Big Hole River Use Rift Brewing

With the river use rules up for review this spring it should come as no surprise some non-resident anglers and I suppose some outfitters and guides would take advantage of the opportunity to change things more to their liking. The surprise to me though is that the Big Hole River Foundation would allow itself to become embroiled. The Foundation was chartered in the first beginning on the premise of protecting the river from abuse--dewatering, pollution, over-crowding, et al. The River Use regulations were put in place primarily to allow citizens the chance to dodge the increasingly heavy boat traffic--largely outfitters and guides but increasing numbers of non-residents--real or imagined--were tossed into the mix as well. In a nutshell the River Use restricts float fishing by outfitters and guides and non-residents, a sort of rest-rotation system, on one section of river each day of the week. For instance Divide to Melrose is closed on Sundays from Opening Day through Labor Day. And another section is closed on Monday and so forth.

As a guide the only problem I have is my aging, scattered brain doesn't program so good anymore and I have to use flash cards to keep it straight. I suppose there are outfitter and guides out there who have a big problem with the current system but I honestly don't know any...haven't heard any bitching other than most think generally a waste of time but most just say hey, who the hell cares there's a lot of river so just go somewhere else. I have heard non-residents whining, oh poor me, a heinous example of blatant discrimination...to which I say get a life, like there are far more pressing problems out there to fret and fume...

Back to the Big Hole River Foundation: My two cents says they are making a huge mistake getting involved in the first place. No matter how it flies--and I can't imagine FWP changing things at least not much--by taking a stance somebody's gonna be PO'd. And as we all know a PO'd customer is not a happy camper and highly unlikely to continue lending support--which of course all foundations large and small depend on for their very existence. So there you have it. Yes, yet another rant by a tired old man, sorry I just can't help myself...maybe I need to check myself into rehab? Nah, I ain't that far gone...

FWP Approves Montana's First Bighorn Management Plan

FWP Commissioners approved what seems to me a much overdo state-wide management plan for bighorn sheep. Biologists say about 5700 bighorns in 45 herds scattered across the state could be expanded by as many as 1000.

As with just about everything involves Montana wildlife, or anything else for that matter, the news received enthusiastic boorahs from some and loud boos from others; still others on both sides the fence took a more cautious wait and see approach. No news there, eh?

The biggest hurdle to expanding the bighorns' range is the very real hazard the wild sheep come in contact with domestics--which carry a lung infection fatal to wild sheep but harmless to the carriers. Wool growers are of course concerned about losing public land grazing leases. But there is a line in the plan says FWP will not lobby federal land managers to remove domestics to enable bighorn expansion unless ranchers involved are on board. Quentin Kujula, FWP's biologist point man on such issues says, "Without that collaboration expansion is pretty much dead in the water in most cases."

The Safari Club has gone on record as feeling the plan does little but maintain the status quo...in other words hardly worth the paper it's printed.

John Helle, major domo Dillon wool-man, says, "We're not opposed to wild sheep just the propaganda and attempts to remove us from lands we've been ranching for generations.

Jim Weatherly, Montana Wild Sheep Foundation, basically approves the idea, adding concerns for needing rancher approval are largely unfounded since given how much land they control expansion is impossible without it.

And the beat goes on...