Quiet Waters Act Proposed by The Back country Hunters and Anglers

[Ben Lamb]

Maybe I'm missing something, but the Marias really doesn't seem like prime jet boat water at all. It's pretty skinny water. If I were a landowner, I'd be worried about bank erosion and cattle disturbance. If I was a wading angler, I'd be nervous in the service to have them running the river.

A jet boat running through the Marias River WMA would ruin anyone's hunt, same thing below Tiber.

 

[Art Vandeley]

Maybe I'm missing something, but the Marias really doesn't seem like prime jet boat water at all. It's pretty skinny water. If I were a landowner, I'd be worried about bank erosion and cattle disturbance. If I was a wading angler, I'd be nervous in the service to have them running the river.

A jet boat running through the Marias River WMA would ruin anyone's hunt, same thing below Tiber.

That's the point of having a jet boat. To run through skinny water.

 

[belly-deep]

Maybe I'm missing something, but the Marias really doesn't seem like prime jet boat water at all. It's pretty skinny water. If I were a landowner, I'd be worried about bank erosion and cattle disturbance. If I was a wading angler, I'd be nervous in the service to have them running the river.

A jet boat running through the Marias River WMA would ruin anyone's hunt, same thing below Tiber.

Cattle disturbance? Really?

The only river I've had problems with on the Flathead near Columbia Falls. There's dozens of lakes around there for motorized watercraft to recreate on. However, jet skiers seemed intent on buzzing up and down the river every summer.

I get the jet boat thing because people are usually using them for some particular purpose.

 

[RobG]

Maybe I'm missing something, but the Marias really doesn't seem like prime jet boat water at all. It's pretty skinny water. If I were a landowner, I'd be worried about bank erosion and cattle disturbance. If I was a wading angler, I'd be nervous in the service to have them running the river.

A jet boat running through the Marias River WMA would ruin anyone's hunt, same thing below Tiber.

Perhaps - I have never been there. I talked with a jet boater who does use it so it is being used. One of the points by the opposition is that complaints aren't being filed. If it is causing problems it probably would have been received better coming from the people who have been affected. That's just armchair quarterbacking on my part. I don't know what discussions were had on this proposal.

On that note, belly deep, you should consider commenting on your jet ski experience. It is interesting that the lower river has more restrictions than the river up by C-falls.

 

[Ben Lamb]

That's the point of having a jet boat. To run through skinny water.

Right, just seems like you'd be dragging your boat downstream in several spots. Again, I surely could be wrong.

 

[MTGomer]

I can see getting ahead of emerging technology to restrict it from small tributaries. Its probably not in the best interest of anything for jet powered surf boards, fan boats and hovercraft ripping up tiny creeks.
But what purpose does the hp limit on the Yellowstone from Park county line to Reed Point and on the Missouri in the Wolf Creek area serve?
That portion of the proposal seems like a solution, in search of a problem that doesn't exist and isn't going to exist anytime soon. Those are big water areas.

 

[u1299]

I'll admit I'm not up on this proposal like a lot of folks so to speak to it directly, I won't. I will address a point though that fowl minded mentioned in the original post. First I couldn't agree more with his statement (rant) about outfitters pounding the piss out of these rivers, that's a huge problem and outfitters are the main reason IMO for the overcrowding on all rivers everywhere, don't know how anyone can argue that point.

A few years back myself and other concerned anglers (mostly spin, bait and catch and keep) old codger fisherman, were instrumental in getting a regulation changed on the Yellowstone River that had changed the slot limit for trout that we and FWP Biologists agreed was unwarranted, and that directly benefitted the fly fishing catch and release crowd and Outfitters, Dan Vermillion specifically. Mr. Vermillion was front and center in that controversy and a main target of our anger and dis-pleasure with that regulation. Not sure if that situation has anything to do with this thread discussion but thought I'd mention it as Mr. Vermillion was mentioned in fowls original post. As a side note, we had several meeting at the FWP office in Billings, talked to the Commissioners and FWP personnel, wrote letters and gave testimony on this issue and eventually were able to get it reversed, which if nothing else is evidence that getting involved in these types of sportsmen issues and making your voice heard can make a difference. One thing is for sure, had we not got involved nothing would have changed.

 

[RobG]

I can see getting ahead of emerging technology to restrict it from small tributaries. Its probably not in the best interest of anything for jet powered surf boards, fan boats and hovercraft ripping up tiny creeks.
But what purpose does the hp limit on the Yellowstone from Park county line to Reed Point and on the Missouri in the Wolf Creek area serve?
That portion of the proposal seems like a solution, in search of a problem that doesn't exist and isn't going to exist anytime soon. Those are big water areas.

You have echoed the comments of many. Unfortunately, the second part is overshadowing the first part.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Paragraphs are nice too.

This.

 

[fowl_minded]

Buzz
You think I'm delusional, never once have I said its mine nor do my rights exceed any others on usage, I've never played the victim card at either. I'm simply voicing my opinion from the side the I stand for and I would love for nothing more then everyone get along and use these resources together. I do have a right to use my jet and I do it with respect for everyone else. As far as the examples I used Benghazi, my kids those were my choice of words and at the time I started this thread they were just examples. I don't know how you think I'm playing victim that's definitely not how I'm trying to come off on this deal.

I am sure that since you first stared fishing the rivers have changed a shitload just like everything else in this world. There is a little more of everything whether it be on the water or the trail (boats, drift boats, rafts, OHVS) My biggest point is why are we trying to take things away from one another?

Also i still haven't seen anyone be able to define the "quiet" in "Quiet Waters Act," because if everyone wants to have quiet waters then why would they still allow the 10hp or less motors that make just as much noise as a larger boat. If we're gonna do that then just eliminate it all i guess.

 

[fowl_minded]

To be perfectly clear, Judge McKinnon's election was bolstered by people like James Cox Kennedy & Charles Schwab due to their dislike of our stream access law. Kennedy is a major donor to Ducks Unlimited, not BHA to my knowledge.

I'll let the guys who know the proposal well defend it. It didn't seem like a bad idea to me, as a wading fisherman who has been swamped by jet boats in the past.

My advice to you is don't wade out so deep then.

 

[fowl_minded]

Fowl - not to put too fine a point on it, but you are acting delusional by suggesting anyone involved in BHA was responsible for that, and PLWA would certainly verify that if you were to contact them. I have no idea how you could connect the dots there. Perhaps you are confusing BHA with Ducks Unlimited who has Cox-Kennedy on their board and in fact fired a writer who criticized him for it.

The point is that special interest groups are able to raise money and buy whatever they want.

 

[Frenchy]

I can see getting ahead of emerging technology to restrict it from small tributaries. Its probably not in the best interest of anything for jet powered surf boards, fan boats and hovercraft ripping up tiny creeks.
But what purpose does the hp limit on the Yellowstone from Park county line to Reed Point and on the Missouri in the Wolf Creek area serve?
That portion of the proposal seems like a solution, in search of a problem that doesn't exist and isn't going to exist anytime soon. Those are big water areas.

Pretty much my feelings as well. There are definitely streams out there where little to no motorized use currently exists. I have no problem with the decision to limit those streams so no future use occurs. But that is not all that this Initiative does. The areas of the Missouri river that would be limited by this proposal are prime stretches of river that are very suitable for jet boat use. I frequent that stretch as my family has a house on the bank of the river below Craig, and honestly it doesn't see that much jet boat use in the summer due to swarms of drift boats. There are some, and most are courteous, and most only on the lower portion of that stretch. Limiting use all the way to pelican point is not a proposal I can stand behind.

On another note, I like and want to support BHA, but this quiet waters initiative in its current form is not something I can support and so I can not support BHA at this time either. Just my honest feelings on the matter.

 

[The Hedgehog]

I am just going start out by saying that i have posted this on many of the threads on here, because i believe this thing needs to blow up and everyone needs to be aware of this situation. If you haven't heard already the BHA has submitted a proprosal before the commissioners of the state appointed by no one else besides Gov. Bullock. One of these board members of the commission is Dan Vermillion (Dan is very involved the BHA as well, funny how that works). Im sure that some people on here know him, and he could be an ok guy. But what he is doing is totally wrong and guided by his own self interest so he can make more money. Dan is an outfitter in the Livingston area he also runs a guide school that teaches guide to run jets, and yet he wants them taken away.WHAT! SERIOUSLY? YES The BHA has proposed many shut downs on rivers and streams to motorized watercraft and it has also limited the horse power rating as well.( nothing more then a 10hp motor) There's a lot of grey area on this issue as well, how it got accepted by fwp when they were later turning it in,theres a lot of big money going towards this, including a 900k donation so a judge somehow? WHAT THE HELL IS THAT! Another issue is where did they get all the information for this, like it wont affect small business boat shops, hotels , restaurants their response to that was well we just know that it wont affect them and that is the way it is! Another weird thing is how quiet they are trying to keep it. Its not in any of the papers and its not on their social media accounts so whats the deal here? I will post the link below for all the details.


First of all can someone explain to me the definition of "quiet" in the phrase "quiet waters act" this board or commission (or what ever their chicken shit ass is) which by the way they've never been to any of the public comment meeting makes it sound like the reason for this petition its so noisy because of the bigger boats in the water. I mean how many miles of freaking train track or highways and interstates are running along the rivers and streams. And second you can't tell me that some over worked 10hp motor is any quieter then my 175hp jet. so please explain to me "quiet" waters.

http://fwp.mt.gov/news/publicNotices/rules/pn_0218.html

now heres my 2 cents on this isssue
I for one have a jet boat I've also had a raft and a drift boat i use all of them a great deal whether its hunting or fishing or just out taking the family and having a good time. i love the water i grew up on it and i intend for my kids to as well. Its my right use it appropriately and with the respect for my fellow outdoors man and land owners along the waters. this issue is huge concern because who know if the get this thing through whats next? more stretches of rivers, elimination of 2 strokes, who knows. Last night i attended a public comment meeting at the FWP office in Billings and there was about 200 people there as well. A lot of them not happy and very strongly voicing their opinions to the BHA via video conference. a big thing that jumps out to me is that this issue divides sportsman, when we should becoming together as a whole. We have a lot bigger things to worry about weather it be access issues, losing places to hunt and fish and recreate to big money moving into the state, the list goes on and on. Why would anyone want to do that, why would anyone want to devide us? The next thing you know they'll shut down huge portions of the Missouri and Yellowstone and Bighorn, on and on and on. if anything should be limited its the amount of outfitters and guides that are just piss pounding these rivers and streams. Look at good earth and count how many drift boats are in the upper three miles stretch of the Bighorn its ridiculous. I've been out on the rivers for about 15 years and never once have i ever had an issue with another jet boater, I've have more run ins with guides and clients that think just because they're making money on it or the client is paying for a guide that its their river or their secret hole. NEWSFLASH IT ISNT YOURS I for one am totally against it and anything it stands for and im with a huge group of guys that will stand up and fight for this. i dont know why we cant all just get along for once and use these precious gifts along side with one another. After the meeting i came home and watched a movie....... 13 Hours the Benghazi story.BADASS While Im watching it and watching the hell those incredibly brave individuals went through fighting for our freedom and for us to be able to use these resources we are sitting around here arguing about it. COME ON GUYS AND GALS Cant we all just get along and share. I hope this goes viral in the Montana outdoor community and people step up and say this is just plan wrong. please share with your buddies and family, if this passes we are gonna lose access around the state in numbers that i cant imagine! We're fighting already to keep what we got and now we have a group of outdoors man trying to take it away. WHERE DOES ANY OF THAT MAKE SENSE I for one have respect for anyone using the water and i would never want to have a conflict or try to tell someone how to recreate and i expect the same from them as well. i hope this opens a huge can of worms. If its a fight they want well give it to them. Thanks

I didn't know Quiet_One had a brother.

 

[fowl_minded]

I didn't know Quiet_One had a brother.

Not very quiet towards certain things

 

[tjones]

I didn't know Quiet_One had a brother.

Dang I forgot about her. It was always a challenge yet fun to read her posts.

 

[jryoung]

I can see getting ahead of emerging technology to restrict it from small tributaries. Its probably not in the best interest of anything for jet powered surf boards, fan boats and hovercraft ripping up tiny creeks.
But what purpose does the hp limit on the Yellowstone from Park county line to Reed Point and on the Missouri in the Wolf Creek area serve?
That portion of the proposal seems like a solution, in search of a problem that doesn't exist and isn't going to exist anytime soon. Those are big water areas.

This seems like a good item to compromise on then as part of the proposal, no? Has anyone reached out to the chapter leaders and offered these thoughts, or would changes be done during these comment periods?

 

[The Hedgehog]

Not very quiet towards certain things

I kinda figured that would zip right over..

 

[BuzzH]

My advice to you is don't wade out so deep then.

Exactly why this proposal has legs and will likely pass.

I was going to give some valuable advice regarding all or nothing, how to approach this with reason, etc. etc....not now.

Good luck to you, learn the lesson the hard way...and start looking for a drift boat.

 

[Ben Lamb]

My advice to you is don't wade out so deep then.

I thought we were all about sharing?