I’m puzzled, too, with the pared-down selection for the Madison CAC. I understand efficiency, but not at the cost of adequate representation. However, those on the CAC will do our best to represent all points of view.

On that note, that’s why the FOAM held a series of meetings with our members from Ennis and W.Yellowstone several months back and agreed to have a ‘backup’ committee of members attend CAC meetings when they could to monitor the discussions and offer germaine comments as needed, either during the public comment periods or through brief caucus sessions with the various representatives on the committee for presentation to the CAC as a whole.

The volume of angling use regulates itself just fine. As it becomes too crowded, anglers will opt for other rivers to guide their clients. Over time, the river sees less anglers until it becomes less crowded, whereupon the anglers will come back. This waxes and wanes over time, whether it be month-to-month or year-to-year. Its a “freemarket” in a sense that regulates itself.

As for non-angling traffic, this is not the case. So, the FWP has two options, deregulate the angling and do away with licensing and permits, or regulate all use, both angling and recreational.

Any arguments made regarding angling volume on the Madison are irrelevant in this issue. This is the premise I would return to again and again as the discussions unfold.

Be keen as you follow these discussions for the subject matter drifting away from the premise and quick to frequently restate it.
Also, frequently hold the FWP to its mandate. Any government organization will inevitably pit different factions of the publlc against one another and exploit this to its own benefit, i.e, broadening its scope of regulation and power.

In addition to the various concerns I’ve heard within the outfitting community, I have some serious questions as to how FWP has been able to determine that they have the resources to even consider implementing this process.

They appear to be understaffed when it comes to enforcement as it is. The current SRP Plan administrator position has seen a high rate of turnover in the short time of the SRP. Game wardens operate on tight budgets as is and the department has had a tough time finding new wardens along with the funding that goes along with those positions.

I don’t understand the metrics that FWP must be using to determine that they have the resources to begin any new endeavor when they can’t find the personnel and funding to maintain their current responsibilities.

Toby Swank
Bozeman
Outfitter

Currently, FWP will not consider flow regimes or the Hebgen Dam debacle (should be fixed by 2014…)in their Management Plan for the Madison River. What kind of plan doesn’t include flows or the repairs at Hebgen? What does FWP really manage? Not the flows, that is for sure. PPL is who really manages the Madison River. After a huge snowpack in 2010-11, Hebgen Dam was held at full pool all summer and is still much higher than it normally is. I sent emails, almost daily, to PPL and FWP during August, begging for more water in the river. Finally, PPL gave in. When asked why they were holding onto the water, they responded “there is no indication of winter snowpack for 2011-12, so we will hold on to the water for now.” The fact is, is that Hebgen is filled every year by the 4th of July, no matter how much snow the mountains receive.

The Madison fished just fine prior to 2008, then the dam failed. Since then, the water has come off the top of the lake and the fishing has been inconsistent. This needs to change.

We all need to send an email stating that the flow regimes are one of the most important factors in managing our rivers. And PPL needs to be held accountable for the construction timeline at Hebgen Dam.

If these landowners in the Madison Valley understood why the river has been tough the past few years, then maybe they would redirect their efforts and help get the Dam fixed.

Fix the Dam and the Madison will fix itself.

Joe Moore
West Yellowstone
FOAM Director.

However, it concerns me when FWP gets into the business of regulating aesthetics and social activities. In other words, I don’t see a resource issue on the Madison that mandates such a plan. In fact, in my opinion the only regulated river in the state that deserves a management plan is the Smith where heavy river use was damaging the riparian zones and damaging private property. I don’t believe that the plans on the Big Hole and the Beaverhead are providing much, if any, resource protecting, and mostly serve as business protection for the permitted outfitters. The same can be said of what a plan will do for the Madison. I do understand that the way things are going these days that whether we like it or not, we are going to get a Madison plan, and it is likely that outfitters and guides will once again be cast as the enemy.

I hope that those who get on this planning committee realize that guides and outfitters are not devils and demons to be cast off the river whenever possible, and that collectively, we care as much or more for our fish and wildlife sources as does the general public.

Dave Kumlien
Outfitter 281
40 year Madison River guide and outfitter