Big Changes Being Proposed for the Missouri River

For those of you that don't belong to FOAM, (or those of you that do but just don't necessarily read every email you get from them,) I've included in this post a link to the rule change proposal to the Fish and Wildlife Commission from FWP. I've also copied and pasted that rule that would affect us as guides and outfitters on the Missouri River, as it would read in the law below.

It's important to understand that the rule called the "Quiet Waters Rule," was initiated by the Backcountry Hunters and Anglers group, which is a conservation group initially started in Oregon. They do, however, have staff and board members from around the country including Montana. Their mission is:

Backcountry Hunters & Anglers seeks to ensure North America's outdoor heritage of hunting and fishing in a natural setting, through education and work on behalf of wild public lands and waters.

If you want to check them out, here is the link:
http://www.backcountryhunters.org/mission_and_values

I did check out who they are and as I would suspect, none of the staff or board of directors have any practical experience in working as a guide or outfitter for either hunting or fishing. Now, the reason I bring this up is not to bash them for initiating the bill but to point out that this bill will affect those of us that make a living on these waters in question and we should have a seat at the table. I appreciate and applaud groups like this that are working to preserve our resources but would hope that in the future they include, either as staff members or as board members, folks like us that actually work in the field and rely on the resources for our livelihoods.

Remember, although this rule change has been proposed by FWP, it was initiated by Backcountry Hunters and Anglers. Please read the rule as it pertains to the Missouri River. Afterwards, you can read the letter I wrote to the site dedicated to this bill for feedback and commentary. If you want to email them as well, here you go: <QuietWaters@mt.gov> If you want to show up to the hearings yourself for public comment, those hearings are listed at the top of the proposal you can access by clicking the link below. Enjoy.

Quiet Waters rule

http://foam-mt.us2.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=baa41af08fbf329ed19e19303&id=ddfc7eb75b&e=b076a87532

12.11.630 MISSOURI RIVER (1) All tributary streams of the Missouri River are closed to use of any motorized watercraft, except any motorized watercraft powered by 10 horsepower or less, from May 15 through September 15 from the headwaters of the Missouri River to the confluence with Prewett Creek.
22-11/25/16 MAR Notice No. 12-465
-2096-
(2) Missouri River is closed to all swimming, boating, sailing, and floating in the following areas:
     (a) between Toston dam and 300 feet downstream of the dam; and
     (b) the reservoir between the Toston dam and the boat barrier.
(3) Missouri River from Holter Dam to Wolf Creek bridge is restricted:
     (a) to a no wake speed, as defined in ARM 12.11.101(1); and
     (b) vessels are restricted to traveling in the direction of the flow of the river.
(4) Missouri River from Wolf Creek Bridge to Pelican Point FAS is closed to motorized water craft, except any motorized watercraft powered by 10 horsepower or less, from June 1 through September 15.

To Whom it May Concern,

First let me just express my support for this rule change as it pertains to restricting motors on the Missouri River below Holter Dam. I feel like this restriction is overdue as I have personally had many encounters with boaters who have compromised the experience for clients I serve as well as just made my job more difficult. However, I don't believe the changes are enough in this regard. The Missouri  River, from the Holter Dam to Cascade, has been designated as a blue ribbon trout stream. I don't understand then, why the motor restrictions are limited to the stretch of river between the Holter Dam to Pelican Point FAS. There are nine plus miles of blue ribbon trout stream below Pelican Point that will still see pressure from motorized boats that produce wakes that not only compromise the fishing in some aspects but also contributes to unwanted noise and bank erosion, which has a negative impact on the health of the fishery. If we want to preserve the entire section of the Missouri that is considered a blue ribbon trout stream, then why wouldn't that restriction extend to the Cascade FAS?

A second point I would make is in regards to 12:11:630, (2), (b), that states,

"vessels are restricted to traveling in the direction of the flow of the river." This particular rule addresses the area of river extending from Holter Dam to Wolf Creek Bridge FAS. If one uses the definition as stated by the Coast Guard of what a vessel is, that would mean any water craft carrying passengers can only move downstream. Is this what the rule means; unpowered drift boats, skiffs, and even single carrier pontoon boats would no longer be able to row back upstream to recycle a run? If so, I would not support that change because it would be too limiting to those guides that do take advantage of that stretch of the Missouri and thus putting more pressure on the rest of the river.

As it pertains to the motor restrictions on the Missouri River, I do support some kind of change however, my concern is for where these changes are being initiated. The motor restrictions make exceptions for motors less than 10hp, which definitely benefits those guides and outfitters who use trolling motors to be more efficient at moving down stream. It just seems a little suspicious to me. Also, the rule restricting vessels from moving back upstream would effectively make the stretch of river from Holter Dam to Wolf Creek Bridge a wade fishing only stretch or worse, a stretch where guide boats would now park in runs and quite frankly, close off those runs to all other anglers. Is that the intent of this bill? Or, is this rule change proposal a result of actual studies that show those fish in that stretch are receiving too much pressure from boats that are recycling those runs? When it comes to garnering support for these changes, I think that does matter.

I do appreciate your time and look forward to hearing your thoughts on this. I will definitely be attending the hearing and will disseminate any information I have to those folks interested.

Thank you,

I think it's obvious that I do support some kind of motor restriction on the Missouri River and I have for years. I think it's curious the way these rule changes were written but I do support it as long as it extends to the Cascade FAS and does not limit unpowered boats from rowing back upstream in the stretch from Holter Dam to the Wolf Creek Bridge. However, the way the bill is written, no more row-rounds at the dam. I'm not sure that was the intent or if they are targeting motor boats from going back upstream. I assume, however, that they know what the definition of a "vessel" is and the intent is to limit boats from rowing back up and recycling through runs where fish are stacked up. Before you decide what your opinion on this is, just remember; and I have done the research, a "vessel" isn't just a motor boat. It's any water craft carrying passengers.

The other thing that's interesting is the time-frame for which the restrictions are to be enforced. June 1 through Sept. 15 for that stretch of the river below Wolf Creek? What that does is accommodates waterfowl hunters using boats for transportation. I'm not opposed to that and if I'm being totally honest/selfish I'd say, "Hooray!" Keep the motor boats off the river while I'm trying to make a living and then let me motor up and down the river for ducks and geese when it's convenient? Hell yeah, sign me up! But if it's a conservation effort, what's the difference what time of the year of the year it is? However, if it's meant to improve the quality of the experience during the height of the fishing season and also address what might be safety concerns for recreationists and wade fishermen, I'm also in. I guess the question for me is whether or not there are legitimate conservation concerns as to why this bill is being proposed and if there are, then why shouldn't we limit motors all year?

Again, there are opportunities for you to develop more of an understanding of this and voice your opinions and concerns. I've included the links for emailing the State as well as the bill itself with the schedule for public hearings across the state. Be a participant of the process.

Keep 'em where they live...