Quit Waters Iniiative

[missoulafish]

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.

[Strippnthedream]

I will mosdef be at the Helena one with bells and whistles on. 

[Quantoson]

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.

[njoy]

 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??

[rambo51]

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!!

[d_smith84]

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."

[BloodShotP]

I will try to be attending also.

[MatCat]

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.

[d_smith84]

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

[RobG]

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

[RobG]

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.

[hoofer]

RobG BS there is already a problem!

[RobG]

RobG BS there is already a problem!

Uh, ok. If you think there already is a "problem" what is your objection to the proposal?

[missoulafish]

Sounds like Munther is looking for reasons to complain saying propelled water craft displace birds. So do innertubes and paddle boards.

[MT204]

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!

[Sprocket]

infringe

You keep using that word, (as a firearm owner) I do not think it means what you think it means.

[missoulafish]

I-177 wasn't about taking rights away either. Still could've  trapped  on private land if it passed....

[fishon1054]

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.

[njoy]

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.

[RobG]

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.

[BackCountry Kyle]

Existing restrictions start as proposals...

[flatgo]

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.   

[d_smith84]

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/

[RobG]

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.

[RobG]

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.

[d_smith84]

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

[njoy]

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.

[bigsky]

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.

[d_smith84]

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.

[bigsky]

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.