In what will be, I swear, the final commentary covering the board election for the ailing Madison River Foundation in the foreseeable future, here’s the position statement (as provided, unedited by me) of the team of gentlemen who are running as the Save the Madison River Foundation (SMRF) team block.
Why post here? Historically, we’ve heartily supported the on-the-ground, river-focused efforts of the MRF, and before becoming an alleged advocacy group for a select group of their constituency, the MRF embraced and enjoyed a healthy working relationship with many of their neighbors (individuals and businesses) in the region.
Personally, looking over their platform, were I a voting member of the MRF, I’d vote to elect them all; elect some or all of these guys, and you’ll see many of us who have/had given up on the MRF return to the fold.
The Save the Madison River Foundation Team Position Statement
In recent emails, we have had positions attributed to us that are not ours. We want to clear the air and let the membership know where we stand.
We believe the Madison River’s current and future health is paramount.
We believe in conservation and restoration. Work like the $3 Bridge project to restore degraded riverine habitat is a good example of what we would pursue. We also support the goals of the Riparian Restoration Plan that identifies potential projects to preserve and enhance the river.
We believe that MRF funds should be spent in the most effective manner. Large construction projects requiring professional design and skilled labor like the $3 bridge projects should go to bid and then a contract. Smaller projects in the Riparian Restoration Plan could be done in whole or in part by volunteers saving money that could be spent on larger projects.
We support events that serve the community and recognize that community support and involvement is extremely important for the organization. The recent Bear Creek Days event that teaches outdoor skills to students is an excellent example. These “day-work” projects help build relationships between members, local residents, and other local organizations with a different focus but similar commitment to the conservation of the Madison River and its watershed.
We believe in science based decision making and would reinstitute water quality studies and insect population studies, which the current board cancelled. We would help expand trout population studies to complement Fish, Wildlife, and Parks’ ongoing studies. There are large portions of the river where trout populations are unknown.
We believe that the current rate of increased usage is not sustainable. As such, we do not support the FWP April proposal, which does not control usage and actually increases crowding in the wade sections. For example, during the summer of 2017, FWP data shows there were 7,419 commercial trips between Lyons and the Ennis fishing access sites. Under the regulations in the April proposal, this could increase to over 187,000 trips. This was brought out in the public comment period of the April 2018 Fish and Wildlife Commission meeting. After the public comment, the Commissioners rejected the FWP proposal in a 4 – 0 vote. The Commissioners then tasked the FWP to identify potential processes that would develop an acceptable plan. The resulting Negotiated Rule Making Committee developed 8 alternative plans. They also developed a scoring system to rate how well a plan conserved the river habitat and met the needs of the rivers various stakeholders. All 8 of these plans scored better than the FWP April Draft proposal.
We would, as did Trout Unlimited, refrain from getting MRF involved in social issues. The current board is advocating restricting access in sections of the river for the benefit a small group of landowners. This does nothing to enhance the river. The current board’s actions have had disastrous impacts on the Foundation’s reputation, its effectiveness as a voice for the river, and its ability to work with other organizations. The FWP has procedures and processes to address issues like crowding, overuse, and potential declines in the fishery. Individual members can contribute through public comment forums. MRF should not take positions favoring one section of the membership over another. The board certainly should not advocate for policies that economically benefit themselves over the community as a whole.
We believe that elections should be run in a fair and transparent manner. Ballots should be kept sealed until counted, a neutral party should make the count, and any candidate should be able to observe the count. It appears the current board’s procedure is to have board members conduct the ballot count and announce the results two weeks later. These board members own land or businesses along the river, which clearly opens the door for suspicions of self-serving actions. Behaviors like this are destroying the Foundation.
We have been have labeled “the petitioners” who didn’t reach the ballot by the “usual process”, implying what? We don’t deserve to be on the ballot? The board doesn’t like the petitioning process because they can’t control the ballot, and diverse opinions and points of view can creep in. The board very carefully chose “aligned” candidates as their nominees. One of the candidates nominated by this “usual process” has learned the lesson of not remaining aligned. He was un-endorsed by the board and its supporters. This year 5 of the board members resigned because the board leadership would not consider “unaligned” viewpoints and decisions were made by the board president without a vote of the board members.
So, who are the petitioners?
Individually, we are a chemist, two engineers, a taxidermist, a guide/outfitter, a Trout Unlimited official, a fish biologist, a fly shop and lodge owner and a veterinarian active in helping Project Healing Waters Vets. Our very diverse backgrounds and a willingness to work together will help in to making good decisions for the river and our members. Our biographies can be found on our Facebook page.
The MRF is at a crossroads. There is one group that wants to use the MRF to advocate for landowners who want to restrict access to their section of the river. Our group believes in Preserving, Protecting, and Enhancing the Madison River to the benefit of all the river’s stakeholders.
We ask for your vote,
Dan Delekta, Russ Forness, Rich Gockel, Jim Kramer, Jay Frederick, Bob Frey, Jim Frey (No relation to Bob), Harry Murphy, Dave Bess, and Brian Rosenberg
