I love a Smith float and hopefully Autumn, Ed Jr. and I will be able to float it for years to come. Anyway FWP has posted the new management plan, which has some good ideas and they are looking for public comment...anyway, here are my comments and if you agree or disagree, please at least voice your opinion www.fwp.mt.gov
In Article IX, Section 3, Part 3 of the Montana Constitution, it is identified that all surface, underground, flood, and atmospheric waters within the boundaries of the state are the property of the state for the use of its people. Being that there is restricted use on the Smith, it is unconstitutional for FWP to allocate outfitters 15% of launches, since that allocation provides an unfair advantage to a non-resident who is wealthy enough to afford an outfitter over your average Montanan. Shouldn't the people who live and pay taxes in Montana have at least an equal opportunity to float the Smith River? One outfitter’s price for a Smith trip is $4,100 per person. I have been able to put together a private Smith trip for less than $100/person including shuttle.
My recommendation to remain compliant with the intent of Section 23-2-402, MCA, of the Smith River Management Act is to restrict outfitter use the same as public use. Let the outfitters, their guides, and potential clients enter the permit lottery. If a member of the public receives a Smith River Permit and wants to hire an outfitter, then let the outfitters compete for their clients. This type of unbiased and equal opportunity lottery system would level the playing field between commercial and private use.
The current system gurantees a wealthy non-resident a trip down the Smith with an outfitter, whereas an average Montanan statistically may never receive a permit in their lifetime, which I believe is wrong
My second comment is that the continued allowance of unlined pit toilets in a fee based use system constitutes FWP operating a solid waste management system without a license in violation of 75-10-221, MCA, of the Montana Solid Waste Management Act. These pit-toilets are attractants to disease vectors, and are a huge waste of FWP human resources digging them and maintaining them every year. The Salmon River system in Idaho has required that human waste be packed out for years, and it has been a very successful program. The bottom line is that there are only so many holes that FWP can dig before there is a significant public health issue at the camp sites.
Thanks
My recommendation to remain compliant with the intent of Section 23-2-402, MCA, of the Smith River Management Act is to restrict outfitter use the same as public use. Let the outfitters, their guides, and potential clients enter the permit lottery. If a member of the public receives a Smith River Permit and wants to hire an outfitter, then let the outfitters compete for their clients. This type of unbiased and equal opportunity lottery system would level the playing field between commercial and private use.
The current system gurantees a wealthy non-resident a trip down the Smith with an outfitter, whereas an average Montanan statistically may never receive a permit in their lifetime, which I believe is wrong
My second comment is that the continued allowance of unlined pit toilets in a fee based use system constitutes FWP operating a solid waste management system without a license in violation of 75-10-221, MCA, of the Montana Solid Waste Management Act. These pit-toilets are attractants to disease vectors, and are a huge waste of FWP human resources digging them and maintaining them every year. The Salmon River system in Idaho has required that human waste be packed out for years, and it has been a very successful program. The bottom line is that there are only so many holes that FWP can dig before there is a significant public health issue at the camp sites.
Thanks
Groover
6 comments:
What, no opinion on dogs?
Oh boy Ed, I kick you in $%$^%# next time I see you...here you go again. Have your cake and eat it too eh??? Now look at what you made me do.
Question 1 - Isn't / Aren't there streams in MT that have resident only fishing / floating times? I'd say that is unfair to us poor out-of-stater's who might want to come to MT, don a tweed cap and shadow cast a dry fly. What if the closures were the only day's I could get off cause I work weekends. UNFAIR! I Yell, UNFAIR!
Question 2 - Is it only non-residents who are wealthy enough to afford to hire an outfitter? You seem to put a negative connotation on "non-resident" who would indeed be spending money IN the state, thus helping the economy. Reference this article to see effects of your members only proposition: http://fwp.mt.gov/mtoutdoors/HTML/articles/2003/crosscurrents.htm
Don't seem to see any non-residents falling on their swords to help with overcrowding on OUR rivers in Idaho. Outfitters have a set aside in the four rivers lottery too. Perhaps you should write them a letter too. BUT the USFS managed rivers are mandated to provide outfitted opportunity to the public as well as the priviledged few who own their own equipment, have the time, skill and money to pull off a less than $100 per person trip. A discussion of the economics of what $4100 per head is warranted too. That's a lot of $$$ coming into and staying in the state. Wonder how much money "floats" downstream to Kooskia with all the beer piss.
Perhaps you should look at this from a different perspective...It is nice to know that some rivers will be managed for a quality experience money or not. Something to strive for and be super happy you drew a permit. If it were any easier to draw it would be no different than say...the Lochsa?
Kinda sounds like you are advocating a free-for-all in the Big Sky state where all rivers and accesses are wide open to to all.
By the way. Being the voice of the "average Montanan" How many permitted rivers have you floated during permit season in the last five years? How many times on the Smith? Doesn't seem that hard if you are one of the few who are "wealthy" enough to have all of your own gear.
I leave the poopy alone. Some poor dude needs summer work knockin' down the cone though.
I have applied for a Smith Permit 8 times and have never received one. I am just lucky enough to have friends that are luckier than me, and we usually have gone out of the prime season
As far as all of the Salmon stretches I've done, well I believe we have gotten all of those permits, except one, through cancellations and/or they were in the off-season. The desert stretches we have run have also been in the off-season or through cancellations.
You seem hung up on the fact that we go run the Lochsa and don't spend any money in Idaho. There aren't any services between Lolo Pass and the take-out, except for the Lochsa Lodge.
And yes, there is one river in Montana where there is a rotating ~10 mile stretch that is closed to non-resident float boaters and all outfitters during the prime fishing season and it is wonderful. To respond to your example...well if you could only fish on the weekend, you would just have to drive a few miles further or a few miles less and fish a different stretch of river. Or you could just line your family and friends up shoulder to shoulder and plunk your bait in a hole while sitting on your cooler, like they do steelheading over on the S. Fork Clearwater.
I am not suure if you actually read my comments, but I am not advocating a free-for-all. I am advocating that outfitters and their clients have no better or worse chance to float the Smith than a Montana tax payer.
The reason I bring up wealth is because the Smith River is a natural resource, and one person should not have more of an advantage to float it, just because they have more cash in the bank. What if they let people buy unlimited over-the-counter moose tags in ID for $4,000...but the average guy can only get one every seven years, if he is unbelievably lucky.
The reason why I bring up non-resident is because the Montana Constitution is for Montanans, and surface water is the property of the state for the use of its people.
Cheers!
You'd have made a good lawyer and this is good discussion. My intent is not to beat you down, but to present another side to your arguement. Yes, I read, understand and even somewhat agree with your comments. However.... you are missing what I'M saying...
You are correct, there are no services along the Lochsa which is why I suggested to the Forest Service that a permit system implemented to place VALUE to a otherwise FREE resource.
You have rendered everything to black and white and seemingly define wealth strictly in monetary terms. I don't think lawyers use the term "intrinsic" too much. Maybe I'm just a romantic but I think there are plenty of other ways to define wealth...but I digress. Back to that later. Speaking strictly in terms of dollars, the outfitters you claim have an unfair advantage are actually paying double for their opportunity... "Smith River outfitters are subjected to a dual permit system, including a Restricted Use
Permit issued by FWP for commercial use of the river and a Special Use Permit issued
by the USFS for commercial use of boat camps located on National Forest lands."(Draft EA, pg 38) Someone has to pay for management of this precious resource and since tourism is the third largest source of income for MT, I'd say that is justice served. Your tax dollars don't pay for management of the river any more than they pay for the management of the Lochsa. Argue for a sales tax in MT if you want to make adifference. Just about every permitted river in America has an outfitter set-aside so that the "rich" can schedule say a "family adventure" when it's convienient, not just when lady-luck shines down upon them. You've been on plenty of permitted rivers and shown that where there's a will, there's a way. That's why they publish drawing odds, yet eveyone still puts in for peak times. Hmmmm....
What if someday you wanted to take Jr. down the Grand Canyon? how would you approach that one? Sorry to break it to you, but the pay to play economics applies to just about everything in the world. Have you ever been been on a guided trip? honk, honk? Those people you claim that are getting an unfair advantage are paying handsomely for it. The outfitters pay for it, the state gains income and the natural resource gains value, but I digress again. How would you measure value? Judging from the increase in permit applicants, I'd say the Smith has lot of value...but you would keep it to Montanans only? No, you want those people to have equal chance. OK, What if they don't have their own boat? "Sorry Mr. and Mrs. Kensington from Nebraska, you'll have to apply like everyone else, for years, then if you are lucky enough to draw a permit(if they haven't become discouraged by then and taken their vacation money to another state,) you'll have to hire an outfitter to guide you down the river, that is if one is available, since most have gone out of business because they lost their allocations. You can cancel and give your permit to one of the crafty locals who are wealthy enough to own $10,000 worth of equipment and can float the river on a shoestring budget at a moments notice. Thanks for trying! Try next year, maybe an outfitter will be available!" Is that what you're after? I'd say you need to learn to share a "little" better. And by a "little" you aren't really losing that much..."Commercial outfitting has accounted for an average of 15.38 % of the total number of
floaters on the Smith River over the past 15 years (1993-2007). There has been a
noticeable decline in Outfitters’ use of the 73 allocated launches. In 2008, only 53 of 73
launches were utilized and the 16-year average (1993-2008) is 49 launches." (Draft EA, pg 37)
Finally, I am deeply disturbed by your last statement about the Montana constitution and that it's Montana's resource for Montanans...please clarify! Otherwise what's good for the goose is good for the gander!!! If you don't want non-residents in "your" state touching "your" water well then....(by the way we call 'em "outta-staters")I'm sure I just mis-interpreted....Even a dumb, uninitiated, small town Idaho redneck like myself appreciates the value of the mighty outta-state dollar. I don't have to like it, but I accept the fact that the throngs of outta-staters who descend on our small communities every year to fish, hunt and float are a necessary evil. Without them, these broke-dick communities would be even more pathetic and groceries would be even more expensive. I feel very wealthy to be able to live where I do and to see deer(I wish they would quit eating the shrubs though),
elk and even cougars out my window. That is a pretty substantial form of wealth. I am glad that there are places like the Smith, Selway, etc., that are being managed for high quality recreation experiences and support their continued management. I would gladly give up 15% of my opportunity to ensure the Lochsa, deer herds, moose, elk or any other resource did not get abused the way it does "over here." In fact the Idaho F&G apparently has realized there are more than just dollars at stake too. They have proposed trophy areas that cost extra to hunt in. You want to shoot a BIG deer and have a quality hunt, you gotta pay extra to hunt in unit XX. You wanna just shoot any old deer, same price, have to go to unit ZZ though. I know where I'd go. I support it 100% as I would a 15% outta-stater set aside for $4000 moose tags(kinda like Governor's Tags). That's a lot of money that could be used to fund studies proving genetic diversity exists in wolves. But I digress again.
Bottom line is you feel put out that someone gets to go to the front of the line because they pay for it...well the way I see it, as long as they're paying for your quality experience(whenever it may be) and piece of mind that it will always be there in pristine condition, you should be appreciative. Perhaps you should take more of judo approach vs. karate and write a nice letter to the MOGA and explain your point and ask that they share with their "captive audience" the importance of the river.
Oh yeah. The MT Constitution also has provisions for and Outfitter and Guide Board and Board of Tourism.
Enough, I'm exhausted. I usually save this level of ranting to fight the wolf lovers. We can discuss the rest over beers...
You have some good points, but I don't think that you need to place a fee-permit system on the Lochsa, just so people feel that there is a monetary value. By the time I purchase the food, beer, fuel and rest of all the stuff I need/want to go to the Lochsa, I know the costs for the weekend.
Would I pay for a parking pass that goes towards turnout maintenance, and river access improvements...in a heart beat.
As for the rest, I believe that outfitters are necessary, and an excellent resource for people that don't have the equipment or skills. I believe that rivers, national forests, wilderness, etc. should be enjoyed by one and all, which is the only way they will stay relatively protected and pristine. However, in situations where over use has necessitated restrictons via a permit system, I don't believe any group should have an advantage.
good god. I need a govt job.
Post a Comment