I have to admit, in the ten years we’ve been running Chi Wulff and interviewing notable fisher folks from around the world, this is probably the most different and unique interview we’ve ever done.
What follows is a group interview with the guys who are running as a block for the board of the Madison River Foundation; they have a very interesting history, and you can see their much more detail via their stories and bios posted here on the Save the Madison River Foundation FB page.
In a shamefully short nutshell overview, these gentlemen, all Montanans living in Southwest Montana, and intimately familiar with the Madison River and her environs, are attempting to gain membership on the MRF board to help right the ship of an organization that many insist has lost its way. An interesting twist to the story, that I can’t seem to get actual answers to, is that by all external appearances, the current board of the MRF appears to not want to allow all potential board members to run on a level playing field. (One might logically think that an organization at odds with a significant portion of its constituency, and neighbors, would take every effort to project the intent to do things right. Just because you can do something – like running board elections a certain way- doesn’t mean you should do it anyway. People, and organizations, sometimes do interesting, and illogical, things.)
As I’ve chatted with some of the gentlemen you’ll meet below over the past months, after offering Jim Dawson of the MRF board an opportunity to share thoughts representing the MRF board’s position, I thought it only fair to allow these gentlemen to share their responses as well.
For those in your group who would like to, please share a paragraph about yourself and what prompted you to run for a position on the Madison River Foundation Board?
As part of our election campaign we set up a Facebook page here. That page has profiles and photographs for all the candidates on our slate. Gotta love the picture of Harry with his grandson.
What do you say to those (of potentially significant number) who opine the MRF has crossed a line with the community and region, damaging their reputation and relationships to a critical point, and should be disbanded, with another advocacy group perhaps to follow?
The Madison River Foundation is an inanimate organization. It can’t be good or bad. It only reflects the behaviors of the people in charge of running it. MRF didn’t cross a line; a small number of rouge directors crossed a line of civil, honest, and reputable representation of the membership. They began catering to a small special interest group of members.
If we do not win this election, the organization will not be disbanded but continue on the same path. If we win the election we can start a long hard process of rebuilding the reputation of the Foundation and return it to a respected member of local nonprofits, the community, and the region. – Jim Kramer
I am inclined to agree. This group or any other that uses the Madison in name to do conservation work to disguise lobbying efforts for social, political and regulatory means should be disbanded or at the very least its leaders should be replaced. It should not be a force for lobbying. It should focus on conservation and restoration work related to the health of the river and surrounding ecosystems. – Brian Rosenberg
Have any members of your cadre developed a plan to broaden the voice at the MRF, including for example agricultural, non-flyfishing river users including recreational floaters and other fishers, perhaps even representatives from the hunting community who cherish the game resident in the valley and dependent on a healthy river?
Yes, Going back to participating in the Ennis Flyfishing festival, partnering with all the conservation groups that MRF used to do projects with including Madison Gallatin Trout Unlimited; Water Conservation District; the Ennis Chamber of Commerce; The West Yellowstone Chamber of Commerce; All Fly fishing related businesses; and having conversations with other Foundations such as the Henry’s Fork Foundation; The Big Hole River Foundation; and others to share allied information and to have all voices be heard and shared. – Dan Delekta
Non-outfitted use is an overwhelming majority of all Madison River use by FWP numbers (example reference). Curtailing outfitter use/access only does very little to address the genuine health of the river and current overcrowding. Please contrast your position(s) as opposed to MRF’s advocacy to limit commercial traffic only.
Why does everyone keep using the word overcrowded? It is not overcrowded. The health of the river is not in question. If FWP wants to regulate commercial use further, just come out and do it. Quit trying to regulate behavior. It does not work. MRF should have no opinion on regulating commercial use, non-residents, or any other manner of who can go where when and do what. My personal position doesn’t matter. MRF is not a mega phone for that. – Brian Rosenberg
What proposal(s) does your team support, if any, to address global use on the river, not just outfitter or guided traffic? For example, simply stipulating that non-commercial anglers and recreational users must purchase a parking pass (i.e., a $5 use pass) to use any access site, such as is done on the Bighorn and the South Fork of the Snake, would allow rudimentary tracking and provide a source of funding for projects, etc.?
A use pass for all individuals would be a legislative decision. – Dan Delekta
Please address the controversy regarding the proposed wade only sections on the upper river; for example, are the proposed zones in reality wadable by the typical Madison River fisher? Do you support wade only restrictions with bankside access / easement? At least some members of the MRF insist the river is eminently wadable in these areas, in contrast to opinions expressed by many other highly qualified river users.
This is a social issue and as a board we would be neutral. Of particular note for those who do not understand these areas, to wade up from Raynolds Pass or up from Pine Butte or the Eagles Nest or below 3 Dollar Bridge or from Ennis to the lake, there are a variety of no trespassing signs and billboards and yes, to wade in the water and wade down and back up there are round boulders, it is slippery, deep, and fast. Boats and rafts provide a way to safely access all of these proposed closures. – Dan Delekta
This is just my opinion and does not represent the group’s. The whole river is a wade fishing river. The entire thing is also purpose built for boats. Things have changed since 1986. We are seeing floating craft everywhere now. If you don’t want to see boats go to West Fork, or the Ruby River, or the Upper Gallatin, or the Shields, or Beaver Creek, maybe Jack Creek or a high mountain lake or any other of the numerous options that an angler in Montana has at their disposal. I believe it very possible that litigation will define where the high water mark is in that upper area if boats are removed as a form of access for angling opportunities. At that point it will be to late. We will have lost access. It is very difficult to access certain areas of the upper river without trespassing if boats are not option. – Brian Rosenberg
Explore the river. There are miles of river accessible for wade fishing from public lands and more just opened up. Make the effort to find these areas and your reward will be fewer wade fishermen. You’ll also find that the vast majority of the boaters, especially guide boats, will give you wide berth and not disturb the small area you fishing. If you are visiting and local fly shops try to send you to the $3 Bridge or Valley Garden areas, press the for other options. In addition to the local streams and lakes, there are many areas of the Madison river for wade fishing that are less crowded than those designated a wade section. – Jim Kramer
What do love and appreciate most about the Madison river and valley?
The people. When I used to come here on vacation I was always impressed with how friendly and welcoming the people are. Since I moved here that feeling has only been strengthened. I am impressed with the multitude of organizations working to improve the environment of the river and the surrounding grasslands and forests. There are also social groups that fund scholarships for students and provide needed eye care for people. It’s great to live in place where people are so willing to help each other. – Rich Gockel
I love the community anglers that has taught me to respect, cherish and take care of a river that has for many generations taken care of those who decided to stay around and try and understand her. – Brian Rosenberg
Does your group support the process currently underway through FWP to derive a management plan for the river? What suggestions or input would you give the committee if given an hour to present at their next meeting?
The Negotiated Rule Making Committee ended their effort May 2nd without coming to consensus. This process requires that all members negotiate to come to a proposal that everyone can live with. The committee was unable to come to consensus on a proposal. At this point my suggestion for those concerned with the FWPs April proposal is that they contact both the Fish and Wildlife Commissioners and the governors office with their concerns. – Rich Gockel
I do not. Stick to science. Do not try and regulate behavior. Open access, do not reduce it. Educate users. It comes down to education and access. It is a slower process but has the potential to create a better culture that surrounds the river. – Brian Rosenberg
As of Friday afternoon (3 May), the MRF has apparently refused to post the entire field of candidates for their upcoming board election on their website and have not responded to an email query from me; can you offer an explanation?
The current board is composed of two landowners in Madison River Ranches subdivision and two supporters. The replacement slate they selected also has three landowners from Madison River Ranches and their supporters. Their goal is to make sure that only people with that private river access can fish the Big Bend. Since we would be neutral on social issues and stop lobbying for the April FWP proposal our candidacy is a threat to their privatization scheme. Posting our profiles on the MRF web site would give the membership a second opinion, which they fear. We are using a Facebook page as a work around for this problem. The bigger problem we face is that they have set up the election process so that as ballots come in ones that have votes for us can be discarded. They are also planning to only have the current board to conduct the vote count.
Last Saturday, I sent the following email to Jim Slattery and the other candidates.
Jim,
I asked a staff member what the process would be for keeping ballots secure while they are being collected, and the process for candidates to observe the count. I was told you would be following the bylaws. Elections by ballot are conducted per Section 2.11 of the bylaws. Unfortunately the bylaws do not address the details of how ballots are secured and how candidates can be assured of a fair count. We certainly do not want a repeat of the last election where even board members were not able to find out the number of votes each candidate received. Since the bylaws do not cover this issue, I propose the following procedure.
• Before the ballots are counted, a neutral third party will hold them.
• No ballots shall be opened until the time all ballots are counted.
• Any candidate or their representative will be able to observe the vote count.
This process is similar to how our local elections are run. Typically the Secretary of State’s office runs the election and representatives of all the political parties are able to observe the vote count.Please contact me so that we can discuss how to have a fair and transparent election. I am copying the other candidates because I assume they are interested in a fair and transparent election as well.
Rich Gockel
I received a replay that said:
Let me take this into consideration. I will correspond with the other board members and see what they think.
The latest email I received from the Madison River Ranches slate is:
We are still in discussion. It seems more complicated than I expected.
Conducting a fair and transparent election is complicated for these people. At this point I would recommend for those members voting for us to keep a copy of their ballot and let us know they have voted for us. – Rich Gockel
Technicalities. Dysfunction. Deception. By-Laws. Fear. Who knows? Your guess is as good as mine. – Brian Rosenberg
If you could encourage fly fishers to do just one thing in terms of stewardship FOR THE MADISON this next year, what would that be?
Be courteous to your fellow anglers. When you are launching a boat, rig up away from the ramp so that when you’re on the ramp you quickly launch and are out of the way for the next person. If you get to a place where you wanted to fish and someone is already there, smile and wave to that person and go to the next hole. When you pass, do it so that you do not disturb that persons fishing. If you’re fishing a particular spot don’t stay there all day move along so other people have a chance. If you use a boat in the wade sections, float past the anglers near the access sites before you start fishing. Just treat others, as you would like to be treated. – Rich Gockel
Help folks understand what we really have and teach them especially about the 50 year FERC Regulation that was agreed to in 2000 when MPC sold to PP&L and this was part of relicensing all of their dams. The Madison River received the greatest year round water releases specifically to protect the trout (from 800 CFS to 3,000 CFS) at the Kirby gauge above where the West Fork of the Madison dumps in. Year-Round managed flows for the river vegetation, micro organisms, insects, fish, and habitat. Then when water temps rise in the Lower Madison and fish kills are possible, water is pulsed at an allowed rate and released from Ennis Lake to prevent those fish kills. I know of no other river on the planet so protected as the Madison is by the FERC regulations. In addition there are yearly funds from the FERC license agreement that help the river, river habitat, river projects, and access sites. Some are proposing the Wild and Scenic Designation upon the Madison River. That pales in comparison to the FERC help we have received. We can only hope that other dam-controlled rivers can copy the Madison River FERC regulations and we should help others knowing the process many participated in to make this happen that way. There were many individuals and conservation groups who helped the negotiation process become the final agreement that exists today. When you have year-round water, vegetation, microorganisms, insects, fish, and wildlife you have a thriving habitat that can only be enhanced. It is a perfect circle of life. – Dan Delekta
Growing pains. The Madison River Foundation is suffering from growing pains where social and biological issues are seemingly at odds. The truth is that in natural systems, biological and social issues are closely knit, and there is limited or no certainty of guaranteed future outcomes. Biological systems are exceptionally complex and subject to a multitude of stressors, most of which are outside of our immediate control. The angling community must pay close attention to those stressors that we do have some control over, and an effective, science-based monitoring program by resource users would be step in the right direction.
I think it is fair to say the use of Madison River resources has grown over the last few years, and it bears remembering that the 2008 river user survey found that summer fishing experience was acceptable or very acceptable to the majority of users. Setting aside our current issues, we, the Madison River community, are doing something right.
I recently spoke with an old friend who moved to Henrys Lake 20 years ago just to fish the upper Madison. When asked about current management, he decried year round fishing (specifically over redds), young people too lazy to wade and the use of nets. Specifically the lack of the use of nets, as he often sees hooked fish “dragged through the rocks” and “mauled while fumbling for camera”. Both of these offences should be punishable by loss of license (or worse) in his mind. Clearly there is always room for dialog and collaborative conservation outreach. – Jay Frederick
Educate yourself. – Brian Rosenberg
Some other conservation organizations such as TU have not taken a position on the April FWP proposal. What position does your group feel the MRF should be on issues some call social in character?
There are all kinds of non-profit organizations and each has it’s own charter and goals. Conservation organizations are best served and best serve their members when they concentrate on conservation projects, in the case of MRF that should be stream improvements, fish habitat and fish health issues. People join an organization because they believe in the goals of the organization, they want their dues and donations to go towards the goals as set forth by the organization, is the case of the MRF that is fish health and habitat, water quality, stream flows and water conservation.
As the MRF has recently discovered, when you stray outside of what your members want and expect tempers can flair and things can get out of hand in a big hurry. The Madison River use study was not intended to be a habitat or fish health study but rather a people management study, how to control the number people using the river at any given time. The Madison River, the fish and the water belong to the people of Montana and they want and expect that the river should be open to all that want to use it.
Conservation organizations need to be careful that they don’t get drawn into projects or causes outside of their core goals and expertise, they will have the most impact when they concentrate on what they know best, in this case if you take care of the health of the river the fish will take care of themselves. – Harry Murphy
We think the Foundation should not take sides on social issues that do not impact the health of the river. I’ll take two hot button issues as an example; restrictions on guided trips and boats in the wade sections. At current use levels FWP studies show the fish population and the health of the river are good. On the wade section issue, the FWP environmental impact study made the following conclusion –
Prohibiting the use of a vessel or float tube to gain access to fishing in wade-only reaches would likely not have a significant impact on natural resource values unless it resulted in an increase in wade angling. If wade angling increased overall or in specific locations, increased disturbance and erosion could occur.
In this case, there is some increased risk of damage if the people that previously used a boat started wading.
In the case of guided trips we have members that are local or come here on vacation and want to have a guided trip. We also have members that would like to see fewer people on the river. On the wade sections, we have members that may not want to see a boat when they fish, and there are others that use a boat to access these sections to fish. Since none of these activities impact the health of the river, as a board we would not take a position favoring one section of the membership over another. For members that have an opinion on these issues we would encourage them to write to the Fish and Wildlife Commissioners or speak in the public comment periods. We see taking sides in social issues as a path to ruin for a conservation organization. If you continue in taking sides, pretty soon you end up with just a thin slice of the membership that happened to agree to all of the positions the board has taken. Not taking sides on social issues is the policy of many successful conservation organizations. Trout Unlimited for example has not taken a position on the April FWP proposal. We would do the same. – Richard Gockel
