By law boaters must stop at AIS watercraft inspection stations for a brief interview and inspection. Already this month, two boats stopped at inspection stations were found to be fouled by zebra mussels, and another contaminated boat was found by an alert private citizen.

Boaters are urged to inspect, clean and dry boats, trailers and gear exposed to the water to ensure they don’t carry organisms from one water body to another, whether they plan to travel an inspection route or not.

“At the inspection stations, boats and trailers will be carefully inspected and boaters can learn more about how to identify invasive species and prevent their spread from one water body to the next,” said Allison Begley, FWP’s AIS coordinator.

The most likely aquatic invasive species threats to Montana waters include quagga and zebra mussels, New Zealand mudsnails, and Eurasian watermilfoil.

Inspection stations and roving crews will be operating throughout the boating season in these locations:

• Clearwater Junction rest area
• Eureka Hwy 37 West bound
• Ronan Hwy 93 North bound rest area
• Culbertson Hwy 2 West bound rest area
• Wibaux I-94 west bound
• Dena Mora I-90 East bound rest area
• Dillon I-15 North bound
• Hardin I-90 rest area
• Conrad I-15 north and southbound
• Shelby Hwy 2 westbound
• Fort Peck Hwy 24 eastbound
• Troy Hwy 2 eastbound
• Clark Fork River drainage
• Missouri River drainage
• Swan Area
• Madison River drainage
• Bitterroot River drainage

Roving crews will also work at fishing tournaments and other boating events.

Montana’s AIS laws were recently beefed up by the 2013 Legislature in a bill carried by Rep. Mike Cuffe (R-Eureka). One change established a means to create a statewide AIS management area. FWP will develop management area rules over the next few months, Begley said.

For more on aquatic invasive species, go to FWP’s invasive species website at fwp.mt.gov and click on Aquatic Invasive Species on the Fishing page.

A core recommendation was to gather more information about use patterns riverwide. While MTFWP gauges angling pressure biennially, that mail-in survey estimates all angling use separated into resident and nonresident groupings on a year-round and ‘summer’ (May – September) basis. Mandatory commercial reports generated by the Special Recreational Permit (SRP) system co-managed by MTFWP and the BLM are more specific, detailing where outfitters work based on put-in and take-out points, timing throughout the year, and exacting counts of individual outfitter use patterns. Recreational user satisfaction levels and landowner tolerance of recreationists has been tracked in three surveys over the years, too.

Missing are specific use patterns of non-commercial recreationists. For example, non-resident use from May to September has been estimated at 70% of overall use during that period, but managers don’t know where, when, or how those anglers are enjoying the Madison during that period.

Other key recommendations include:

• Using educational materials to promote river etiquette
• Advising visitors on what to expect during peak seasons or high-use sections
• Redesigning the boat ramps at Lyons Bridge Fishing Access Site (FAS)
• Opening the stretch from Lyons Bridge FAS to McAtee FAS to year-round angling
• Prohibiting glass bottles from Warm Springs Recreation Area to Black’s Ford FAS

The FWP Commission also instructed FWP to “solicit public comments, then develop a draft recreation management plan and environmental analysis based on the original CAC recommendations and public comments on those recommendations.” This public-involvement and draft management plan process may take up to nine months to complete, so no changes will be initiated until early 2014, with most of the data-gathering to begin in 2015.

FOAM representatives Robin Cunningham (Gallatin Gateway), Joe Dilschneider and John Way (Ennis) participated in the Citizen’s Advisory Committee to balance local and out-of-area commercial concerns with public angling and recreational interests in this process. Our representation proved useful in educating other public members about the interests, concerns, and business traditions our industry brings to these discussions, and our comments aided in the recognition that more accurate data will be required to design and apply effective management tools and understand seasonal use patterns when managing this very popular and productive fishery.

FOAM thanks all the public members involved: John Juraceck (W. Yellowstone), Lee McKenna (Ennis, Helena), Philip Naro (Bozeman), and Bob Gibson (Bozeman), as well as agency representatives Pat Flowers (MTFWP) and Chris McGrath (BLM), plus FWP staffers Charlie Sperry, who skillfully crafted the final recommendations, and Cheryl Morris, who coordinated the meeting venues and kept us all well fed – no small feat – with welcome results. Last, kudos and appreciation to Virginia Tribe, our tireless consensus coordinator, for her gentle nudges and suggestions.

The most current case involves a bridge over the Ruby river, a 2012 Madison County ruling, the Montana Public Lands / Water Access Association (PLWAA), and James Cox Kennedy, a landowner on the Ruby.

The best news on this argument: It will be heard by the Montana Supreme Court justices in a public forum at MSU on April 29, 2013. Since public interest has always been keen on this law, this is a wise move on behalf of the Supreme Court.

Many articles and blogs have covered the issue, and the Angling Trade has a current article covering the details of the case.

FOAM believes the PLWAA deserves all the help they can get. They’ve been at the core of many land and water access battles over the years, and common support (membership, contributions, etc.) will go a long way in aiding their fight for Montanan’s access to public resources.

For our part, our board of directors is considering a substantial (for us) contribution to help defray the cost of this litigation. You may well decide to help, too. Thanks in advance if you do.

A key change sets an automatic “sunset” or termination date of September 1, 2015 for the bill in order to measure the use and effect of the law for two years.

A second amendment makes the outfitter using an outfitter assistant responsible for ensuring the OA “safeguards the public health, safety, and welfare while providing services and is qualified and competent to perform the tasks of a guide.” The third mandates that the Board of Outfitters to “hold an outfitter who employs or retains an outfitter’s assistant responsible . . . for any acts or omissions by the outfitter’s assistant.”

Finally, because of the timing granted the board to make rules regarding “standards for outfitter’s assistants and documentation standards for proof of employment or retention for outfitter’s assistants”, temporary documentation standards were added to the bill to allow outfitters to use OA’s in the field after September 1, 2013, the effective date of HB187. One of those standards requires the outfitter using an OA to explain why a guide was replaced by an OA and to affirm that the replacement was used in an emergency situation.

These adjustments provide for outfitter responsibility and public protection while setting a few sideboards to curb irresponsible abuse of this new unlicensed entity. Time will tell if these safeguards are sufficient. If not, as stated in the bill, the law will terminate in the fall of 2015.

Right along with setting rules, the Board of Outfitters will track who uses OA’s, how many are used, when, how long, and why during the two years the bill is in effect, then report to the 2015 legislature with statistical results.

The bill is heading back to the House for a vote on the bill with the Senate amendments. Sen. Elsie Arntzen of Billings, tireless proponent of public safety and successful coordinator of the amendments, has the assurance of the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Kelly Flynn, that the new amendments will not be altered when presented to the House. If successful there, it will go to Gov. Bullock for his signature.

Representatives of the Montana Outfitters and Guides Association (MOGA) and the Professional Wilderness Outfitters Association (PWOA) who drafted the bill talk and testify about only using OA’s in somewhat rare emergency situations, but nowhere in the bill is the term ‘emergency’ used or defined in order to justify replacing a guide with an outfitter’s assistant (OA). Without requiring proof of a definable “emergency,” the bill lets any outfitter replace any guide any number of times during a season with an OA for a limited time – up to 15 days – without having to declare or prove an emergency situation or pay for a guide license.

Who cares? We do, and so should the public, right along with Montana legislators. Some reasons why:

• The OA’s are unlicensed, so they dodge a mandatory background check for prior violations as a professional license holder or any criminal convictions in MT or elsewhere – a prerequisite for anyone seeking to be licensed for any profession in Montana. Without this check, even the well-intentioned outfitter may not really know the background of the person they’re putting in the field with clients.

• Licensed guides are required to have first aid training; unlicensed OA’s are not. Clients served by an OA may be at risk in a medical emergency, particularly in rough back country.

• Licensed Outfitters are held accountable for actions of their licensed guides. But, this bill does not hold a hiring outfitter accountable for an OA’s violation of any Board of Outfitters or FWP laws or rules while serving clients. We believe accountability encourages compliance and responsibility with regulations that safeguard the public served by licensees. Without accountability, public welfare is jeopardized.

• Montana outfitter license rules require an outfitter to get written permission from a client before changing their rates. We think the bill should have similar language for personnel changes, requiring the outfitter to tell the client when an OA replaces a licensed guide. It just makes sense to bring the client into the decision whether or not to continue the trip without a licensed guide. We believe full disclosure helps everyone work out a satisfactory solution to any true emergency.

• Since they’re not licensed, OA’s won’t have a valid guide license. The Board of Outfitters must somehow create a document for OA’s to carry in the field to replace that license as proof of compliance with this new law. We can’t think of a way to track on paper the fifteen-day limit for each OA, much less show which day of the 15 is current when an OA is checked in the field. Since no one knows when an emergency will happen, this document will have to be issued to all outfitters each year just in case it’s needed, and the circumstances of the replacement situation may not be known until the end of the license year. This documentation is intended to enforce compliance, but we just don’t see how that might work.

• With no licensing, there’s no fee to “create” or pay for administration of OA’s. The term “outfitter assistant” will have to be added to many board rules and even some Dept. of Fish, Wildlife & Parks rules. So, who’s going to pay for rules covering these new OA’s? All licensed outfitters and guides, one way or another. Simple rule-making can run as high as $1700 and up, not to mention the cost of administering whatever rules are eventually developed.

Worse, without the various sideboards mentioned, some less ethical outfitters may well replace guides with no-cost OA’s, directly reducing the board’s income and requiring all licensees to pay more in fees to make up the difference. Our members don’t want to pay higher license fees to subsidize uncontrolled use of OA’s.

FOAM has dealt with similar emergency guide replacement issues by simply licensing one or more guides to be used in other capacities in the field – think “freighters” who row the gear boats on the Smith river – or as standby help who may be available on short notice. Consider that our outfitters and guides are in the field for up to eight months statewide, starting fishing trips every day, and a survey of our outfitter members shows very infrequent need for an emergency replacement guide that could not be handled by having a spare guide or two available.

MOGA and PWOA representatives backing the bill claim this spare-replacement-guide technique will not work in their business model, even though there is evidence other MOGA members have used these auxiliary licensed guides in a variety of camp capacities or had them on standby for quick replacement.

The FOAM Board of Directors agreed to oppose HB187 for these and other reasons, including the fact that such uncontrolled, unsupervised, and unaccountable behavior may well lead to abuse that can tarnish or degrade the outfitting industry in the public’s eyes. Simply put, we believe public safety and honest dealings are more important than any outfitter’s business model.

FOAM is proud of it’s professional, responsible outfitter and guide members, and we see no reason for the legislature to pass a proposed law that, even with the best intentions, does nothing to account for, discourage, or punish abuse of public safety and welfare by even one outfitter falsely employing an outfitter assistant in a bogus emergency.

We’re not alone in this thinking. The Montana Board of Outfitters is responsible for protecting the public health, safety and welfare by qualifying outfitter and guide license applicants. With this charge in mind, the board met via a conference call on Tuesday, Feb 5, and voted 4 to 2 to oppose HB187 for many of the reasons we’ve stated: no mention or definition of emergency in the bill, the OA is not vetted for prior violations and has no first aid training, and the hiring licensed outfitter cannot be held responsible or disciplined for the unlicensed OA’s behavior, lack of first aid training, or violations of law and rule.

We believe the outfitter board would agree that, by and large, members of the outfitting and guiding industry are responsible professionals who run outstanding, quality operations. But, because the board members deal with disciplinary cases involving outfitters and guides, they are well aware that some licensees use questionable business practices that skirt or break the law.

FOAM has worked for years with our fellow hunting outfitters, and, like a family, when one of your brothers or sisters is headed down the wrong path, we owe it to them to try to set them straight. We have asked MOGA and PWOA representatives to amend this bill to address our concerns. So far, few changes have been made.

We also think this issue is important for the public, because, aside from all the internal administrative questions and costs, there’s still the issue of public safety. Would you want to be on a hunting trip out in the field with an OA with an unknown past who has no first aid training? Would you want a nonresident relative – or any nonresident visiting Montana for our quality hunting – to be with an OA? To us, the potential risk of a client guided by an unlicensed OA must be balanced with some degree of control and accountability. Unfortunately, HB187 does not set that balance.

If you’re a Montanan and you agree with us, go here, then click on “Senate Roster by Name” to find the Montana senator in your district and ask them to oppose passage of HB187 as written.

BOZEMAN—Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (FWP) has enacted an emergency closure of the Yellowstone River to all floating between Mayor’s Landing Fishing Access Site (FAS) and Highway 89 Bridge FAS until further notice. This closure is in response to safety concerns related to the Park Avenue Bridge (Highway 89) construction project. The river is also closed to all public use 100 feet above and below the Park Avenue Bridge.

The construction at this bridge site has influenced the current of the river, making it stronger in certain areas and possibly dangerous to people and property. There have been two incidents in which boats have become trapped against the temporary work bridge ejecting passengers and causing damage to the boats.

FWP warns those that may attempt to use this portion of the river that they are risking their safety and would be subject to a citation and fine. FWP urges floaters to use other stretches of the river above and below this closure.

This portion of the Yellowstone River will reopen when the FWP Commission determines it is safe to float. This will depend on the duration of construction and river conditions at the site.

Mayor’s Landing FAS is located just on the southeast side of the city of Livingston. Highway 89 Bridge FAS is five miles east of Livingston along I-90.

To get started, you sign in with your ALS#, then in the lower right box, select the subscription to basic FWP news, add either email or SMS (text message) as the delivery method, then pick any or all topics: Commission, Hunting, Fishing.

Good way to get basic, current info from FWP folks.

A recent article by Nick Gevock of the Montana Standard was picked up by the Missoulian and the Billings Gazette. And, check out the ongoing comments for each.

With national politics edging ever closer to absolutist partisanship, I’m not surprised to see divisions continue in the stream access battle in Montana. Ironic to me that groups labelled as ‘conservative’ seem to favor conservation of only that which is theirs, and tend to ignore ‘conservation’ for the good of all the people.

We expect continued skirmishes and onslaughts against Montana’s Stream Access Law and its recent inclusion of access at bridges during the upcoming 2013 Montana legislative session. Be prepared, be informed, and be active.

You may download the plan from our website: Statewide Fisheries Plan. It’s a big PDF file, so be patient.

FOAM has long been a member of FWP’s ‘Anglers Forum’, an informal bi-annual get-together of representatives from the various fishing non-profits (TU, Bass Unlimited, Walleyes Unlimited, FOAM, etc.). We met last week to review the plan ourselves and offer comments.

The Statewide Fisheries Plan includes all the varieties of discussions, plans, programs, and processes the fisheries biologists in all FWP regions have used to manage their piscene responsibilities. There’s very little that’s new or earth-shaking here, but it IS the first time all such materials have been presented in a single document.

Actually, that’s the purpose of the plan – to sketch out the current state of our fisheries management and set ‘direction’ for the future.

The plan is broken into several sections: Part I describes the various current fisheries resources, their management program, their habitat program, and the fishing access and recreation management program.

Part II is the meat of the document – it breaks the state into 40 ‘drainages’ defined by major waterbodies or management areas. Each drainage has a description of its physical description, fisheries management, habitat, access, and special management issues.

Most important for our forum review was the charted ‘Fisheries Management Direction’ for each drainage. Each drainage chart lists the water(s) involved, miles/acres of drainage, fish species present, origin of each species, and the management direction FWP has applied to date. This is where to look for specific items of interest for your drainage. At the bottom of each listed water, check the ‘Habitat needs and activities’ section to review what’s happening or will happen to the resource.

Next, review the Management Direction column, looking for terms like ‘When feasible’, ‘Where practical’, ‘Establish’, ‘Enhance’, and similar phrases to see what FWP has in mind for the future of the drainage.

Since I’m in Gallatin Gateway, I looked at the Gallatin drainage and saw nothing drastic or threatening. I might mention that FWP plans to continue working with Westslope Cutthroat recovery and recruitment in tributaries throughout the area until the fish survive in 20% of their original habitat. Drastic? Invasive? Trouble for the future? All depends on your point of view.

And, that’s exactly what FWP wants from the public: An honest review of the document and your feedback about the fisheries management directions outlined in the plan. Comments will be accepted until 5 p.m. on Octobe 12th. FWP prefers you use their online comment page or send your comments by mail to:

Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks
Attention: Fish Plan Comments
1420 E. 6th Ave.
PO Box 200701
Helena, MT 59620-0701

If you need more info, go to FWP’s Statewide Fisheries Management Plan page on their website. There, you can call up any individual drainage for review.

One of the agreements made at the first meeting was to render online discussion of the group’s progress as simple bullet points. Why? In many member’s experience, detailed explanations about individual member statements, positions, or opinions only cloud or distort the work at hand. Remember, the CAC is working on draft recommendations at this point and nothing is settled.

And, the public is welcome to all meetings and encouraged to witness the CAC discussions and offer comments of their own. Future meetings are scheduled for

• July 18, 4 – 9 p.m. in Ennis
• August 21, same time and place
• September 26 and 27, daylong meetings in Bozeman

As a consequence of this statement policy, I’ve not offered any updates until now. I asked my fellow members yesterday if I could report on this blog any progress or developments, and the unanimous response was ‘Yes’, so long as I stuck to a simple outline of events to date.

Yesterday, we welcomed a new CAC member from West Yellowstone. Jon Juracek, longtime fishing business operator, was selected by FWP from the prior list of applicants. CAC members agreed that John’s representation of West Yellowstone fills a gap and will only enhance the process.

We then shared our individual interests, looking to understand their origin and impact, and identifying common themes among them. In this process, interests are stated as “It’s in my interest to . . . because . . . ” For example, a member might say, “It’s in my interest to keep the river clean and the fishery healthy because I like to fish there often.”

We also spent time addressing the basic tasks outlined for the CAC (see our charter) and reviewing data on use levels for a variety of recreational participants, access site distribution, fisheries information, and characteristics of the river itself.

For complete details on the progress of the CAC and other available information, check the FWP Madison River CAC site. You’ll find a list of the CAC members and the CAC Charter, as well as the most recent meeting minutes.