Quiet Waters Act Proposed by The Back country Hunters and Anglers

[RobG]

Well fowl has uncovered the real mission here, which is just to distract from Benghazi.

 

[fowl_minded]

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

I thought we were all about sharing?

All about it figured I'd throw one out there. Sorry you got your waders filled

 

[fowl_minded]

Well fowl has uncovered the real mission here, which is just to distract from Benghazi.

You must be one of guides on the river

 

[Drake4]

Fowl_minded....just a piece of advice, take it or leave it. I'm pretty open minded to this issue and can see arguments on both sides. My opinion...there is plenty of room for a reasonable compromise somewhere in the middle, if folks would work together and have meaningful and adult conversations.

Your drivel has pretty much put me off of anything you are arguing. I hope the thing passes. If everyone who is against the proposal acts the way you do, then they deserve it.
Carry on....

 

[RobG]

You must be one of guides on the river

Man, you are way out in left field on so many parts of this. The trouble is, you have just as much of a voice as the people who aren't so ignorant about the proposal. not to mention what I do for work. But everyone is entitled to comment, no matter how little they know about the actual details, so submit one. And if you don't mind, include the part about Benghazi. You might be on to something that FWP should be aware of.

 

[fowl_minded]

Let's not turn this into a pissing match with one liners here. What's everyone's thoughts on the quiet waters act?

 

[Borny1]

I thought the whole purpose of Hunt Talk was for public land and access. I see now that some are only for access for their type of recreation and to Hell with how other sportsmen recreate. ThE BHA is an absolute infringement on my access rights and I am opposed to it.

 

[mdunc8]

Let's not turn this into a pissing match with one liners here.

That ship sailed last night when you started this thread...

What's everyone's thoughts on the quiet waters act?

You've already gotten some solid advice. However, you fail to acknowledge its existence. Why should anyone waste anymore time with this thread?

 

[JoseCuervo]

I didn't know Quiet_One had a brother.

Holy crap, that is a name from the past.

 

[JoseCuervo]

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.

"Quiet" was defined by Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart in 1964:

I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of sounds I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description, and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I hear it.

I may be off a bit on my quote, but you get the gist of it.

 

[Steelhead]

Didn't you say that you have a driftboat? Sounds like you've got your bases covered
Ninja Strike!!

 

[Frenchy]

Man I was really hoping this topic would hit this forum. Was excited to see it pop up. Unfortunately the manner in which it was delivered was not conducive to a productive discussion on the merits of the proposal. Pretty bummed about that.

My thoughts are contrary to the majority of what is proposed by "Quiet Waters", but was hoping to see/hear the other side. I'm truly curious to hear how much of a conflict between users currently exists on these waters. How many times a year are you effected by motorized use in the proposed sections slated for restrictions. I'm sure there are some, but I'd be surprised to hear if its more than a few random incidence per year. I may be mistaken though. It just not someone that is a fan of pro-active restrictions as solutions to potential future problems.

Ben, what were the conditions that caused you to be swamped by a jet boat?

 

[Jezz]

I see this as a snowball effect, but see both sides. I raft, driftboat, wade and run jet boat. I have been flipped off and had obscenities yelled at me more times than I care to count by floaters, which is most always after I am pulled in an eddy giving them the right away. I realize that not all jetboaters nor floaters are disrespectful or respectful. But I am always conscious of what's ahead and what's coming down the river, but there are circumstances (sharp corners) where we meet. Do unto others as you want done unto you are words I try to live by and I am not religious, but it's good practice to live by. Bank/wading fisherman in a hole I want to fish I move onto the next, just as seeing a truck that beat me to a hunting spot. Just be respectful of others, it is a dying practice. Many times I have been almost swamped by wake surfer that has the whole lake and has to get within 50' of my boat, knocking my dog off balance and out of the boat. It's just common sense that's lacking. I do appreciate the topless flashes that I get from time to time on the river. :hump:

There sure is a lot of entitlement these days no matter which side of the fence you stand on.

 

[hank4elk]

Oh boy,canoe,jetski,sailors...boat people!
Don't get me started.
Years of Lake Patrol with mixed use and everyone is a skipper that know the rules of inland waterways,Yeah Right,but can't read a "No Wake" "No PWC's allowed" "35 MPH Lake Seed Limit" .......lol
Most boaters do not even know the direction of travel,right of way laws on the water.

Good thing there isn't much water in NM.

 

[RobG]

Man I was really hoping this topic would hit this forum. Was excited to see it pop up. Unfortunately the manner in which it was delivered was not conducive to a productive discussion on the merits of the proposal. Pretty bummed about that.

My thoughts are contrary to the majority of what is proposed by "Quiet Waters", but was hoping to see/hear the other side. I'm truly curious to hear how much of a conflict between users currently exists on these waters. How many times a year are you effected by motorized use in the proposed sections slated for restrictions. I'm sure there are some, but I'd be surprised to hear if its more than a few random incidence per year. I may be mistaken though. It just not someone that is a fan of pro-active restrictions as solutions to potential future problems.

Ben, what were the conditions that caused you to be swamped by a jet boat?

Frenchy - the majority of the proposed regulations are on small streams where they are trying to head off conflicts. For example, the Swan River already has restrictions from the lake to Porcupine bridge. The petition only asks for the restrictions to extend to the headwaters. That just makes sense as motorized use on the smaller portion makes even less sense that down lower.

Regarding jet boats, the only place I've had an issue with them is on the South Fork of the Snake in Idaho. That is a big rolling river like the Yellowstone and they didn't affect the fishing much when they went by, but holy cow some of them were idiots and it is a miracle they haven't taken out a drift boat. On places like the Missouri the river is much flatter and any boat going by would seriously disrupt the fishing by putting the fish down.

The opposition has tried to paint this as one sportsman against another. The problem with that line of thought is that one jet boater flying upstream can impact 100 drift fisherman, yet the drift fisherman have no impact on jet boaters. In other words, the impacts are disproportional so it is not true that one group has as much right to use the water as another group. I don't know if the proposed jet boat restrictions are warranted, but the disproportionate impact needs to be a consideration.

 

[RobG]

Perhaps one of the ironies of the jet boats on the SF Snake was the "considerate" jet boaters going upstream would slow down as they passed fishermen. In reality all this did was make the waves WAY bigger and longer in duration than if they had just cruised on by.

 

[RobG]

There has been a lot of discussion on the Facebook page of Montana Chapter of Backcountry Hunters and Anglers the last few weeks - scroll down their timeline to see what is being discussed. John Sullivan has answered a lot of questions, and feel free to ask him more.

 

[Frenchy]

I see this as a snowball effect, but see both sides. I raft, driftboat, wade and run jet boat. I have been flipped off and had obscenities yelled at me more times than I care to count by floaters, which is most always after I am pulled in an eddy giving them the right away. I realize that not all jetboaters nor floaters are disrespectful or respectful. But I am always conscious of what's ahead and what's coming down the river, but there are circumstances (sharp corners) where we meet. Do unto others as you want done unto you are words I try to live by and I am not religious, but it's good practice to live by. Bank/wading fisherman in a hole I want to fish I move onto the next, just as seeing a truck that beat me to a hunting spot. Just be respectful of others, it is a dying practice. Many times I have been almost swamped by wake surfer that has the whole lake and has to get within 50' of my boat, knocking my dog off balance and out of the boat. It's just common sense that's lacking. I do appreciate the topless flashes that I get from time to time on the river. :hump:

There sure is a lot of entitlement these days no matter which side of the fence you stand on.

Thanks Jezz. Pretty much my sentiments on the issue as well.

 

[Frenchy]

Frenchy - the majority of the proposed regulations are on small streams where they are trying to head off conflicts. For example, the Swan River already has restrictions from the lake to Porcupine bridge. The petition only asks for the restrictions to extend to the headwaters. That just makes sense as motorized use on the smaller portion makes even less sense that down lower.

Regarding jet boats, the only place I've had an issue with them is on the South Fork of the Snake in Idaho. That is a big rolling river like the Yellowstone and they didn't affect the fishing much when they went by, but holy cow some of them were idiots and it is a miracle they haven't taken out a drift boat. On places like the Missouri the river is much flatter and any boat going by would seriously disrupt the fishing by putting the fish down.

The opposition has tried to paint this as one sportsman against another. The problem with that line of thought is that one jet boater flying upstream can impact 100 drift fisherman, yet the drift fisherman have no impact on jet boaters. In other words, the impacts are disproportional so it is not true that one group has as much right to use the water as another group. I don't know if the proposed jet boat restrictions are warranted, but the disproportionate impact needs to be a consideration.

Those small streams that have little to no current motorized use and no regulations currently in place are one thing. If this proposal simply addressed those areas, I'm betting there would be very little opposition. But there are sections of rivers in this proposal that would all but eliminate motorized use in areas that currently do get used. Forgive me if I don't support the thought that jets "seriously disrupt the fishing by putting the fish down", nor do I feel that is a viable reason for mandating that jets be removed from the waterways. The Missouri River near Craig/Wolfcreek is the river I have the most experience with. The shear number of drift boats in that stretch pretty much limits the jet boar users in this area. However, I am one of those jet boat users on occasion. Its a good way for me and my young family to use the river (from the front lawn of the family house) for short outings. 2 year old's do not have a long attention span. We defiantly float the river in drift boats / kayaks / canoes, but those outings require a shuttle, and a couple hours to float. Its no small en devour. With the jet we can putter up to a hole fish, drift down and fish, and still get home easy enough when the kids peter out. This proposal would definitely limit my ability to take my young family out on this river. We'd still do it by floating as mentioned above, but not nearly as often. And of the times i've spent on the river I have never had a bad encounter with other users. I'm sure some disproved of my being there, but not because my actions caused them harm rather just my (jet-boat) presence alone. And we catch plenty of fish floating right after running the river in the jet.

And I do feel this is sportsmen against sportsmen. You arguments in favor of this proposal directly prioritize the driftboat/wade fishermen over alternative users of the river.

In the end if this proposal goes into effect, I won't loose any sleep. But I will always feel that it was unwarranted along this particular stretch of river.

 

[Frenchy]

Perhaps one of the ironies of the jet boats on the SF Snake was the "considerate" jet boaters going upstream would slow down as they passed fishermen. In reality all this did was make the waves WAY bigger and longer in duration than if they had just cruised on by.

That is a conundrum. I try to be as courteous as possible. Even to the point where I don't take the boat out during times where its use might be a problem during heavy traffic periods. I've even turned around and not continued upstream/downstream if ive seen a wade fisherman on the bank.

There is room for all if all just behave. Which I know is a lot to ask of some.

Thanks for the comments Rob. I appreciate the input.