berman replied to Safer. “Tell me what’s wrong with our science.”
For any wishing to contest EPA’s claims about Green Decoys, try refuting them with facts that demonstrate where they’re wrong, instead of resorting to the old ad hominem (attacking the man instead of his arguments) standby of shooting the messenger.
https://gunsmagazine.com
-
I also attended the meeting and listened to the comments. It still shakes down to one user group saying we can all use the waters, just do it my way.
-
For those who say there is no science to support the initiative, that is not necessarily true. Many fish use tributaries to spawn. What do you think happens when a jet ski or air boat goes through a shallow area of spawning beds? The eggs are scattered all over the place and no longer protected.
I personally don't agree with the proposals on the big rivers like the Missouri and the Yellowstone. As far as I know there isn't a big issue with motorized craft on those rivers and a lot of people use motorized craft for duck hunting and I would imagine also to access public lands on those stretches of river. For this reason I will probably send in my comments against the proposal. However, I don't think its a bad idea to restrict motorized craft on the small tributaries for the exact reason that I mentioned earlier.
It is unfortunate that some are giving BHA a bad name by labeling them a "green decoy group". In a time that our public lands are greatly at risk of being lost forever, groups like BHA, Public Land/Water Access Association, and the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership are very important. They are out there fighting for our public lands and access to those lands. I respect everyone's opinion and there is nothing wrong with being against the initiative, but don't bash BHA at the same time. I think they may have over-stepped their bounds on this one, but they do far too many good things for sportsmen to deserve the bad rap they are getting from some people.
-
For those who say there is no science to support the initiative, that is not necessarily true. Many fish use tributaries to spawn. What do you think happens when a jet ski or air boat goes through a shallow area of spawning beds? The eggs are scattered all over the place and no longer protected.
I personally don't agree with the proposals on the big rivers like the Missouri and the Yellowstone. As far as I know there isn't a big issue with motorized craft on those rivers and a lot of people use motorized craft for duck hunting and I would imagine also to access public lands on those stretches of river. For this reason I will probably send in my comments against the proposal. However, I don't think its a bad idea to restrict motorized craft on the small tributaries for the exact reason that I mentioned earlier.
It is unfortunate that some are giving BHA a bad name by labeling them a "green decoy group". In a time that our public lands are greatly at risk of being lost forever, groups like BHA, Public Land/Water Access Association, and the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership are very important. They are out there fighting for our public lands and access to those lands. I respect everyone's opinion and there is nothing wrong with being against the initiative, but don't bash BHA at the same time. I think they may have over-stepped their bounds on this one, but they do far too many good things for sportsmen to deserve the bad rap they are getting from some people.
Again, what science are you citing in regards to jet skis and air boats scattering eggs all over the place? I would like to read that study.
The only reason I can see that our public lands are being lost forever is because they are being shutoff and restricted to more and more folks every day, including the elderly and disabled people, all in the name of protecting our environment when in reality it's people like Greg Munster, a member of BHA, wanting it closed down for his our little playground. I'm not trying to give BHA a bad name, there are probably a lot of members who are there for the right reasons. My problem is when a group uses the pretense of protecting "OUR public lands" but have ulterior motives such as not wanting users they don't like invading their what they consider their's. I do not own a pwc or a jet boat but those folks have as much right as you do to use our public lands. If they are destroying our lands there are laws already in place, we DO NOT need more restrictions put into place.
-
Again, what science are you citing in regards to jet skis and air boats scattering eggs all over the place? I would like to read that study.
Ok, maybe I don't have a study to back it up, but its common sense. If you've ever used a boat I am sure you have seen a prop or jet stir up silt and sand in shallow water.
The only reason I can see that our public lands are being lost forever is because they are being shutoff and restricted to more and more folks every day, including the elderly and disabled people, all in the name of protecting our environment when in reality it's people like Greg Munster, a member of BHA, wanting it closed down for his our little playground.
If that's the only reason you can see why our public lands are being lost then you haven't been paying much attention to what is going on with this land transfer idea. The reason our public lands are at risk of being lost is because the political party that is in control of the White House and Congress has it on their party platform to transfer our public lands to the states.
-
The lie of the green decoy campaign is that BHA is a liberal front group of phony hunters. BHA is made up of hunters and anglers and they give credit where credit is due, regardless of party. Here is their statement on Zinke's promotion to SOI: http://www.backcountryhunters.org/bha_response_to_zinke_selection_as_interior_secretary
BHA took a lot of heat for speaking well of Zinke. Unfortunately, sportsmen take a lot of risk supporting republicans and in this case BHA paid for it. With his new position Zinke no longer has to answer to Montanans and on Tuesday Zinke stabbed us in the back by voting for HR 5, which removes a financial barrier to transferring federal lands to the states. So that is what often happens when groups like BHA go to bat for republicans. Nonetheless, they will continue to support the people who will further their cause regardless of political party.
-
I also don't agree with the initiative as a whole. I do think some seasonal closures and motor less or hp restrictions for some heavy use areas are legitimate issues to be discussed.
I've read about people who don't like the drift boats on the missouri when they are running their jet boat. Imagine if every one of those drift boats was a jet boat running up and down that section of river trying to beat the next guy to their favorite hole... I think it would be a crap show on a section of river that is well known and sees heavy traffic.
I don't own a drift boat, just a personal pontoon boat that I use primarily on rivers, not much on lakes because I have almost been swamped and run over by pleasure boaters in the summer months. If you have a issue with the number or amount of guided user days that is a legitimate concern and should be discussed along with motor restrictions on heavily used waters. Limiting engines does not limit access, but could prevent us from loving some river sections to death.
I'm furious that Zinke voted for the bill, and glad that Daines bucked the party line to vote against it and represent those who put him in office.
-
I just got back from the Bozeman meeting and the FWP presentation was extremely misleading. Most of the regulations they talked about are already in place. I can see why people are flipping out about this since the presentation gives the impression BHA is trying to ban motorized craft from most of the state's rivers.
For what it is worth, I don't agree with some of the proposed restrictions on the larger rivers.
Whitefish - the proposed changes for the Whitefish River are only for the lower section and are no-wake from 7/1 to 9/15 and no personal watercraft (jet skis). Your problem appears to be with existing rules, not this proposal.
The point being that they were not happy with the no wake that was on the river for over 15 years.
First they take a little then they take it all!!
-
What's so wrong with Montanans being able to say what happens with land in Montana rather than someone in Washington DC?
-
If you want to start debating whether Federal Lands should be turned over to the state another thread should be started but before you do you should read one of the most comprehensive reports done on the issue done by the State of Utah.
I once read a piece about fishing that referred to the “new radicals” who were sick of the “liars and sociopaths” that smeared the good organizations such as the Backcountry Hunters and Anglers. Seemed like they referred to anyone who disagreed with their philosophy as “America-haters”.
Discussion is good as long as both sides are willing to listen, and are willing to come to some type of compromise but more often than not it’s my way or the highway. I’ve seen it happen way to many times where groups such as the BHA submit proposals such as this initiative and once they get a little they are back at the table wanting more. I believe this group, or at least some of the key players, are doing this very thing. Prove me wrong! In 2011, Greg Munther and BHA successfully pushed to get a portion of the Clearwater River shut down and now, in 2016, they’re back at it again asking for more. Just because people are tired of these so-called “new radicals” pushing their agenda down our throats doesn’t make them America-haters, liars or sociopaths, they’re just trying to enjoy what they do on the lands that supposedly belong to everyone.
-
The comment window has been extended.
Written data, views, or arguments may also be submitted to: Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Attn: Quiet Waters Petition, P.O. Box 200701, Helena, Montana, 59620-0701; or e-mail [email protected]. Comments must be received no later than Feb. 12, 2017.
-
If you want to start debating whether Federal Lands should be turned over to the state another thread should be started but before you do you should read one of the most comprehensive reports done on the issue done by the State of Utah.
What do these reports say? Congressman Rob Bishop is from Utah and he's the main advocate transferring federal to the states. Kind of ironic as they are already selling off state lands in Utah.
-
Here's the link.
http://publiclands.utah.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/1.%20Land%20Transfer%20Analysis%20Final%20Report.pdf
-
well..so much good and rational opinions...but don't ya all think there is an underlying issue of just being rude...have had my lunch and gear get wet..cause some jackass is coming up river creating a 2 foot wake...if people would just respect..we wouldn't have this...I know bodies of water have different casual considerations..but come on..this crap wouldn't be happening..if people were respectable in the first place
-
well..so much good and rational opinions...but don't ya all think there is an underlying issue of just being rude...have had my lunch and gear get wet..cause some jackass is coming up river creating a 2 foot wake...if people would just respect..we wouldn't have this...I know bodies of water have different casual considerations..but come on..this crap wouldn't be happening..if people were respectable in the first place
Hear, hear! I agree 100%.
-
???o k tiber...
-
I have a small 12 foot aluminum boat and I used to get upset when someone came close and threw a 2 foot wake. Then I noticed that every time that happened, I caught a fish anywhere from 30 seconds to a minute later. It scares the fish my way so I catch more. LOL. I like them wakes now. I still don't like the big v8 engines that have the exhaust headers. They are loud but I am hard of hearing so I got that going for me.
-
Attended the public comment meeting last night in Billings. Came away with a couple main points. 1. The FWP Commission that makes the rules we are held to did ZERO investigation or scientific analysis into this proposal before moving it along to public comment. This was confirmed by the extremely rude women from FWP running the meeting. 2. That same FWP Commission that moved this through was not present at the meeting and had no interest in hearing what people really had to say on the matter. 3. Back Country Hunters and Anglers is the most spineless group of enviro dicks around. Not one person bothered to show up and stand up for this BS proposal from BHA, several people standing around in their BHA hats and shirts, but left their balls at home when it came time to talk.
The FWP Commission that is going to push this through with no vote or any other public input is made up of 5 "Appointed" men or women. These people were appointed by the Governor. Please take a moment and write Gov. Bullocks office and voice your opinion. Not sure if it will matter, like I said, the rude women running the meeting last night made it very clear that the commission did not care what we thought or how this would impact real people, but it's worth a shot to keep our right to boat these rivers.
-
....like I said, the rude women running the meeting last night made it very clear that the commission did not care what we thought...
Can you elaborate? What was it you considered rude? Why is it you think the Commission doesn't care?
-
How many people do you think were at the billings meeting that were opposed to the proposal?
-
Why is it you think the Commission doesn't care?
From other discussions, here and elsewhere, it seems like neither the FWP Commission nor the BHA leaders feel it's necessary to defend/discuss their justification for this initiative. Typical FWP, follow the rules for public input but they've already made up their mind. Quote "The commission initiated rulemaking on the petition at their May 12, 2016 meeting stating that the commission should consider being proactive instead of reactive to the changes in recreation on Montana's waterways to avoid conflicts and protect traditional and safe recreational uses." Although they used the words "should consider" the meaning is clear.
I agree, letter need to e written to both the Governor and the FWP Commission. Again, the comment period has been extended to Feb. 12th.
-
Quiet Waters may have had a rough reception in Kalispell, but Jeff Lukas, with Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, says people are now talking about what they want Montana’s rivers to look and sound like in the future, and that’s kind of the point.
"This is a conversation starter," says Lukas. "We’re not about taking away existing opportunities. We just want to make sure that everybody's experience is the optimal experience."
I'm so glad Lukas and his friends are so concerned about EVERYBODY being able to have an optimal experience, so much so they want to restrict usage on the State's waters!
-
They are all about out of state paying customers having an optimal experience and telling their friends all about it $$$$$$
-
just like any other initiative.It benefits someone but not everyone.
-
just like any other initiative.It benefits someone but not everyone.
BINGO !!
-
ANY conflict of interest?? Commissioner Vermillion, Sweetwater travel-fly fishing trips to exotic places, former owner of Sweetwater fly shop.
Commissioner Wolfe, member of Cinnabar Foundation which partners with several environmental groups including BCHA.
One empty seat, one rancher and one lawyer.
something does not pass the smell test !!!
-
Helena's public comment meeting on the initiative is Wednesday at 6 at the fish wildlife and parks building at 1420 E 6th Ave. See you there!
-
great article in the great falls trib today.must read. real good stuff should get more of us to the meetings to protect our rights to use our rivers!
-
Awesome job to everyone who showed up the the meetings! I was present in Helena and Bozeman. Everyone must remember who proposed this initiative. We must watch backcountry Hunters and anglers, and many other so called "sportsmen" groups, as well as two of our fwp commissioners Dan Vermillion of livingston and Gary Wolfe of missoula. Research Mr. Vermillion's flyfishing guide services on the BOULDER, STILLWATER AND YELLOWSTONE rivers as all of these rivers are on the proposal. Here is his website listing those waters http://www.sweetwatertravel.com This would make more room for his customers. Gary Wolfe is the Executive director of The Cinnibar Foundation, which gives and receives grants from BHA. BHA is a group of anti hunter trapper anglers that fool too many of us! Check out this website https://www.greendecoys.com/decoys/backcountry-hunters-and-anglers/ and voice you opinion here http://fwp.mt.gov/news/publicNotices/rules/pn_0218.html
-
BHA is a group of anti hunter trapper anglers that fool too many of us! Check out this website https://www.greendecoys.com/decoys/backcountry-hunters-and-anglers/ and voice you opinion here http://fwp.mt.gov/news/publicNotices/rules/pn_0218.html
What is so sad is how people like you just lie to achieve an end. Here's BHA's position on the trapping initiative. http://www.backcountryhunters.org/montana_bha_opposes_i_177
There should have been a BHA officer at the Billings event. Maybe he couldn't make it because of the roads. How did Helena go?
-
Great! The people have spoken. FWP commissioners and legislation better listen. This needs 2 go 2 a public vote. Couple of many things I took from the Helena meeting. 1. Any person or group can submit an initiative. 2. I know it's on many rivers in Montana but from what I took from the meeting was the stretch from holter dam 2 pelican point and the Yellowstone rivers r the focas. With that being said we the people opposed 2 the initiative need 2 come up with an initiative that would limit the amount of guides on those stretches of rivers from day 2 day weather it be a drawing or lottery. 3. The Missouri River is a federal water way. What is a federal water way. Well quick google search. Enjoy. A body of water, such as a river, canal or lake, is navigable if it is deep, wide and slow enough for a vessel to pass or walk. Preferably there are few obstructions such as rocks or trees to avoid. Bridges must have sufficient clearance. High water speed may make a channel unnavigable. Waters may be unnavigable because of ice, particularly in winter. Navigability depends on context: A small river may be navigable by smaller craft, such as a motor boat or a kayak, but unnavigable by a cruise ship. Shallow rivers may be made navigable by the installation of locks that increase and regulate water depth, or by dredging. Navigable Waters legal definition of Navigable Waters
The Free Dictionary › legal-dictionary › ...
Jurisdiction over navigable waters belongs to the federal government rather than states or municipalities. ...
4. Since 1998 there have been 2 maybe 3 accidents involving motor and nonmotorized water craft. that came straight from the FWP speaker.
This initiative is pitting one group against the other. yes it is a difficult situation that needs 2 be addressed but shutting one group out so the other can reap the Bennifits is wrong. Let the people decide its fate!
-
So a guy complains about his lunch getting wet from a wake WAWAWA. Has anyone tried wade fishing on the MO below Holter dam to Craig? It may not be wakes that piss you off it's all the float fisherman that are so inconsiderate. There can be SO MANY of them that they cant move out of your casting lane. Let me make it clear a lot of them are outfitters with clients. This group has a lot of policy pull which is wrong another example of policy to help benefit their desires was the all out war on walleyes in that stretch of river. for about the past 5 years there is a no bag limit anything goes on walleyes. The reason the took this action was the argument the walleyes ate to many trout.What a crock... Missoulafish is so right all about the $$$$$.
-
http://www.greatfallstribune.com/story/news/local/2017/01/12/crowd-criticizes-plan-restrict-motorized-use/96478414/
-
Flynicefish brought up a great point in the Helena meeting. Per the wording of the proposed law change, on the stretch of water below Holter dam to the Wolf Creek bridge it would be illegal to PADDLE a boat upstream at all...This was confirmed by the warden that was directing the meeting....Let that sink in.
-
Flynicefish brought up a great point in the Helena meeting. Per the wording of the proposed law change, on the stretch of water below Holter dam to the Wolf Creek bridge it would be illegal to PADDLE a boat upstream at all...This was confirmed by the warden that was directing the meeting....Let that sink in.
JHC, FWP is intent on making this look as bad as possible. That was a mistake that would be fixed if it was implemented.
-
JHC, FWP is intent on making this look as bad as possible. That was a mistake that would be fixed if it was implemented.
I'd say this whole proposal was a mistake that could easily be fixed by dropping it in the trash where it belongs.
On a side note, and just to be a D!ck I propose the Quiet Frontage Road Initiative, no more shuttle traffic on rural roads!
-
I've been a BHA member for several years and I disagree with the initiative as is as well as the approach BHA took. Hopefully there have been some lessons learned regarding when you should collaborate with your own membership and other interested folks in relation to when you submit a proposal to FWP.
Regarding the comments of FlynIcefish (is it Ms. Fielder?), your cred sinks right to the bottom of the manure pit any time you attempt to play the Green Decoy card.
-
BHA--If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it just may be a duck.
BHA primary donors have extensive ties to environmental activist organizations.
In 2011 and 2012, 28 percent and 33 percent of the BHA’s total revenue came from the radical environmentalist-funded Western Conservation Foundation. However, BHA elected to omit Schedule B—the reporting of major donations—from its own tax returns for these years, in apparent violation of IRS rules.
Backcountry Hunters & Anglers purports to be a voice for sportsmen, but its funding indicates it is simply a mouthpiece for left-wing environmentalists. All told, 60 percent of BHA’s revenue in 2012 came from three Big Green sources: Western Conservation Foundation, Wilburforce Foundation, and Hewlett Foundation—a fact BHA apparently doesn’t want the public to know.
Western Conservation Foundation--$278,423
WCF has given handsomely over the years to notorious environmentalists and animal rights activists, including the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Audubon Society, Earthjustice (the self-proclaimed “law firm of the environment”), and Climate Solutions, a major proponent of “global warming.” It has also contributed large sums to the Tides Center, funder of all things leftist. It’s hard to imagine Western Conservation Foundation would donate over a quarter of a million dollars to Backcountry Hunters and Anglers if it wasn’t an organization that shared those same ideological beliefs.
Wilburforce Foundation--$110,000
Wilburforce Foundation gives heavily to other notorious environmentalists, including the Environmental Law Institute, the Sierra Foundation, and the Union of Concerned Scientists. Wilburforce’s executive director, Tim Greyhavens, previously worked for the Humane Society of the United States, a vegan activist organization with a PETA-like agenda.
Hewlett Foundation--$100,000
Pew Charitable Trusts--$69,000
New Venture Fund ($30,000 total)
Conservation Lands Foundation ($26,000 total)
Lazar Foundation ($25,000 total)
The Brainerd Foundation ($8,000 total).
Sources:
http://www.brainerd.org/grantee-profile.php
https://www.activistfacts.com/organizations/backcountry-hunters-and-anglers/
http://www.ammoland.com/2014/08/irs-complaint-targets-backcountry-hunters-anglers/#axzz4VZQlSfhK
.
-
[
JHC, FWP is intent on making this look as bad as possible. That was a mistake that would be fixed if it was implemented.
Who would change that?? and how would it read after the change?? I did not think FWP tried to make it look bad, they just read the rivers and what was proposed for that river. Who took the time to come up with all of this, was it members of BCHA or the directors, or did they have outside influence? Lunden has the best idea, just trash it and lets all go back to fishing and enjoying the day and not worry how the other guy does it.
-
It is sad to see somebody trying to take the outdoors away from me and my family
-
After reading all this, it appears the "do it our way or else" groups keep getting larger and wealthier, the only two groups I know with any size that are really about protecting freedom rather than taking it are the NRA and the Wild Turkey Federation guys. If you really look at it the bowhunting groups even caused the any weapon seasons to shorten. Be careful who you send your money to. We have all these other groups hosing us rednecks (DU, RMEF, TRCP, BHA, not to mention the undisguised extremest ones like TNC, WWF, PETA, NRDC, SC >:( I would like to start a group called RALF "Rednecks Against Liberal Freedomtakers". Our mission would be of course "conservation" conserving our right to tick them off doing it our way instead of theirs! ;D
Half of you probably already waste your money on one of those groups who will eventually block you from a freedom you enjoy......so watch out!
Let me know if anyone has any interest in RALF. I am sure I will have a few southern members.
-
BHA--If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it just may be a duck.
BHA primary donors have extensive ties to environmental activist organizations.
In 2011 and 2012, 28 percent and 33 percent of the BHA’s total revenue came from the radical environmentalist-funded Western Conservation Foundation. However, BHA elected to omit Schedule B—the reporting of major donations—from its own tax returns for these years, in apparent violation of IRS rules.
Backcountry Hunters & Anglers purports to be a voice for sportsmen, but its funding indicates it is simply a mouthpiece for left-wing environmentalists. All told, 60 percent of BHA’s revenue in 2012 came from three Big Green sources: Western Conservation Foundation, Wilburforce Foundation, and Hewlett Foundation—a fact BHA apparently doesn’t want the public to know.
Western Conservation Foundation--$278,423
WCF has given handsomely over the years to notorious environmentalists and animal rights activists, including the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Audubon Society, Earthjustice (the self-proclaimed “law firm of the environment”), and Climate Solutions, a major proponent of “global warming.” It has also contributed large sums to the Tides Center, funder of all things leftist. It’s hard to imagine Western Conservation Foundation would donate over a quarter of a million dollars to Backcountry Hunters and Anglers if it wasn’t an organization that shared those same ideological beliefs.
Wilburforce Foundation--$110,000
Wilburforce Foundation gives heavily to other notorious environmentalists, including the Environmental Law Institute, the Sierra Foundation, and the Union of Concerned Scientists. Wilburforce’s executive director, Tim Greyhavens, previously worked for the Humane Society of the United States, a vegan activist organization with a PETA-like agenda.
Hewlett Foundation--$100,000
Pew Charitable Trusts--$69,000
New Venture Fund ($30,000 total)
Conservation Lands Foundation ($26,000 total)
Lazar Foundation ($25,000 total)
The Brainerd Foundation ($8,000 total).
Sources:
http://www.brainerd.org/grantee-profile.php
https://www.activistfacts.com/organizations/backcountry-hunters-and-anglers/
http://www.ammoland.com/2014/08/irs-complaint-targets-backcountry-hunters-anglers/#axzz4VZQlSfhK
.
Thanks for exposing this! Not a surprise to us but may be to some. Maybe even someone that wasted their money on BHA.
-
I also don't agree with everything the BHA does... but they also opposed the anti-trapping bill, opposed the land transfer giving the durfee hills to the Wilks brothers, and opposes the mine on the Smith river, and promoted protecting the Front from oil and gas development. These all protect our way of life and the quality of the habitat for the animals we pursue. On the whole I think BHA is doing good things, but this initiative is not one of them. I think the public response is proof of that, but writing a organization off because of one issue would be a mistake. Do your own research, be involved, and make your own decisions based on that.
-
Well, therein lies the problem. They didn't read what was proposed. They lumped all the current regulations in with the proposed regulations so it looked like BHA was proposing massive changes when in fact most (not all) were just small additions. Myself and several other people wrote FWP leadership and I know BHA leadership talked to them about it, but the (aforementioned angry lady) paralegal running the meetings said it was too late to make changes. So basically take all the crap that was said at the meeting, divide it by 5 or so and that is the proposal. People still have problem with the proposal and that is fine, but many are flipping out about stuff that isn't even in the proposal.
I thought the packet was very clear, the current regulations were printed plain, the proposed changes were underlined or specifically titled as "New Rule". I am only "flipping out" about stuff that is proposed to be changed, IE eliminating motor boats and HP restrictions below Holter, and HP restrictions on the Marias and the Yellowstone, among other things. I have no issue with the current regulations.
To justify these changes under the guise of safety based on the very few incidents that do occur is like banning cars because some people get drunk and cause accidents.
There is already a boaters regulation book that outlines the laws of watercraft usage in MT, irresponsible/wreckless operation is illegal. What more do you want?
-
My "play(ing) of the green decoy card". Also, I do not doubt that there are members of BHA who are really are great people that love the outdoors and intend on protecting our rights. Sadly they are giving money to the people trying to take away their rights. The BHA leaders, chairmen, execs.. are what is concerning. Their actions do not align with their claimed intentions. I almost supported this group fully, but their true intentions emerged with the "quiet waters act", which has led to much more digging into this group. This proposal has left a sour taste in mouth of most of Montana based on the hearings.
-
If this Initiative does pass, I know where I'll be fishing with my 9HP motor boat everyday. Up them spots and I bet there will be several others daily in these areas with our 2 cycle motor boats. ;D I might use my planner boards.
This is just like the Lake Trout netting in the Flathead. It happened even with a consensus against it. No matter what the public wanted a small group got their way. Used to be we could drive close to hunting spots, make camp and walk in from there for the hunt. Now the gates are closed and foot or horse back only. The gates are open all summer long and through most if not all of bow season.
I should buy me a couple of oxen and break them in for hunting season. I'll leave a couple down by the gates so those who don't own horses or oxen, can use them as needed or even run a rickshaw service. Bottom pic related..
(http://www.animalstown.com/animals/o/ox/wallpapers/ox-wallpaper-4.jpg)
(http://www.namnewsnetwork.org/v3/photo/2015032319220511.jpg)
-
My "play(ing) of the green decoy card".
I would love to sit down and have a discussion with the Green Decoys organization. I can't. They don't exist. GD is a subset of the Environmental Policy Alliance, which is a subset of The Center for Organizational Research and Education, none of which are actual organizations and all of which share an address with and are the inventions of the for-profit PR firm Berman and Associates. Their publicizing of already publicly available lists of BHA donors is particularly disingenuous considering they don't disclose the names of the corporations and organizations funding their smear business. So, to the copy-and-paste cowboys bent on drive-by mass distribution of misinformation, knock yourselves out but be aware that your "facts" (read "opinions) are those of a for-profit D.C.-based lobbying firm.
As I said earlier, I don't agree with BHA's approach on the QWI and I don't believe there was adequate collaboration prior to submittal of the proposal to FWP. I can understand the desire to stay ahead of technology that can lead to user conflicts but in my opinion the watercraft discussion is very different from the drone discussion. I found the proposal itself problematic in that it was described as a "modest proposal" but was presented in a 26-page document. The proposed changes were buried (not hidden, just buried) within existing restrictions leading to confusion for some of those who actually read the entire document. Also problematic for me was the use of the phrase "reports of conflict" without actually including supporting evidence.
-
Also problematic for me was the use of the phrase "reports of conflict" without actually including supporting evidence.
The warden officiating the meeting in Helena stated that there were 3 recorded safety incidents involving motorized device and a non motorized floatation device from 1999 to present.
-
Born Late is right about the Green Decoy's garbage. It was a smear campaign fueled by the gas and oil industry to try and get a growing voice discredited and out of the public lands takeover plan that is still working it's way through the system as we speak.
Although not a member, I am generally supportive of BHA and what they stand for on public lands, access issues, and better habitat and game management. But I HATE the quiet waters initiative and will fight it til it is dead.
-
Following this thread has been interesting, good intelligent conversation for and against this initiative. I prefer to fish and hunt in remote areas far from motorized use so I am not for or against.
Here is something to take into consideration concerning this issue. The advancement in technology in regards to personal watercraft, atvs, utvs, etc. has come a long ways in the last twenty years. "Sportsmen" are able to access "Recreation" and get into areas they couldn't before, mostly legally sometimes not. There is a lack of law enforcement to make sure everyone follows the rules.
-
I'd recommend re-reading my posts. I can't tell you BHA's thought process behind the initiative since I wasn't part of the process. And why would I defend an initiative when I don't agree with it?
I suspect you and I have pretty different interpretations of "green" but the idea of conservation-minded philanthropists providing financial support to a conservation organization doesn't strike me as odd. I also suspect you've made up your mind that BHA is a liberal extremist group. I disagree but I don't see the point of butting heads when neither of our positions is likely to change.
Regarding the tax filing impropriety accusation, please share with us 1) proof that the IRS actually received the complaint letter from CORE, 2) how the IRS acted upon the complaint if they received it, and 3) what if any penalty BHA received.
-
I believe everyone wants to protect and preserve our mountains, streams, lakes, and rivers that we all love and is part of our heritage but I believe we can do this without shutting everything off except to a few. I've read your posts and understand you do not support this initiative as written but I also understand you support a group that seems to mislead people under the pretense that this will be good for everyone. I have spent countless hours trying to work with groups such as BHA and it seems to always end the same way-they get what they want and every one else gets screwed. Again I ask, what about the handicapped, the people with medical conditions that don't allow them to do physical work, or the grandparent who wants to take their grandchildren out so they can enjoy these things?
I don't know if BHA is a "liberal extremist group" or not and I truly believe that there are a large number of folks who are members that belong because of what BHA represents but I also know people don't always know what is going only within such groups.
As to your request regarding the tax forms and the complaint, I asked first, let's have some of these folks who are supporting this initiative provide some data to support, or refute, some of the issues raised. As for BHA, they did this once before on the Clearwater, using the same arguements except they were successful the first time. All I can hope is they are not this time.
-
I know this is a issue that people feel very strongly about, but if you have a personal issue with someone please PM them and keep the thread on subject. There has been some good discussion on here, some of it may even be productive;)
-
My opinion is just that. The Great State of Montana should mail out ballets to all fishing licensed Montana holders and have a ballet vote. If the State chooses not to mail votes, and let one group decide what happens, then we should all boycott paying for license renewal March1 and keep on fishing. Since the State will not follow the majority, then let the State suffer the loses of funds and those that have the convenience of State sponsorship/endorsement pay the till.
Those that will boycott fishing license renewal if this Initiative passes, say "I"
"I"! I'm First! If the FWP needs my info, please PM me and I will be happy to forward my ALS info to the requesting party.
-
I did not have trouble understanding the regulations that are now in place and what is being proposed. I'm upset with the proposal. As to the spawning habitat notion, I see no mention of walk and wade. Also seems strange there are only western waters involved. Lots of good "grownup" opinions on here.
-
I did not find the amended laws clear, but if others did that's fine. I'm not sure how you could know if you didn't read the actual petition. The actual BHA petition is the most readable document on what BHA wants.
http://fwp.mt.gov/news/publicNotices/rules/pn_0218.html (http://fwp.mt.gov/news/publicNotices/rules/pn_0218.html)
Halfway down this page are 4 links to PDF files. The top link is the petition as proposed from BHA. The second link is the rule proposal per fwp. It is the description of current regulations and proposed changes. Clearly underlined are the proposed changes, as well as the proposed new rules. You'll see that contrary to your statement earlier on in this discussion, the majority of the document is newly proposed laws or changes/additions to current laws. The third link is a map of each river and tributary in question with a description of the proposed rule changes and additions in a legend format on each map.
At the bottom of the main fwp page with the links is a text box where you can fill out and submit a comment.
-
Hey folks, I know this is an important topic for you guys. I just ask that you keep the discussion to the topic. If you have a problem with a specific member, send them a PM, don' t air it out on the board. Thank you and I wish you all, and good luck this ice fishing season.
-
"I"
-
I
-
"I"
-
any more word out there on Quite Waters.
-
MAY 4, 2017, 6:00 p.m.
QUIET WATER PROPOSAL. WE NEED SUPPORT TO FIGHT THIS PROPOSAL. The Quiet Waters meeting is May 4th in Helena at the Montana Wild. They are taking public comments at that time. Please make plans to attend.
UPDATE: The public comment period and extension is over, we are processing the public comments we received. The final commission meeting for Quiet Waters will be on May 4th. The commission will make a final decision on the petition at that time. It is a public meeting as well so the public can attend.
-
The Montana Fish and Wildlife Commission will take action on the Quiet Waters administrative rule proposal on May 26 at 8:30 a.m. The agenda has been attached.
The Commission will hold a work session on May 25 at 4 p.m. at FWP Headquarters in Helena for an overview of the Quiet Waters rule proposal. The work session will be audio streamed live online at www.fwp.mt.gov.
On May 26 at 8:30 a.m., the Commission will reconvene at Montana WILD in Helena to take public comment and make a final decision. The meeting will be streamed live via video conferencing at all FWP regional offices and the public may attend and provide comment at any regional office or Montana WILD. To listen to the meeting, but not participate, a live audio stream of the meeting will also be available at www.fwp.mt.gov.
The commission initiated rulemaking last spring on a petition submitted by Backcountry Hunters and Anglers titled the Quiet Waters Initiative. Public hearings on the proposed rules were held throughout Montana in January and extensive public comment was received. The proposed rules included language restricting motorized boating on a variety of rivers and streams across the state. The administrative rule proposal and other documents associated with the proposal, can be found on FWP’s website at http://fwp.mt.gov/news/publicNotices/rules/pn_0218.html.
-
It's not just one stream anymore, here is the link for all water proposed changes on streams.
http://links.govdelivery.com/track?type=click&enid=ZWFzPTEmbXNpZD0mYXVpZD0mbWFpbGluZ2lkPTIwMTcwNTI0LjczNzkzODExJm1lc3NhZ2VpZD1NREItUFJELUJVTC0yMDE3MDUyNC43Mzc5MzgxMSZkYXRhYmFzZWlkPTEwMDEmc2VyaWFsPTE3MDU1MzU0JmVtYWlsaWQ9aGVyYmZsb3Jlc0BnbWFpbC5jb20mdXNlcmlkPWhlcmJmbG9yZXNAZ21haWwuY29tJnRhcmdldGlkPSZmbD0mbXZpZD0mZXh0cmE9JiYm&&&104&&&http://fwp.mt.gov/fwpDoc.jsp?id=81495
-
F ' N A cotton...REJECTED!!!!!
http://www.dailyinterlake.com/article/20170526/ARTICLE/170529897