0:08:12

Gagnon Good morning, Madam Chair.

0:08:13

Kevin Rechkoff (staff) Can you hear me?

0:08:14

Robinson I can. Good morning.

0:08:16

Kevin Rechkoff (staff) Good morning.

0:08:18

Robinson Good morning.

0:08:19

Brooke Can you guys hear us?

0:08:20

Robinson Yes.

0:08:22

Kevin Rechkoff (staff) All right.

0:08:22

Robinson It's a good day.

0:08:24

Brooke Great.

0:08:24

Christy Clark (staff) It's a good day to have a good day.

0:08:27

Unidentified (voice F) Yes.

0:08:28

Robinson All right, I'm going to mute this.

0:11:11

Unidentified (voice G) Sound check, Region 2.

0:11:13

Robinson Good morning. Yes, we can hear you, Kendra.

0:11:21

Unidentified (voice G) Thank you.

0:11:29

Renee Lemon (staff) Sound check, Region 2.

0:11:33

Robinson Morning. Yes, we can hear you, Gagnon.

0:11:39

Unidentified (voice I) Thank you.

0:11:51

Robinson Sound check, Region 3.

0:11:55

Unidentified (voice G) Um, this is Susan Brooke.

0:11:59

Robinson Headquarters can hear you.

0:12:01

Unidentified (voice J) Thank you.

0:12:50

Robinson Good morning, Commissioner Wargo.

0:12:57

Wargo Morning, Chair.

0:13:33

Robinson Jesse, I don't know if you want to check with Commissioner Walsh and Commissioner Burrows. Just to make sure they're not having trouble.

0:13:49

Unidentified (voice L) Will do.

0:13:50

Robinson Thank you.

0:18:56

Robinson I think just a few minutes and we're just waiting for Vice Chair Walsh still.

0:19:03

Burrows Didn't see you in the meeting yet.

0:19:06

Wargo I was just asked, or we were just asked to make sure you guys weren't having problems.

0:19:11

Burrows Nope, I just got on.

0:19:13

Unidentified (voice N) Thanks, Commissioner Burrows.

0:19:18

Kevin Rechkoff (staff) Want to try?

0:19:31

Robinson I'm getting like a. I don't know if it's me. I'm getting like a. Some, I don't know, like background noise. But do you want to just check your audio, Commissioner Burrows, please? Okay, go ahead and try it.

0:20:09

Wargo Can you hear me now?

0:20:11

Robinson Yep, perfect. Thank you.

0:20:13

Burrows Yep.

0:20:32

Robinson I don't know if it's headquarters. When you guys unmute, there's some pretty weird noises coming through.

0:20:39

Christy Clark (staff) We are on mute, but we can hear those as well.

0:20:43

Robinson Okay.

0:20:43

Unidentified (voice J) I'll be up in a second.

0:20:46

Christy Clark (staff) All right, Pat's on the way. Have no fear.

0:20:52

Brooke Got some Halloween vibes there.

0:20:54

Robinson Yeah, totally. Okay, we're still— I don't see Commissioner Walsh yet. Jesse, did you— have you contacted him?

0:21:22

Christy Clark (staff) Pat has resent him the link.

0:21:26

Robinson Is that what he needed?

0:21:27

Brooke Yes.

0:21:29

Robinson Okay, thank you. All right, well, it's 8 o'clock and I am going to go ahead and start and hopefully Casey can get on. Um, so I'll call the meeting to order and we'll stand for the pledge of allegiance.

0:22:00

Robinson I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for Great, thank you. I think we should— we, we will not have Commissioner Lane today at all, and so we have 5 commissioners in attendance. Legal, I just want to— we're fine to start?

0:22:45

Unidentified (voice F) Yes.

0:22:46

Unidentified (voice I) Yes, Chair, you've got a quorum.

0:22:48

Robinson Okay. All right, so did everybody have a chance to look at the minutes for the August 19th meeting?

0:22:58

Brooke Yes.

0:22:59

Robinson Okay, and the September 24th, I would take— if there's no corrections or additions, I would take a motion to approve both of the minutes.

0:23:09

Brooke I will make that a motion to approve the minutes of both meetings.

0:23:14

Wargo I'll second.

0:23:15

Robinson Okay, Commissioner Gagnon, I'll take that one for a second, please. Okay, I will ask one more time, any corrections or additions? All those in favor signify by saying aye.

0:23:28

Wargo Aye.

0:23:29

Robinson All opposed, same sign. Motion carries. All right, and then the expenses, there was a An amended one or a, or an updated one, I guess, that was sent out that is in the binder. Did everyone have a chance to look at that one?

0:23:49

Wargo The printed version or the one— or is there something beyond what was included?

0:23:54

Robinson The one that was emailed and it was in the— it's in the Drive too. I'll give you a second to look at it. The other one was just missing some of the expenses.

0:24:18

Gagnon Yeah, Jesse, I realize I don't think I submitted my September report to you. Is it too late to get that to you?

0:24:26

Robinson No, we can send it after the meeting.

0:24:28

Wargo All right, thank you.

0:24:29

Burrows Madam Chair, move to approve the expenses as presented.

0:24:34

Robinson Okay, thank you, Commissioner. Okay, thank you, Commissioner Brooke. Okay, any questions or anything? All those in favor signify by saying aye.

0:24:51

Unidentified (voice O) Aye.

0:24:53

Robinson All opposed, same sign. Motion carried. Okay, we'll go ahead and start with the commissioner reports. Commissioner Burrows, do you want to go ahead and start?

0:25:07

Burrows Certainly. Thank you, Madam Chair. On the enforcement side, along with wildlife staff, wardens continue to respond to bear conflicts almost daily across the entire region. Many of the bear calls involve bears getting into improperly secured attractants. Wardens have transitioned their patrols to check archery hunters and bird hunters. Opening weekend of waterfowl season was busy, but success was down with the warmer weather. On the access side, BMAs and regional access projects are now open for the season, and all hunter— hunting access techniques are in the field. Archery season has seemed busier than past years, and staff are thinking it might be due to the nicer weather.

0:25:52

Burrows Staff are beginning to draft private land fishing agreements for this upcoming year and anticipate enrolling properties that were previously in the program. Parks and Outdoor Rec, it's been a mild fall so far, so people are still out fishing and camping at state parks and fishing access sites. Staff are starting to see more hunting camps and people seem to be enjoying the 14-day stay limit in the off-season. Construction wrapped up at the Sire Bridge fishing access site in mid-September. Outfitters and the public are enjoying a new ramp slide for the put-in to the Alberton Gorge whitewater corridor.

0:26:32

Burrows Electronic gates should be installed before winter at 5 sites: Kona, Chief Looking Glass, Frenchtown Pond, Traveler's Rest, and Salmon Lake State Parks. The floating closure on the Lower Blackfoot River in the Bonner area related to railway bridge work was lifted on October 2nd. The closure had been in place below Waystation fishing access site since mid-July. FWP will likely need to put another floating closure in place when the highway bridge repair work begins next year. Communication and Ed, Region 2 will hold its annual CAC field trip on September 16th. On Spotted Dog WMA.

0:27:15

Burrows It was a great turnout with local FWP staff and CAC members. The tour covered a brief history of the WMA and then was focused on floodplain and habitat restoration efforts using— Hunter ed classes and field days are wrapping up this week, then education staff and volunteers will take a break during hunting season before gearing up to begin the first of the 2027 classes in February.

0:27:45

Unidentified (voice N) Wildlife.

0:27:46

Burrows R2 staff are continuing to monitor a localized EHD outbreak in white-tailed deer that started in late August southeast of Stevensville in the Bitterroot Valley. Staff estimate 100 mortalities so far, but hard frost should kill the gnats that carry EHD and curtail the outbreak soon. R2 is continuing to experience higher than normal levels of bear conflict across the region because of large-scale food failure. Staff are working long hours responding to high volume of calls and helping reduce conflicts. FWP and partners started beaver transplants in mid-August of '26 under the Montana Beaver Transplant Program.

0:28:25

Burrows In September, 11 beavers were transplanted into Spotted Dog WMA at 3 different release sites in the Spotted Dog drainage. These sites have undergone significant stream and floodplain restoration work funded by Natural Resource Damage Program over the past 6 years, setting the stage for beaver occupancy. A prescribed fire was recently completed on Three Mile WMA in late September, and forest thinning has been ongoing at Calf Creek WMA. Both forestry projects are designed to improve habitat for deer, elk, and other wildlife. R2 staff will be running their regular hunting, hunter check stations at Bonner, Darby, Anaconda, and Fish Creek this fall.

0:29:09

Burrows CWD sampling is Currently available at the Missoula office weekdays and will be available on weekends as well during the general rifle season at Drummond, the Anaconda check station, and Darby check station. For fisheries, hoot owl restrictions were widespread in the region this season but were lifted relatively early. Timely rain helped, but more snowpack would have been better for prevention. The dam at the outlet of Placid Lake is beginning to fail. The dam is an important barrier that prevents invasive northern pike and smallmouth from getting into the lake. Fisheries and other FWP staff have been working with homeowners to shore up dam temporarily and provide the homeowners to work on more long-term solution.

0:29:54

Burrows Fisheries crews are wrapping up field season and hope to see a rebound of some fish populations in response to more normal flows. Staff have also been busy with review and public process for statewide fish management plan and fishing regulations. And then I just got a recent update, so we got the update on EHD for the Bitterroot Valley. A little addition to that that I just got was last week staff also started to receive reports of dead or dying deer, whitetail deer, in the Blackfoot Valley near Ovando and suspect EHD as well.

0:30:36

Burrows And again, we expect the cold weather to kill the gnats and hopefully curtail the outbreak soon. Groups I met with, I did meet with Valley County Fish Wildlife Association, Sportsmen for Fish Wildlife, and MOGA. We were discussing the staff report that we got on Hunter pressure, non-residents, the trends, and again talking about the harvest of mule deer by non-residents in eastern Montana where that's actually flipped for more non-resident harvest in the eastern part of the state. And that's the end of the report, Madam Chair.

0:31:14

Robinson Okay, thank you. Commissioner Wargo, please.

0:31:18

Wargo Thank you, Madam Chair. So regional update, a little bit on our private land access programs. Block management enrollment in Region 1 is approximately 636,000 acres enrolled in block management for the 2026 hunting season. Of those acres, 625,000 Acres are open to year-round public recreation. I think that's a big kudos to the hard work that the Region 1 staff has put in and all the timber conservation easements and stuff and the great partners that we have up here.

0:32:01

Wargo So that's much appreciated to see all that access. BMAs, most the Region 1 BMA areas are currently open with a few scheduled to open Later this month, closer to the start of general rifle season. Accessible hunting opportunities, there are 2 Region 1 landowners who are providing hunting opportunities specifically for those who, individuals who hold a permission to hunt from a vehicle slip. Region 1 staff are coordinating those reservations for those opportunities. We have some Updated BMA sign-in requirements.

0:32:42

Wargo 3 Large block management areas in Region 1 have new sign-in requirements this year. Hunters are encouraged to review current BMA maps before heading into the field to ensure they understand property-specific access requirements. Under wildlife, Region 1 has a new CWD coordinator, Allison. Bornkamp, who has been getting ready for the upcoming general season. The rest of the CWD technicians are slated to start the week of the Commission meeting.

0:33:19

Wargo Region 1 has a priority surveillance area this year, and we encourage hunters to turn in samples so we can improve information on CWD distribution and prevalence in the in the region. Our biologists are getting set up for their game check stations. We currently have 4 game check stations: Thompson Falls only, Kalispell, and the Swan. We had, as Commissioner Burrows mentioned, we also experienced some EHD outbreaks in the area, which is a little bit unprecedented for Northwest Montana. We had some last year as well.

0:34:05

Wargo Seemed to be fairly isolated between Kalispell and Whitefish, kind of in the Coons WMA area. We had over 70 documented mortalities, although more likely overall this outbreak doesn't seem to have a district-wide impact on deer populations, but definitely had some isolated impacts.

0:34:38

Wargo As is the case in Region 1, maybe even more so in— or sorry, in Region 2, maybe even more so in Region 1, appreciate all the hard work that staff's putting in to just manage the bear situation with reduced huckleberry crops. I mean, we're experiencing the same thing as the rest of the state with a Real big increase in in bear conflicts and bears bears in town bear coming down into riparian areas and valley bottoms in search of food, bringing them closer residential areas.

0:35:15

Wargo Conflict management crews are working hard to respond to calls with local landowners to secure attractants, and people are encouraged to secure their garbage. You know, animals feed on those other attractants, and even if you don't see bears in the area, that can be a big reason for their come come down. So just hope that everybody stays stays aware on that, and just again thanks to all the hard work that's being put forward by the staff. I know there's some long hours being logged there. So as far as calls and conversations that I've that I've had.

0:35:56

Wargo I had calls with Trout Unlimited, Nubility, Montana Association of Land Trusts, I believe it was Launch Water Sports, Montana Wildlife Federation, Walleyes Unlimited, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, CSKT, MOGA, and Montana Trappers Association.

0:36:20

Robinson Okay, thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.

0:36:30

Brooke Good morning, everybody. Region 3, also very busy with bear conflicts and removals. Black bear conflicts have increased substantially this summer and fall, particularly around Bozeman, Big Sky, and Livingston. Bozeman for sure does not have bear-proof dumpsters, so it's been a big problem in town. To date, Region 3 has removed 70 black bears compared with a typical annual average of 8 to 10. They've relocated approximately 8 cubs. Most removals involve property damage by bears accessing unsecured garbage, bird feeders, and other human food sources.

0:37:11

Brooke Weather and limited natural foods are contributing, but unsecured attractants are the primary driver. Conflicts are expected to continue while bears remain active before denning. Public cooperation in reducing conflicts is encouraged. And it has also come to my attention, the City of Bozeman is beginning the conversation of implementing a bear-proof dumpster program. The timeline is 4 years. The online conflict dashboard for Region 3 is currently— is underreporting activity because staff are prioritizing field response. Sandhill crane surveys.

0:37:54

Brooke Region 3 biologists conducted aerial surveys of sandhill cranes gathered in the traditional staging areas before migrating south. The Helena area recorded another record count exceeding 450 cranes. These surveys help track crane distribution and staging area use across southwest Montana. Fall hunting early field observations suggest a relatively quiet archery hunting activity with fewer hunters encountered than typically expected. Staff will continue monitoring activity and harvest. Recent snowfall is expected to help redistribute elk. And also improve hunting conditions.

0:38:38

Brooke In fisheries, staff are working on several habitat projects to improve spawning and rearing habitat for trout along the Upper Madison side channels and Arctic grayling along the Big Hole tributaries. Under access landowner relationships, staff continue to build and strengthen relationships with landowners, meeting with both current access program participants and landowners who are not enrolled To discuss concerns and potential opportunities. FWP initiated a regional access project for a whitetail deer hunt, doe hunt, on a 50-acre property just north of Livingston where the landowner is experiencing severe damage from whitetail deer.

0:39:21

Brooke This provides a targeted hunting opportunity suited to the property's urban setting and will continue through muzzleloader season. Regional access technicians are seeing a strong hunter use in the field block management area. Hunter days are currently ahead of the same point in each of the past 2 years. Christianson Ranch BMA signups will be held in person October 16th from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM at the Butte office. Communications and education. September was Bear Aware Month.

0:39:55

Brooke Region 3 held a public education event in Bozeman on September 3rd, and public communications and news coverage throughout the month focused on preventing and addressing bear conflicts in the, in the region. We need to have more people paying attention to that one. Hunter and bowhunter education classes have concluded for the year in Region 3. Instructors hosted 36 classes and field days and certified 764 students. Under maintenance, FWP is working to improve boat ramps at both Pine Creek and Gray Owl FAS in Paradise Valley.

0:40:33

Brooke On law enforcement, and obviously the wardens are responding to bear conflicts, also moose and mountain lion conflicts. There was a moose attack down in McAllister A couple weeks ago. Region 2 has 4 vacancies, and they're hoping to fill during the October general hire. The districts are Townsend, West Yellowstone, Bozeman, and Whitehall. There's 2 current wardens currently attending the Montana Law Enforcement Academy. Those are the Ennis warden and the Helena warden.

0:41:17

Brooke Region 3 wardens are currently investigating a supplemental feeding case in Bozeman, which resulted in the removal and euthanasia of 14 black bears. One black bear cub is being evaluated to be placed in a zoo. Region 3 enforcement is also working with the Bozeman Police Department on urban wildlife contract— conflict training. Other agencies are receiving high volume of calls related to black bears. This seems like the predominant message here today is black bears are— and people with unsecured garbage continues to be a major attractant.

0:41:56

Brooke Wardens have been busy patrolling and checking compliance with hunters across the region for all seasons currently open. And I met with or talked to Gallatin Valley Land Trust, the Montana Wildlife Federation, PERC, Wolves of the Rockies, the Forest Service, the Idaho fisheries biologist, and Cindy Perdue Dolan from Senator Daines' office. I also participated in a swan lease— a swan release on the Upper Madison. Where we released 10 signet swans, one at $3 Bridge and also at Cliff Lake.

0:42:41

Brooke It was a really cool experience. The Fish, Wildlife, and Parks biologist Claire Gower led the release, and there was quite a few citizens involved in that too, which was really nice to see citizens being able to participate in something like that. I also participated in With Ashley Hodge, who's with FWP, who's the mountain lion biologist. We hiked into the backcountry out of Dillon and tagged mountain lion kittens, ear tagged, and got DNA samples from the 3 kittens that we found. And that concludes my report.

0:43:22

Robinson All right, thank you. Vice Chair— oh no, I'll go with Commissioner Gagnon, please.

0:43:31

Gagnon Thank you, Madam Chair. Region 5 individuals and groups that I communicated with via phone, Montana Outfitters and Guides Association, in person, representative from Wolves of the Rockies, as well as in person, a town hall meeting in the city of Red Lodge. Dealing with bear conflicts. We had about 140 residents in attendance and multiple, maybe a dozen staff from Region 5, including wardens and others.

0:44:07

Gagnon Individuals, I talked to a lot of individuals from various regions across the state in regard to the '26-'27 fishing regulations, as well as a number of individuals who had comments and concerns about the proposal on our agenda, the Hannah Ranch conservation easement. In communication and education, Region 5, there's been multiple hunter education courses held through the month of September. Those are now wrapping up.

0:44:38

Gagnon As I mentioned, there was a bear meeting held, a bear conflict meeting held in Red Lodge in late August, I believe the 24th or 25th of August, to discuss the high levels of conflict this year, primarily Due to lack of available food sources in the higher elevations, as well as unsecured human food sources within the city limits. The discussion was really good and had very, very good attendance. September was Bear Aware Month and had a successful month with multiple community events in communities of Billings, Columbus, and Red Lodge.

0:45:20

Gagnon The department also collected hundreds of expired bear spray cans at the Region 5 office for disposal. And Communication Education continued to expand the Hooked on Fishing aquatic education program in the local schools around the region. This year, we are anticipating to have about 1,000 young individuals in grades 4 through 6 participating in the classroom lessons, And then those will be followed up in the spring with hands-on lessons at area waterways.

0:45:56

Gagnon In fisheries, the fall sampling on rivers and several reservoirs are in full swing, first time in more than 5 years, staff are encountering a smaller, younger trout population and good numbers on the West Rosebud and the Bighorn, that's very encouraging.

0:46:15

Unidentified (voice F) Okay.

0:46:16

Gagnon Crews have deployed about 8,000 PIT tags in the past few years in trout and sauger and ling, and that will give a better estimate of the movement, growth, and survival on the local waters. Also completed was a prairie fish sampling along 4 sites on Big Coulee Creek from its headwaters to the confluence of the Musselshell. The results could guide restoration strategies. The most Upstream site had very low flow, but good water quality and lots of fish of different species in this area, including northern redbelly dace.

0:46:55

Gagnon Downstream sites also included, excuse me, also had increased degraded water quality and the fish habitat was degraded as well. The species diversity in downstream sites were low as well, because likely due to the degraded water quality. In fisheries, there'll be a pivot— excuse me, a pilot roving creel survey on the Upper Bighorn between the After Bay and Mallard's Landing. The site has been— this creel survey has been ongoing since late August and will continue through the end of November.

0:47:40

Gagnon In Parks and Rec, the Boulder Forks fishing access site, the private land bridge replacement is underway. Construction is going to occur this fall. There are crews and materials currently at the site. The Whitebird fishing access restriction remains in, in place, in effect while the bridge replacement continues. Designs are currently being finalized with agreements and replacement bridge being procured. The Two Leggings fishing access boat ramp has been repaired and is open for use. The Gray Bear fishing access improvements were finalized in early August and have received a lot of public comment and review.

0:48:25

Gagnon In wildlife, the Region 5 staff assisted with the pheasant release program, the antelope harvest, And none— hunter numbers were down in the Broadview, at the Broadview Antelope Check Station. Antelope harvest and hunter numbers were up at the Big Timber Antelope Check Station, up from the previous year, but still well below the long-term average. The hunter numbers and harvest in Billings were similar to previous years. I mentioned earlier the Carbon County bear conflicts that were ongoing in the Red Lodge area.

0:49:09

Gagnon These have slowed down a bit in September. However, there's been increased bear conflict activity in Stillwater County, primarily with livestock now, and often it's smaller livestock like chickens and such. We're looking at some grant funds to help with fencing and hopefully reduce some of the high volume of conflicts and a few home entry conflicts. Staff recently completed the sandhill crane survey along the Musselshell and Deadman's Basin area.

0:49:48

Gagnon Last in wildlife, the R5 staff have been working with the City of Roundup to hold a management archery hunt to help with challenges that have arisen from the elevated urban deer population. Administration, and I mentioned this in a previous report, there has been a challenge with licensure ambassadors in the Billings area. They secured a couple but continue to work on adding some additional license ambassadors. Billings Heights Walmart has recently been secured and some of the local library partners, but there are currently very few licensed ambassadors in the Billings area, so it creates a high volume of traffic at the department office.

0:50:33

Gagnon And then last in enforcement, I mentioned it already, I'll just reiterate that wardens as well as the staff participated in the town hall meeting in Red Lodge with about 140 community members in attendance. The wardens did a great job of explaining how they are managing the conflicts and why it's important for the public to participate in securing any garbage and other potential food sources. Madam Chair, that concludes my report.

0:51:00

Robinson Okay, thank you. Vice Chair Walsh, please.

0:51:03

Walsh You bet. Sorry for being late on the call this morning, and thanks to Pat Lucchetti for helping me get on. In R4, I'll start with wildlife. Hunting activity during early openers has generally been slow due to mild weather. Hopefully things are changing now. The youth pheasant and youth waterfowl weekend saw only a few vehicles at freezeout Lake WMA each day. The general waterfowl opener freezeout was also slow, is attributed to warm, calm conditions, although 166 birds were checked, which is better than recent years. The participation remains well below long-term averages.

0:51:49

Walsh The pheasant and antelope openers on October 10th also saw reduced activity attributed to rain and snow across the region on the 10th. Region 4's wolf harvest thus far is 0. Wildlife staff continue to manage a high volume of calls related to grizzly bear conflicts along the Rocky Mountain Front, and a few other black bear conflicts have also occurred in, in part, as in other regions, due to the low berry crop.

0:52:26

Walsh Recent surveys on the North Rocky Mountain Front showed strong sheep numbers in Hunting District 441, and healthy goat populations in Hunting Districts 414 and 415. On the fisheries front, the Region 4 fisheries staff remains busy with fall fieldwork, including routine electroshocking and annual gillnetting surveys.

0:52:54

Walsh This fall, the R4 fisheries team continues to progress on several habitat projects, including the bank work on the Marias near Pugsley Bridge, restoration efforts on Marsh and Hound Creeks, and improved fish passage in Sheep Creek, and the installation of a barrier on Harley Creek. On parks and outdoor rec, preparations are underway for the upcoming Smith River boat camp projects. This is an improvement across the Smith River. Multiple loads of rock were flown into the camps using a helicopter with the assistance of maintenance staff.

0:53:37

Walsh Staff and volunteers are scheduled to launch this Saturday to begin work on the sites. On maintenance, the Tiber fish cleaning station has been repaired and ready for the season. Coordination with an electrical engineer will continue to include more user-friendly operational features, and improved signage. The last of the FWP docks have been removed from the reservoir for this year in Region 4. Finally, bank stabilization at Eureka Reservoir FAS is ongoing and expected to conclude toward the end of October.

0:54:19

Walsh Debris removal at Largent's Bend FAS is underway. And should wrap up around October 16th. The groups I met with, I met with MOGA, with Will Israel, FOAM, Mike Bias a while back, and Trout Unlimited, Clayton Elliott, who's now a consultant at TU Montana. I also met with representatives of the Madison-Gallatin chapter of Trout Unlimited, and then with the head of MSU Fisheries, Professor Christopher Guy. I also had a discussion with Yellowstone National Park's head of fisheries, Todd Kuhl.

0:55:02

Walsh In preparation of the amendment that I'll present today, I had several discussions with FWP fisheries staff, several outfitters along the Madison, retailers, And some individual. Thank you, Madam Chair. That's my report.

0:55:22

Robinson Okay, thank you. For Region 6, we, the only meeting that I attended in person was the deer meeting with the CWD update that was in Malta. It was lightly attended, but it was an informational meeting. Visited with the people that did, did attend after the meeting to get a little bit more information from them and then followed up with some calls with individuals afterwards. The youth outdoor skills event in Glasgow ahead of the youth upland bird season was a success. The last hunter education and classroom courses and field days are wrapping up for the season.

0:56:07

Robinson Ryan Smaltz from Montana Wild and regional staff have helped certify 7 new teachers And 5 new schools in Region 6 for the National Archery in the Schools program. Region 6 now has 9 towns that have local licensed ambassadors available to the public, with several more coming on board soon, and mainly, mainly libraries. And Christy, when you do your report, if you could touch a little bit more on explaining the ambassador program, that would be great. For fisheries, Fort Peck and Nelson Reservoir fish surveys continue to grow to show that game fish are doing well in each water body, especially walleye.

0:56:53

Robinson Region 6 fisheries crews, in collaboration with the Fort Peck Hatchery, are currently conducting the annual Chinook salmon egg take. This species does not successfully spawn in the reservoir, so the program is vital to this sporting opportunity. Another update is that the Haver FWP office is nearing completion. It's been several years ago, I lose track of time, that we approved that. So that's good that that is going to be completed soon. I do have a short Region 7 update also for Commissioner Lane.

0:57:34

Robinson Hunting season continues to be in full swing and wildlife staff are starting to run their biological check stations. Wildlife staff recently held a Region 7 mule deer public meeting with good attendance. There were 15 members of the public present and a lot of information was presented on recent surveys, trends, ratios, and CWD. Region 7 attended the COMED Access joint meeting in Great Falls and collaborated on the most pressing communication needs surrounding the access programs. Update on COMED mule deer communications plan, the regional mule deer videos are out, 2 mule deer newsletter stories are out, and 15 people attended the mule deer CWD open house meeting in Mile City.

0:58:20

Robinson Wardens are busy with the upland bird and antelope seasons in full swing. Opening weekend of antelope pheasants brought the traditional rains we often see Lots of the hunters were afield, plenty of antelope through the check stations, but poor reports on upland bird success. Black bear issues continue to be addressed by both enforcement and biological staff. The complete lack of berry production has the bears spending more time foraging to prepare for winter. Park use is dropping off and staff focus has turned to facility repairs, ADA and safety upgrades, developing interpretive programming for next year, and the important and other important projects.

0:59:00

Robinson Rosebud Battlefield State Park staff and some regional and Helena staff were honored with the Governor's Award for their work planning the 150th anniversary of the Battle of the Rosebud. The commemoration event was called Remembering the Rosebud: 150 Years of Courage and Legacy and was very well attended, with 7 Indigenous tribes, longtime Montana ranchers, and national and even international visitors. I guess I'll back up to my report too. We did— I, I— there was some success, uh, with archery elk hunting so far. And then I— we do have, uh, I have seen some antelope success too. So that's great to see and much-needed moisture here.

0:59:44

Robinson So anyway, that wraps up my report and, uh, Director Clark, if you would give your report, please.

0:59:54

Christy Clark (staff) Yes, good morning, Madam Chair, members of the Commission. Uh, in headquarters news, Jeff Hindoin has returned to private practice, so we'll miss Jeff. He did a great job for us. Marty Tuttle, to my right, is acting chief legal for the time being. We are currently advertising for the Chief Legal position, and we hope to have it filled and back, uh, and onboarded before the legislative session begins at the first of the year. I feel kind of silly talking about keeping busy with bear activity, but that is the theme for today.

1:00:34

Christy Clark (staff) Uh, it has been a very busy, uh, season for, uh, our staff, and as all of you have mentioned in your regions, it has been unusually busy I just want to give an opportunity to say thank you so much to the bear conflict specialists and the folks that work in the bear world as well as enforcement. It has been, it has been a season of all hands on deck. So a big shout out to all those folks. You know, Commissioner Brooke mentioned the 14 black bears that had to be euthanized. And just acknowledging that, that Those sorts of situations really do take a toll on our staff.

1:01:16

Christy Clark (staff) And so I appreciate all their hard work and their tireless dedication. We are continuing along the bear front. We are continuing to speak at town hall meetings when we are invited regarding the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed 4D rule. The comment for that 4D rule closed in August. And the service is reviewing more than 100,000 comments, and they will take those into consideration and modify the rule or finalize the rule. And we expect that to roll out probably not during this bear season, but by anticipated by spring.

1:01:58

Christy Clark (staff) We celebrated the opening of the avian walkway at Montana Wild on September 29th with Governor Jean. Forte, as well as the donors who made that walkway possible. Montana Outdoor Legacy Foundation was a donor, as well as Helena Motors. If you have an opportunity, I highly recommend visiting the Montana Wilds new avian walkway. It now allows all the birds to be visible during the day, so it's a, it's a big improvement. It's, it's really nice to see that. Montana also hosted a 3-day tri-state meeting in Whitefish in September, where we were joined by our Fish and Game counterparts from Wyoming and Idaho.

1:02:40

Christy Clark (staff) Tri-state is, has a fairly loose agenda. Much conversation is just centered upon the idea of sharing issues and how other states are handling them. It's a very collaborative opportunity for those states to come together. Also in September, I attended the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. At that meeting, we receive updates and committee reports on everything from endangered species to land and water conservation partnerships, and it's a great opportunity to get updates from the federal government and talk about new programs that may be rolling out and other issues that states are dealing with.

1:03:18

Christy Clark (staff) Fish, Wildlife, and Parks presented their bills to EQC, the economic— the Environmental Quality Council. The— that is the interim body that oversees us. It's also the interim body that must approve our bills before we can move forward as agency bills, and all but one of those was approved. We will be presenting those, uh, to you guys in December. Additionally, we're working with the Governor's Office and the Governor's Budget Office to finalize our budget for the year. Both of these presentations will be presented to you in December. And finally, in the IT world, we talked about this briefly at our last meeting.

1:04:02

Christy Clark (staff) Tyler was the— was awarded the contract for our licensing system, and we are working on upgrading our FWP app. And I do have Emily if we want to pivot to more information about the Ambassador Program. I'd like to take one more moment of your time to talk about House Bill 932. That was a habitat— it was a bill that was passed in 2025, and it created the Habitat Legacy Program, which automatically split into 3 subaccounts. Those 3 subaccounts are Wildlife Improvement Program, Land and Water Stewardship Account, and Big Game and Wildlife Crossings Account.

1:04:44

Christy Clark (staff) And then I'd like to give you just a brief summary of the habitat projects that were awarded. That is awarded by a group of an advisory council. We call it the WIP+, but it's a WIP advisory council that makes these funding decisions. In House Bill 932, the scope was broadened. The scope of the grant program was broadened, which was previously focused only on noxious weed treatment in wildlife habitat. To more broadly assist with a wide array of wildlife habitat improvement work. The 2026 grant cycle was the first under the broadened rules program.

1:05:27

Christy Clark (staff) The 2026 WIP grants addressed several connected habitat needs: healthier streams and wetlands, wildlife-friendly fencing, invasive plant control, and restoration of grassland and sagebrush habitat. The projects pair habitat improvements with practical land management work, including irrigation upgrades, livestock fencing, weed treatment, streambank, and streambank restoration. Overall, we funded 10 projects that will occur in 4 FWP regions and 1 on an Indian reservation, impacting an estimated 108,000 acres of wildlife habitat.

1:06:11

Christy Clark (staff) And I have those projects by list, and I'm happy to provide those rather than take time. I was going to take time to run through them, but I think I'd rather yield a bit of time to the Ambassador Program, Madam Chair.

1:06:25

Robinson Okay, thank you.

1:06:30

Unidentified (voice G) Good morning, Commissioners.

1:06:32

Robinson There she is.

1:06:34

Unidentified (voice G) This is Emily Cooper. I'm the licensing chief. Just a quick update on the license ambassador program. We got— so far there are 183 active license ambassadors across the state. A recent addition is a, is a pretty exciting situation. We got 29 rural county libraries to participate in this program. So our really great admin folks went out to these places and, and kind of made the presentation and they made their pitch and showed these libraries how to to, uh, these library staff how to help the folks that, that are in those communities apply for these licenses and, and walk through that process. So, um, we— I want to give them some— their, their due kudos for that.

1:07:17

Unidentified (voice G) They did a lot of work in 29 rural libraries. And so the count is 183, and before this it was about, uh, uh, last year at this time was about, um, 189. So we're right on par with where we were last year. We continue to ask Interested businesses if they want to participate. So that particular process is still active, and we're working really hard to get more folks as we go along.

1:07:44

Robinson All right, thank you. I guess I would allow— oh, go ahead.

1:07:49

Christy Clark (staff) Did you have questions about how, what it act, what the ambassador program actually does? Was that one of your questions, Madam Chair? Okay.

1:07:56

Robinson Yes. Yeah.

1:07:58

Unidentified (voice G) Oh, I'm sorry, I got on a little bit late. I didn't hear your question, Madam Chair. So the ambassador program is This is a program where we have moved all of our sales to go through our online portal. The model used to be where they have their own devices that they would use a specialized interface, and they would collect money on behalf of the customers, and then they would send that money to us on a weekly basis. So this particular switch and model just uses our online licensing program. So this can be either a, you know, a self-guided purchase, or those folks at those ambassador programs can help those people through that.

1:08:40

Unidentified (voice G) The ambassadors still get all the regulations and things like that that they did before. We no longer pay a commission to do that, but it depends on where it is. It could be a self-service model, or they could be helping their folks out. It just depends. And I think that's a customer need that comes up as you know, what the customer needs from that particular place, Madam Chair.

1:09:05

Robinson Okay, thank you. So it, it has, it's a credit card transaction like you would if you were home doing it?

1:09:13

Unidentified (voice G) Yes, ma'am. Yep, yep, those ambassadors can't take cash, but our Fish, Wildlife, and Parks offices do.

1:09:19

Robinson Okay, I guess I'm just going to see if any of the commissioners have any questions on that If not, okay, thank you. I appreciate the update.

1:09:36

Unidentified (voice G) You bet. Thank you.

1:09:39

Robinson Anything else, Director?

1:09:42

Christy Clark (staff) That concludes our report.

1:09:44

Robinson Thank you.

1:09:45

Christy Clark (staff) I will, I will send out the habitat projects to all of you individually so that you can look through those. Because it is a new program that does emphasize all sorts of different types of just expanded habitat projects where WIP was primarily focused on weed control, noxious weed control. Now it's been broadened to other things like conifer encroachment like that.

1:10:11

Robinson Okay, thank you.

1:10:13

Christy Clark (staff) Yeah.

1:10:14

Robinson All right, we're going to dive into the Fisheries Division, please.

1:10:21

Adam Strainer (staff) All right, good morning, Chair Robinson, members of the Commission. Adam Strainer, Fisheries Division Administrator, here today to discuss the proposed '27-'28 fishing regulation package. First, I'd like to begin with a big thank you to all FWP's fisheries staff across Montana for their dedication to the process, and especially Andrew Gillum, our new Fisheries Management Bureau Chief, for leading that effort. I'd also like to thank the public who engaged FWP throughout the process by attending meetings and submitting comments to help FWP develop the final recommended fishing regulations before you today.

1:11:01

Adam Strainer (staff) Lastly, I'd like to thank all of you, the Commission, for engaging FWP and the public throughout the process by picking up the phone to talk through various issues. Or attending public meetings. It was very helpful. So on to the process that got us here today. Preliminary scoping began in the winter of 2026. This included meeting with NGOs, civic groups, guides, outfitters, etc., members of the public to begin fleshing out what the regulation package could look like. We then carried forward 41 proposals, which we scoped with the public in May of 2026, meetings in person across the state as well as virtual options.

1:11:46

Adam Strainer (staff) They were aimed at gathering input on our initial FIP 41 proposals and soliciting— what's unique about these processes is soliciting regulation proposals from the public. The public submitted 261 comments on the initial proposals. And generated 94 regulation ideas. FWP's responses to all of those comments and regulation proposals are currently available on the Commission website. That led to the public— the public input led to FWP revising what is now the draft recommended regulations in about the middle of the summer. FWP ended up withdrawing 3 proposals from the initial proposals.

1:12:31

Adam Strainer (staff) Modified 4 proposals, carried forward 3 public proposals, and added 3 new proposals, resulting in the final recommended package today of 41 proposed regulations. FWP then brought those 44 recommendations to the public once again in August, late summer, as part of the public outreach process for the Statewide Fisheries Management Plan revision process. That process allowed the public to discuss the regulation package one more time before FWP submitted the package to the Commission for additional comment. That additional comment, which occurred from late August through September 24th, garnered 19 additional total comments.

1:13:16

Adam Strainer (staff) That number is perceived as fairly low, but in some of those comments were comments about regarding a suite of the individual proposals. So Again, a highly vetted public process that led to what I think is a great package before you today. The recommended 2027-28 regulations for approval reflect what I believe to be a great public input, and all of the recommended changes are aimed at clarification, simplification, and driven by the best available information. And so with that, I will be available for questions.

1:13:53

Unidentified (voice G) Okay.

1:13:54

Robinson I just want to remind the commissioners, what I'd like to do is start out with the main motion, and we do have several amendments. The amendments, uh, today we will do like we did at the last meeting. We will vote on them before they go out. It will be an amended motion, and the public can talk about the amendments when they have the 2 minutes. And if there's something that's compelling with the public comment, changes can be made because the final vote is not done until we approve or deny the full amendment or the full motion.

1:14:38

Robinson So any questions? Commissioner Walsh.

1:14:45

Walsh Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Strainer, we, as part of the limited public comments that we received, and honestly, I hate to even weigh in on the definition of lures, but did have a well-articulated comment about how we treat products like Berkley Gulp and Powerbait, so treat scent-infused lures And the suggestion was that those be moved into, um, into the base category. Do you have a comment?

1:15:23

Adam Strainer (staff) Uh, Chair Robinson, uh, Vice Chair Walsh, yeah, thank you for the question. Uh, yeah, this was one that was, uh, debated, uh, quite a bit throughout the public scoping, uh, and late summer process. Um, from a, from a clarification standpoint, where we ended up was, uh, plastics in general lend themselves well to being proposed in the fashion they are today. And so getting into the space of trying to help enforcement mostly on the ground when you're looking at is a soft plastic infused or not becomes very difficult. Probably could be done, but becomes very challenging.

1:16:07

Adam Strainer (staff) And so Generally, generally stated, we decided to stay the course and maintain the regulation proposal as proposed by the department.

1:16:20

Walsh A quick follow-up.

1:16:22

Unidentified (voice L) Go ahead.

1:16:23

Walsh Mr. Strainer, the one comment that stuck with me was that many other states have addressed this, including Wyoming, and now treat scented, scent-infused Lures as bait, and I wonder if you'd what other states are doing.

1:16:43

Adam Strainer (staff) Chair Robinson, Vice Chair Walsh, we're aware of what other states are doing, and and as it stands, have chosen to take the stance we have today. We we think it's best to keep it as simple and and as possible. I think trying to again. From an enforcement perspective mostly, becomes very challenging. We know that many anglers are using many different varieties of baits, and this is just one of them from our standpoint.

1:17:16

Walsh Thanks for clarifying your position.

1:17:22

Robinson Okay, Commissioner Wargo.

1:17:25

Wargo Yeah, thank you, Chair. I just wanted to I guess speak to that. It was on my list of things that I was going to discuss today, and I just wanted to say kind of a thank you to FWP staff through that scoping topic. This was probably the number one contentious topic in the scoping meetings that we saw up in Region 1. It had huge implications to In the, in the way in which the soft plastics was originally presented, um, really would cut into, um, kind of the traditional use.

1:18:04

Wargo There's a lot of, um, soft plastic use that, that takes place in, uh, many of the rivers, particularly the, uh, the Flathead River. And, uh, um, you know, while I'd be supportive of, you know, kind of the removal of Uh, that the scented or scent-infused stuff that, uh, Commissioner Walsh is, is driving, driving at, just that, uh, the, the realities of some of the, uh, um, enforcement, uh, issues that, that would, that would create. Uh, um, yeah, that's, that's a, that's a tough one. So I just wanted to say thank you to the staff. I think that they did really dive into this topic and spend a lot of time on that.

1:18:47

Wargo And I do feel like for, you know, the folks, um, that have the sentiment that, uh, the department isn't listening to them, this is one that, that really shined to me, that the, uh, the department, um, really did truly dive in and grapple with this at a deep level and listen to, um, you know, the concerns of sportsmen on that. So I just wanted to say thank you.

1:19:12

Robinson Okay, thank you. I guess I just have a question. I mean, whose jurisdiction is that to decide that?

1:19:22

Adam Strainer (staff) Uh, Chair Robinson, um, you know, so it's my understanding anytime a division proposes something, we approach the enforcement division to ensure its enforceability. Uh, ultimately, we collectively work on whether or not it is. In my experience, most of the time enforcement is willing to enforce whatever regulation is necessary. So unless, unless, yeah.

1:19:50

Christy Clark (staff) Madam Chair, we have Chief Gwozacki with the Enforcement Division here. If there's specific enforcement questions, he can address.

1:20:01

Robinson Okay.

1:20:02

Unidentified (voice G) My—.

1:20:02

Robinson I guess where I was going is if the Commission has jurisdiction over where that sits, who, because there's so many different things that we don't have jurisdiction over and then we do have jurisdiction, so that was my question, but I don't want to waste a bunch of time on it, I just was wondering that.

1:20:23

Adam Strainer (staff) Yeah, Madam Chair, I believe if we're defining bait or lure type, that, that does fall under a Commission rule, and so that would give the Commission the jurisdiction to define that.

1:20:35

Robinson Okay, thank you. Commissioner Walsh.

1:20:38

Walsh Thank you, Madam Chair. Different topic, but one that we heard about. Received a detailed letter on this, and I've heard about it from a number of interested parties, that— and that is the regulations concerning hoot owl restrictions, and specifically on the temperature Currently set at 73 days at 73 degrees triggers hoot owl, and a number of folks would like to see that reduced.

1:21:11

Walsh Mr. Strainer, my understanding is that this is not a commission topic, but something that would have to be taken up by the legislature, and I was referred in. In the dialogue that I had with the Region 3 biologist on the topic. Can you just comment on that?

1:21:33

Adam Strainer (staff) Yeah, Chair Robinson, Vice Chair Walsh, thank you for the question. So first step, to clarify, hoot owl restrictions and closures are not regulation, they're policy-driven and based on procedures and strategies in our statewide fishery management plan. Hoot owl criteria are established in ARM, so they're an administrative rule that the department adheres to throughout our statewide fisheries management process.

1:22:05

Adam Strainer (staff) So I think you and I had a conversation about this, as well as with, I've had it with many other folks, you know, I think the space to place it as part of the regulations is probably outside the authority of the Commission, from my understanding. However, there are other alternative ways to, you know, potentially look at that. The department, for example, goes through an armed revision process post-legislative session.

1:22:42

Adam Strainer (staff) That's fairly lengthy, and so that's space for something like this to be considered, but short of that, the regulation process is not the place to regulate hoot owl restrictions and closures.

1:22:59

Walsh Madam Chair, a quick follow-up.

1:23:01

Robinson Sure, go ahead.

1:23:02

Walsh Just a comment, I, I really hope we have a fresh look at this topic in the fish management plan, And the other thing I've heard from interested folks is, you know, have we considered just implementing date-related restriction where maybe right after the 4th of July weekend to some date in August, we go into a reduced, you know, 3 or 4 PM and still have Hoot Owl, but Have a restriction that gives fish a break in those hot summer months. But thanks for the detailed response.

1:23:43

Robinson Okay, any other questions?

1:23:47

Gagnon Madam Chair, who's talking? Oh, that was Commissioner Gagnon.

1:23:54

Robinson Sure, if you guys could raise your hands, that's helpful for me. Thank you. You don't need to now.

1:24:01

Christy Clark (staff) Yep.

1:24:03

Gagnon Yeah, I was just going to make a comment about the water temperature, and I know I've talked with Region 6 biologists and with Adam about the water temperature impact on cold water species, even in reservoirs. I'm thinking of forkpeck in particular and lake trout and the salmon, the potential impact. So, In the fisheries action, or the upcoming fisheries plan, I would encourage you to consider that not just in rivers, but the water temperature and the impact on the cold water species that are in closed bodies of water as well, not just in the rivers.

1:24:50

Robinson Any other questions? Go ahead.

1:24:54

Christy Clark (staff) Madam Chair, Quinton has a—.

1:24:57

Unidentified (voice J) Yeah, Chair, and it's rooted in— and I may not have heard it correctly, but I heard Vice Chair Walsh talking about a regulation that's connected in time and implementation to a HUDO implementation.

1:25:11

Unidentified (voice O) And there's a—.

1:25:12

Unidentified (voice J) And you heard Adam talk earlier about the substance of the arm.

1:25:16

Unidentified (voice O) For example, the temperature itself is the substance of the arm.

1:25:20

Unidentified (voice J) What the Commission could do, and I'll look to others at the table, once to a water body that has a Hoot Owl restriction on it, Commission thinking about altering the regulation at that point in time, that is something that would be available to season setting consideration, not the implementation of the Hoot Owl, but for water bodies that have Hoot Owl restrictions. I'd look to Stu and others to correct me, and I just want to make sure that we're all on the same page, that we don't have missed expectations. Again, the The interim rule is where the Hoot Owl temperature is and the process for implementing is captured. I heard Vice Chair Walsh talk about the Commission pondering some adjustment to the fishing regulations in Hoot Owl limited waters.

1:26:03

Burrows I think there is a difference between those 2 things, and I'll just stop at that point.

1:26:09

Unidentified (voice I) Yeah, I'm not as familiar with the rule, but to the degree the temperature is set in rule, you would have to change the rule, and then I would defer as far as what the regulation can, the annual or biannual fishing regulation can address.

1:26:27

Adam Strainer (staff) Yeah, yeah, Chair, what it could address, as Quinton alluded to, is, you know, a regulation of a start and stop Period during the day is something the commission could address. However, the department's determination or management strategy to get to that is based in arm.

1:26:53

Unidentified (voice J) Yes, the again the implementation is based in arm.

1:26:59

Kevin Rechkoff (staff) Right.

1:27:00

Robinson So is that something that would have to be decided today? Or is that something we could do after further discussion?

1:27:10

Unidentified (voice L) Chair, this is Quentin again.

1:27:13

Unidentified (voice J) I'm not sure if there's any interest in moving on something today. I just wanted to— I thought I heard something different from literal arm language and its implementation from Vice Chair Walsh. So I just wanted to, just so we don't have mixed expectations at some later point in time where we point back to this conversation. Just wanted to clarify, there may be some Commission discretion that's available on a Hootow, on a Hootow-applied water body that the Commission changes the regulation at that point. That would become a regulation conversation, and the Hootow then becomes the identifier of the stretch where that regulation would fall.

1:27:49

Unidentified (voice I) That's all I meant to clarify, Chair.

1:27:52

Robinson Commissioner Burrows's hand is up, but Commissioner Walsh, do you have a follow-up to that? I, I will let you do that before I And I'm sure—.

1:28:00

Walsh Thanks. It's a relatively simple one. This is really for Stuart, and that is, if the public does want to engage on an adjustment to the ARM related to the temperature for hoot owl restrictions, how would they go about getting involved in that?

1:28:18

Unidentified (voice I) So the public has the right to request a change to administrative rule, and we'll address that later, actually, with some of the administrative rules that come up on this agenda. So that would be the formal way for them to do it. Informally, they could reach out to a commissioner and request that the rule be changed. Of course, you have to go through the rule process. The meeting is just one part of that. There's the public notice and public adoption process as well. And I don't know, and I would look to Marty and others, if it's an FWP rule or a commission rule. And, and which body has the authority to change it?

1:29:02

Unidentified (voice R) Madam Chair, Commissioner, I, I think we're on point here to be able to state that obviously you have the authority to shut down water bodies. You know, as far, as far as Houdale restrictions that are identified in an ARM of the department, you could come in behind that using as Quentin said, using the ARM as an identifier of water bodies and put additional restrictions in on your own. I mean, if you have the ability to shut down a water body, you have the ability to do less than shutting down the water body in the future.

1:29:39

Unidentified (voice R) If there was something that the— if members of the public wanted to come in and actually try and change, say, our Houdal rules, They could come in with a petition to initiate rulemaking, where they would come in and suggest, hey, there's a current rule on the book, here's what it is. We're going to have something like that on Swan Lake later in the day, and I think it would be a similar process to that if the public wanted to come in and change Houdal restrictions. Madam Chair.

1:30:10

Robinson Thank you. Commissioner Burrows.

1:30:13

Burrows Yeah, we kind of got into what I was saying, but I just wanted to clarify that, that The way we would change the arm is through the petition process, I think, and that because that's the way we've done in the past. And I just didn't know if those petitions can be— so, so far what I've seen, we've had petitions initiated by the public, we've had them initiated by, I believe, the department carrying those forward. I, I guess I was just wondering, can the commission initiate that petition to possibly do something on Hoot owl temperatures and send that through the MAPA process?

1:30:52

Unidentified (voice I) I would think so, but I might not be understanding.

1:30:59

Unidentified (voice R) Again, I think it's a question of jurisdiction that we would have to look at more closely, but those are currently department arms on the book, and frankly, a petition for rulemaking can be submitted by virtually any entity. And so I would be reluctant to say the Commission would not have authority to submit a petition to change rules currently on the book for FWP. Madam Chair?

1:31:28

Robinson Thank you. And okay, any other questions? Commissioner Burrows.

1:31:40

Burrows Madam Chair, I'd move the Fish and Wildlife Commission approve the 2027-2028 fishing regulations as proposed.

1:31:48

Wargo Second.

1:31:50

Robinson Who was the second? Commissioner Wargo?

1:31:53

Wargo Yes.

1:31:54

Robinson Okay, thank you. Okay, Commissioner Wargo, do you want to start with Amendment Number 1?

1:32:05

Wargo Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. Briefly—.

1:32:10

Robinson Jesse, is there any way that you can pull that up onto the screen, please? Okay, go ahead. Thank you.

1:32:19

Wargo Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. Briefly, before I dive into the details, I just wanted to speak, you know, high level to, you know, some of the intent behind These amendments, these are— there's a few in particular that are fairly wide-sweeping and, you know, have some pretty significant implications to management.

1:32:45

Wargo So Amendment Number 1 is one that I'm, you know, I'm personally passionate about, and it's— I would say it's a little bit more minor on scale, but the the intent behind a lot of these other amendments is really trying to initiate more meaningful discussion around these topics. So I guess, you know, very interested to see where, you know, where comments come in, what the other commissioners have to say, what the department has to say, as well as the public.

1:33:22

Wargo And you know, just give a platform for some of that, that public discussion, and I can, I can speak to those more when we get into it, but I just wanted to frame kind of the overall, all discussion. Then again, I would like to give a sincere thanks to Mr. Strainer and the rest of the fisheries staff, Leo being in the in the new Region One Fisheries Management position, Amber, Kenny.

1:33:58

Wargo I'm I'm missing names, but the department was very proactive, and we we we sat down and had some very what I would call very constructive conversations on on all of these very meaningful conversations. So I'm very appreciative to that process, and again, I was appreciative. To the department responding to some of the public concerns along the way. So with that out of the way, I guess I will start with amendment number 1. This is to adjust the retention limit for Bitterroot Lake kokanee harvest. This is a lake that's near and dear to me.

1:34:41

Wargo I started fishing this lake when I literally, when I was 5 years old, and I don't think I've missed a year since then. It's, uh, it's one of my favorite, uh, lakes to recreate on, and I have no intention of compromising the integrity of, uh, of this lake. Um, I guess if you could maybe sum up the, uh, the, the nature of the, the amendment is that, uh, I, I very much appreciate the department's concern when we go forward.

1:35:12

Wargo There's, uh, we've We have a situation with the recent introduction of northern pike into Lake Mary Ronan, which was the brood source for kokanee historically. In addition to you know some concerns with rising water temperatures, the department is being very proactive and they're looking for an additional brood source opportunity. And this their their amendment or their regulation adjustment is in response to making sure that we don't overexploit the, uh, the resource, which that, that type of proactive approach is, is very appreciated.

1:35:54

Wargo However, that being said, and you know, the, the vast number of days that I have on this, this water body, um, and the, and the change that I have seen over, uh, over the years, I think Kokanee in particular are very fickle fish to manage, and getting the proper number of fish is probably a pretty difficult thing to do for the department. I think there's a lot of, you know, density dependence that can occur. So I gave a fairly lengthy rationale and background.

1:36:32

Wargo I can let that speak for itself, But, um, you know, essentially, uh, the trend that I have been seeing in this lake is, is more and more fish, especially there's a deep water portion of, uh, the population that, that keys into mysis shrimp. Mysis shrimp is one of those, those things that's had a big negative connotation relative to like Flathead Lake management. Um, relative to, to Bitterroot Lake, it's, it's been a It's been an awesome thing. It had had what happened is taking place in Bitterroot happened in Flathead Lake, it would have been probably championed as one of the biggest successes of the department.

1:37:11

Wargo But we all know that there's been complications in Flathead Lake due to mysis, and it's you know it's turned into a black eye for the department. But anyway, that I see that there's a density dependence issue going on in. In Bitterroot, there's getting to be more and more fish keying into the mysis population, and the size overall over the last few years has continued to, to decline. So I don't see that there's an urgency in, um, uh, reducing this, uh, this limit right now. The department's looking at, uh, taking anywhere between 1,000 and maybe up to 2,500 kokanee out of this lake.

1:37:56

Wargo It's a lake that's 3 miles long, 2 miles wide. And I don't even know that the removals of that level would be really that measurable. So if—.

1:38:10

Robinson Do you want to make the motion, Commissioner Wargo?

1:38:13

Wargo Okay, I move the Fish and Wildlife Commission adopt the following amendment to the proposed 2027-2028 fishing regulation. Amend the Little Bitterroot Lake kokanee harvest limit as follows: retain the Western District standard daily in possession limit for kokanee salmon of 20 daily and 40 in possession.

1:38:41

Robinson Is there a second? One more chance.

1:38:48

Brooke I'll second.

1:38:50

Robinson Commissioner Burke. Okay, okay. I am, uh, I'm gonna let, uh, Mr. Strainer— do you have anything that you would like to say on behalf of the agency? And then I'll go to the commissioners for questions.

1:39:11

Adam Strainer (staff) Yeah, Chair, uh, Commissioner Wargo, thank, thank you for the opportunity to comment. This one is simple from the department standpoint. Our, our current broodstock source for kokanee is in jeopardy at Lake Mary Ronan for the 2 reasons Commissioner Wargo mentioned. One, northern pike population is, the northern pike population is on the increase and we have concerns about the longevity of that brood source. Little Bitterroot Lake is a known brood source location, we have successfully trapped fish there, and it is essentially our current strategy as a backup plan for our kokanee brood source.

1:39:52

Adam Strainer (staff) Without a known backup, successful backup plan, it puts our kokanee program in jeopardy for the state of Montana. And so with that, I'll turn it back over to you, Chair.

1:40:05

Robinson Thank you, and I can't see the commissioners over there. I think Commissioner Burrows, you did have Yeah. Did you still have your hand up, Commissioner Burrows?

1:40:17

Burrows Madam Chair, Adam kind of hit it, I guess, through my discussions, because it didn't seem like a big deal at the time, at the time of the amendment. But then seeing that, because I was looking more at just isolated to Bitterroot Lake versus looking at that big picture, and I, I mean, I want to support, support Commissioner Wargo in his neck of the woods, but at the same time, I guess I just don't want to make sure we're looking too, uh, too micro with this issue because Bitterroot Lake may be able to sustain that harvest.

1:40:51

Burrows But if we're talking about bigger picture of broodstock for the state, at least the western side of the state or across the state, I would hate to see us make a decision based on a, at a micro level. And possibly diminish the broodstock out of there.

1:41:11

Robinson Okay, Commissioner Gagnon.

1:41:14

Gagnon Thank you, Madam Chair. My question is directed, I think, towards Adam Strainer, or maybe he can redirect if necessary. I'm wondering on Little Bitterroot Lake if there's been a creel survey done recently specifically for the kokanee, and if so, what the results of that are? I'm just thinking about the current limit of 20 daily and 40 in possession, are anglers achieving that regularly or is the harvest actually much lower than that?

1:41:48

Adam Strainer (staff) Chair Robinson, Commissioner Gagnon, thank you for the question. I can't speak directly to a creel survey, what I do know is we regularly regularly monitor that population through standardized surveys, and it's our understanding that kokanee anglers on that lake routinely harvest their limit.

1:42:11

Gagnon Thank you.

1:42:14

Robinson Any further questions? I think I'd like to go through all of the amendments, and then we'll come back and vote on each one of them. In case there's things that come up as we go since they're all similar. So Commissioner Burrows.

1:42:35

Burrows Maybe just a question, probably for the department. So like one of the things that we hear on, and I don't know how temperamental the kokanee are to feed and predation, all these things, but like for example, when we talk about mule deer, Uh, and we see significant declines in mule deer, we hear, well, hunting pressure or the harvest, even though we've got significant harvest, isn't the driver of that population. It's forage and habitat.

1:43:06

Unidentified (voice L) How—.

1:43:06

Burrows What's— I guess what would be the truth in that as far as kokanee go and this daily limit? Is this like a drop in the bucket if the— all the fishermen were up there catching 20 daily kokanee, or is there so many kokanee, such a density of kokanee, that, that, that harvest is really just kind of a drop in the bucket versus the overall population, but a little bit early?

1:43:31

Adam Strainer (staff) Chair Robinson, Commissioner Burrows, thank you for the question. This, this, our regulation proposal number 14, it's truly a conservative approach to kokanee, to kokanee angling in that reservoir to ensure the future of our kokanee broodstock. To your point of, you know, population level impacts, to date we have never had to use Bitterroot, Little Bitterroot Lake as the primary brood source for the state of Montana.

1:44:09

Adam Strainer (staff) Should that day come, it'll be at the priority water for hitting our target of over 2 million kokanee eggs into our hatcheries annually. So big picture, as you alluded to, this has the potential to be our number one and only egg source for the state of Montana. We continue to seek out other locations for, as brood sources, but this is a known location. That we'd like to conservatively approach through a regulation reduction to ensure the longevity of the kokanee fruit source for the state of Montana.

1:44:51

Robinson Commissioner Wargo, I'll let you close on this one and then we'll move to your next amendment.

1:44:56

Kevin Rechkoff (staff) Okay, thank you.

1:44:56

Wargo Thank you, Madam Chair. I guess just speak to a couple things, you know, quickly on this. Like I said, this is I, I in no way, shape, or form want to compromise integrity of this lake. Uh, you know, when I— when, when the salmon in this lake used to, um, keep— when they initiated, um, or when they started keying into the mysis, uh, population in this lake, we would routinely get, uh, kokanee salmon in the excess of 19 inches, you know, up to 20, 24-inch kokanee. Out of this lake. There was, uh, you know, the numbers were fairly, um, you know, it was, it was fairly rare that you would, you would be getting those, those bigger fish.

1:45:40

Wargo And the tides have just turned. I mean, I can go out and I can get a limit in, in no time out of that lake, and they're, they're dropped down to where it's, it's difficult to get, you know, sometimes 12 to 14-inch fish is like, you know, some of the, some of the larger size. There was a, there was a long-standing regulation on this lake, um, that the department, in order to protect those older age class fish, they dropped it to 2 fish over 12 inches, which I think really had some negative impacts to the, to the lake on a density dependence, um, side of, side of things. Um, and I guess I would, like I said, I will be the first to know if there's any problem, and we can, we can respond accordingly.

1:46:25

Wargo But removing 1,000 fish out of this lake for kokanee spawning, I don't even think would be, be noticeable. And I think it's a, you know, another one-off regulation that at this time it's not necessary. I think in, in general, big, big picture, we have a lot of things that occur naturally that we have a We have a good change that occurs that we all appreciate, and then our response is, oh man, we have to change the regulation in order to protect that resource, which was what occurred with that 2 over 12 regulation.

1:47:02

Wargo Not as much with the department's intent here, but again, I just— being that we don't have a problem yet, I would say this one we need to tap the brakes on and just monitor it. More closely.

1:47:16

Unidentified (voice I) Thank you, Commissioner Burrows.

1:47:22

Robinson Do you have something quick?

1:47:24

Burrows Apologies for the slow commissioner out of Region Two. I maybe everybody knows, but the the mysis shrimp that Commissioner Wargo keeps talking about could FWP just give just really quick like I don't understand the dynamics of mysis shrimp and. Smaller fish or the impacts that it's had, and it may be, it sounds like important at least to this lake and maybe flathead. Can we just get like a 30-second of what, what, what this shrimp means and why it's kind of relevant to the conversation?

1:47:59

Adam Strainer (staff) Chair Robinson, Commissioner Burrows, thank you for the question. Micey shrimp, their population levels exist in very deep waters, What Commissioner Wargo is alluding to is some life history changes can occur where kokanee, which are typically planktivores or feed on zooplankton, I would say in the, the upper portions of the reservoir, in water bodies that have mysis shrimp, fish that can access mysis shrimp as a prey base do in fact do that.

1:48:35

Adam Strainer (staff) Like I stated earlier, our staff monitor the population, the entire population, using vertical gillnets where we can actually look at, where we can look at the population as it stratifies throughout the reservoir, meaning we can look at fish that are on the surface and fish that are on the bottom, and we do diet analyses to understand how they interact with the various prey bases. We're beginning to learn more about the impacts of mysis shrimp, but to date we don't really have a way to identify whether or not there's certain sectors of that population that are, you know, preferring one species or the other. We do know that they use it as a prey base.

1:49:28

Robinson Okay, Commissioner Wargo, do you wanna move on to your number 2, please?

1:49:34

Wargo Yeah, thanks, Madam Chair. Would you like me to speak to it or make a motion first?

1:49:39

Robinson You can go ahead, whichever. Probably make the motion first, I guess. Well, honestly, you probably should speak to it to make sure you can get a second on it.

1:49:48

Wargo Okay, okay. I guess this, this, uh, you know, that, that prior, prior amendment, like I said, it's one I'm passionate about. You know, this, this, these are all— these next 3 are, are topics that I just, uh, feel like warrant a bit deeper discussion. Um, the— this amendment was initiated, I guess, if we roll back the clock to last, last season's setting. The department went in, they're being proactive trying to monitor bull trout trends in the, in the Upper South Fork.

1:50:28

Wargo They had a low, lower redd count, and then they initiated kind of a last-minute amendment to reduce the length of the bull trout season as well as impose some, some seasonal, some area closures around a few spots, a few known like deep holes in the river in the wilderness.

1:50:54

Wargo That's not what this amendment speaks to, but that's some of the backstory that this is a relatively new change as a result of a lower redd count that the department did just get back or get done with their redd counts from this year, and it is good to see that we In 2024, we dropped to 171. I believe in 2026, the the red count was up to 215, and then they ended up jumping into a couple other tributaries, and they found some pretty pretty significant red counts. Let me.

1:51:38

Wargo I think there was an additional 178 redds that they found in, in streams that they, uh, don't typically, um, survey. So it's, it's good to see that the, the bull trout do seem to be fairly diversified and they have lots of different options on spawning. But, um, not to get too far off track, um, this amendment is kind of to, to bring up that, hey, This is— it's well intended. We go up there, we do a red count at the end of the year, and we say, oh well, I speculate this, this is happening. It's based off of bull trout, uh, catch cards and where anglers are turning, turning that stuff in.

1:52:18

Wargo However, um, there's a, there's kind of a, there's a unique situation early in the spring. Um, you can, you can harvest one bull trout per year out of Hungry Horse Reservoir, and you can fish for them year-round if you're in possession of a catch card. Um, there's a lot of angling pressure that takes place in this, this, uh, crossover area, um, of the reservoir. In low water in the spring, the reservoir turns into river, and you get a lot of angling pressure there.

1:52:55

Wargo It's, it's anecdotal, But this is where the known sources of— this is where you see pictures of people holding up stringers of bull trout that they can legally harvest because they're allowed one per year. There's a lot of recreational fishing that takes place, a lot of dead bait fishing, etc. I'm not so certain that I, that I, you know, am, am totally opposed to that, but it's, it's one of those things, it's like we're changing something without taking into account the broader picture of what's, what's going on. Yes, a lot of targeted angling pressure, um, takes place, you know, via fly fishing in the upper stretches, you know, and had been taking, taking place in June.

1:53:38

Wargo But I feel like a little bit— the, the department's prior approach was a little bit of a Band-Aid on a gunshot wound because we're not even— like, we had to bring this to the department's attention that this, this was taking place in this area in, in the reservoir. So this is a, a major known source of mortality, and I believe that department is speaking to this a little bit and that they put a size restriction on, on the bull trout in their, in the parent regulations to try to, you know, maybe scale back some of the, some of the bull trout harvest that's occurring in the reservoir, but I just want to have a, a broader discussion.

1:54:19

Wargo Um, you know, this is— there's, there's a lot of, uh, user groups that, that use this, uh, this section of the, uh, river. It's heavily, it's heavily outfitted. That last-minute amendment, I mean, there was, uh, um, you know, trips that were booked that got, got canceled because it cut out that June season. So it's just something that You know, it's like, you know, whether or not this one goes forward now, we need to, we need to keep this on our radar and continue to look at things. The, the prior amendments that are the prior restrictions that did change, they have not come with a response.

1:54:57

Wargo I know the department's stretched thin and, you know, getting into the wilderness and the enforcement angles of things that there, there are, it is very difficult. But if you talk to, um, you know, anglers in the area, in this particular, the, uh, you know, the outfitting crowd that's up there, the air— the areas that are closed in the upper wilderness, the only ones that are following those regulations due to lack of enforcement is the outfitted folks. And we're also promoting—.

1:55:29

Robinson I go ahead and do your motion, please, Commissioner Wargo.

1:55:33

Wargo All right, I move, uh, um, Fish and Wildlife Commission adopt the following amendment to the proposed 2027-2028 fishing regulation proposals. Amend the Hungry Horse regulation as follows, um, the definition would be the dam to, uh, Peters Creek Campground. Amend the South Fork River regulation as follows, uh, the definition would be river including headwaters and tributaries from the confluence of Youngs and Danaher Creeks downstream to Peters Creek Campground.

1:56:08

Wargo Add live/dead bait prohibited, and then amend the bull trout specific bullet point. No, no intentional angling for bull trout except catch and release from 3rd Saturday in May through July 31st. Hungry Horse, South Fork Flathead bull trout catch card must be in possession when fishing for bull trout. See bull trout page 13 for application information. All bull trout must be released without delay.

1:56:47

Robinson Is there a second?

1:56:49

Gagnon Madam Chair, I'll second. Commissioner Gagnon.

1:56:52

Robinson Okay, thank you. Okay, Mr. Strainer, do you want to speak to it from the agency perspective?

1:57:05

Adam Strainer (staff) Chair Robinson, thank you. The best available information regarding bull trout mortality does not indicate that harvest, angling harvest, has any implications on the overall population of bull trout in any waters in the state of Montana. If the department felt that bull trout were in fact in harm's way, we would potentially consider closing those waters to angling altogether. The current regulations both are based in science in regard to a lengthy annual pressure survey that we carry out for both the South Fork and Hungry Horse.

1:57:48

Adam Strainer (staff) To date, we have approximately 1,200 anglers that get catch cards to be able to fish for and potentially harvest a bull trout in these waters.

1:57:59

Adam Strainer (staff) We do, our information does indicate that there, that the majority of that harvest or catching does potentially occur in that lower 4 miles of the South Fork or the upper portions of the reservoir, and, you know, our conservative approach is to protect Bull trout in these waters with the best regulations possible, and we believe staying the course with the current regulations in place on both Hungry Horse Reservoir and the South Fork River are in the best interest of the state of Montana.

1:58:35

Robinson Okay, are there any questions from the Commission? Commissioner Gagnon.

1:58:44

Gagnon Thank you, Madam Chair. And first question for Commissioner Wargo. I think that I'm reading into this. There's 3 changes that you are proposing to the department's proposal and to the regulations. I just want to make sure that I'm tracking properly.

1:59:01

Unidentified (voice F) Yes.

1:59:02

Gagnon One is the location from crossover to Peters Campground, the restriction on bait, and the date. I just want to make sure that I'm tracking correctly.

1:59:16

Wargo That's correct.

1:59:18

Gagnon Thank you. And then a question for Adam. The proposal— I'm looking at Proposal 13, and that is also a change to the regulations from 26-27 to the 27-28 Or excuse me, from 2526 to the 2627 regulations. Is that correct?

1:59:42

Adam Strainer (staff) That is correct.

1:59:45

Kevin Rechkoff (staff) All right, thank you.

1:59:45

Gagnon I just wanted to make sure I was tracking the changes, so thanks.

1:59:51

Robinson Any questions? I can't see all of you guys, so if you do have your hand raised and I'm not calling on you, just Madam Chair, Commissioner Gagnon again. Okay.

2:00:12

Gagnon The only other question I might pose to Adam, in Commissioner Wargo's amendment, there was the inclusion of a restriction on live and dead bait, and in the department's response, they were not necessarily opposed to that, but I just want some response from Adam maybe on that particular change, if he could, on the amendment.

2:00:42

Adam Strainer (staff) Chair Robinson, Commissioner Gagnon. So just so I'm clear, you're asking me to comment on Commissioner Wargo's amendment change?

2:00:52

Unidentified (voice J) Yes, please.

2:00:53

Gagnon The proposal to prohibit live Or dead bait, that, that part of the proposal specifically.

2:01:01

Adam Strainer (staff) Yes, thank you for the clarification. Chair Robinson, Commissioner Gagnon, the department stands firmly on opportunity-based angling, and so the restrictions in place currently are a single-pointed hook and the opportunity to fish for and potentially harvest with a catch card bull trout in this particular area, and so if the department felt strongly that bull trout would, should not be potentially targeted and/or harvested in this area, we would in fact consider closing the fishery altogether.

2:01:41

Adam Strainer (staff) Therefore, it's our job to advocate for all opportunity for all anglers, and the use of bait like worms, for example, are really important to certain segments of the angling community. So therefore, we stand that the current regulation in place is more than adequate to address your question, Commissioner Gagnon.

2:02:09

Wargo Thank you.

2:02:09

Robinson Any other questions? Okay, um, Commissioner Wargo, I'll give you a minute to close.

2:02:25

Wargo Yeah, I guess again, I, you know, I want, I want this one to be earmarked, um, you know, by the department. Uh, I want us to continue to be dedicated to keeping tabs on what's, what's taking place, um, in this, in this section of river. Um, you know, bull trout are an amazing thing, and it's, it's an incredible opportunity that we still get to, um, you know, actively angle for them. Um, again, it's, it's, uh, it's just something to, to bring up that, hey, we need to keep, keep tabs on what's actually, actually taking place.

2:03:05

Wargo Um, you know, and there's, you know, we've sat down with the department Even before I was on the commission and kind of talked to this specifically, to my knowledge, there hasn't been much in the way of creel surveys that have gone in to look into this. So, um, just wanting to bring it up, um, you know, as a broader, broader discussion. Um, you know, I'm throwing in the whole live bait, dead bait. Well, you can't use live bait in Western Fishing District, but just for consistency with regulations, you know, talking about, hey, is it the best thing to allow dead bait in this, in this section of river?

2:03:40

Wargo We have transitioned away from double and treble point hooks to single point hooks, which I'm largely in support of in, in some of these, these areas. But if you do allow dead bait, the, the best thing that you can have is probably a quick set.

2:04:00

Robinson Okay, you're gonna have to move on to your next one.

2:04:02

Wargo So do you have a Um, well, I can, I can leave it there. We can continue the, the conversation and move to, uh, Amendment 3. So, uh, Amendment 3, um, this lower Flathead, uh, there's a, there's a section of the lower Flathead that operates much more, uh, it's an inundated portion that's, uh, regulated off of the dam on, uh, Uh, on Flathead Lake.

2:04:33

Wargo Um, the, the angling pressure that does take place on this, on the lower Flathead, uh, it's, it's pretty much exclusively, uh, lake trout, northern pike, um, lake whitefish, and, and, and bass is kind of, is kind of what the fishery is. And last season setting, again, we, we went to the single point hook. Definition, and we applied it broad brush.

2:05:04

Wargo There was a lot of opposition to applying, uh, that single-point hook restriction to the lower Flathead because it kind of directly impedes with anglers' success in, in pursuing these non-natives that, that the department has explicitly said, hey, are they compete with the natives. If you— I'm not going to say that you can't catch a bull trout in this area. It does, it does happen, absolutely. Absolutely, but anglers are not going out actively targeting bull trout in this in this inundated portion of the river. Bull trout are bycatch, and you know kind of this you know some of the spirit of this amendment is to say hey what's better?

2:05:43

Wargo Is it better to remove some of the competing non-natives, or is it is it? Is it better to just reduce reduce pressure altogether? So with this, again, I want I want sportsmen to be able to to weigh in, have the discussion because this was similar to the soft plastic debate last or this this season setting. This was the contentious topic, and this topic in particular led sportsmen to believe that the department.

2:06:22

Wargo Does not listen to them because there was a resounding, you know, at the meetings, the public meetings and whatnot, this, this was what packed the halls, this particular section, and, you know, kind of the recreational opportunity that occurs. So, um, this is a, you know, an attempt to, um, maybe address some of those concerns and have a broader discussion. So I said, uh, make a motion.

2:06:51

Robinson Okay, go ahead.

2:06:53

Wargo I move the Fish and Wildlife Commission adopt the following amendments to the proposed 2027-2028 fishing regulations proposals. Amend the Flathead River regulation as follows: from the confluence of North Fork and Middle Fork Forks to the Middle Fork Or sorry, let me repeat that. From the confluence of North and Middle Forks to the mouth of Church Slough, uh, hooks, lures must have single points, no double or treble hooks. Open entire year, catch and release for cutthroat trout. Rainbow trout, 5 daily and in possession.

2:07:33

Wargo Um, from December 1st to 3rd Saturday in May, maggots And lures only. No lures can be scented, infused, saturated, or applied. From the mouth of Church Slough to Flathead Lake, delete the requirement that hooks, lures must have single points, no double or treble hooks.

2:08:02

Wargo Next, that would be open the entire year, catch and release for cutthroat trout, rainbow trout 5 daily and in possession, and then from December 1st to the 3rd Saturday in May, just modify that to only dead bait prohibited.

2:08:19

Robinson Okay, is there a second?

2:08:21

Brooke I'll second that.

2:08:23

Robinson Okay, Commissioner Brooke? Okay, Adam, would you like to speak to that one?

2:08:33

Adam Strainer (staff) Yes, thank you, Chair. This particular, the regulation currently in place on this stretch of the Flathead River was approved by the Commission based on hard evidence from our staff's research of this area, most notably in regards to bull trout.

2:08:56

Adam Strainer (staff) During the spawning time frames, large congregations of native bull trout in the area are staging in, in the area that Commissioner Wargo is describing, in the lower portions of the river or in the delta area, and in those, and then in that instance, the department views the current regulations in place as necessary to protect those native species and those congregations of native species in that area. The department also believes that the opportunity still exists to use whatever angling tactic, within reason, falls within the current regulations.

2:09:35

Adam Strainer (staff) An example would be, we're not hoping to remove, for example, Rapalas or lures from use. What we are asking the angling public to do to protect native species is to use single-pointed hooks. So the department firmly believes, as the Commission approved recently, that the regulations in place are in fact warranted and necessary.

2:10:01

Robinson Okay, are there any questions from commissioners? Commissioner Gagnon?

2:10:13

Gagnon Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. A question for Adam, and I believe I understand this, but There was not a proposal in the proposed regulations associated with any of these changes, is that correct?

2:10:29

Adam Strainer (staff) Chair Robinson, Commissioner Gagnon, that is correct.

2:10:32

Gagnon Thank you.

2:10:33

Robinson Commissioner Burrows.

2:10:38

Burrows Do we know or have any data that shows mortality rates of a single-point hook versus a double point or a treble hook, either on some sort of like salmonoid species, bull trout, whatever.

2:10:53

Unidentified (voice J) Because we're all—.

2:10:54

Burrows I mean, I guess what this is saying is that we, that we're supporting the single point hooks in this stretch of the flathead. I'm assuming because it has a lower mortality rate on potentially a bull trout catch. Do we have that any data on that mortality rates single versus double versus triple?

2:11:19

Adam Strainer (staff) Chair Commissioner Burrows, no to mortality rates. What we do have is very sensitive native species that benefits from less. Hooking scar potential and potentially less bycatch when targeting species throughout this stream. Just a reminder, and this is sort of connected to the previous amendment, you know, we have specifically identified locations where we can target and potentially harvest bull trout in the state of Montana.

2:12:00

Adam Strainer (staff) This particular section of The Flathead River is not that section, so this is outside the scope of what the state of Montana can allow for targeting species like bull trout. And so we view this amendment, or we view our current regulations as again warranted and necessary to protect a very sensitive native species in the Flathead River.

2:12:25

Robinson Commissioner Burrows?

2:12:28

Burrows Madam Chair, follow-up, how does number of points increase or decrease bycatch?

2:12:38

Adam Strainer (staff) Chair Robinson, Commissioner Burrows, more points equals more opportunity to potentially snag inadvertently a fish species that you're not intending to target.

2:12:59

Robinson Any other questions? Okay, Commissioner Wargo, if you want to do just some short closing remarks, please, sir.

2:13:12

Wargo Yeah, thank you, uh, Madam Chair. I can keep this one, uh, Fairly, fairly brief. Um, you know, I'd be interested to hear, see if there's actually anybody, um, any of the sportsmen on, on online that are actually gonna, gonna comment here. It's a tough, tough time of year to, to be engaged, but, uh, um, this is, this is me acknowledging to the public that this was a very contentious issue, and I want to give the, the, the sportsmen in this local sportsmen in this area a microphone and allow them to, uh, just to speak to this. Just let them know that they're being heard.

2:13:53

Burrows Okay, close there.

2:13:54

Renee Lemon (staff) We—.

2:13:55

Robinson Just a reminder, we'll vote on these before we go out to the public, but the public can, if it doesn't pass or if it passes, you can, you can comment on it because it is not finalized until our final vote. So, okay, thank you. You don't want to go to, uh, Amendment number 4, please.

2:14:13

Unidentified (voice N) Commissioner Wargo.

2:14:16

Wargo Madam Chair, I see Commissioner— oh, maybe Commissioner Walsh.

2:14:21

Walsh But both a question and a comment. I, um, I would hope that we would hear public comment before we vote on these amendments. I, I, um, you know, that would be very meaningful to my vote personally on any one of Commissioner Wargo's 4 amendments.

2:14:38

Robinson Okay, I would, I would allow, since we do have several, and if we're going to do that, Commissioner Walsh, I might break yours into more amendments than, than just the one. But, uh, I would allow a minute, um, for the amendments, and then we'll come back, vote on them, and then they'll have 2 minutes, which actually gives them 3 minutes to— The amendments. So I will be flexible on that. So I go ahead on number 4 then, please, Commissioner Wargo.

2:15:13

Wargo Thank you, Madam Chair. I guess, uh, so this is, this is the big amendment, and there's a lot of, there's a lot of moving parts to this. There's a lot to, um, dive into. This is largely, again, a This is a request specifically to the department to have a broader discussion on where we're going with, with, with management on Flathead Lake.

2:15:44

Wargo Um, we've, we've been engaged in, um, MACD's, uh, competition to try to do lake trout suppression on the lake for over over 20 years, and I, you know, I put some of the data in there. Um, I, I think the tribe probably has, uh, you know, some more of their own, um, data that would be important in the broader, broader discussion.

2:16:09

Unidentified (voice S) But we're—.

2:16:09

Wargo Today we're, we're catching more lake trout in these— in this competition than we—.

2:16:14

Kevin Rechkoff (staff) When—.

2:16:14

Wargo Than we did when this started. So again, it's a question of whether or not, um, Our current approach is is working. Bull trout red counts remain static in the system, which might be an indication of success that they haven't declined. But we do know that there are known sources of bull trout mortality through gill netting and through MAC days. It's going to be a lot less quantifiable, but any of these char type species, you know. Lake trout, bull trout. Um, it also speaks to that, some of the stuff with the, the slot limit. Flathead Lake is a very deep water lake.

2:16:55

Wargo If you pull a, a bull trout up off the bottom of the lake while you're targeting lake trout from 220 to 240 feet of water, the swim bladder on that fish is going to blow up. If you don't have a deep water release system on board, The likelihood of that, um, that bull trout surviving is very low.

2:17:18

Unidentified (voice I) Sure.

2:17:18

Wargo So the question is, is the juice worth the squeeze? Are we, you know, are we on the right track? The, you know, some of the high levels, you know, the high— higher bull trout populations that we experienced in the '80s, I would argue that those were a direct result of, um, the kokanee population and the bull trout being able to take part in that supplemental food source. So with that said, the conversations that I've had with the department have been incredibly positive on this.

2:17:52

Wargo My, my, my frustration and the reason for bringing this forward is that in the statewide fisheries management plan, we didn't speak to a broader plan for Flathead Lake management. You know, I, I think we're at a time where we tried kokanee restocking and it was unsuccessful. I think there was a few issues that we had with the approach where we stocked fish, etc., but I think enough has changed in the dynamic of Flathead Lake that it is, it is worth exploring those options more.

2:18:28

Wargo It's worth, you know, collaborating with a lot of the partners and stakeholders in this to look at what it would take to get kokanee reestablished in the lake, and the department has provided me with a draft update of the statewide fisheries management plan that speaks to that. It also speaks to, um, an effort to really take a hard look into Flathead Lake, to come up with a state of the lake video series, and then host some subsequent scoping meetings to really dive into this issue. And so, you know, I think we're going to need a lot of partners in this.

2:19:08

Wargo I had very positive conversations with Fish and Wildlife Service, Craig Barfoot over at CSKT. I had positive conversations with there. I think moving towards, you know, let's, let's, it's been 20-some years, it's time to look in and assess you know, where this fishery is going, you know, are we getting a return on our efforts, do we need to look at supplementing with, you know, upper tributary habitat restoration and other stuff to ensure long-term survivability of bull trout in this system, looking at kokanee and such.

2:19:52

Wargo I'll wrap this up here fairly quick, but the You know, there are some— there's some frustrations for sure by, uh, the local sportsmen. You know, some of the unlimited, uh, you know, limits on some of these natives or these non-natives that aren't going away. There's never— there's never even been a creel, to my knowledge, that, that has, you know, encountered an angler, angler that's hit any one of these existing limits. So it seems— and it was very contentious with sportsmen— so it seems Seems odd to go towards that if we're not even hitting the existing limits. And then, you know, one last comment.

2:20:37

Wargo You know, I really hope that we can establish a better line of communication with the tribe. In their comments, they speak particularly that this amendment violates the spirit of co-management, and I would agree with that statement. This does, this is a pretty radical amendment to say, you know, completely change the way in which we're managing lake trout, but we also have to understand that coming onto the north end of Flathead Lake, dropping gillnets without any prior collaboration, that also violates the spirit of co-management. And I don't want to dwell on that. I want to get beyond it.

2:21:20

Wargo I think it's very important that we— we have an incredible resource.

2:21:23

Burrows It's—.

2:21:24

Wargo It supports a ton of recreation. It supports a ton of business and, you know, outfitting guide community on this lake. And I guess this amendment, um, is kind of a foreshadowing where I see if there's not deeper discussions that take place, if we don't get serious about having honest conversations. This is where I see this, that this, that Flathead Lake management might need to go if there is no hope. I mean, if this is, um, yeah, if we can't change it through the current suppression methods, then we need to have a conversation about what does the long-term outlook look like.

2:22:03

Wargo But I guess, you know, hopefully in folks' testimony, they, they're able to speak to this But as a result—.

2:22:14

Robinson I did— go ahead with your amendment, Commissioner Wargo. And I just wanna remind everybody that these 4, we did have written comments. There was time for the public to submit written comments on these.

2:22:30

Wargo So go ahead. So I'll close it up. I'll make it simple. It might be, Frustrating to some of the folks on on the call. I still want to hear the opinions, but as a result of the proactive approach that the department's taken to, and they've given me the commitment that they're they're interested in looking into this at a deeper level. I am not going to introduce this amendment, and I want to bookmark this for future discussions. And I really hope that. Those those discussions take place.

2:23:05

Robinson Okay, all right. Thank you. I'm going to move on to amendment number five then, and that would be Commissioner Gagnon.

2:23:18

Gagnon Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. Just a quick description of why I'm bringing this amendment forward. I had a discussion with Region. 5 Departmental staff and supervisors, and they felt that this proposal, Proposal Number 41, might have been premature in that they had not yet collected enough data to determine the impact of the change. So with that in mind, I'm bringing this amendment forward on the behalf of the department. So I would make a motion that I move that Fish and Wildlife Commission adopt the following amendment to the proposal in the 2027-2028 fishing regulations. Amend the fishing regulations as follow.

2:24:03

Gagnon The amendment to the 27-28 fishing regulations will remove Proposal 41, which would have changed the setlines allowed on the Yellowstone River from I-90 bridge in Billings to the mouth of the Bighorn from 6 to 3 through the months of May 1 through June 15.

2:24:26

Brooke Second.

2:24:27

Robinson Okay, who was the second? Commissioner Wargo, were you the second?

2:24:29

Wargo Yes.

2:24:30

Robinson Okay, thank you. Any questions? Or Adam, do you want to speak to that real quick?

2:24:40

Adam Strainer (staff) Chair, yes, thank you. Uh, appreciate, uh, Commissioner Gagnon's, uh, help with this matter. Um, just like, uh, all, um, regulation concepts, the department believes, you know, they should be fully vetted with the best available information. We decided to bring this forward after initial scoping when we received some public feedback in relation to, you know, essentially acknowledging that this may or may not be a problem.

2:25:11

Adam Strainer (staff) We have some anecdotal information and some really good preliminary evaluations of You know, native species we had originally hoped to protect in this area, but largely said, to the point of the department's role in this whole process, we need to gather more data to better inform this position, especially through a regulation, so we don't limit opportunity where that's not warranted. So we really appreciate Commissioner Gagnon's help with this matter.

2:25:42

Robinson Okay. Thank you. Any questions from the commissioners? Okay. All right, we will move on to—.

2:25:56

Unidentified (voice I) Madam Chair?

2:25:58

Robinson Yes, who's speaking?

2:26:00

Unidentified (voice I) Did you get a sec— was there a second? Maybe I missed it. I think it was Wargo.

2:26:03

Robinson Commissioner Wargo.

2:26:04

Unidentified (voice I) Okay, my bad. Thank you.

2:26:10

Robinson Takes a villager.

2:26:12

Unidentified (voice I) Yeah, right.

2:26:13

Robinson Amendment number 6, please. Okay, Casey, I guess before you start, I just was— I mean, do you want to do this all as an entire just one amendment, or do you want to break it down into separate amendments on any of this? Up to you.

2:26:28

Walsh Well, please tell me what you were thinking. I thought it did occur to me.

2:26:33

Robinson Okay, well, I was— I just didn't know if there would be any, um, they seem different and I'm not as, uh, familiar with the area, so I just— I will leave that up to you if you want to split them into, um, any of this into a separate amendment or just leave it all as one.

2:26:55

Walsh I think it's a good idea. I think the, the most significant change was the Lower Madison from Ennis Dam to the mouth of the river at the Jefferson, where we currently operate under the the Central District standard reg. Why don't we cav that out and deal with that once as a separate amendment?

2:27:17

Unidentified (voice I) Okay.

2:27:18

Walsh And then I'll just give a brief background on the Upper Madison and and then the motion.

2:27:23

Robinson Okay.

2:27:24

Wargo Just just for.

2:27:25

Walsh Everybody's help, the, this refers to the proposed plan for the Madison River that's on page 52 in our book, and then for the public, this affects the regulations that are on page 60 in the current regulation book, fishing regulation book for 2026. My amendment does not do anything to Quake Lake or Hebgen Lake. Those were excluded from the Central District standard regulations.

2:28:06

Walsh I'd also state that this is an amendment related to the quality of fishing experience and specifically not about mortality, and I'll talk to that in in just a minute. For the Upper Madison, which we'll address first, I just want to first say this is a river that I've been fishing for over 40 years, and why, why am I, rather than the Region 3 Commissioner, bringing forth this amendment? The background is in 2021, I was asked to serve as the chairman of the Madison River Working Group.

2:28:43

Walsh That was 5 years ago, Our charge at that time was to recommend ways to measure limits to both commercial and recreational use on the Madison. Despite our efforts at that time, very little has changed since then. The Madison is still one of the most heavily fished rivers, one of the top 2 with the Missouri in our state.

2:29:05

Christy Clark (staff) Right.

2:29:06

Walsh We do know that many trout in the Madison are caught and released multiple times during each summer. FWP currently monitors hook injuries and scarring, and 2 years ago the Commission adopted a test regulation for barbless restrictions in the section between Varney Bridge and Ennis Lake. Unfortunately, the results for that section are inconclusive after a season.

2:29:33

Walsh In addition, the existing literature and research is Conclusive when it comes to the analysis hook scarring on a net, although a single analysis on the Yellowstone River by Julie Mecca a few years ago reflected what many of us who fish a lot know, which is the barbless hook easier to release fish, specifically trout, salmon, and steelhead, and do reduce the injury incidence of hook.

2:30:04

Walsh I had a discussion with Todd Kuhl, head of fisheries at Yellowstone Park, where they have barbless regulations on the Madison Park and in other rivers, and at this point he reported that they no longer test for hook scarring or shock for hook scarring in that section of the Madison because the incident is so low. I also fish for steelhead in There's Columbia and Atlantic salmon throughout the world, and both of those fisheries are strictly barbless. Now to the specific, specific regulation adjustment that I'm requesting with this amendment, and this, let's address the, the Upper Madison first.

2:30:50

Walsh On page 60, this is really a simplification of the regs that we have now, and it would consolidate the regulations from the border of Yellowstone Park all the way to Ennis Lake with this one regulation. And I'll just call your attention, right now in the Yellowstone to Hebgen section, the catch and release restriction is only for rainbow trout, and it's silent on brown trout and cutthroat. So those are subject to the Central District standard of 3 fish.

2:31:23

Unidentified (voice N) Yeah.

2:31:24

Walsh In Quake Lake to Lyons Bridge, it's catch and release for all trout, and then in the Lyons to Varney Bridge, it's catch and release for all trout, and then again in Varney to Ennis, really Varney to Ennis Lake, it's catch and release for rainbow trout but silent on brown trout and cutthroat. And so the first part of this amendment is to make it catch and release for all trout, Yellowstone National Park all the way to Ennis Lake. And when I—.

2:31:55

Robinson You want to just go ahead and do your motion, the first motion then, Casey?

2:32:00

Walsh Complete this portion of it, then I'll make the first motion. When I queried Mike Duncan, the Region 3 biologist, about why cutthroat and brown trout were excluded in those sections, his response was all Service-related regulations for the Madison River are socially based and predate any existing staff. There's no biological reason for them. The second part of this amendment is to eliminate the clause, except anglers 14 years of age or younger, who may take one trout daily and in possession of any size.

2:32:38

Walsh So those are the changes that I'm recommending for the upper, and then in addition to that, to adopt the current reg method of take to artificial lures only, barbless, single-pointed, which I'll read for those sections from Yellowstone National Park to Varney Bridge. So with that, I will make the— I move the Fish and Wildlife Commission adopt the following fishing regulations for the 2027-2028 biennial.

2:33:14

Walsh Yellowstone National Park boundary to the mouth of the Jefferson River, and I'm going to change that, Madam Chair, to, to Yellowstone National Park boundary to Ennis Lake.

2:33:27

Unidentified (voice L) Okay.

2:33:28

Walsh At least for trout, artificial lures only with barbless single-pointed hooks, no treble hooks or double hooks, Anglers may remove treble or double hooks from a lure and replace them with a single hook, or the shanks may be cut off the other hook points to leave a single hook. The lures with multiple hook attachments may still be used by any treble hook, but treble hook must be replaced with a single barbless hook. Barbs may be pinched down completely with pliers. Quake Lake Outlet, to Lyons Bridge and Ennis Bridge to Ennis, those remain closed to fishing from boats and vessels.

2:34:10

Wargo Okay.

2:34:11

Walsh And the only other thing to note is this does— that I would not— that this would include the regulations suggested on Proposal 28 to relate it to the side channels.

2:34:28

Robinson So I think she— they need some clarification. So is it the— where did you say you wanted it? From the Yellowstone National Park boundary to Ennis Lake? Okay. And then take out the mouth of Jefferson River?

2:34:44

Walsh We'll deal with that in a separate amendment.

2:34:48

Unidentified (voice F) Okay.

2:34:52

Robinson And I think you added some more stuff. I don't know if it was part of the motion. That doesn't seem to be on there?

2:34:57

Walsh No, it's, it's all in there.

2:35:00

Robinson Okay, is there a second?

2:35:07

Wargo I'll second.

2:35:09

Robinson Okay, Commissioner Wargo. Okay, um, Adam, would you like to, uh, respond to this, please?

2:35:24

Adam Strainer (staff) Chair, Commissioner Walsh. Yeah, thank you for the opportunity. I just wanted to speak to a couple key points of Commissioner Walsh's amendment. I wanted to clarify that the current— I'll call them test barbless sections on the Upper Madison— the preliminary results are in fact not inconclusive at this point. They indicate that, albeit very small, the impacts of barbless on fish are essentially a moot point when it comes to mortality on the Upper Madison.

2:36:00

Adam Strainer (staff) As far as the catch and release portion of the amendment, catch and release in general across the state of Montana when it comes to salmonid fisheries, we're seeing 90% of anglers or better in almost every case are choosing to self-administer catch and release regulations, so we in fact believe that, you know, a blanket approach to catch and release is, it is well taken care of by the angling majority all on their own and does not suggest that at this time we need to make a change to catch and release behavior.

2:36:41

Adam Strainer (staff) Also, the department is charged with maintaining opportunities again for all anglers, and harvest in general is not a limiting factor at all when it comes to this overall trout population, therefore maintaining the ability for certain sectors of the angling community to at times harvest fish is well within the purview of the Department to stay the course on the current proposed, or on the current regulations in place on the Upper Madison.

2:37:11

Robinson Okay, Commissioner Walsh, or Vice Chair Walsh.

2:37:15

Walsh Thank you, just a quick response. I'd say again that this is not, I appreciate the comment about mortality and barbed or barbless hooks, this is not about mortality biologically based, this is about quality of fishing experience, and for those folks who get up early and go fish the Madison from other states or other countries, more than catching fish with— and then number 2, I think there's a circular argument.

2:37:48

Wargo Circular argument.

2:37:50

Walsh All anglers are doing catch and release anyway, so, so why imp— a reg like this? Well, okay, why not have a 100 fish limit then? I just think that this, this reg is already being observed by many anglers who fish the Madison. Let's, let's put it into the regs.

2:38:13

Robinson Commissioner Brooke.

2:38:15

Brooke Yes, thank you. As the Region 3 Commissioner, I chose not to offer this amendment. And for a couple of reasons. First, we just went through, as Adam calls, a highly vetted public process. That this was offered up as by, by one lodge owner on the Madison as something that needed to be done. And nobody else has commented on this. Nobody else knows this is coming. This is new. In fact, the public comment period that they were allowed to put a public comment into us to get written comment.

2:38:56

Brooke They had an hour and 10 minutes to comment on this, and it's not the kind of public process, public involvement in this process that I could personally support. I think the public needs to know this amendment will affect just your regular family that's going to go out and go fishing on the Madison as they have for generations. And let their kid harvest a fish. As, as the Creole surveys reflect, very, very few people are doing this, and there is no impact to the fishery. So why would we remove a harvest opportunity for a kid where there's really no impact to the resource?

2:39:41

Brooke But it is an impact to that family that goes out there and fishes, and have for generations. My family had the very first fishing lodge on the Madison River Just above Lion's Bridge. Generations of my family and other families have harvested fish. So I don't want that to be removed with very little public input or knowledge. So that's my first opposition to this. The concerns I have is I did talk to the fisheries biologist on the Henry's Fork. Which is catch and release, or which is barbless and also catch and release, and they are trying to figure out internally a way to repeal this.

2:40:27

Brooke They said it's the barbless is social, but it is extremely difficult for their law enforcement, and it's caused too much problems for them. In addition to that, I looked at the very few public Comments that did come in on this, and I think that the people that are out there agree with me that this doesn't was not vetted through the process, and an hour and ten minutes is not enough time to be able to respond to this. So I guess you know I I totally think that barbless hooks.

2:41:08

Brooke Are appropriate, and they should probably be considered. But I don't think with this sort of public involvement that it's fair to do to the public.

2:41:22

Robinson I just want to remind everyone that this could have came today, and we still have the authority to do it today. So the fact that it was only online for comment for an hour and whatever. Does not dismiss, I guess, the amendment, and he could have just brought it to us today.

2:41:43

Brooke That's true, but I'm just— my point is the John Q. Public out there has no knowledge of this. They went to the public meetings. There was no indication to give people an adequate time to respond to this dramatic of a change on the Madison. Which, as Casey's— as Commissioner Walsh said, is a very, very popular fishery, not just for that guides and outfitters, but for John Q. Public that wants to go down there, fish, and they have no idea that this is happening unless they happen to get the email yesterday that this is here. So I feel like that is not a fair opportunity for the public to be involved in this process.

2:42:25

Robinson Commissioner Walsh.

2:42:27

Walsh I'll just respond to that. I'd say first off, um, this, this amendment was supplied to the department on Thursday of last week, and, and I can't really account for why it took so long to get it posted on, on the website. Uh, prior to that, I had with the Region 3 biologists and also supplied a copy of the draft amendment to both Adam Strainer and to the Region 3 biologist Monday of last week. The, again, I would say these are not dramatic changes.

2:43:00

Walsh What we're talking about is adopting barbless regs for 3 sections of the river and also restricting take on brown trout and cutthroat trout in 3 sections of the river, upper river, So not dramatic changes, a simplification and consolidation of regs that already exist, and I think the, the only other issue is the eliminating take by kids who are 14 years and under.

2:43:34

Walsh My comment on that is that there are better places to take kids to catch fish, and they can keep more than one fish, and also that this is an awesome opportunity to teach kids about catch and release and conservation ethics.

2:43:52

Robinson Any other comments? Commissioner Burrows?

2:43:58

Burrows Not necessarily to the amendment, but I guess one thing that would, that I would like to see, because I hear this public comment back a lot, is, is there any way we could get some predictability for the public of when I'm hearing some bad echo. Um, when amendments come in, is there any way that we could add predictability as far as if there's not at least X amount of days for public comment, then we will take public comment? Because what I guess what we're doing today is possibly setting precedent or changing how we've done business in the past, which is possibly taking comments on amendments. That were out for public comment and now we will add them?

2:44:38

Burrows Because I know we've made amendments on the floor and made them part of a main motion, and that is one of the biggest critiques that I hear back from the public, are not necessarily the amendments that have been out for public comment, but amendments made on the floor that should have the opportunity for comment before we incorporate them into a main motion. So not advocating for anything specific, but just saying. If we do take public comment today on the— on these, uh, amendments that were out, it is a little bit different. And I guess, how are we going to handle those in the future? Is that a commissioner request specifically to have comment on their amendment or not?

2:45:15

Burrows Or I guess I would just like clarification on how moving forward we'll handle public comment on amendments, on whether that happens before the main motion or not.

2:45:26

Robinson Sure, and I, I will let Stu, um, speak to this are legal, but the reason that I said that I would go out for a public comment is because we have quite a number of them. If we don't have as many— but anyway, Stu, go ahead and cover that, please.

2:45:47

Unidentified (voice I) I think it's up to the discretion of the commission. As long as you allow public comment before the final vote, then the public has had their chance. Under the right to participate, to have their say. Of course, you have before an R today allowing public comment on the amendments before they're voted, and that's an option as well. And I guess so, so the main point is legally it's at the discretion of the Commission.

2:46:19

Robinson Commissioner Burrows.

2:46:22

Burrows Just follow up with that. If it's discretion, I guess all I would, I would like to see or know is whether there's going to be some, if there could be consistency and a predictable model. And I guess what I would advocate for is if it's, if we could just set a time limit on when the amendment is posted for public comment, and if the public has less than, pick a number, 5 days or 3 days or some amount of time, that we would then say any amendment made from that point on didn't allow necessarily ample public comment for us to consider, and that we would then hear that amendment, especially amendments made on the floor.

2:47:01

Burrows Uh, I have felt similar to Commissioner Walsh that it would be beneficial to hear public comment on those amendments. So I, I think I would leave it in your capable hands, Chair, but maybe some sort of predictability to the amendment process and when we would hear public comment.

2:47:21

Robinson Sure, and we can discuss that, but we— I just want to be clear that we have not done anything that was not proper because it is not finalized until the final vote. And so the process that we've been doing is not— it is acceptable, I guess. But I'm happy to have that conversation. Okay, any other comments? Commissioner Walsh, do you want to do a short close on that?

2:47:56

Walsh Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. Again, reflecting on the time that I spent with the Madison River Workgroup and the heavy pressure that the Madison continues to experience, experience with close to 300,000 angler days per season, I think this is an opportunity for the Commission to implement a modest change and consolidation to the regs that will improve the quality of fishing on, on the Madison by reducing hook scarring and hook injuries on fish and the time to release fish.

2:48:38

Robinson Okay, thank you. Do you want to move on to your number 7, is what we're going to call the next one?

2:48:43

Walsh You know, I'm going to pull that one, and we'll, we're, okay, given the, that we agree this is a more dramatic change and last minute, we'll deal with that in 2 years. Okay, so that would be the regs on the Lower Madison.

2:49:03

Unidentified (voice I) Okay.

2:49:03

Robinson All right. So we have ended up. Is there any other? I guess, or is there any other amendments from the floor?

2:49:16

Gagnon Madam Chair, Commissioner Ganya here.

2:49:18

Robinson Okay, go ahead.

2:49:19

Gagnon Just double checking on this amendment. So if I'm understanding correctly, the statement about Quake Lake outlet to Lions Bridge as well as. As the Ennis Dam to the mouth of the Jefferson are both removed?

2:49:34

Walsh No, no. What I was specifically saying is the regs for Hebgen and Quake Lake are, are not altered at all by this amendment.

2:49:44

Robinson So what are you pulling is what he's asking?

2:49:47

Walsh Oh, I'm pulling the section called Ennis Dam to the mouth.

2:49:53

Robinson Okay, so the Quake Lake is part of your first amendment?

2:49:58

Walsh The outlook.

2:49:59

Robinson That's this one.

2:50:04

Walsh No, it should read Yellowstone National Park boundary to Ennis Lake, right?

2:50:14

Robinson But you have down at the bottom— or can you see the screen, Commissioner Walsh?

2:50:18

Burrows Let me see.

2:50:19

Walsh Yeah, that— there's no change to that, correct?

2:50:23

Robinson So that is part of your first motion, it should be clear to boats and vessels, closed to fishing from boats and vessels?

2:50:33

Walsh Correct, it already is, that's the current reg.

2:50:37

Robinson Well, so why, why do you need to say that if it's already the current reg?

2:50:42

Walsh Uh, you could take it out.

2:50:43

Robinson That's not an amendment.

2:50:44

Walsh That's not an amendment, that's correct.

2:50:49

Robinson Do we need that at all in your amendment if it's current already?

2:50:56

Walsh That's a question for Adam.

2:50:58

Robinson Yeah, or legal. It doesn't seem like— it's not an amendment if it's under the current language.

2:51:06

Wargo No, no, we don't need it.

2:51:07

Unidentified (voice I) If it— is it, is it already in? Let's make sure it's already in there, but if it's already in there, we can— it doesn't need to be in the amendment. Correct, Chair.

2:51:16

Adam Strainer (staff) Closed to fishing from boats and vessels.

2:51:18

Unidentified (voice I) Yep, so it's already in there. We can't—.

2:51:21

Robinson Okay, okay, so that is where your amendment, your proposed amendment, um, completely with pliers is the last wording for your amendment, correct? Correct.

2:51:39

Walsh I just, you know, want to be clear that we're not changing the regs Uh, for the Quake to Lyons and Ennis to Ennis Lake on boats and vessels.

2:51:50

Robinson Well, if we are— if you don't have something to change it, it doesn't change it.

2:51:54

Walsh All right.

2:51:55

Robinson Yep. Commissioner Wargo.

2:52:00

Wargo Yeah, thanks, Madam Chair. I guess, are you pretty much ready to go out to public comment? I just had a quick question for— okay. If, if appropriate, um, Adam, would you, would you mind, or would— being that I pulled that Flathead Lake amendment, could you, could you speak to briefly to the department's commitment to have a more in-depth discussion on, on Flathead Lake management and some of the things that you're, you're hoping to do, or you'd be— you would be willing to do, and kind of what you have put into that draft management plan?

2:52:42

Adam Strainer (staff) Yes, Chair Robinson, Commissioner Wargo, thanks for the question. So as it stands, that discussion we are currently having internally, as you have seen a preliminary draft statewide management plan that speaks directly to our, to hosting an annual meeting with multiple stakeholders, all of which you're well aware of, you know, the likes of Trout Unlimited, CSKT, the bass folks, for example, those sorts of groups will get into a room on an annual basis and talk about the current population trends and management strategies.

2:53:25

Adam Strainer (staff) We're also committed to putting together an online resource with an annual video that, you know, describes the current trends on Flathead Lake and the management strategies used to achieve the goals within that reservoir. And it's— that's very akin to— I know there are certain sectors of Idaho that do a very similar thing, on Lake Coeur d'Alene, for example. The other part are we're committed to, you know, a better understanding the recreational fisheries, fishing component of the lake, while also underscoring the need for native species management.

2:54:05

Adam Strainer (staff) And then lastly is our commitment to better understanding, as I think Amendment Number 4 is really connected to Amendment Number 1 in the sense that we're looking towards ways to better the kokanee fishery in Flathead Lake, and we cannot do that without without an incredible brood source to achieve those goals. For example, kokanee management requires a lot of eggs and a lot of fish, and Swan Lake is a great example where in the near future here we're going to be looking at stocking multiple millions of eggs and fish into that system.

2:54:42

Adam Strainer (staff) That system is 1/36th the size of Flathead Lake, so the demand for kokanee eggs in the near future is something we're really looking into, how to achieve that, how to better that kokanee angle for that fishery. And so all that to say, the department is more than committed to having a larger conversation about Flathead Lake management with our co-managers and many other stakeholders now and into the future.

2:55:09

Robinson Thank you, Commissioner Brooke.

2:55:11

Brooke Madam Chair, I apologize for this late amendment. But proposal number 37 on page 64 is lifting the spawning closure on the Beaverhead River from the bridge in Twin Bridges. And I wanted to put an amendment in there to make that immediate, that closure, that spawning closure. Lifting immediate, to give anglers an opportunity to hit that river this time of year.

2:55:52

Robinson So, Jesse, are you able to still type something up? How about, I got a good idea, let's take a 5-minute break. Susan, if you want to get a hold of Jesse, get the wording, and we'll come back with that A minute, and then we'll continue.

2:56:12

Brooke I apologize. Thank you.

2:56:13

Robinson Nope, you're fine. So let's say 10:40. We'll come back at 10:40.

3:02:40

Robinson How are we coming with the amendment?

3:02:47

Unidentified (voice J) We don't really have discretion space available in the context.

3:03:16

Robinson Commissioner Burrows, you had your hand raised when we took a break. Did you still have a question?

3:03:23

Burrows Madam Chair, I did, and the question was in regards to Commissioner Walsh's amendment.

3:03:30

Robinson Okay.

3:03:30

Burrows And I don't know if you want me to go now or if we want—.

3:03:34

Robinson Yeah, well, go ahead because Commissioner Walsh is on.

3:03:39

Unidentified (voice N) Yep.

3:03:41

Burrows It had to do with the way the barbs are pinched down. It said barbs pinched down with pliers, and I didn't know if there were other ways? So if you take a rock and mash down your barbs, are you violating the barbless rule? So I mean, I think what my point is, is can we just say barbless hook versus— I think his amendment said barbs pinched with pliers, and I don't see anywhere in the regs that that's how you create a barbless hook. So.

3:04:15

Robinson Commissioner Walsh, do you want to— oopsie, I think—.

3:04:18

Unidentified (voice J) Okay, go ahead.

3:04:18

Walsh I'm happy to respond to that. Commissioner Burrows, I think that's a good point. I'm fine with striking that phrase. And the only— I picked that up out of the Yellowstone National Park regs.

3:04:33

Robinson And it says may. It says may. It doesn't say shall. Commissioner Burrows, are you still— since it says may, do you still prefer that it's removed?

3:04:54

Burrows I didn't see his amendment that it said— I guess we'd have to go back to that slide. I thought it said hooks pinched with pliers. I didn't see that it said may pinch them, but if it says may, I'm fine. I just didn't want to put Anybody, they're a sportsman or law enforcement. A weird situation where somebody's trying to shave a hook off with a buck knife or something, you know, something.

3:05:15

Unidentified (voice N) They're like that.

3:05:16

Burrows Just making sure we're not having an unintended consequence.

3:05:19

Robinson Okay, Jesse, could you look? Could you pull that up, please? Number six.

3:05:30

Unidentified (voice N) Days out.

3:05:31

Christy Clark (staff) Hang on, we're.

3:05:31

Brooke I'm sorry, Madam Chair.

3:05:33

Unidentified (voice N) Yeah, I didn't. I have a chance to read through them. Okay, detail.

3:05:36

Christy Clark (staff) You have our attention now.

3:05:37

Unidentified (voice N) I'll do that quickly, but I'm assuming fine. I just wanted to.

3:05:42

Robinson Okay, there's lots of talking going on. Not sure what's going on, but Jesse, can you pull up amendment number six, please? Number six.

3:05:55

Walsh Also amendment number seven.

3:05:59

Kevin Rechkoff (staff) There is.

3:06:01

Robinson Well, there is no number 7 yet.

3:06:03

Unidentified (voice R) Oh, no, I know.

3:06:04

Walsh I just— seriously, this has been called Amendment 7.

3:06:10

Robinson I have it as 6 on all of my stuff.

3:06:14

Walsh We got a clarification from Jesse. I think it was earlier today. We'll keep calling it Amendment 6.

3:06:22

Robinson I don't have any other amendment that's number 6, so we're going to keep it 6.

3:06:27

Unidentified (voice F) Okay. Okay.

3:06:28

Burrows Seeing that, Madam Chair, I'm okay with the amendment as written.

3:06:32

Unidentified (voice L) Okay.

3:06:33

Robinson Thank you.

3:06:37

Brooke Okay.

3:06:37

Robinson And then Commissioner Brooke, I'm going to go back to you since that's where we left you off.

3:06:43

Brooke Okay. I just want to— I'm not going to offer this amendment because it had to have been noticed to the public. 24 Hours prior to us considering it because it would have been an amendment to the 2026 regs. And so I just withdraw that.

3:07:03

Robinson Okay. Okay, Commissioner Gagnon.

3:07:08

Gagnon Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to chime in and respond to Commissioner Burrows' question about the pinched. There are other regs, and the one I'm thinking of specifically is with the paddlefishing regulation and a change from barbed hooks to barbless hooks. I think the intention is to allow folks to use the gear they currently have and to make the barb no longer effective, so there are other statements in the regulations that do call for pinched barbs.

3:07:42

Robinson Yeah, and it says May, so I think we're covered on that. Okay, we have gone 2 hours discussing the 5 amendments that we have. 1, 2, 3, 5. Okay, amendment number 4, just for public knowledge, amendment number 4 did not go forward. So we're looking at 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6. So I will. Do I have anybody in the in the regional offices who would like to speak? And we're going one minute, Jesse.

3:08:24

Robinson This is just for the amendments, not for the main motion. Just the amendments and all of them. So is there anyone in the regional offices who want to speak to the amendments? I can't. There's no. I can't tell. Okay, region number one. You have your hand raised.

3:08:53

Unidentified (voice I) I'm sure yes.

3:08:53

Burrows We have two here in region one.

3:08:55

Unidentified (voice N) Okay.

3:08:56

Robinson All right. This is just for the amendments, so go ahead.

3:09:00

Unidentified (voice N) Hey, Madam Chair, Commissioners. Name is Jim Basho from Kalispell. I've fished Little Bitterroot Lake for over 40 years, I was actually Regional Fisheries Manager for 30. I'd like to address dropping the only 2 kokanee over 12 inches. That is, approximately 10% of the kokanee go deep. Once anglers found out how to fish them, they fished them down very quickly. I appreciate Commissioner Wargo's concern over stunting, but these are really plump fish, Looking at length frequencies, they grow roughly, yearlings are 6 inches, 2-year-olds are 12, and 3-year-olds are 15.

3:09:42

Unidentified (voice N) If you take that off, they're going to cream them all out at 12 inches, and there won't be any 15-inchers. The other one on Amendment Number 2, Hungry Horse, bull trout have an extended life history. They start leaving the reservoir in May, And into June, and the July 1 opener is designed to allow as many upstream spawners to leave the reservoir as possible before it opens to harvest. Thank you.

3:10:11

Robinson Thank you.

3:10:20

Unidentified (voice J) Thank you, Commissioners. I am Pete Geller.

3:10:22

Kevin Rechkoff (staff) From, uh, Yep.

3:10:23

Unidentified (voice J) Kalispell, Montana, and mine is on Ian's amendment for the single-point hooks on, uh, Two Church Slough from Flathead Lake. I would strongly say, at least from, uh, Brennerman Slough down to the— down to Flathead Lake, that should be, uh, able to use treble hooks, uh, Fished that section of the river all my life, and yeah, I don't see a problem with treble hooks in that area through that section. So, and that's where I stand on that, and thank you guys for responding back to me on my comments to the commissioners.

3:11:10

Robinson Thank you.

3:11:10

Unidentified (voice I) Thank you.

3:11:13

Gagnon Okay, that's all for me, John.

3:11:16

Robinson Okay, thank you. Any other regional offices who have anyone who would like to speak to the amendments? Okay, I see Michael Bias. If you would like to go ahead and comment.

3:11:37

Unidentified (voice S) Thank you, Commissioner Robinson. My name is Mike Bias, B-I-A-S, Executive Director of Fishing Outfitters Association of Montana. Comments just on the amendments. We support Amendment 2 from Commissioner Wargo. We do not support at this time Amendment 6, mostly because of what Commissioner Brooke had said regarding timing. This just came out yesterday, and to include broad sweeping regulation changes across an entire river system within a couple minutes at a commission meeting, I think is unfair.

3:12:16

Unidentified (voice S) Regarding the fairness of proposals, we were— the public was directed to submit proposals or changes by June.

3:12:25

Burrows Yeah.

3:12:26

Unidentified (voice S) And to take this up in an hour meeting with broad sweeping changes is unfair. The other thing is this That it coincided with the Montana State studies where we're still looking at effects of barbless and non-barbs across the study sections on the Madison River, and changing those regulations at this time would alter the results. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

3:12:55

Robinson Thank you. Okay, I'm not sure, I have John's iPhone is how it's listed, Hi, John Sampson.

3:13:07

Unidentified (voice S) Um, thanks for the opportunity, Madam Chairman and the Commissioners. Um, I've been an outfitter and guide on the Madison River since 1993. I served on the Madison River Working Group. I'm making public comment today in support of catch and release and barbless fishing on the entire stretch of the Upper Madison River. In particular, I support the Walsh Amendment Present regulations are confusing for anglers. Some stretches barbless, others not. Some stretches catch and release for rainbows, others catch and release for all trout. One regulation for the entire upper river will avoid walking recreationalists into unintended violation. Um, people practice what they learn.

3:13:50

Unidentified (voice S) People, people in life Practice what they learn as children. Why are we teaching kids to catch and kill on the Madison? Removing that operation, removing that, that opportunity, in my opinion, and teaching kids the joys of catch and release fishing would be far preferable. Finally, mortality rates should not be the metric by which we judge the importance of barbless hooks. Rather, treating the fish with respect and compassion with releasing and sending back without injury should be a top priority. Thank you very much.

3:14:27

Robinson Thank you. Scott Vollmer, please.

3:14:35

Unidentified (voice L) Madam Chair, Commissioners, thank you for the opportunity to comment.

3:14:39

Unidentified (voice J) My name is Scott Vollmer.

3:14:40

Burrows That's V-O-L-L-M-E-R. I'm a fishing outfitter, and I come to you today as president-elect of the Montana Outfitters and Guides Association. MOGA is not against the use of barbless hooks on the medicine. However, without data to confirm that causality between barbless hooks and either mortality or hook scarring, MOGA believes that those decisions should be left to individual angler preferences, not governmental mandates. If concrete evidence can be produced in the future linking barbless hooks to decreased mortality and hook Sorry, MOGA would support barbless regulations for the Madison.

3:15:16

Walsh Sorry.

3:15:16

Burrows In addition, MOGA has serious concerns with the nature of this amendment being introduced at the last minute and not subject to robust scoping efforts for such a large change, large change that will impact many anglers. There are just too many questions that are left unanswered, so MOGA urges the support of the department response to this amendment, a continuation with the current regulations for the Madison. We can reexamine this issue in 2 years with a robust scoping effort.

3:15:43

Unidentified (voice S) Thank you for your time.

3:15:45

Robinson Thank you. Craig Barfoot, please.

3:15:56

Unidentified (voice S) Good morning, Madam Chair and the Commission.

3:15:58

Unidentified (voice L) I'm Craig Barfoot.

3:15:59

Unidentified (voice J) I'm the fisheries manager for the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes. And thanks for the opportunity to comment. I just wanted to offer a quick comment on amendment—.

3:16:10

Robinson Commissioner Wargo's amendment number 3.

3:16:13

Unidentified (voice J) And the tribes would wish to oppose that and support the state's position. This is a really difficult one to balance, but I think the state has tried here to balance opportunity with protection of some of the sensitive native species that we are trying to recover. And just more broadly on Flathead Lake issues, I'd like to say that I think we have much, much improved coordination and communication with Region 1, and I hope those efforts continue and feed into some of the earlier comments. So thank you for the opportunity.

3:16:50

Robinson Thank you. Okay, we have a Harold Hunter, please.

3:17:04

Unidentified (voice N) Hi, my name is—.

3:17:05

Unidentified (voice J) I go by Jamie Hunter, H-U-N-T-E-R. I'm calling in to support Commissioner Walsh's amendment, which I think is long overdue. I'm a former chairman of the California Council of Trout Unlimited and an ex-president of the South Coast chapter. I'm also a non-resident angler who loves Montana rivers, particularly the Madison.

3:17:28

Unidentified (voice I) I don't know.

3:17:28

Unidentified (voice J) It's no secret that there's been a dramatic increase in fishing pressure on the Madison over the years, but what bothers me most now is seeing wild trout with evidence of hooking injuries. In addition, while I have no issue with kids keeping a fish, there must be more appropriate waters for harvesting than the Madison. In light of the increased pressure on this premier fishery, I think now would be a good time for the Montana FWP to modernize and simplify the regs by adopting a catch and release single barbless regulation for the Madison as outlined in the Walsh Amendment. This will help keep populations on the Madison healthy and hook scar free.

3:18:12

Unidentified (voice J) Thank you for your consideration.

3:18:15

Robinson Thank you. Uh, Jeff Lucas. I do not see Jeff Lucas anymore.

3:18:35

Unidentified (voice L) Hello?

3:18:36

Robinson Oh, yep, go ahead.

3:18:39

Unidentified (voice R) Okay.

3:18:40

Unidentified (voice J) Madam Chair, members of the Commission, Jeff Lukas spelled L-U-K-A-S, and I represent Trout Unlimited and Montana Trout Unlimited. TU opposes amendments 2 and 3. We think this amendment to bull trout regulations on Hungry Horse Reservoir and the South Fork of the Flathead are concerning. We respectfully oppose them. Oppose them, though. We're concerned about declining populations of bull trout in the watershed, but we do not believe that extending the catch-and-release season for an additional 2 months is warranted or will aid in slowing or stopping that population decline.

3:19:22

Unidentified (voice J) And we do appreciate the discussion about water temperature stress on fish, but ultimately the July 1st start date better reflects the for fish to get up into the river system and not be in a congregated reach prior to the catch and release season. Ultimately, there are tools available to restrict angling when water temperatures become critical, but the ultimate stressor to bull trout related to angling is handling at all water temperatures. We oppose Amendment 3 as well.

3:19:53

Unidentified (voice J) This amendment deals with gear restrictions on the lower Flathead We've supported in the past and will continue to support best science related to gear restrictions and mortality, and that science is what led to the establishment of the current single hook, single point hook restriction in that system. We enjoy, we appreciate and support the desire to increase catching and harvest of non-native species in the watershed, but the lower Flathead continues to remain an important part of habitat for bull trout and cutthroats in their migratory life history.

3:20:31

Unidentified (voice J) So we respectfully do oppose three and two and three, and we appreciate Commissioner Wargo introducing to further those discussions.

3:20:44

Robinson Thank you. I don't see any other hands raised. I'll just wait a. Couple seconds.

3:20:49

Unidentified (voice L) Okay.

3:20:53

Robinson We okay, Mark Fuller? You are muted. You need to unmute.

3:21:07

Christy Clark (staff) Yep.

3:21:08

Robinson Go ahead.

3:21:09

Unidentified (voice J) Dear Madam Chair, Fish and Wildlife Commissioners, thanks for the opportunity to comment. I'm here to comment on amendments 2 and 3. I support increasing protections for bull trout in Hungry Horse Reservoir and the South Fork of the Flathead River, including the proposed changes to the catch-and-release seasons and restrictions on intentional angling. There's no other bull trout fishery in Montana quite like this one, and we need to do everything reasonable Reasonably possible to protect it. I support all types of fishing recreation, but certain fisheries deserve additional protections to ensure they remain healthy and viable for future generations.

3:21:55

Unidentified (voice J) On Amendment Number 3, I encourage the commission to rate— to retain the current single hook regulations on the Lower Flathead River. I recognize that anglers have different preferences and believe everyone should have the opportunity to enjoy their preferred methods of fishing where regulations allow. However, anglers can still have a successful day on the water using single-point hooks. Limiting the number of hook points helps reduce unintentional snagging, like we heard earlier, and it can also, maybe more importantly, reduce handling time when anglers accidentally catch these protected species such as bull trout and westslope cutthroat trout.

3:22:37

Unidentified (voice J) I believe these are, these are reasonable restrictions that help protect native fish populations without taking away meaningful fishing opportunities. The Flathead drainage is one of the most remarkable fisheries, and the decisions we make today will influence what it looks like, what it looks like for generations to come. I encourage the commission to keep native fish conservation at forefront of these decisions. Thank you for allowing me to comment.

3:23:02

Brooke Thank you.

3:23:03

Robinson Okay, the next one just says Ken. You are muted. Okay, go ahead.

3:23:12

Walsh Very much.

3:23:13

Wargo Thank you, Commissioners. Thank you for this opportunity to comment.

3:23:16

Walsh I realize I only have a minute.

3:23:17

Unidentified (voice R) Apologize if I don't say thank you to everybody.

3:23:20

Wargo I want to express my opposition to Amendment 6.

3:23:25

Unidentified (voice R) I sincerely appreciate Adam Strickland's and Brooke's comments regarding how this—.

3:23:33

Wargo Their perspective on this.

3:23:34

Unidentified (voice R) I appreciate the other public comments in opposition to Amendment 6, and I also appreciate Commissioner Walsh removing the lower portion of the Madison River from Ennis Reservoir downstream. However, Commissioner Walsh's comments regarding an opportunity to teach ethics I take contention with that.

3:23:52

Wargo How about an opportunity to teach science?

3:23:55

Unidentified (voice R) You know, ethics can vary in communities over time, but scientific method does not.

3:24:00

Unidentified (voice J) So, you know, there's been a number of really great—.

3:24:02

Burrows Mm-hmm.

3:24:03

Unidentified (voice R) And I really want to emphasize that we have alternatives to how we can manage the Madison River. It really needs to depend on amount of use, type of use, season of use, and region of use. That said, You know, right now fishing folk in the state of Montana are pretty much self-regulated, as pointing out earlier. Why make regulations more complex?

3:24:25

Wargo Thank you very much for the opportunity.

3:24:28

Robinson Thank you, Julie Good. Okay, you are okay.

3:24:37

Unidentified (voice O) Go ahead.

3:24:37

Unidentified (voice G) Hear me?

3:24:38

Renee Lemon (staff) Yes.

3:24:38

Brooke Hi, good morning, Commissioners.

3:24:40

Robinson My name is Julie Good.

3:24:41

Brooke I'm a wildlife biologist. Speaking on behalf of the Montana wolves, Montana FWP's 2026 report estimated around 1,094 wolves statewide.

3:24:51

Robinson Okay, we're not taking comments on wolves. You'll have to wait until— not, not till the end. We don't have wolves on the agenda, so you'll have to wait till the items not on the agenda. Okay, is there anyone else with Okay, Joe Dilschneider. Dilschneider, go ahead.

3:25:20

Unidentified (voice J) Good morning. Thank you, uh, Chair Robinson and commissioners, for the opportunity to comment. I'd like to just express my support for Commissioner Walsh's amendments, uh, to the regulations on the Madison River. As you know, it's the most heavily fished river in the state and one of the most heavily fished in the country. It's a treasure to all Montanans, and it's actually a national treasure. I really don't see why we wouldn't go ahead with this to demonstrate our commitment to the conservation and protection of such a wonderful fisheries resource. So I'm fully in support of that. I, you know, I've been guiding there and outfitting there and making my living in Ennis for since 1995, and I own a fly shop. I've talked to a lot of people about these issues.

3:26:06

Unidentified (voice J) The only opposition I've heard to it has been here this morning, so fully support that. However, I would also like to add, I think this is, uh, it really does not address the elephant in the room and the real issue on the Madison River, which is crowding. And it's been very frustrating and very discouraging to be a part of this and watch for the last 15 years the failure of FWP and the state to come up with a management plan for the Madison. The increasing use and the crowding is the issue, and we really need to do something about that. I don't know the ins and outs of whether it's your ability or authority to move forward with that, but what are we waiting for? Another, another 100,000 use days before we do something? So that's, that's my 2 cents.

3:26:50

Unidentified (voice J) Thank you for the opportunity.

3:26:54

Robinson Okay, I don't see any other commenters. I will, um, I'll go through the amendments in order and we'll vote on them, and then we'll go out as an amend—.

3:27:07

Kevin Rechkoff (staff) Hold on.

3:27:07

Robinson Do I hear somebody? Okay, and then we'll— I'm not sure if headquarters, if you guys are talking or some— something's going on there.

3:27:24

Christy Clark (staff) Uh, we're not, but I'll mute us anyway.

3:27:27

Robinson What was that?

3:27:29

Christy Clark (staff) I'll put us on mute. There's just probably noise in the room.

3:27:33

Robinson Okay, thank you. Okay, so amendment number 1, we spent a lot of time talking about these unless there's like Some pertinent questions. I will just go to a vote on each one of these. I guess I'll just ask: Are there any final questions on number one before we go to a vote? I would like you to can can you um I would like you to raise your hands, please, because I can't even see you the way this is set up. So all those in favor of amendment number 1, please raise your hand.

3:28:21

Robinson Okay, we have 2 in favor. All those opposed, please raise your hand. Okay, there are 2, 3. Wait, Ian, I don't think you want yours. Okay, there's 3, so, uh, amendment number 1 fails. Okay, amendment number 2. All those in favor, please raise your hand.

3:28:59

Unidentified (voice F) Aye.

3:29:02

Robinson All those— okay, there's 3 in favor. Okay, all those opposed? 2 In opposition. So amendment number 2 passes. Okay, amendment number 3. All those in favor of amendment number 3? Please raise your hand. Okay, we have 1, 1 in favor. All those opposed?

3:29:43

Robinson Okay, we have 4 in opposition, so amendment number 3 fails. Okay, amendment number 5. That, yeah, 4 up. Oh, yep, there we go. All those in favor of amendment number 5? Okay, we have 5. And then all opposed?

3:30:15

Christy Clark (staff) None.

3:30:15

Robinson So amendment number 5 passes. Okay, amendment number 6. All those in favor, please raise your hand. All those opposed, there's 2. All opposed, please raise your hand. Okay, we have 3, so amendment number 6 fails. So we are going forward. With comments on the amended motion and what it contains is number 2 and number 5.

3:31:03

Robinson So I will— is there anyone in the regional offices who would like to speak to the motion as a whole?

3:31:19

Unidentified (voice L) Okay.

3:31:19

Robinson Is there anyone? Please raise your hand, I guess, online if you would like to speak to the motion as a whole. Okay, Jeff Lucas, please.

3:31:37

Unidentified (voice J) Yeah, Madam Chair, members of the commission, Jeff Lucas with TULUKAS. Yeah, I'd just like to reiterate our opposition to amendment number 2. While we do appreciate Commissioner Wargo bringing this to the commission, and there are some positive things in it, we believe expanding the area managed downstream by 4 miles is, is a positive thing.

3:32:07

Unidentified (voice J) We believe that the no live bait or dead bait portion of this amendment is a positive thing, but we are against expanding the season for targeting bull trout an extra couple weeks because those fish are extremely vulnerable in that lower 4-mile stretch. And like I said before, the problem with bull trout mortality and angling is the handling of fish, not as much point of hooks and things like that.

3:32:41

Unidentified (voice J) And when fish are, you know, handled more and caught when they're most vulnerable and pooled up in those— in that lower reach, mortality will occur whether it's intended or not. And so I would just like to reiterate our opposition to Amendment Number 2.

3:32:59

Wargo Thank you.

3:33:00

Robinson Thank you. Anyone else? There are no hands raised. Just give you a couple seconds. Okay, I see no one else. All right, so is there any further questions before Before we go to a vote on the full motion, the amended motion. Okay, all those in favor of the amended motion signify by saying aye.

3:33:40

Unidentified (voice F) Aye.

3:33:41

Burrows Aye.

3:33:41

Unidentified (voice F) Aye.

3:33:43

Robinson All opposed, same sign. Motion carries. All right. Let's move on to the second agenda item, Upper Flathead Drainage Brown Trout Regulation, please.

3:34:07

Adam Strainer (staff) Chair Robinson, thank you. I almost forgot we had a second agenda item. Thank you for the opportunity to bring this Or this, to bring this regulation proposal forward.

3:34:21

Adam Strainer (staff) Just a little background so everybody's aware, new information regarding brown trout in the Flathead drainage came to fruition this summer after some initial findings of brown trout within the drainage, and based on that new information, the department is approaching the expansion of brown trout in the Flathead drainage with a this regulation proposal to address the, the need for no more illegal introductions and/or the spread of an unwanted species within the Flathead drainage.

3:34:59

Adam Strainer (staff) The reason we brought it separate from the regulation package just went through was because it was not included in the original scoping effort at that time. Preliminary results were were the only information we had, basically a few reports of brown trout in the system. Since that time, we have gained new information through some surveys and some additional reports that were confirmed that lend the department to think this is a reasonable approach to a new species in the drainage, and we recommend the current proposal regarding brown trout in the Flathead drainage at this time.

3:35:43

Robinson Okay, any questions? If not, I'll entertain a motion to—.

3:35:50

Unidentified (voice N) Madam Chair?

3:35:52

Unidentified (voice L) Go ahead.

3:35:53

Gagnon Commissioner Gagnon here, I move the Fish and Wildlife Commission approve the following emergency regulation change for brown trout in the Upper Flathead Drainage.

3:36:03

Walsh Second.

3:36:04

Unidentified (voice L) Okay.

3:36:05

Robinson Seconded by Commissioner Walsh. Okay, Commissioner Gagnon.

3:36:12

Gagnon Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. Question, Adam, about the proposal. I have some concern about the requirement of anglers to submit to the, to the regional office the carcass of the harvested trout, and in particular, I'm worried about the burden on anglers which might ultimately lead to the lack of their willingness to follow that rule. And I'm wondering if there isn't an opportunity to keep in place this regulation but to modify how that is reported to the department.

3:36:51

Adam Strainer (staff) Chair Robinson, Commissioner Gagnon, yeah, thank you for that input. I think in each one of these situations when we explore a catch, kill, and report regulation, it's because we're essentially acknowledging our surveys are limited in the extent of we can't, in the sense of we can't be everywhere all the time, and so with the reports of this particular species in this particular prominent native species management area in the Flathead, using these sorts of regulations are very important, and we fully understand the challenges that anglers face in those situations.

3:37:29

Adam Strainer (staff) And, and what I would say is, you know, through our education and outreach, we can strongly, you know, really hit this regulation far and wide, not only with the regional comm ed staff but also statewide staff, in helping get the message out that reporting these species throughout the Flathead drainage are going to be very important in managing the spread. But again, we recognize the challenges that anglers are faced with when that situation arises that they've caught this thing and now they have to, you know, are reporting it, but we think it's warranted at this point.

3:38:03

Gagnon Madam Chair, follow-up?

3:38:05

Robinson Sure, go ahead.

3:38:07

Gagnon On that regard, Adam, in the literature it states that the angler must deliver the entire fish to an office within 10 days of capture during regular business hours. I really see that as a potential hardship For an individual who might have been out on the weekend, and they they either travel for work, work out of town, have extended hours, employment-related duties. I'm just wondering if there isn't a way to provide an alternative, either time or meet with a warden or something like that that could better be reliable compliance with this. And still accomplish the same goal.

3:38:52

Adam Strainer (staff) Chair Robinson, Commissioner Gagnon, I agree, we want to make a regulation like this as easy as possible for the anglers when they're tasked in that situation. I think the department is open, and, you know, I would say communications in general across the agency, I think we're open to improvements in our communication Not only in this situation, but many others. And, and I would be open to, you know, ways that we could ultimately make this process better. Currently, we have other regulations in place that are very similar to this, and we do have very limited compliance, and some of that may lie in the realm that you're describing. But the fact of the matter is, this is the precedent that we currently use.

3:39:38

Adam Strainer (staff) That said, we're open to different ways to communicate, you know, upon suggestions from the likes of the Commission, for example.

3:39:47

Unidentified (voice R) Thanks, Commissioner.

3:39:48

Robinson Commissioner Wargo?

3:39:50

Wargo Yeah, I guess to Commissioner Gagnon's point, would the department be willing to, I guess, entertain kind of like a comma or, you know, coordinate with a warden to I guess I have a question, I have a question though too.

3:40:13

Robinson I mean, are you taking samples from the fish or would a photo, would it just like a photo from their phone suffice?

3:40:23

Adam Strainer (staff) Chair, so in any situation like this, all biological information is relevant, so Things like, maybe many of you have heard of, like, we need the core of the otolith, for example, or the age structure, so potentially we might be able to identify where that individual in fact possibly came from. We have that precedent for, let's say, walleye in Swan Lake, for example. Those walleye were actually found out later to be from Lake Helena. So we use the best scientific practices to really learn as much about that critter as possible, diet analysis, length and age, you know, all of those things are really important to the department.

3:41:02

Adam Strainer (staff) So think of it as a nose-to-tail approach to when we get our hands on a species that we're trying to get our hands on, we learn as much about that organism as possible, and that the same would be held true with this.

3:41:16

Robinson What about what Commissioner Wargo had suggested?

3:41:22

Adam Strainer (staff) Yes, Chair and Commissioner Wargo, I think the department would support that approach. I think the most important critical piece here is contacting FWP, and I think through that lens, if that can be achieved by a comma and an additional piece to this regulation, I think the department would support that.

3:41:50

Robinson Would someone like to make an amendment to that?

3:42:02

Gagnon Madam Chair, I would, uh, I would— this is Commissioner Gagnon— I would be in favor of doing that. I wonder if Commissioner Wargo could help me with the language that he had in mind with Yes. You know, the collaboration with a warden. I might extend the days to 14, which is 2 weeks if possible. I know that there's other language and regulation that is 10, but then also have it so that it's an either/or. So they could deliver the carcass to the office or meet with a warden to exchange the carcass.

3:42:40

Robinson Sounds like that's it right there.

3:42:45

Unidentified (voice N) Oh, timewon.gov, or just call the regional office.

3:42:50

Unidentified (voice F) Yeah.

3:42:52

Robinson So can we offer a suggestion?

3:42:54

Unidentified (voice J) Yeah.

3:42:56

Adam Strainer (staff) Chair, if I may, a suggestion possible?

3:42:59

Robinson Yeah, go ahead.

3:43:02

Adam Strainer (staff) And I'm just thinking out loud here for a minute. Without suggesting anything, something to the effect of contact the regional office and/or, you know, the traditional TIPMOP means. So, and that's currently an online version. And in this case, you know, maybe we would make Region 1 headquarters the primary contact.

3:43:32

Robinson That seems really confusing to me. That would have to be, I mean—.

3:43:37

Adam Strainer (staff) So, so I guess I'm saying either call our regional office or to arrange to contact a local biologist or something to that effect. Contact a local biologist at FWP Region 1 headquarters.

3:43:53

Robinson Okay, instead of delivering the fish? To the FWP?

3:44:00

Adam Strainer (staff) I guess I would say the language as written, or contact FWP at regional headquarters in Region 1.

3:44:13

Gagnon So, Madam Chair, if I could—.

3:44:14

Robinson Yeah, go ahead.

3:44:15

Gagnon Ask a question related to that. So, Adam, are you implying that after the individual contacts regional headquarters, Then an arrangement for either delivery or pickup of the carcass would occur as a collaboration between the angler and the office.

3:44:35

Adam Strainer (staff) Chair Robinson, Commissioner Gagnon, yeah, that's exactly right.

3:44:38

Robinson So, all right, thank you. The way it's written, they could take it to Region 6. I mean, it just says an FWP office.

3:44:49

Unidentified (voice I) Yeah, so why don't we— maybe we leave out the Region 1 and just have it be regional office.

3:44:54

Robinson Okay.

3:44:56

Unidentified (voice I) Chair, this is Stuart, if I might. I wonder if we should allow staff here to write up a proposal to meet the Commissioner's Gagnon's, and then that, um, and then he can review and, and we can make sure we're all on the same page.

3:45:20

Robinson Well, do you want to take another break? Because it has to be right now. This is what's on the agenda.

3:45:29

Christy Clark (staff) I think we can do it real quick. They're gonna pull it— they're gonna put it together right now, so we have just language in front of us.

3:45:38

Unidentified (voice N) I was not prepared for that part of Of all the things you're really—.

3:45:46

Robinson We will, um, I guess Commissioner Wargo, do you have something that would—.

3:45:55

Wargo We can take a break, or I was just going to make a comment to fill dead space, but I'm fine with taking a break as well.

3:46:01

Robinson Okay, I just didn't know if you wanted the regional office to hear your comments or not. Let's just take a 5-minute break. Well, actually, let's just— 11:30, we will come back. So if anybody needs to go do something—.

3:46:15

Adam Strainer (staff) Fishers, Jesus.

3:50:16

Unidentified (voice I) I wish.

3:50:16

Unidentified (voice N) We've emailed you some language if you can—.

3:50:20

Unidentified (voice I) Can you access your email?

3:50:22

Robinson Can't we just put it up on the screen?

3:50:27

Unidentified (voice L) We can't—.

3:50:27

Burrows We can sure do that and have everybody look at it again.

3:50:30

Adam Strainer (staff) Probably go look at what the language is, huh?

3:50:32

Christy Clark (staff) Yeah.

3:50:35

Gagnon Yeah, I just checked my email, have not received it yet.

3:50:38

Robinson We'll just put it on the screen. Everybody should probably see it.

3:50:42

Unidentified (voice N) Yeah.

3:50:42

Unidentified (voice F) Yeah.

3:50:44

Unidentified (voice N) Yep, thank you.

3:51:16

Gagnon Yeah, thank you for drafting that. I wonder if we could more explicitly state the 14 days is— I'm just trying to think of how to do this because I don't want it to imply that 14 days to deliver it, and then there could be an extended period beyond that. So I want to make sure the compliance with within a period of time, and I actually would be okay with the 10 days if we want to revert back to that standard language. So, Chair, deliver the fish within 10 days.

3:51:54

Gagnon The whole thing should be accomplished within 10 days, either deliver the fish or contact staff within 10 days.

3:52:04

Unidentified (voice L) Commissioner Gagnon. Sure.

3:52:06

Gagnon Yeah.

3:52:07

Unidentified (voice J) Yeah, so I hear you. Sorry to jump in there. Just wondering if it's just—.

3:52:12

Unidentified (voice L) Wonder if we could take—.

3:52:14

Unidentified (voice J) So I'm looking at Jesse—.

3:52:15

Unidentified (voice L) Capture, strike out within copy, cut out within days and put it as the beginning of the sentence and say within 10 days, anglers are requested.

3:52:29

Gagnon That would be perfect.

3:52:30

Robinson Yep.

3:52:31

Unidentified (voice J) I hear you talk about the whole process.

3:52:33

Unidentified (voice I) Thank you, Commissioner Gagnon.

3:52:36

Unidentified (voice N) Requested or required?

3:52:37

Unidentified (voice J) Requested, because we're going to build in the contingency of contact.

3:52:47

Adam Strainer (staff) Does that work for you?

3:52:48

Unidentified (voice I) Very much.

3:52:51

Gagnon Yeah, yeah, that, I— that looks good to me.

3:53:04

Robinson Is there, so do you want to make that as an amendment?

3:53:11

Gagnon I'm just looking through the language, I want to make sure that at some point in the language it does require the angler to do one or the other of these actions.

3:53:23

Unidentified (voice G) It says or.

3:53:25

Burrows It's—.

3:53:31

Walsh Chair Robinson?

3:53:32

Robinson Commissioner Walsh?

3:53:34

Walsh Yeah, I think maybe if requested is changed to required.

3:53:38

Robinson It's requested in the other— in the language that we have. The original language says request. Oh wait, no. Must. It does say must. Okay.

3:54:05

Gagnon I think that's more clear of the intent.

3:54:09

Robinson Yes.

3:54:12

Gagnon So yes, Madam Chair, I would like to I propose this replacement language as a motion.

3:54:21

Robinson Is there a second?

3:54:23

Walsh Second.

3:54:25

Robinson Okay, okay, I am going to— go ahead, you were muted.

3:54:33

Unidentified (voice I) Oh, sorry, we were muted. Madam Chair, yes, before we move on, in 10 days anglers must deliver the entire fish to FWP of Capture.

3:54:44

Unidentified (voice N) Oops.

3:54:44

Unidentified (voice L) Yeah, yeah.

3:54:45

Wargo Within 10 days of capture.

3:54:48

Unidentified (voice I) Oh, so the up cap needs to be within 10 days of capture.

3:54:52

Robinson Yep. Okay, thank you.

3:54:53

Unidentified (voice I) Delete it from the other.

3:54:56

Unidentified (voice F) Yes.

3:54:58

Unidentified (voice I) Within 10 days of capture, anglers must deliver the entire fish to FWP or contact FWP staff to coordinate information exchange. And potential transfer of fish carcasses.

3:55:18

Robinson Commissioner Walsh seconded it. Okay, is there any other— I'm going to vote on this before we go out to public comment. Any questions, comments before we go to vote on this amendment? What was this? Commissioner Wargo, you are muted.

3:55:55

Wargo Sorry, sorry. Thanks, Madam Chair. Uh, a comment that I, that I kind of intended to make, uh, last time, but it It parallels, you know, very clearly, or with, with this topic, this same fish we're going to great lengths to, you know, prevent hook scarring and other stuff in a, in Central District, and up in Western Fishing District, the, the direction is to take this fish, bash it over the head, and make sure it, it doesn't, it doesn't survive. Just point it out quick to say that in future discussions We really do need to talk about, you know, where we're taking this stuff with, you know, kind of this approach to non-natives.

3:56:33

Wargo Because if we were to entertain Western Fishing District style regulations in the Central District, like, oh man, you know, report kill immediately on, on these things, you know, it just— though there are water bodies in, in the rest of the state that supported native fish at One time, but we've turned our back to them. So I just I won't I won't dwell on that, but just food for thought for future discussions.

3:57:01

Robinson Any other comments or questions before we go to a vote? Okay, all those in favor of the amendment signify by saying aye.

3:57:15

Wargo Aye.

3:57:16

Unidentified (voice F) Aye.

3:57:17

Robinson Aye. All opposed, same sign. Okay, I mean, I meant— oh, okay, who was— I can't see anybody when it— when she has it on the screen. Okay, Commissioner Burrows opposes it. Okay, all right, any other comments or questions on the Amended motion.

3:57:55

Unidentified (voice F) Okay.

3:58:02

Robinson Sorry, I just have to change my views again.

3:58:05

Unidentified (voice L) Okay.

3:58:07

Robinson Anyone in the regional offices who would like to speak to this? Amended motion. Okay, Jeff Lucas, please.

3:58:26

Unidentified (voice J) Madam Chairs, members of the Commission, Jeff Lucas spelled L-U-K-A-S representing Trout Unlimited and MTU. We fully support FWP's catch and kill regulation for. Brown trout in Flathead Lake and its tributaries and the amendment that you just voted on. Brown trout presence in this drainage is an urgent and major problem. Their ability to take advantage of excellent habitat to outcompete native fish has severe consequences, so this is a necessary step to maintain the Upper Flathead's status as a major, major strong stronghold of West Slope cutthroats and bull trout. So we strongly urge a do pass.

3:59:09

Unidentified (voice I) Thank you.

3:59:10

Robinson Thank you. I don't see any other hands raised. Okay, Ben Rich, please. Okay, go ahead. Okay, we can't hear anything. Okay, let's go to Mark Fuller, please. Go ahead.

3:59:50

Unidentified (voice J) Dear Madam Chair and Wildlife Commission, this is Mark Fuller again. Forgot to state my name Fully earlier, fully earlier. Mark Fuller, M-A-K-F-U-L-L-E-R, fishing outfitter in the Flathead Valley. Also sit on the foam board. I just want to thank you for the opportunity to comment. We are. I am in full support of the catch and kill and mandatory reporting for brown trout on the Flathead drainage. Like Mr. Lucas said, we are known as an intact cutthroat. Trout fishery, and we're very proud of that. We want to keep that stronghold here, and this will help us do that. Please support this, and thank you for your time.

4:00:34

Robinson Thank you. Let's try Ben Rich again.

4:00:39

Unidentified (voice I) Hi there, can you hear me now?

4:00:41

Robinson Yes, go ahead.

4:00:42

Unidentified (voice J) Much better.

4:00:42

Unidentified (voice O) Hi, this is Ben Rich.

4:00:44

Unidentified (voice J) I'm the Flathead Lake biologist with Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes. And I would just like to voice our support for this proposal, especially with the amendments. I appreciate Commissioner Gagnon thinking about the anglers and submitting full carcasses. It's just really important that the department come out strongly in support of basically reacting to illegal, illegal introduction for one, and also requiring mandatory kill as well as submittal of full carcasses for samples.

4:01:21

Unidentified (voice J) That's the best way to get as much data as we can on these fish and to get a handle on the problem, so we really appreciate your response to brown trout and look forward to working with you on it in the future.

4:01:33

Robinson Thank you. Michael Bias.

4:01:40

Unidentified (voice S) Commissioners, thank you for the opportunity to comment. Mike Bias, B-I-A-S, Executive Director of the Fishing Outfitters Association of Montana. Just letting you know that we fully support the Fish and Wildlife Commission approving the emergency regulations and the amendments offered by commissioners for brown trout in the Upper Flathead Drainage. Thank you for the opportunity.

4:02:07

Robinson Thank you. I don't see any other hands raised. Okay, any questions or comments from the commission before we go to a vote? All those in favor signify by saying aye.

4:02:23

Unidentified (voice L) Aye.

4:02:24

Robinson All opposed, same sign. Motion carries. All right, let's move into, um, Thank you, Adam. Moving to grizzly bear release sites, please. Ken McDonald. All right.

4:02:47

Christy Clark (staff) Okay.

4:02:49

Unidentified (voice N) Thank you, Madam Chair, Commissioners. This is Ken McDonald. I'm Chief of the Wildlife Division. We've got 2 items for you today, both involving moving critters. The first one is we're seeking approval for another 5 years of grizzly bear release sites. And for clarification, this is kind of a statute that says FWP can only relocate grizzly bears under 2 conditions: either they're not in conflict, or if they are in conflict, they have to be within Captured within a grizzly bear recovery zone.

4:03:27

Unidentified (voice N) If we have conflict bears that are captured outside of our grizzly bear recovery zone, we're not allowed to relocate those, and in those instances, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service must relocate those. So they're not required, but we've asked them to also utilize these commission-approved sites that we're talking about today. So so the list that you've been provided. Provided in the maps is the current list of authorized sites. We're just asking to renew that for another 5 years. We're also seeking to renew, or yeah, so there's also on that list a couple of sites that are outside of what's currently mapped as occupied grizzly bear range.

4:04:11

Unidentified (voice N) I call those contingent sites. They're right on or close to the line and We adopt or we adjust that occupied range map every 2 years.

4:04:22

Unidentified (voice I) We're about—.

4:04:23

Unidentified (voice N) We're in the process of looking at that now and would renew it for 2020 at the end of 2026. And then maybe that line moves and some of those contingent sites get back in. So rather than coming back and forth to you, we just thought we'd ask for permission for both within and Contingent sites. All of the sites are on public lands.

4:04:48

Unidentified (voice N) Our staff coordinated with the public land managers to develop the list, and then anytime we move a bear, before we move it, we coordinate again on that site-specific site so that we're aware of any considerations, you know, like there's a trail crew working in there or some other consideration. Let's see what else. As you can see on the list, there's a lot of sites there.

4:05:23

Unidentified (voice N) There's a lot more than we intend to use, but we're looking for approval of those sites so we have plenty of alternatives to counter things like, you know, time of year, accessibility, ongoing activities and things like that. And a good example just came up this week where a lot of, or most of our Region 4 sites are currently inaccessible because of the snowstorm we had over the weekend. So we would, if we had a bear to move, we would be looking probably to move it to, you know, a different region just because of the inaccessibility. So having, having a large list of sites will help us with that.

4:06:02

Unidentified (voice N) All right, to give you a little perspective, over the last 5 years, we've— FWP's relocated 49 bears, or an average of about 10 per year. The Fish and Wildlife Service has moved 48 bears in the same time period, and all of those are very— are at or very close to commission-approved sites. So with that, we're looking for your approval again. Of the list of sites to use for another 5 years. And, and also the contingency sites that, that if those sites fall within occupied grizzly bear range, they would be available for use as well. I'm happy to answer any questions.

4:06:47

Robinson Are there any questions? Do you take into consideration, you and, and the public land managers of livestock that would be on, on or near, I guess, where the relocation sites are?

4:07:08

Unidentified (voice N) Yes, Chair Robinson, commissioners. Yes, we do. So our field folks, our bear specialists, when they're evaluating potential sites, that's one of their main considerations. That was actually a direction from the Commission 5 years ago to avoid, if at all possible, sites within a— I think it was 10 miles of a livestock allotment. And so that's a key consideration because the last thing we want to do is create another problem.

4:07:35

Robinson All right, thank you. Commissioner Gagnon.

4:07:38

Gagnon Thank you, Madam Chair and Ken. I appreciate your response to the Chair's question, and it Kind of gets to one of the questions I had, and that was about potentially creating a new conflict with the relocation. Two other questions I did have, though: one, and you touched on it briefly, was the type of conflicts that would require a relocation, and then also the potential for a change in the population density or population. Structure as we do relocate, ultimately then potentially leading to a future conflict years down the road.

4:08:23

Unidentified (voice N) Madam Chair, Commissioner Gagnon, so that's a— the type of conflict, the history of conflict with that bear are all kinds of— the kinds of things our specialists and our decision makers take into account. Before we decide to relocate a bear. Typically, if it's a, for example, a livestock killing bear, we typically don't move those. The types of conflicts that we're talking about that may result in relocation of a bear tend to be more ones like where they got into, you know, garbage that was left out.

4:09:03

Unidentified (voice N) Or other, you know, get into apples on an apple tree, things like that, where that's more of a circumstantial situation. And the bears, the feeling is the bears, by moving them, we remove them away from the conflict. And then that also gives us time to address the conflict, you know, clean up the garbage, clean up the food source, things like that. So ideally these are bears that don't have a history of conflict and getting them out of harm's way helps keep that going.

4:09:43

Unidentified (voice N) In terms of, you know, potential population impacts or density impacts, you know, the numbers we're talking about are really low when you look at it over the, you know, the occupied range, which is basically regions 1 through 5 in the states. So moving a bear here or there isn't going to dramatically impact the population.

4:10:08

Gagnon Okay, thank you very much. Madam Chair, with your permission, one follow-up.

4:10:13

Robinson Sure, go ahead.

4:10:15

Gagnon In the proposal, you said there are a couple of modifications to the sites, and you indicated it as well. Are the modifications you're referencing here only the ones Are there any other ones that would be tentative if the boundaries changed, or are there some other modifications within the current release sites?

4:10:35

Unidentified (voice N) Madam Chair, Commissioner Gagnon, the former. So there's a few, like there's, I think, 4 in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem that are currently outside of the line, that are very near it but outside currently. The expectation is, is when that line is recalculated, they'll probably be in. And so we just wanted them available over this next 5-year period if that line moved.

4:11:06

Unidentified (voice I) Thank you.

4:11:09

Robinson Any other questions?

4:11:12

Unidentified (voice F) Okay.

4:11:16

Robinson Oh, I would entertain a motion.

4:11:18

Walsh Madam Chair.

4:11:22

Robinson Mr. Walsh.

4:11:23

Walsh I move the Commission approve the proposed grizzly bear relocation sites and contingency sites as depicted in the accompanying maps and spreadsheets for a 5-year period.

4:11:35

Gagnon Second. Commissioner Gagnon.

4:11:38

Robinson Thank you. Any other questions before I go out for public comment? Okay, I'll give you, the public, a couple minutes to raise your hand if you would like to comment on this. And I guess if there's anyone in the regional offices, if you'd let me know. Okay, okay. Kevin Farron, please.

4:12:14

Unidentified (voice O) Madam Chair, Commissioners, my name is Kevin Farron, F-A-R-R-O-N. I'm calling today on behalf of the Montana Wildlife Federation. For 90 years, we have worked to protect Montana's fish and wildlife public lands, clean waters, fair chase hunting and fishing heritage. We are supportive of FWP's wildlife professionals having the tools and latitude to deliver science-based grizzly bear recovery and management, and we agree with the department's wide availability of relocation sites identified in this current proposal. As connectivity remains an important component to lasting recovery, we appreciate that the identified relocation sites are both inside and outside of the current recovery zones.

4:12:54

Unidentified (voice O) Utilizing relocation sites outside of recovery zones helps illustrate that FWP and the commission Are both committed to sustainable recovery. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

4:13:05

Robinson Thank you, Taylor Rose. Please.

4:13:13

Unidentified (voice J) Good morning, commissioners.

4:13:15

Wargo Good morning, Madam Chair.

4:13:16

Unidentified (voice J) Taylor Rose, wildlife biologist at Flathead Ridge Ranch. We are wanting to come out in support of this proposal. However, we take a little bit of an issue with just one. Site, that is site number 144, located in the vicinity of Blacktail Mountain and the Wild Bill area.

4:13:32

Unidentified (voice I) Right.

4:13:32

Unidentified (voice J) Looking at this particular site, we believe that there's a little too close to agricultural land, both in Lake Mary Ronan area and also in the Browns Meadow area. The area in question also has a significant amount of hunting pressure during both archery and rifle, along with other outdoor recreational activities. And it seems to be a little bit of going against the intent of what this proposal is, and that it could actually lead to potentially more conflicts in the long run in the vicinity of Lake Mary Ronan and Brown's Meadow.

4:14:04

Wargo But other than that, we, we support this proposal, but would like to see that that specific relocation site changed.

4:14:12

Unidentified (voice F) Thank you.

4:14:18

Robinson Any other commenters? Okay, Ken, would you speak to that site, please?

4:14:30

Unidentified (voice N) Yeah, Madam Chair, Commissioners, um, I can't speak directly to the— that specific site. That's one that our folks put in, um, the Region 1 folks. Your options are to— wanted to amend our proposal and remove that, um, you could do that, or give us direction to, you know, not use it unless it's a site of last availability.

4:15:04

Gagnon Madam Chair, Commissioner Gagnon here. I would, uh, propose an amendment to remove Site 144 from the proposal.

4:15:17

Robinson Is there a second?

4:15:18

Wargo I'll second.

4:15:20

Robinson And that was Commissioner Wargo?

4:15:23

Unidentified (voice N) Yes.

4:15:23

Robinson Okay, thank you. Thank you. Any discussion on that? Okay, we're gonna vote on this amendment, and then I will ask the public if there's any further comments on the amended motion. All those in favor of the amendment signify by saying aye.

4:15:52

Unidentified (voice F) Aye.

4:15:53

Robinson All opposed, same sign. Motion carries. Okay, I will give one more chance for public comment. Of the amended motion that we just did.

4:16:13

Unidentified (voice F) Okay.

4:16:15

Robinson All right. All those in favor of the amended motion signify by saying aye.

4:16:20

Unidentified (voice L) Aye.

4:16:22

Robinson All opposed, same sign. Motion carried. Okay, northern leopard frog transplants.

4:16:30

Unidentified (voice N) All right, Madam Chair, Commissioners, um, with this item we're looking for approval, uh, to do northern leopard frog translocations from eastern Montana, or east of the Continental Divide, in the Regions 1 and 2. As we noted in the COVID sheets, while they were once more common, northern leopard frogs are currently very rare west of the Continental Divide. And are considered a species in need of greatest conservation need in our most recent State Wildlife Action Plan. Our proposal is to move frogs from eastern Montana, where they're more common, to western Montana with the intent of establishing self-sustaining populations there.

4:17:13

Unidentified (voice N) The Salish and Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes have successfully reintroduced leopard frogs into a small area In the Little Bitterroot River drainage in Region 1 demonstrating success. Our intent is to follow protocols that they developed through that effort to help ensure our success. A little bit about that protocol, it involves moving egg masses versus adult frogs. They'll take up to half of an egg mass so as not to have local impacts at the source. They move those egg masses to rearing facility and then slowly replace the transplant water with fresh water to make sure we're not moving any invasive species.

4:17:56

Unidentified (voice N) And then after the eggs hatch, the tadpoles are held for about 10 days and then released at the release site. With this project, we did complete an environmental assessment, which is required anytime we move animals to places they don't currently occur. We received 2 comments in support of the reintroduction on the EA, and then also 2 comments to you and the, on the commission proposal. Our plan is to do the initial reintroductions in '27 and '28, but we're looking for authorization for a 10-year period to allow for any follow-up efforts if needed. So with that, I'm happy to answer any questions, and I'm looking for your approval to move forward.

4:18:39

Robinson Any questions? Okay, Commissioner Wargo.

4:18:43

Wargo Yeah, for Ken. Thank you, Madam Chair. I guess quickly, was the EA actually provided in the drive, or I didn't see it online? And I guess maybe the follow-up would just be, do we have like a rough order of magnitude of anticipated costs for this relocation?

4:19:04

Unidentified (voice N) Commissioner Wargo, good point. I don't think that EA was included, should have been. As far as costs, it's mainly just staff time. You know, we would— this would be one of the projects funded with our non-game checkoff money you guys approved the work plan for, I think, a couple meetings ago. And so that cost would be our staff time collecting eggs and facilitating the reintroduction.

4:19:33

Wargo Gotcha. I guess follow-up, or maybe just, just a quick statement. I mean, I think, you know, documenting that going forward would probably be good. I think there's a lot of claims that we don't, we don't care about anything other than big game, and I think this is one of those things that shows that we, we do. So showing, showing that commitment would be probably good.

4:19:56

Robinson I would entertain a motion if somebody wants to make a motion too.

4:20:00

Burrows Madam Chair, I move the Fish and Game Commission approve the proposed northern leopard frog translocations into FWP Regions 1 and 2 during 2026 through 2037 as presented by the department.

4:20:13

Gagnon Second. Madam Chair, second. Commissioner Gagnon.

4:20:20

Robinson Any other, uh, questions or comments before I go out for public comment?

4:20:29

Unidentified (voice L) Okay.

4:20:30

Robinson Is there anyone in the public online who would like to comment on this motion? Anyone in the regional offices?

4:20:43

Unidentified (voice F) Okay.

4:20:47

Robinson All right, seeing none, all those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye.

4:20:55

Gagnon Aye.

4:20:55

Robinson All opposed, same sign. Motion carries. Okay, we are going to take— is 20 minutes enough for you guys to take a lunch break?

4:21:07

Christy Clark (staff) Yes.

4:21:07

Robinson Okay, all right, we are gonna come back at 12:20. And start again.

4:21:17

Kevin Rechkoff (staff) Okay.

4:44:18

Robinson I think we have enough to have a quorum to get started again.

4:44:26

Wargo Stoop.

4:44:27

Unidentified (voice S) Quorum.

4:44:28

Robinson There's four of us.

4:44:31

Unidentified (voice L) Yeah.

4:44:32

Unidentified (voice N) Yes.

4:44:33

Unidentified (voice J) Okay.

4:44:35

Robinson All right. Let's go ahead and get started on the temporary. Full closure of Kona Bridge fishing access site, please.

4:44:42

Renee Lemon (staff) Good afternoon, Chair Robinson, members of the Commission. Renee Lemon, L-E-M-O-N. I'm the Division Administrator for Parks and Outdoor Recreation. So this is a request to temporarily close, and this is a full site closure of the Kona Bridge fishing access site. This is on the Clark Fork River west of Missoula, and the closure would start in fall or winter, last until construction is complete.

4:45:14

Renee Lemon (staff) The reasoning for the closure is that we're going to be doing a bank stabilization project to address significant erosion and bank stability along the river, and because it wouldn't be safe for the public to use the site during the project, we're proposing a full site closure. So we'll do all of our typical public notification and signage for the project. And that concludes my presentation. Here to answer any questions.

4:45:43

Robinson Any questions? Or I would— Commissioner Gagnon.

4:45:50

Gagnon Yeah, Ms. Lemon, thank you very much. Just a question on the timeline. So when you say In effect until completion. Do you have a tentative timeline of how long that would be? Would it be a few months, one full season, more than that? I know with construction you never know, but just some kind of a tentative timeline.

4:46:11

Renee Lemon (staff) Chair Robinson, Commissioner Gagnon, yeah, really good question. So we are putting it out to bid by the end of this month, and it really depends on the contractor's timeline. The contractor The contract will be for 90 to 120 days, and so it's really dependent on on those contractor timelines. But we're thinking it would be around two weeks for the actual project.

4:46:37

Kevin Rechkoff (staff) Thank you very much.

4:46:37

Gagnon I appreciate it, Madam Chair. I'd like to make a motion.

4:46:41

Robinson Please.

4:46:44

Gagnon I move that the Fishing Wildlife Commission adopt a temporary full closure. Of Conan Bridge fishing access site from fall or early winter of 2026 until construction is complete and the site is safe for public use.

4:46:58

Wargo Second.

4:47:00

Robinson Oh, is that you, Commissioner Wargo?

4:47:02

Wargo Yes.

4:47:03

Robinson Thank you. Okay, any questions? Is there anyone in the public who would like to Comment on this motion. Is there anyone in the regional offices who would like to comment? Okay, one last chance, commissioners. Any questions before we go to a vote? All those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye.

4:47:43

Kevin Rechkoff (staff) Aye.

4:47:44

Robinson All opposed, same sign. Motion carried. Okay, public use and commercial use fee schedules, please.

4:47:54

Renee Lemon (staff) This is a request to approve updated fee schedules for our public use and commercial use on fishing access sites, wildlife management areas, and wildlife habitat protection areas. One of the duties of the Commission is to approve fees for all sites except for parks and other sites that fall under the State Parks and Recreation Board. The board will be reviewing and deciding on fees specific to state parks at their December meeting. The main reason that we're proposing to update these fees is that the cost of operating and maintaining FWP P sites has increased.

4:48:35

Renee Lemon (staff) From fiscal year 2022 to 2026, the cost to operate and maintain fishing access sites, including personal services, annual operations, and capital improvements, almost tripled from $3.2 million to about $8.9 million. And this is mainly due to the increasing number of people and the pressure at our fishing access site that is leading to the need to invest in additional infrastructure, such as adding latrines or expanding parking areas.

4:49:10

Unidentified (voice L) Mm-hmm.

4:49:10

Renee Lemon (staff) We've also added sites, 6 new fishing access sites in the last 5 years, which adds significantly because of the development costs. And then there's just the increasing cost of doing business. So for example, the cost to pump latrines Across our sites has increased by 30% from fiscal year 2022 to 2026. And at the same time that these costs are increasing, revenues are not keeping pace. On the user fee side, we haven't comprehensively updated our public use fees since 2014.

4:49:47

Brooke Mm-hmm.

4:49:47

Renee Lemon (staff) And our commercial use fees since 2007. The revenue from public and commercial use fees just for fishing access sites has increased by about 8% from $930,000 in fiscal year 2022 to just over $1 million in fiscal year 2026. With this fee proposal, we estimate we'd collect an additional $300,000 for fishing access sites WMAs and our Wildlife Habitat Protection Areas. And then on the state park side, we're estimating we'd collect an additional $1.1 million.

4:50:29

Renee Lemon (staff) And again, this additional revenue will be used to help us keep up with the increasing costs. So you may have noticed that user fee revenue for fishing access sites was $1 million in fiscal year 2026. While our overall expenses were $8.9 million. So that means revenues from user fees are covering 11% of fishing access site expenses. So where does the rest of the revenue come from? We have earmarked portions of fishing license sales that add up, added up to about $800,000 in fiscal year 2026.

4:51:11

Renee Lemon (staff) We collect funds from light vehicle registration fees, so when you go and register your vehicle, you pay $9 and 50 cents of that goes towards fishing access sites, so that added up to $400,000 in fiscal year 2026, and then the remainder is made up of our general license account, which includes conservation and fishing license sales. So another one of our goals with this proposal was to maintain fair and affordable fees, so we mainly relied on Consumer Price Index adjustments.

4:51:52

Renee Lemon (staff) We also looked at what surrounding states are charging for fees. We took time for public comment, so we put the proposal out for 30 days, In July, we received over 160 comments. Some of the themes were to look to increase non-resident fees with more minimal increases for residents, overall concerns about increases in affordability, overall support and acknowledgement for the increasing cost to maintain our sites, and then we received many comments. On fees for restricted water bodies.

4:52:31

Renee Lemon (staff) Originally, when we put the proposal out for public comment, we were proposing a fee of 3% gross revenue for all 6 restricted rivers. Based on public comment, we're going to wait to propose fee changes until we can have more robust public comment opportunities, work on the required 5-year rule reviews for those rivers. And work with federal partners that may also be charging fees for their sites on rivers. We analyzed the public comment and we made some changes to the proposal that's before you today.

4:53:12

Renee Lemon (staff) For example, for fishing access site camping, we use the CPI adjustment and we round it down for residents to get to $20. And we rounded up for non-residents to get to $40. Finally, we've heard from customers and staff that our fees can be confusing, so we looked for opportunities to simplify. So you'll notice in the strikethrough versions that we removed language that duplicated what's in ARM rules and statute. Another example is we changed the fishing access site camping fees To a resident and non-resident structure to match what we do for state parks.

4:53:56

Renee Lemon (staff) In conclusion, we recommend the commission adopt the fee proposal to help us keep up with increasing costs to maintain our sites, while also maintaining fair and affordable fees. And I also want to give gratitude to all of the staff that helped. With this proposal. It was a pretty big lift and lots of different staff from POR to other divisions to regions to legal to budget and beyond. So, and I want to especially thank Liam Perry, our planner, who is standing by in the Region 2 office to help with questions. So with that, that ends my proposal. Thank you for my presentation.

4:54:38

Robinson Okay, Commissioner Gagnon.

4:54:42

Gagnon Madam Chair, thank you. And, uh, Ms. Lemon, I first want to express my appreciation to you, your leadership, and the staff for the transparency and development of this proposal and working with, uh, individual commissioners, the commission, and all the stakeholders involved. Greatly appreciate the time, energy, and effort that went into that to reduce complexity and adjust the fee revenues to really align with what your costs are. I did have a question. In your proposal, you mentioned a change with the restricted-use rivers.

4:55:20

Gagnon Is that reflected in our proposal, or is that something different than what we have on our agenda today?

4:55:29

Renee Lemon (staff) Chair Robinson, Commissioner Gagnon, We didn't. We are not proposing any changes to the fees on restricted rivers at this time. We want to wait until next spring. For example, we need to conduct the five-year reviews on the Big Hole and the Beaverhead. The West Fork of the Bitterroot is also due, so we want to have more robust public conversations. Also, take the time to coordinate with federal partners before. Bringing any fee changes before the commission.

4:56:03

Gagnon Thank you. So then what is in our proposal is accurate?

4:56:09

Renee Lemon (staff) That's correct.

4:56:11

Gagnon Appreciate that.

4:56:12

Robinson Thank you, Commissioner Brooke.

4:56:17

Brooke Madam Chair, thank you very much, Renee. I also want to echo that commendation that you guys have done such a great job. This has been a. multi-year project that you've done, and I also appreciate the time you spent with me, um, going through pretty much every line of this. Um, and so I think you've done a really nice job. So I would like to propose a motion that I move the Fish and Wildlife Commission adopt the public use and commercial fee schedules— commercial use fee schedules. Second.

4:56:53

Robinson Is there a second?

4:56:54

Gagnon I'll second.

4:56:56

Kevin Rechkoff (staff) This is Commissioner Gagnon.

4:56:57

Robinson Thank you. Any further questions?

4:57:04

Gagnon Yeah, Madam Chair, Commissioner Gagnon, I do have, uh, one additional question, and I believe Renee can probably address it. In the special use Permit fees for group use on facilities. There is 2 categories.

4:57:25

Robinson Can you give a page number of where you're—.

4:57:29

Gagnon It's page 3 in the initial proposal. In the strikeout, it is page 7.

4:57:36

Robinson Okay, thank you.

4:57:41

Gagnon But there are 2 columns with that. One is a half day, the other is a Full day, and I know I had provided some some feedback and some comments on this before. I just have some hesitation with a half day use, in that really by the time you set up, have your activity, take down, clean up, and whatever, there's really not an opportunity for another half day user to to use that that facility. So I'm Wondering if that really shouldn't just be a use per day rather than a half day and a full day. So maybe Renee, if you can just respond to that.

4:58:26

Renee Lemon (staff) Chair Robinson, Commissioner Gagnon, I really appreciate that, that comment, and we talked about it quite a bit with our regional staff, and they advocated to keep the half day. Because they wanted to create a more affordable option for things like birthday parties, and especially in our urban areas where there are nearby parks, they do see quite a bit of demand for that half day and are able to accommodate it.

4:58:54

Gagnon Thank you for that explanation.

4:58:59

Robinson Okay, Commissioner Burrows.

4:59:05

Burrows We're getting a lot of beeping going on.

4:59:07

Robinson I know, I don't know what in the world it is.

4:59:14

Burrows My question was on the fishing access sites and the outfitted and guided $150 annual fee for the fishing access permits. Have, I would assume you guys have run some sort of analysis on The other fees that they pay to help balance these impacts, because I mean, I, I guess I tend to feel like this should be run similar to a business where we've got the costs associated and we try and identify the impacts and try and offset some of those costs.

4:59:48

Unidentified (voice R) It—.

4:59:48

Burrows Is that a fair proportionate share for an annual fishing access permit for guides and outfitters pay for fishing access sites. It seems relatively low when you look at the other fees associated. It, it just doesn't seem to be in proportion with what others are paying for some of the other fees. It, it seems low in my opinion. I don't know if you could address that.

5:00:18

Renee Lemon (staff) Madam Chair, Commissioner Burrows, we spent quite a bit of time as a staff internally discussing this one. And we decided right now to go with a simple CPI adjustment because we feel like we need to collect more information before making a substantial change. We are planning to review the fees every 2 years going forward. So this is something we, we plan to tackle for the next update. And just to give you some examples of the information that we'd like to collect, So in fiscal year 2025, there were an estimated 1,700 annual fishing access site annual permits.

5:01:00

Renee Lemon (staff) However, we don't know how many trips were conducted through those permits and which rivers that were visited. So collecting information would really help us figure out, to your point, how to set up a, a fair fee structure. And then also, Reaching out to the guide and outfitter community and really understanding the impacts of the annual FAS permit fee on different types of businesses, from whitewater rafting guides or companies to fishing guides and outfitters. And just as an example, some outfitters and water-based service providers are reimbursing guides and assistants for that annual FAS permit, and some aren't.

5:01:42

Renee Lemon (staff) So we just feel like we need a little bit more time before we bring some kind of proposal for the FAS annual permit.

5:01:55

Robinson Any follow-up?

5:01:58

Burrows Just that I don't know how much more time we can have to take on some of these issues. I mean, we heard it earlier, public comment today, and I'm sure all the commissioners, especially West and Central are hearing it. The impacts on river bodies are real. We've seen a significant increase on the use biologically. Whether there's impacts there, we, we're, we're hearing that there may not be, but the, the social aspect I think needs to be resolved, and that is that they're inundated with floaters, and whether guides and outfitters get an unfair shake on that.

5:02:38

Burrows What what is real is we need to resolve the problem, and it and it just seems like over and over again what I hear is we're we're gonna study it, we're gonna look at it, and we'll take a look at it in two years. I think we need to pull the trigger on something when we know there's an issue, and and how to resolve that I don't know. Maybe it maybe that fee is not the way to resolve it. It seems like at least a way to help generate some revenue to mitigate some of the impacts, but we've got to resolve it. I mean, there's an issue out there. Talk to anybody.

5:03:14

Burrows There's, there's an inundation on our rivers and, and recreation out there, and whether it's permitting them or limiting or what, I just don't think that we need to continue to study it to, to realize there's problem out there.

5:03:32

Robinson Commissioner Wargo, please.

5:03:34

Wargo Yeah, thanks, Madam Chair. I guess a question for Renee. I guess just, just looking at this, one thing I, I noticed, I guess, so this is, this is for, I guess, state parks and fishing access sites only. I find there's, there's a line item there For firewood cutting.

5:03:58

Walsh Is that—.

5:04:00

Wargo Do you get much people applying for firewood permits on state land, or?

5:04:08

Renee Lemon (staff) Madam Chair, Commissioner Wargo, we don't get many requests. This is actually mainly for our Thompson Chain of Lakes State Park where sometimes after Big wind events, staff will allow for permits for folks to go out and cut firewood. So we do not have a lot of situations where this is happening.

5:04:30

Wargo I guess I don't know if you have a thought on it. It almost seems like, you know, just in general with the state of our forests and such, this is small potatoes in the grand scheme of things. But I know Flathead National Forest has free Free fire cutting permits. It almost seems like it—it's a—we should be paying the citizens to kind of take care of. You know, if there is down trees and other stuff, we should just be happy that they're taking care of it and mitigating mitigating fire risks.

5:05:09

Robinson Commissioner Walsh. Oh, you are— you're muted. You're still muted.

5:05:22

Walsh Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to echo Commissioner Burrows' comment about the fee for annual use of the FAS by professional guides and outfitters and urge the department to take a good look at what surrounding states are doing on the structure for guides, and then also have a look at the current cost of guide trips compared to 5 years ago, because it's gone up much faster than the CPI. And think about a percentage of, of guide traffic.

5:05:58

Walsh I do agree that given the heavy use On rivers like the Madison, that we should be applying heavier fees to help restrict traffic rather than trying to, you know, limit the number of guide permits. Yeah, because that's simply not working. Thanks.

5:06:26

Robinson Commissioner Gagnon.

5:06:29

Gagnon Madam Chair, thank you. Somewhat on that same topic as Commissioner Walsh and Commissioner Burrows, but a little different twist. There was a couple of public comments about how some of these fees could potentially stack on top of each other. That commercial use fee is one of those, but I'm also thinking about the potential of someone who is using a fishing access site within a state part and how those fees might be compounded. And I know, Renee, we've had a discussion about that, but I'm just wondering if you could speak to the, the structure of potential fee stacking and somehow expressing what the true cost of use would be.

5:07:14

Renee Lemon (staff) Madam Chair, Commissioner Gagnon, so I think, you know, in my conversations with stakeholders and staff, the, the concept of fee stacking has come up mostly when we're talking about those rivers that have multiple agencies managing sites. So the Madison, the Blackfoot, the Bighole. And so that's where we really feel like we need to take a little bit more time to coordinate with those federal partners to make sure that we're avoiding situations where we're we're stacking or there are too many fees and it makes it difficult for our users.

5:07:52

Renee Lemon (staff) And then this other thought of, OK, could we have situations where maybe somebody puts in on the Blackfoot at one of our fishing access sites and then takes out at Milltown State Park? And so there is a, a fee that has to be paid for the fishing access site, a fee that has to be paid for the state parks. So we've been talking to staff and this just isn't an issue that's been coming up. They've received no complaints. So we're just not seeing that this is actually happening out there on the ground.

5:08:30

Gagnon Thank you, Renee. I appreciate that.

5:08:35

Robinson Any other questions? Okay, any comments from the online attendees? Will Israel, please.

5:09:08

Unidentified (voice S) Hi, this is Mike Bias.

5:09:10

Robinson Okay, go ahead, Mike. I did not have— I was not scrolled up far enough.

5:09:14

Unidentified (voice S) I was, I was, I hit it like a couple times, so sorry about that. Again, Mike Bias, B-I-A-S, Executive Director, Fishing Outfitters Association Montana. Just briefly, We, we, we would urge the Commission to support this, this fee structure proposal. And then sort of the follow-up is when, when, when these proposals first came out, Ms.

5:09:47

Unidentified (voice S) Lemon reached out to myself for representing FOAM and also Will Israel and Scott Vollmer of MOGA and We met with her at LANT for most of a day, going through primarily the commercial use stuff, but the restricted river complexities. And I think, I think Renee's work on this was, was tremendous. I think we made a lot of progress.

5:10:19

Unidentified (voice S) And, and, and the main thing is that We need to meet with the federal agencies, the cooperators, and Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, and adjust much of these fees in a way that, like the other comments, incorporates the public and all the commercial users so we could get on the same page. We're not opposed to increasing fees. We talked about how to do it through various federal acts. Um, it's just really that, uh, through a commission, um, uh, rule change was, was not the way to adjust fees for commercial users on some of these areas. It has to be done through ARM.

5:11:04

Unidentified (voice S) And, uh, we are perfectly willing to, to work with Ms. Renee. In fact, we, we have been working with Renee, uh, going forward, um, to both explain some of these uh, uh, complications in, in these fee permits, how much we pay, and then how to adjust them going forward. But, uh, uh, we're, we're looking forward to working with Fish and Wildlife Department and Renee going forward to, uh, to adjust these fees to, um, what's needed. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

5:11:38

Robinson Thank you. Um, Will Israel, please.

5:11:45

Unidentified (voice J) Hi there, can you hear me?

5:11:47

Robinson Yes, go ahead.

5:11:49

Unidentified (voice J) Madam Chair and Commissioners, for the record, this is Will Israel, I-S-R-A-E-L, Executive Director for the Montana Outfitters and Guides Association. We support the proposed fee schedule updates. Commercial use fees haven't been comprehensively updated since 2007, and public use fees These last saw a full review in 2014. I want to commend Division Administrator Renee Lemon and Liam Harry for the CPI-adjusted— the CPI adjustments that are responsible and reasonable, and the department's benchmarking against surrounding states and federal entities gives these proposals a sound and defensible foundation.

5:12:31

Unidentified (voice R) And so we thank them for the quality quality of work that they brought to this process.

5:12:36

Unidentified (voice J) I'd also like to address some commissioners' concerns and acknowledge the prospect of fee stacking. And so we'd love to continue having those discussions with commissioners as well as the department so that there is a better understanding of what that looks like and what outfitters pay for access to be able to conduct those operations with the state, with federal entities, and as those continue to stack, it becomes a more difficult process for an outfitter to run a business.

5:13:11

Unidentified (voice J) When you think about that process, it starts with guide days, which requires 120 days, multiple seasons, that then moves into a period of application for an outfitter license that can can take multiple years, and then the building of a business to continue to be able to operate and be able to provide those services for the public. And so, love to continue to have those conversations and work with the Commission and work with the department and fellow stakeholders. Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the Commission.

5:13:46

Robinson Thank you. I don't see any other hands raised. Is there anyone in the regional offices? Any further questions from the Commission before we go to a vote?

5:14:12

Unidentified (voice F) Okay.

5:14:13

Robinson All those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye.

5:14:18

Unidentified (voice F) Aye.

5:14:18

Robinson All opposed, same sign. Motion carried. Okay, next we have— thank you, Renee. Next we have Thompson Island position, Bill Schenk, please.

5:14:33

Unidentified (voice N) Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon to Chair Robinson and commissioners. Bill Schenk here for the Land and Water Unit. First of the two items there I will do, and the second we'll turn over to Director Clark. Thompson Island acquisition. FWP is seeking the Commission's approval to accept title to a future transfer of approximately a 35-acre island property in the Stillwater River, along with an easement for administrative access for creation of a new fishing access site.

5:15:11

Unidentified (voice N) The site is approximately 5 miles north of Absaroki, 2 miles, it's located roughly midway between the existing swinging bridge and Jeffrey's Landing FAS. It is primarily one ownership, there's a small portion of BLM and another private owner on the island, and it also borders about 80 acres of BLM land.

5:15:47

Unidentified (voice N) This is a fairly unique project in which we've process-wise, we've been working with the Disaster and Emergency Services Program at Department of Military Affairs. DES approached us about this project asking if we were a potential outtake partner for what is essentially their, their project under which they would apply for a FEMA grant. In the wake of the 2022 floods, grant money became available.

5:16:23

Unidentified (voice N) My very rudimentary understanding of that is that it's, it's designed to prevent The kind of development that would be detrimental to the river, to the resource in a future flood event. On this house, or on this island, there is an existing residence that's no longer accessible, and I believe was damaged in the flood. Their plan is to remove that residence, remediate the site. Work with the landowner to take title up to it.

5:16:59

Unidentified (voice N) They would have to survey the site, rework the boundary lines so it's only the island, define the administrative access. In other words, Disaster and Emergency Services is taking on the bulk of the work here, but it is before you today before that all takes place because they cannot spend toward any money toward that work and that diligence until they know that FWP can take title to the property and that they can get their, their grant from FEMA.

5:17:40

Unidentified (voice N) And so public process would, other than what is before you today and the comment opportunity, there's been no EA. DES would do an EA combined with a NEPA document at the federal level because of the FEMA relationship. And so again, it may take a year or 2 years for this to come to fruition, but we are here today to ask you for permission to eventually take that property into our fishing access site system.

5:18:17

Unidentified (voice N) So that disaster and emergency services can proceed to work with the landowner and do their due diligence and take steps toward acquisition.

5:18:33

Robinson Commissioner Gagnon.

5:18:36

Gagnon Thank you, Madam Chair. Bill, thank you very much for bringing this to us. I'll start with a statement that I'm in full support of moving this proposal.

5:18:43

Adam Strainer (staff) Proposal forward.

5:18:44

Gagnon I did have a question, though, about the statement in here about the the need to request the funding. And so, my comment really is about the funding piece of it. One, if the request for funding is not granted, what happens to this this project even though we have Gave you know the go ahead, and secondly, is there a purchase price agreement or a purchase agreement with the property owner that ultimately is already in place that has a financial responsibility for the department?

5:19:24

Gagnon So just thinking about the overall cost and what happens if the grant isn't funded.

5:19:33

Unidentified (voice N) Yep, Chair Robinson. Commissioner Gagnon, thank you for that question. Um, this department does not have an agreement in place with the landowner, uh, or with DES for that matter, that would obligate us to any financial commitment here. Uh, I think the first part of your question was, you know, is the grant in place?

5:19:58

Unidentified (voice N) I am, I am not certain of that, and yet My communications with the DES staff lead me to believe that is the grant is essentially in hand, that they will have that they will have the funding available to them. Now, exactly what purchase price or even if they've settled on it with the owner, I am not certain. But we will have no exposure there.

5:20:31

Unidentified (voice N) And so if, if some part of their transaction does not work out, then, you know, we will not be able to take title to the property unless we pursue it as a completely separate project ourselves. But that's my understanding now.

5:20:51

Gagnon Again, thank you. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. With that, I would like to make a motion.

5:20:59

Robinson Okay.

5:21:01

Gagnon I move that the Fish and Game Commission approve the proposal to authorize the department to accept transfer of the 38-acre Thompson Island on the Stillwater River.

5:21:13

Robinson Second. Okay, was that you, Commissioner Walsh?

5:21:17

Walsh Yes.

5:21:20

Robinson Okay, any other comments or questions? Okay, all right. Is there anyone? Okay, I see Jeff Lucas. Go ahead.

5:21:39

Unidentified (voice J) Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks for the opportunity to comment on this. Members of the Commission. My name is Jeff Lucas, spelled L-U-K-A-S. I represent Trout Unlimited and Montana Trout Unlimited. MTU and TU supports this Thompson Island acquisition because this acquisition will not only provide really good public access to excellent wildlife habitat, but it also provides access to some BLM land that is otherwise very difficult to access. So for these reasons, We urge a do pass by the commission. Thank you for your time.

5:22:15

Robinson Thank you, Kevin Farron, please.

5:22:28

Unidentified (voice O) Hi, thank you, Madam Chair, Commissioners. My name is Kevin Farron, representing the Montana Wildlife Federation again. This flood-prone 32-acre island. In the Stillwater River represents challenges and safety concerns for any permanent dwellings, as FJP has pointed out. We agree that a more appropriate use of this island would be for wildlife habitat, public access, and hunting and fishing opportunities, all of which the proposed action would move us towards. And as the project would primarily be funded through FEMA, along with a generous donation from the existing homeowner, we see no fiscal reason for the state to object. And with that, we'd just like to thank you for the opportunity to comment.

5:23:09

Robinson All right, thank you. I don't see any other hands raised. Is there anyone in the regional offices who would like to speak to this? Okay.

5:23:25

Unidentified (voice N) Madam Chair, may I offer one note of clarification?

5:23:29

Robinson Yes.

5:23:30

Unidentified (voice N) I just want to make clear that the, the island itself will be accessible to the public as a float-in opportunity. The easement that we would acquire along with the island is for administrative access, and regional staff have— are comfortable with this and have said they would like to work further with the landowner in the future to perhaps create some greater Public access to the land other than the island. So just that for clarification. Thank you.

5:24:05

Robinson Okay, any other questions then? Okay, all those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye.

5:24:17

Unidentified (voice F) Aye.

5:24:17

Robinson All opposed, same sign. Motion carried. Okay, now we will go to the Hanna Ranch. Director Clark.

5:24:30

Christy Clark (staff) Yes, good afternoon again, Madam Chair and commissioners. This afternoon I have a presentation for your consideration. It is a 99-term conservation easement on the Hanna Ranch.

5:24:44

Christy Clark (staff) FWP proposes to purchase a 99- year conservation easement on the Hanna Ranch, approximately 17 miles west of Lewistown, to protect 3,652 acres of important wildlife habitat, provide public access to the— And adjoining public lands, and ensure the land continues to be used for conditional agricultural The price of this term easement is $3,491,250, which is 95% of the appraised value of the same easement if it were perpetual.

5:25:28

Christy Clark (staff) The easement will be funded through Habitat Montana dollars. The landowners, Jamie and Lisa Gilbert, seek to conserve open space, wildlife habitat, agricultural Cultural values and recreational access on their property by selling a term conservation easement to Fish, Wildlife, and Parks. Included in the conservation easement is additionally a 15-foot-wide access easement, approximately 0.53 miles in length. This access easement will begin at a parking area on the far northeast end of the Hannah Ranch.

5:26:05

Christy Clark (staff) And runs south along the eastern fence line, providing year-round walk-in access to the national forest property. At the request of the landowners who wish to leave a permanent legacy, this element of the conservation easement will be perpetual rather than the remainder of the CE, which will terminate after 99 years. Why a term conservation easement? Over the past several years, the department has to— has begun to experience some heavy headwinds in opposition to perpetual conservation easements.

5:26:44

Christy Clark (staff) While individual projects have been well supported, the voices of those who oppose perpetual conservation easements have grown louder. This has not only resulted in proposed legislation to term all— to limit all conservation easements But in difficulty moving individual conservation easements through the approval process. We determined that it was time to try a new tool. The use of the tool is new, but the idea of the tool is not. Montana's Open Space and Voluntary Conservation Easement Act authorizes public bodies and private land trusts to acquire and hold conservation easements.

5:27:28

Christy Clark (staff) The act was passed to hold perpetual easements as well as term easements. The act was passed in 1975 and specifically states that conservation easements may be granted either in perpetuity or for a term of years. In fact, the term may be as short as 15 years. Montana Code Section 87-1 1-209, which authorizes FWP to acquire easements, does not specify whether they must be perpetual or they may be for term.

5:28:03

Christy Clark (staff) As you know, FWP has a Habitat Conservation Lease Program under which a qualifying landowner may commit to preserving habitat for 30 to 40 years. The HCL program has been very popular with landowners, but it— but there is still strong demand for a longer-term conservation alternative. We believe that a 99-year term easement represents both a strong conservation commitment by the department and a landowner while respecting the concerns of those who are not comfortable with permanent restrictions on the use of land. We conducted a full MEPA process review.

5:28:47

Christy Clark (staff) All the comments have been addressed. FWP did not find any significant negative impacts with the proposed action. FWP recommends approval of this proposal to conserve and enhance wildlife habitat and public recreation opportunities on this land. Madam Chair.

5:29:08

Robinson Thank you. Uh, questions? Commissioner Burrows.

5:29:16

Burrows Probably the million-dollar— well, not a million dollars, $183,750 question. I don't know how you could sell with a straight face to the public that $183,750 is worth a 99-year lease versus a perpetual easement. Um, I understand there may be some, and I don't know the political dynamics of where it's coming from, but probably a property rights discussion, which there is no more fundamental property rights discussion than a willing buyer and a willing seller, which is what this is.

5:29:57

Burrows Um, I guess it's a little bit frustrating to hear that there's some sort of external influence on this process that's not allowing what sounds like the wishes of a landowner to have a long-term conservation easement, then to say to the taxpayers, for $183,000, we're going to get you 99 years versus perpetual. I don't know if it's our— if our only option is take it or leave it for 99 years or Or leave it on the table. I mean, you're kind of boxed into a corner. But as a taxpayer, as a decision maker, it's really a no-brainer that $183,000 is worth the cost of a perpetual easement.

5:30:45

Burrows And again, just those fair market dynamics and property rights. As, as a conservative, you, you say there is no more fundamental property right, then somebody is willing to pay for it and somebody was willing to give it. And I, again, without knowing all the dynamics of what was discussed about somebody doesn't like it, I mean, I would advocate for spending an extra $180,000 and getting a perpetual easement. But that, that's just my input.

5:31:16

Robinson Commissioner Brooke? Oh, you are muted.

5:31:28

Brooke Sorry. Um, thank you, Director Clark. I just want a clarification. Commissioner Burrows is talking about taxpayer money, and I wanted to know where this— I thought this money was Sportsman's dollars, and then the other thing I'm sure you're aware where there's a lot of pressure from the public to make this perpetual, and I do understand that there's pressure with the land board that they don't want to approve these perpetuals. And I just you know knowing like I have a handbook from 100 years ago, a fish and game handbook.

5:32:10

Brooke And the sportsmen still wanted access 100 years ago. So I think there's still— people are still going to want access in 100 years. And I know we all know that, but I just, I just want to put that out there and also find out where, where these funds are coming from that purchased this CE or the perpetual.

5:32:34

Unidentified (voice F) Thank you.

5:32:36

Christy Clark (staff) Yes, Chair Robinson, Commissioner Brooke, it is through the Habitat Montana Fund, which is given to Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, allocated to us, and it is a combination of sportsman dollars and marijuana tax dollars, recreational marijuana Tax dollars. So it's a combination of those.

5:33:09

Robinson Commissioner Gagnon, thank you.

5:33:11

Gagnon Madam Chair, Director Clark, thank you for bringing this forward. I think that there's a significant benefit to the sportsmen of Montana. I will echo Commissioner Burrows about the cost analysis and also Commissioner Brooke's comment about 100 years from now. I believe that Montana sportsmen are going to want to have increased access. I struggle to support the 99-year lease knowing that the difference between perpetual and 99-year lease is basically 5% of the amount of dollars we're spending. So I just wanted to kind of share that perspective, and I know a lot of the public comments feel the same way.

5:33:53

Unidentified (voice L) Thank you.

5:33:54

Gagnon I, like Commissioner Burrows, don't know all the dynamics behind the scene, but from a public perspective and from mine, I don't think that this is a good deal for this— the dollars we're spending. If we could spend just a few more dollars and get a perpetual lease.

5:34:11

Robinson I just have a question before, and I'll let you go next, Commissioner Wargo, but that— is that even in our purview? Or are we just approving this or denying it as it was presented?

5:34:25

Christy Clark (staff) Madam Chair, it would be a yes or no vote.

5:34:30

Unidentified (voice F) Okay.

5:34:30

Robinson Commissioner Wargo?

5:34:33

Wargo Thanks, Madam Chair. I guess that— I guess a continuation of that discussion, because I see in the EA, and I guess I'd, you know, probably very much mirror Commissioner Burrows' sentiment on this. I see that the perpetual was in the CA, so is that— or sorry, CA, the EA. So I guess what does that process look like? We went back and, you know, this EA was— I think this was Redone in in August. I mean, what sort of timeline are we looking at to have that as a potential option?

5:35:17

Wargo I guess I just feel like if if this is going to go forward, I would. I mean, I'm I'm supportive of this 99-year lease. I'm also would be probably more supportive of what the landowner's wishes were for for perpetual, and I guess pitch it to the. To the land board and let them kind of sort it, sort it out.

5:35:40

Christy Clark (staff) But I guess in that it was discussed in the EA, Madam Chair, Commissioner Wargo, I'm struggling a little bit to understand your question. Are you asking if we voted down and we went back? Would we have to go back through the MEPA process as— and do an environmental assessment as in perpetual?

5:36:13

Robinson We would. It would, yes.

5:36:17

Christy Clark (staff) And the contracts— the contracts are written as a 99-year term easements. And so it would require basically a start over.

5:36:34

Robinson Commissioner Walsh. Yep, you are muted.

5:36:44

Walsh Thanks, Madam Chair. I know how hard Bill Shank and the team at FWP have worked on this, and I guess my attitude is a bird in hand is worth 2 in the bush. Um, I think this is a great thing for the public. 99 Years is a long time. And with that, I move the commission approve the Stafford Ferry, uh, as presented.

5:37:09

Robinson And that is a misprint, I think, on our—.

5:37:12

Brooke Yeah, we already approved Stafford Ferry.

5:37:14

Robinson Yep, it should say Hannah Ranch.

5:37:16

Wargo Sorry, Hannah Ranch.

5:37:17

Walsh I'm sorry.

5:37:18

Unidentified (voice F) Yep.

5:37:18

Robinson Yeah, it's not your fault, Casey. That's what it says on our paper.

5:37:22

Burrows I'll second.

5:37:25

Robinson And that was Commissioner Burrows who seconded? Okay, thank you. All right, further discussion? Okay. Are there— is there anyone in the regional offices who would like to Chair Robinson, the Gilberts are here in Great Falls. Okay, great.

5:38:00

Unidentified (voice F) Go ahead. Yep.

5:38:01

Unidentified (voice L) Madam Chair, Madam Chairwoman, members of the commission, thank you very much for your time and consideration regarding the Hanna Ranch conservation easement. Having enjoyed wildlife, open spaces, horses, and cattle my whole life, I am grateful for the opportunity to ensure the same for generations to come. I'm very excited to implement the grazing and water development plans that will no doubt benefit wildlife and our ranching operation. I grew up east of Clyde Park in the Shields Valley and have witnessed changes I wish to avoid on the west end of the Snowy Mountains. Thank you, thank you again for your time and consideration.

5:38:46

Robinson Thank you. If you could state your name too before you start, please.

5:38:59

Unidentified (voice S) Lisa Gilbert.

5:39:04

Robinson Chairperson Robertson and commissioners, I am so pleased to be here today.

5:39:10

Christy Clark (staff) Thank you for this opportunity.

5:39:13

Robinson Our family has been continually ranching on this land near Moore since the first water right was issued to my great-great-grandmother in 1881.

5:39:24

Christy Clark (staff) So 145 years later, our sons are the 6th generation to live and work on our ranch. Our goals when we initially approached Fish, Wildlife, and Parks in 2020 regarding a potential CE included preserving our property as a wild and open space. Right now it is pristine, and we deeply want to keep it that way.

5:39:49

Robinson Ensuring our ranch continues to operate as a working livestock operation— we raise yearling cattle and horses— and ensuring that for future generations, not just our generation.

5:40:02

Renee Lemon (staff) Thank you.

5:40:03

Robinson Continuing to have an eye toward the intersection of working ranches and conservation goals, and encouraging and supporting public access to public and private lands.

5:40:15

Christy Clark (staff) We acknowledge that we have heard from the public, many of them. Many Montanans have said clearly they would prefer a perpetual CE, and we listen to those comments and we very much emphasize and empathize with them. Our family initially asked for a perpetual CE, and we would be happy with perpetual today, but we have made our peace with the 99-year term easement. We are very pleased that access to the U.S.

5:40:43

Robinson Forest Service on the west end of the Snowys will be perpetual. We strongly support creating lasting and meaningful access to public and private lands. In light of this, we see Montana's response as a very good thing.

5:40:58

Christy Clark (staff) The level of public interest in this project and the passion people have shown about how long protection should last tells us something important. Montanans care deeply about conservation.

5:41:11

Wargo They care about keeping open land and public lands accessible, and they understand that working ranches and healthy wildlife habitat are not competing goals. They go hand in hand.

5:41:22

Robinson So thank you for your time today. Hello, my name is John Cody Gilbert.

5:41:34

Unidentified (voice S) Um, I am the son of Jamie and Lisa Gilbert. So good morning, Jay Robinson, Commissioners, uh, Director Clark, and members of the public. Um, together with my family, my parents and my brother Trace, we run the Hannah Ranch near Moore in Fergus County. So first of all, thank you. Thank you to the Commission and to FWP staff for 6 years of hard work that brought this conservation easement to your agenda today. Funding this project as a 99-year CE is a meaningful investment in our ranch, in the wildlife and plant life that depend on it, and the future of working lands in Montana. We are deeply grateful.

5:42:15

Unidentified (voice S) I'm speaking here today because is my family's view that this project is about the next generation of owners. As many people know, maintaining family ranches across generations is a massive challenge. This conservation easement is our strategy for fixing that problem. So that, in addition to what my mother spoke about, is what this easement represents to us. Since my great-great-great-grandmother Ida Clifford signed for water rights in 1881, a continuous generation— 6 generations of Cliffords, Hannas, Swanzes, and now Gilberts have stewarded this land in the foothills of the Big Snowy Mountains.

5:42:57

Unidentified (voice S) We've maintained a working livestock operation and managed this land alongside elk, black bears, mule deer, whitetail deer, sharptail grouse, Hungarian partridges, and the numerous other species of wildlife that call our ranch home. It is a unique privilege to be able to protect the increasingly rare and untouched native grasses on the upper parts of our ranch while responsibly grazing them through family livestock production. It is our hope that this CE will enable us to protect and continue the conservation legacy of this historic, generationally Montana ranch for our family, for me and my brother, And for our grandchildren.

5:43:38

Unidentified (voice S) And now, under the terms of the CE, for all Montanans. The compromise represented by the 99-year term easement allows us and will have a profound impact on our ability to keep doing that work while protecting this beloved landscape for generations to come.

5:43:54

Kevin Rechkoff (staff) Thank you.

5:43:55

Unidentified (voice S) We are so proud to be part of this conversation, and we look forward to seeing our ranch protected. Thank you for your time and consideration.

5:44:03

Robinson Thank you. Is there anyone else in any of the regional offices? Okay, I'll go to Jeff Lucas, please.

5:44:26

Unidentified (voice J) Thank you, Madam Chair and members Commission. This is Jeff Lucas, spelled L-U-K-A-S, with Trout Unlimited and Montana Trout Unlimited. I mean, obviously we support this conservation easement, but I'd just like to say how cool it was to see the Gilbert family testify just now in support of such a great conservation ethic and land ethic. That was That was really touching. So yeah, we'd like to thank the landowners, Jamie and Lisa Gilbert, for their generosity in the 99-year lease conservation easement.

5:45:11

Unidentified (voice J) But we'd also like to thank them for the permanent easement aspect of this exchange. That will allow the public to perpetually access national forest land. I think that's a great component of this and very, very thoughtful of them. And I can't say enough about how much I want to support this exchange. So we greatly appreciate the Gilbert family's land ethic and conservation ethic and showing that they care about public lands and access to them just as much, if not more, than a lot of the public does. So we urge a do pass on this.

5:45:55

Renee Lemon (staff) Thank you.

5:45:57

Robinson Thank you. Kevin Ferrin.

5:46:03

Unidentified (voice O) Madam Chair, Commissioners, Kevin Ferrin again with the Montana Wildlife Federation. We support the project and we applaud the Gilberts for their efforts. But we object to the 99-year term. The Gilberts have been clear that they prefer a perpetual easement. Forcing this as a 99-year agreement is not only disrespectful and harmful to family ranches, conservation efforts, and other public access opportunities, it's a clear violation of and threat to private property rights. At the Lewistown meeting during the EA and within the comments to you, commissioners, stakeholders have voiced overwhelming preference for perpetual conservation easement and expressed Frustration over the false choice of this 99-year agreement or nothing.

5:46:40

Unidentified (voice O) We'd like to remind everyone that this project has already been scoped by FWP as perpetual, and worth noting, during that time, the perpetual proposal gained a letter of support from the Fergus County Commissioners. FWP claims that there is some opposition, and Director Clark mentioned strong headwinds to the perpetual conservation easement. While that may be true, this should not drown out the overwhelming local support or the landowner's wishes. And the legislative attempts the director mentioned to limit or prevent actual— or sorry, perpetual easements— those have been roundly defeated. So using a failed bill as justification for agency action, that's really inappropriate. For FWP to make a decision based on an assumption that this won't be approved by the land board is presumptuous and offensive to the Montanans who elected the 5-member land board to represent us.

5:47:25

Unidentified (voice O) If the land board is going to oppose this, which we're not convinced they will, will, let them answer for that, not you. Director Clark made it clear at this point that it's a yes or no option, and that's super disappointing. This should be moving forward to land board as a perpetual project, something the local county commissioners support, the landowners prefer, and Montanans, especially the sportsmen who are footing the bill for this, are asking for. We're sorry that the Gilberts have to deal with this and thank them again for their patience and willingness to do the best they can. Thank you for the Thank you.

5:47:57

Robinson Is there anyone else who would like to comment?

5:48:06

Unidentified (voice L) Okay.

5:48:07

Robinson Any other questions from the commissioners before we go to a vote? Commissioner Brooke?

5:48:17

Brooke I guess I have a comment. And I think that Mr. Ferrin is correct. Having this as an up or down vote, yes or no, with no option— I think when these come before us in the future, they need to be scoped with an either/or so that we do have an option. I feel like we don't have an option today other than sending it back to start over, and the landowners have indicated that they are support of this, but it would be really nice if we, we had an option. So that's just a comment I have. I think moving forward, when these easements, perpetual or conservation easements, come before us, that we have some options at hand.

5:49:04

Brooke Thank you.

5:49:05

Robinson Uh, Commissioner Walsh.

5:49:09

Walsh Uh, Madam Chair, I just want to echo what's been said before. I just want to go forward and thank the Gibson family for being here today and for their significant commitment to the— to this conservation easement and also to the perpetual access agreement.

5:49:30

Robinson Commissioner Gagnon.

5:49:32

Gagnon Madam Chair, and my comment directed to the Gilbert family, I want to express my appreciation and gratitude to you for one, the conservation mission that you and your family have, and also for the patience and persistence to see this to this point today. Also express my disappointment that we are not looking at a perpetual— perpetual, excuse me— easement, which I believe was your initial wishes. So my appreciation to your family.

5:50:06

Robinson Uh, Commissioner Wargo.

5:50:07

Wargo Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. I guess, uh, I guess, uh, quick question to the Gilbert family, or maybe, uh, Miss Gilbert, I guess. Is this, um, am I correct in hearing that you are happy with seeing this move forward today, or are you interested in any other discussions?

5:50:33

Robinson Yeah.

5:50:34

Christy Clark (staff) So, uh, Chairperson Robinson and Commissioners, um, like I stated, we've made our peace with the 99 years. We would love perpetual at this point. We really want this project to move forward.

5:50:51

Robinson It's been a long road to get here, um, and this is a tough one, so I don't know if that answers your question, but that's where our hearts are right now.

5:51:04

Christy Clark (staff) We'd really like to get this done. Perpetual would be ideal.

5:51:09

Wargo We can make the 99 years work and be pleased to do it.

5:51:13

Robinson Thank you. Any further questions?

5:51:21

Wargo Just a quick comment.

5:51:22

Robinson Yep.

5:51:25

Wargo Thank you. Yeah, I appreciate that sentiment from the Gilbert family. I hope everybody listening, I mean, hears, you know, the passion that's coming from them. And I guess we, you know, I hope looking at this, you know, maybe through a little bit different lens when we go forward. I, you know, I very much want to respect the wishes of of that family, and I don't want to, you know, see a roadblock as a result of this. But, you know, hopefully there's maybe a different process moving forward.

5:52:04

Wargo And I'd just say that, you know, I really do support the conservation easement, you know, concept. It's really, really important to me to see land that continues to be worked and that active stewardship take place that our good ranching families in the state do for a long time. This Habitat Montana account, I feel like it's one of the more poorly named accounts that we have. It should have been fee title acquisition Transition Montana or conservation easement Montana.

5:52:44

Wargo We, we— it would be great to see some of these funds, and I think 932 might do that, to where we can start actually— we have a lot of public land as well. It would be really nice to see some of this money spent on actual habitat enhancement that, that addresses the roadblocks that, that our biologists identify along the way. I'm very supportive of the conservation easements. More so than any sort of fee title acquisition, because it does— we do continue to work that land going forward, and I think that active stewardship is, is critically important. So, um, I'm very appreciative to the family and everybody involved to move this project forward. So thank you.

5:53:27

Robinson Yeah, any other comments or questions? Okay, I'm gonna go with the hand raise for this one. All those in favor of the motion, please raise your hand. Okay, it looks like it's unanimous. Motion carries. Thank you to the Gilbert family and and good luck on your next steps. Okay, all right. We go to the next agenda item.

5:54:06

Unidentified (voice R) Madam Chair, Marty Tuttle, Interim FWP Chief Legal Counsel, uh, members of the Commission, I bring before you a petition for rulemaking regarding Swan Lake and wakeboard boats. Uh, as a matter of background, a petition similar to this one was initially brought before the Commission in February of 2025. The Commission took action at that time to deny the petition, in part because at that time the petition as it was structured was attempting to amend statute, cannot do by an administrative rule.

5:54:49

Unidentified (voice R) So the petition was denied, and the Commission asked the Department to work with the petitioners, to meet with them and talk to them. We've done that over a significant period of time, and they've come back with a new petition. They initially were thinking about bringing this petition before you today to the April 16th, 2025 meeting. They decided to pull it back at that time to gather additional information. And come up with additional information for the petition.

5:55:23

Unidentified (voice R) So what you have before you today is a petition that seeks to amend Arm 12.11.3106 that would extend the controlled no-wake speed to a distance of 500 feet from the shoreline at Swan Lake rather than the 200-foot.

5:55:43

Unidentified (voice L) Uh.

5:55:45

Unidentified (voice F) Wake—.

5:55:45

Unidentified (voice R) No wake zone that's currently in place. With that, I will turn it over to you, Madam Chair, for discussion. I'm here to answer questions, as is your counsel, uh, Stuart Seagrass.

5:55:58

Robinson Are you the petitioners?

5:55:59

Unidentified (voice R) Oh, and the petitioners— I thought the petitioners were good. Oh, you're not the petitioners? Okay, got you.

5:56:06

Renee Lemon (staff) Never mind.

5:56:07

Unidentified (voice R) Um, and, uh, Madam Chair, I believe We were under the impression that the petitioners were going to appear on behalf of their petition, possibly in Region One. And at this point in time, if they're here, I think we're ready for them.

5:56:24

Robinson Okay. Yep. And I will give you ten minutes to present your petition. Region 1, do you have any? Okay.

5:56:38

Wargo Madam Chair, the petitioners are not at the regional office here. I don't know if they're online, but they're not at the regional office in Region 1.

5:56:48

Robinson Anybody who knows their names, could you please look at who's online to see? Or I guess if you are one of the petitioners, if you could raise your hand if you are online. Okay, okay, looks like Don Smith. Okay, you'll need to unmute. Okay, you're unmuted. Okay, and you are one of the petitioners.

5:57:35

Robinson We have nothing. Okay, let's try Carol.

5:57:46

Renee Lemon (staff) Try that.

5:57:47

Unidentified (voice L) Okay, yes. Can you hear us now?

5:57:49

Robinson Yes.

5:57:50

Unidentified (voice L) Yep. Yes. Good, good. Good afternoon. This new technology sometimes is a little behind us, but in any case, my name is Monty Eliason and I have next to me Mr. Doug Harwood. Eliason is how you spell my last name, and Doug Harwood is H-A-R-W-O-O-D. We both live on Swan Lake. Not only And not only do we live on Swan Lake, Doug and his family have lived here for 48 years. And I would further point out that I and my family have been on Swan Lake, lived on Swan Lake for 42 years.

5:58:32

Unidentified (voice L) So we've seen a lot of things come and go and happen, and we're appreciative of the ability— or of the, uh, offer to come before you and to present what we're talking about regarding wake zones on Swan Lake. Doug? This whole thing came about because we've seen over the years bigger and bigger boats, bigger and bigger waves. And now we're into the point where we've got shore erosion issues. We had to replace our dock last year due to dock damage caused by waves.

5:59:10

Unidentified (voice L) And we— I live in kind of the narrow part of the lake, which seems to be where everybody wants to surf, goes back and forth. Um, but when the surf boats are on the lake and they are surfing, I get off the lake. I've got a little tiny pontoon boat, and it scares me to death to be on the lake when they're out there. Uh, kids can't go swimming. Our neighbors have small great-grandchildren, and when the surf boats are out, they bring them in. And we're not the only ones that are having problems.

5:59:43

Unidentified (voice L) I mean, I think everybody knows that this problem not only extends on Swan Lake, but goes to Seeley, south side of Flathead, goes to Whitefish, goes to Inez, and goes actually nationwide. Some, some states have Outlawed surf boats for that one reason on certain lakes. Anyway, with all the shore erosion that we're having, we we need to do something. Is 500 feet what we need to do? I really don't know that, to be honest with you. But we got to do something because the boats are getting bigger. It's not uncommon to see a 25-foot surf boat with 10 or 12 people on it, and it weighs.

6:00:27

Unidentified (voice L) Many thousand pounds with a huge wake, and the waves are only getting bigger. So the problem is not going to go away. Um, Doug, um, let me talk a little bit to the size of the waves. We all know that surf boats manufacture a wake, a wave, so that their people can surf on it. Most waves on our lake at this point in time are probably in the vicinity of 3 feet high.

6:00:57

Unidentified (voice L) However, manufacturers now have boats that are only 22 feet with a couple of feet of swim platform that approach with, with the ballast full, and they can have 4, maybe 5 ballasts, and with a boatload of people at 10 or 12 people. That particular vessel approaches 5 tons.

6:01:28

Robinson Really?

6:01:29

Unidentified (voice L) Or almost 10,000 pounds. A boat putting out a wake, a boat that size putting out the wake, is generating some negative impacts, as it's fairly easy to imagine. No responsible boat operator of any type wants to inflict upon their fellow recreationists and property owners a negative impact. So we're kind of between a rock and a hard place.

6:02:01

Unidentified (voice L) We've— we don't— we do not want to, uh, force all surf boats off the lake, but by the same token, we need to have the people safety in mind everywhere else on the lake and for every other purpose that you would recreate on the lake. It's a growing problem, and it is something that needs to be done sooner or later. And if we wait, it's only going to get worse. I would go on to ask you the question— ask me the question— I would answer my own question. When and how is it a problem?

6:02:41

Unidentified (voice L) Well, it's a problem in the summertime, basically between Memorial and Labor Days, and it's growing because there are more boat operators that have the capability of surfing. The people that have commented prior to our hearing today have Brought up some very important points. Holly has pointed out that since surfing has happened in the last few years at Swan Lake, it's a game changer. The waves are massive. She fears for her children.

6:03:24

Unidentified (voice L) She has had a boat swamped and flooded.

6:03:28

Robinson And Deb Enjoy—.

6:03:31

Unidentified (voice L) Another lady enjoys all forms of recreation and watching those recreational forms on the lake. But when surf boats are actively— are actually, uh, actively working, usually 2, 3, 4 at a time, particularly on the narrow parts of the lake, it becomes impossible to have any other activity going on at the same time. It just kind of clears the lake of all other activities. Doug, maybe you can answer along with me what some of the possibilities of mitigating the, the few negative impacts from surfing.

6:04:16

Unidentified (voice L) It's, it's, uh, not only the 500-foot no-wake zone Which is part of this petition, but it's probably something much bigger and much better. If we had a collaboration of stakeholders and users of the lake, we probably could come up with a better idea for what could mitigate the actions that we are now discussing. A lot of times, um, I think all the time. The captain of the boat is looking forward, so he doesn't— you know, trying to be a safe boater.

6:04:58

Unidentified (voice L) And so he's not looking— he or she is not looking behind him to see what his wave is doing to the shoreline and to the people and to the docks, um, that he's going by. And multiple passes, um, back and forth, just minute— just magnifies the problem. Um, if there was a spot somewhere on the lake where the surfers could go, that'd be great. And I know that if you live on one end of the lake, you don't want to go to the other end of the lake to surf, and I understand that. But I just think there's probably a solution to this problem that if everybody could get together. But there's a lot of emotions on this.

6:05:39

Unidentified (voice L) I mean, you spend $400,000 on these boats, you want to be able to do what you want to do whenever you want to do it, wherever you want to do it. And I can understand that, but not at the risk of damaging people, damaging property, um, and that kind of thing.

6:05:56

Unidentified (voice L) You know, um, with a compromise or with some collaboration and some education, I think we can come to a point where all parties can get along and we can do all of those actions that have always been the recreation— recreationist action on Swan Lake, plus include the surfboat people. But we're not here today to discuss 200 feet of no-wake zone or 500 feet of no-wake zone.

6:06:35

Unidentified (voice L) What we're here today to do is to ask you and request of you to initiate the MAPA, Montana Administrative Procedures Act, um, process, which will allow the time, the materials, and the coming together of all these factions. To come up with a modified, perhaps an amended, perhaps, uh, petition that we can all be happy with and go forward. That kind of wraps it up for me. It gets the point across. Appreciate your attention. All right, thank you very much for your time.

6:07:23

Robinson Okay, I guess to begin with, we've had these before us several times, and what is within our jurisdiction? I know that we denied a petition based on erosion because that wasn't— that we, if I remember correctly, we had to show damage to the resource, which would be the fish or the animals. Where does our jurisdiction lie in something like this? If somebody could answer that.

6:08:02

Unidentified (voice R) Madam Chair, Marty Tuttle. Your jurisdiction on this particular petition would be to do one of 3 things. That would be to allow the petition to proceed through the MAPA process as is, to modify the proposed language clearly and then allow the MAPA process to proceed, or to deny the petition, at which place the ARMs would remain in place and FWP would issue a denial of the request based on the commissioner's discussion and vote.

6:08:42

Unidentified (voice R) I will note that there have been other similar situations that have come up before the Commission. I'm thinking of Lake 5 and Half Moon Slough. Those were directed by the Commission to go out and have citizen advisory working groups in response to those petitions. Those groups came back with similar types of Analysis, and I do believe those petitions were denied by the Commission back at that time.

6:09:13

Robinson Madam Chair, thank you.

6:09:16

Brooke Commissioner Brooke, I guess just following through on what the Chair said, what our decision space is. It's my recollection that the These have— there's 4 issues they're making: safety, bank erosion and vegetation damage, property damage, and water quality. And so the only 2, if I remember this right, that we would have a decision space on is safety and water quality. And, you know, obviously we've had this conversation. The water— I don't know how deep this lake is. Wake boats, a lot of states say 20 feet.

6:10:02

Brooke So, you know, is that, is that even in play here? So that's my question on that is how deep is this lake? But there was a comment, one of the commenters made a comment that the Flathead Biological Station was doing some water quality testing in the area, and I was wondering if anybody has any information on, on that. So lots of questions, but mostly I'm trying to figure out where our decision space is on this clearly.

6:10:35

Unidentified (voice I) Madam Chair, if I could comment on that briefly. This is Stuart.

6:10:44

Adam Strainer (staff) Go ahead.

6:10:44

Robinson Yep.

6:10:48

Unidentified (voice I) The rule already in place has a 200-foot buffer zone, no-wake zone. So it is within your purview to change that. I think you're talking more about the rationale and proper consideration to be, but it is within your authority to change it.

6:11:12

Christy Clark (staff) Can you, Madam Chair, do we need to clarify the MAPA process, because this would be stage 1 to open the MAPA process, right?

6:11:20

Unidentified (voice G) Right.

6:11:21

Burrows So then—.

6:11:22

Robinson But I mean, I think what we're trying to clarify is why go through the process if there is not legitimate— like, what falls within why we make a decision. And, you know, if we go through the whole process and then we deny it because it does not really fall within our purview, why we would increase the space.

6:11:48

Unidentified (voice I) And I guess the only thing I would, I would add to that, Chair, is, um, you know, it's sort of a gray area of your discretion and, and what is, um, what is a, a proper rationale, if you will. So that was going sort of For each administrative rule, there's a reasoning section that you have to, you know, you have to explain what are the reasons you're making this change. And I think that is where that would come into play. But as far as authority to make the change, you do have the authority to make the change.

6:12:26

Unidentified (voice R) And Madam Chair, Marty Tuttle, Interim Chief Legal Counsel for FWP. The specific statutory site is 87-1-3032, in which the commission may adopt and enforce rules governing recreational use of all public fishing reservoirs, public lakes, rivers, and streams that are legally accessible to the public. And these rules must be made in the interest of public health, public safety, public welfare, and the protection of Property and public resources.

6:13:02

Unidentified (voice R) So you do have specific statutory authority to deal with boats on waters within Montana, and that, along with what I talked about— public welfare, public safety— are the grounds in which you could base your decisions on this particular petition.

6:13:23

Robinson Okay, thank you. Commissioner Gagnon.

6:13:27

Gagnon Madam Chair, thank you. And maybe this goes back to the discussion about our authority, but maybe a little bit beyond that. So the petitioner's bringing forward a proposal to begin process that would ultimately change the no-wake from 200 to 500. And clearly from the petitioner's comments, there's concerns beyond just the distance from shore with the operation of the wake boat. So I'm wondering if the process is initiated and through the process there is some other action that is recommended or that comes forth, do we still have the same level of authority?

6:14:10

Gagnon So let's say to some extreme outcome is that there's a ban on wake boats on Swan Lake. Does that still come back to us, or is that a different level of authority?

6:14:26

Unidentified (voice I) So is the question, if I might clarify, Madam Chair, is the question whether you could fully ban wakeboats if that is where public comment and Commissioner desire ended up?

6:14:41

Gagnon Yes, thank you. In part. And part of my question also is, is the process limited to the extension of the no-wake from 200 to 500, or could the process result in something else? And then if that something else comes back to us, what is our level of authority with that?

6:15:03

Unidentified (voice I) And I'll— Madam Chair, I'll handle the first part of that. There are 2 ways that it could It could change. It's not necessarily just a number down. One is you can amend it, the proposal today. So you would amend the notice going forward, going out to the public.

6:15:22

Unidentified (voice I) The other is, even if it went forward today at 500, there is a public process where the public makes comments and FWP has to consider those and then make recommendations to the Commission to address those public comments, which could end up in a suggested change at that point, which would entail then another round of public notice and public comment. And as far as to whether you can fully ban, I— do you think, Marty, within what you just read, that would entail banning, or is it just a limitation on wake?

6:16:00

Unidentified (voice R) It's, it's, uh, Basically conflicts between various users. I guess you could get to that point, but it would— the evidence would have to be extremely strong, and I'm not sure that there's any precedent that I've seen for that type of action of an entire ban.

6:16:19

Christy Clark (staff) It would have to be a significant safety concern.

6:16:21

Unidentified (voice R) Yes, yes.

6:16:24

Robinson And I, if I remember correctly, I think it was a ban that they were asking for. That did not fit within what we were supposed to do. But, um, uh, Commissioner Wargo?

6:16:40

Wargo Yeah, thanks, Madam Chair. Um, and I, I appreciate the, uh, petitioners coming, uh, forward with this. We had a really good, good conversation, and I think after, after sitting down and talking with these folks for quite a while, um, You know, I think there was, you know, somewhat of an acknowledgment. I mean, that it's a bit subsided now as, you know, temperatures have dropped and boats are getting put away. But this was, this was about a weekly, uh, topic that was hitting my, my inbox, whether it was Echo Lake, Swan Lake, Flathead Lake, Lower Flathead River.

6:17:14

Wargo This is, uh, I guess I feel like this topic, this general topic, definitely deserves its, its time at the podium to, to dive, dive into this. I, I'm hesitant to, to say that Swan Lake is the, you know, this is an exclusive issue to Swan Lake. And just, um, I, I mean, I feel like that the only way that I could really support support, you know, some sort of petition, you know, diving into wake setback would really be on a broader, broader scale because the, the issue is not necessarily the water body.

6:17:56

Wargo The issue is, is the tool, the wake boat. It's a new, it's a new technology. I think it's a very cool technology. It's, you know, there's a lot of people that get a lot of enjoyment, brings a lot of money to the state. I'm not saying I'm opposed to it, but it is something that is You know, this was not a thing 15, 20 years ago, and it's probably time to have this discussion. I, I, I'm hesitant to say that this commission and the MAPA process is like right. I'm, I don't know that the MAPA process is the appropriate vehicle for this. It seems, it seems that this topic is a little bit better. Better suited towards the legislature.

6:18:38

Wargo And why I say that is because I think the number one crux to this discussion is not 200 feet versus 500 feet versus whatever. This is a, this is a money and this is an enforcement thing. You know, these folks are spending $400,000 on these boats, and, you know, to me, I don't think we should be burdening our, uh, law enforcement staff with, you know, that, that, that are supported by fishermen license dollars to go out and police bad actors on a $400,000 wakeboard boat.

6:19:16

Wargo I just, I don't think that it's— in this instance, it's really the responsibility of the sportsman. And I know, I know our, our enforcement staff, I, I would much rather them be spending time backing up to the original discussion, looking into enforcement and worrying about endangered species and bull trout and that sort of stuff versus, um, wave heights and stuff. So I, I, I, I don't know, and maybe the department could weigh in on this if they think MAPA is the appropriate vehicle for this. This discussion needs to take place in Montana. Whether or not MAPA in this petition is the right vehicle, I don't know.

6:20:04

Unidentified (voice I) Chair, my only response to that would be, yeah, MAPA— the MAPA process here would be limited to this request for Swan Lake, and it wouldn't be able to, I don't think, go beyond that without a different administrative rule proposal.

6:20:26

Robinson Commissioner Gagnon.

6:20:28

Gagnon Madam Chair, thank you. I do have a number of other questions about this particular petition, but I wonder if I should ask those now or if we should have a motion on the petition.

6:20:42

Unidentified (voice F) You—.

6:20:43

Robinson I would entertain a motion if you want to do a motion.

6:20:49

Gagnon I wasn't necessarily saying I wanted to.

6:20:56

Wargo Madam Chair?

6:21:01

Robinson Yes.

6:21:03

Wargo Um, entertain a motion. Uh, um, I move, uh, the Fish and Wildlife, um, Commission adopt Alternative B. Uh, deny the petition, or I think that's the—.

6:21:18

Unidentified (voice F) I—.

6:21:19

Wargo Yes, sir. Okay.

6:21:20

Kevin Rechkoff (staff) Yep.

6:21:21

Wargo Based on the petition's, uh, contents and the information presented to the commission, I move the Fish and Wildlife, uh, Commission deny the rulemaking petition.

6:21:32

Robinson Is there a second?

6:21:40

Unidentified (voice F) Second.

6:21:40

Robinson Okay, Commissioner Burrows? Okay, we'll continue discussion.

6:21:50

Gagnon Madam Chair?

6:21:52

Robinson Commissioner Gagnon.

6:21:54

Gagnon Thank you. Um, I had asked Jesse to have enforcement in Region 1 available to answer any questions related to enforcement issues that have been noticed on Swan Lake related to wake boats or elevated wave heights. And I, I don't know if there's anybody in Region 1 that can speak to that. I'm just looking at past issues, not predicted ones in the future, if there have been any reported issues.

6:22:24

Robinson Region 1?

6:22:30

Wargo Madam Chair, Commissioners, this is Chris Nye, Game Warden Captain for Region 1.

6:22:35

Robinson Okay, go ahead.

6:22:38

Wargo I don't have any, I don't currently have direct data on Swan Lake. I would say it's, we don't have any direct issues with the increased violations of the no-wake zone currently, any more than we do anywhere else in Region 1. It's a issue we deal with frequently in Region 1, but Swan Lake is not one that we see particular high numbers of violations, if that answers the question.

6:23:09

Gagnon It does, thank you. And maybe a follow-up, if you don't mind. In Swan Lake, the 200-foot no-wake zone that is, I assume, the perimeter of the lake, is that buoyed in any way, or Or is that only a visible observation by both the boat operator and the enforcement?

6:23:29

Wargo Madam Chair, Commissioner, that is a regulation that is in place for all of the Western Fishing District, so that it, with a few limited exemptions, that is every water body over 35 acres in the Western Fishing District has the 250 foot from shore, no wake.

6:23:51

Wargo Because of the scale of that, the department does not buoy the entire shoreline of every lake, so that is enforced by observation, and all of our wardens have rangefinders on their boats and things, and we have to either verify from shore or from the water the distance to shore that a boat is traveling to enforce that law.

6:24:17

Gagnon Thank you. I appreciate that.

6:24:23

Robinson Any other questions from the commission? Commissioner Gagnon, do you have another one?

6:24:33

Unidentified (voice F) I do.

6:24:33

Gagnon I want to give others an opportunity to ask as well, but I noticed in much of the literature that I found in. The boating laws for Montana, that really the, there isn't a rule specific for the no-wake distance from a dock or from a boat ramp per se, but I did find some literature that said that typically the maximum different distance from a high, it's called a high-volume location, is 300 feet. So I'm just That's— that was initially my comment about the 500, is that would be a significant departure from any of the other literature that I had seen with boating laws in Montana.

6:25:17

Gagnon So I'm just wondering if that— if I missed something, if that could be verified, or if that's kind of an accurate assessment. And I guess I'm not sure who to direct that question to, or if it's even possible to answer.

6:25:46

Christy Clark (staff) Madam Chair, Captain Nye is still on. Maybe he could address that.

6:25:57

Wargo Madam Chair, Commissioner, can you Can you clarify, are you asking if, if there's other examples of larger no-wake zones in Montana? Is that the question?

6:26:11

Gagnon More specifically, if there is any specific regulation for the distance from either a boat dock, boat ramp, or high-traffic area that would indicate something other than the 200 Or in what I found in the literature is 300.

6:26:31

Wargo Madam Chair, Commissioner, we do have, with, for personal watercrafts, there is a no-wake area from the end of a dock, but that is also 200 feet. Off the top of my head, I can't think of anything larger than that or different for a dock or an air or a Swim zone or anything like that.

6:26:56

Gagnon Thank you, I appreciate that.

6:26:57

Robinson Commissioner Brooke?

6:27:01

Brooke Um, just a comment. Um, this— we talked about these, these petitions keep coming to us from citizens who are frustrated, and it doesn't seem to me that punting this over to the legislature to solve is a good answer because every single petition that's come before us has a really unique circumstance. They're, they're small, they're shallow, you know, there's all these things that I think this commission should be charged with making these decisions and having these go out, get some public comment. Maybe the citizens all come to agreement on it and it comes back to us with something that they've all agreed on.

6:27:45

Brooke And we can make a determination on a lake-by-lake basis. The legislature cannot do that. That would be a bigger, a bigger picture where you had 300 feet, where it wasn't always necessary to have it 300 feet somewhere. So I think if there was ever a time for the commission to move forward and let this process move forward, it's probably about now, because all of these are new uses. We've got a lot of very frustrated people on both sides of the argument, and I, I think now's the time to put this into the MEPA process and see what comes out of it. So I'm arguing against punching this to the legislature or denying this petition.

6:28:30

Brooke I think we should move forward and let this— let's see what can happen with the people on the ground.

6:28:36

Robinson Yep. Commissioner Wargo.

6:28:40

Wargo Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, I guess to, um, speak directly to that, the area, I guess the issue that I have is this is not in any way, shape, or form a unique topic to Swan Lake. If, if the petition came back and it said, you know, Western Fishing District water bodies and we started that conversation, I would be 100% in support of this because I do think it is, is something. But I don't see that there is anything unique about Swan Lake versus, versus, uh, any other lakes. Yes, it's, it's, it's long, it's skinny, so you maybe get, you know, more, a little bit more shoreline activity, but it's fairly deep overall.

6:29:25

Wargo Um, I think it's a, you know, based off of the emails that I receive in my inbox the phone calls from people frustrated about the, uh, the wakeboarding wakeboat stuff.

6:29:36

Unidentified (voice F) I—.

6:29:36

Wargo It is not a unique topic to Swan Lake. And I guess the— my comment on the, the legislate— legislative component is not at all geared towards the rule. It would be 100% geared towards the funding side of things because I do not think it is appropriate for fishermen to be footing the bill for enforcement. We go ahead and we change this, and now we've put another burden on our enforcement staff to go out there and spend time patrolling a lake that, you know, maybe there isn't any other natural resource issue going on other than, you know, the, the boater safety component of this.

6:30:15

Wargo So that's, that's where I, I really feel like the legislature would be best suited to tackle this from a funding standpoint. And I, in, in my view, the sheriff's department is the one that should be, um, tasked with, you know, spending time on these lakes. It's, it's the safety comes into drinking and driving and, you know, just reckless, reckless stuff in, in general. I'd much rather see a 100-foot wake setback and double the enforcement and just a presence where we go out and we stop a boat and we say, hey man, I know this isn't a direct violation, but it really seems like you could be a lot more respectful if you if you took these activities, you know, out deeper in the water.

6:31:00

Burrows So that's what I have.

6:31:02

Robinson Thanks, Commissioner Walsh. Oh, you are muted again.

6:31:16

Walsh Sorry about that. Madam Chair, thanks. I, whether it's 200 feet or a 500-foot limit, I don't think the enforcement burden is different. And I agree. I mean, we've been asking now for 4 or 5 years to have a, you know, decision on this issue in any number of western Montana Lakes, I'm convinced that's not going to happen. So I think we're going to be facing these, um, request by request. And I would agree with Commissioner Brooke that we had to see this one go through the MAPA process.

6:32:01

Robinson So we have a motion on the table. I will, um, go to public comment on the motion. That's on the table, and we'll deal with that when we come back to it. Unless there's a somebody who would like to change their motion.

6:32:22

Unidentified (voice L) I think you said I'm supposed to go there.

6:32:24

Unidentified (voice S) Where's the chair?

6:32:26

Christy Clark (staff) Madam Chair, we have a public commenter.

6:32:32

Robinson Okay, I'm not. I haven't gone out yet, but thank you.

6:32:35

Unidentified (voice F) Okay.

6:32:36

Robinson I'm sorry, Commissioner Gagnon?

6:32:39

Gagnon Yeah, I— just a matter of process. So the motion that's on the table is to deny the position. If that motion fails, do we go back then and revisit this petition, or what happens if that motion fails? Just to be clear.

6:32:59

Robinson Yes. So legal, if you could cover that, please.

6:33:05

Unidentified (voice I) If the motion to deny fails, then the request is still on the table and you would have to consider an alternative response.

6:33:17

Robinson We have to respond to it one way or the other.

6:33:21

Unidentified (voice I) Well, or you can table that issue.

6:33:26

Robinson Okay, I don't think we've ever done that.

6:33:31

Brooke Madam Chair, can we have competing motions?

6:33:36

Robinson No, but we can— I mean, if, if it, if it fails, we'll come back to it. But I want to go out here unless Commissioner Wargo and Commissioner Burrows want to change their motion.

6:33:51

Wargo All right, sorry, uh, I just hit mute again. Um, quick legal clarification, it would not be within our purview to expand or to modify this to western— the whole western fishing district to go through MAPA process. That's, that's not in our purview, or it is?

6:34:19

Unidentified (voice I) So, Madam Chair, if I can clarify, Commissioner Wargo, what you're asking. You, you're essentially wondering if you can change 12.11.115, which is the Western Fishing District's 200 feet from shoreline regulation or rule, if you can make an amendment to change that? Uh, no wake zone.

6:34:45

Wargo Well, well, I guess the, the citizen petition is specific to Swan Lake. Can I make the— can I modify the citizen petition to be Western Fishing District? Because it— this is not an issue that is specific to Swan Lake.

6:35:08

Robinson Would this be the time to set up for the petition? With the petitioner's consent.

6:35:17

Kevin Rechkoff (staff) Directs to director from— I would, I would say that's the petitioner's space to weigh in their petition. If they don't want to amend their petition, then we're stuck.

6:35:28

Robinson But that's okay. But, but if we go— if it does end up going through the process and there is ample comments that state that, at that point when it comes back to us, can we change something at that time?

6:35:49

Unidentified (voice J) I, I think—.

6:35:53

Unidentified (voice R) Madam Chair, this is Marty Tuttle, Interim Chief Legal Counsel. My apologies. Um, the agenda specifically states this is a Swan Lake motorized use restriction. And so changing to modify a different ARM, including the Western Region, would require a different petition. Now that petition could be resubmitted. What you can do is you can amend the petition that's before you. That's one of the 3 options. You can deny it, you can approve it as it's written, or you can amend the petition as it currently sits. But what currently sits before the Commission is a modification or an amendment to Arm 12-11-3106, which is specific to Swan Lake.

6:36:37

Unidentified (voice R) And so because, uh, the petition drilled down deeper into the ARM than the Western Region, you wouldn't be able to amend the petition because it's beyond the agenda and it's actually beyond the face of the arm as it sits.

6:36:55

Unidentified (voice I) So, and if I could piggyback on that, it's basically a public notice issue. Because the agenda item is limited to the Swan Lake petition at this point, that's the limit. Although, as we mentioned, it could be considered under a future petition or by the Commission at a future meeting.

6:37:21

Unidentified (voice F) Yes.

6:37:21

Robinson Commissioner Herbold, did you have a follow-up on that?

6:37:23

Wargo Yeah, I guess follow-up, I guess on that same line of So if that holds specific to this, the extent of this commission, if this goes through the MAPA process, would that same logic hold that then casting a wider net, so to speak, through the MAPA process would not be allowed because this was initiated with specific to that arm section? Or could there be a juncture which we decide to cast a wider net down the road.

6:37:57

Unidentified (voice I) It, Madam Chair, it's a hypothetical. It is possible that public comments would come back that say you should consider amending a different rule and, and have this apply to all the western fishing districts. That would then require a, an amended notice to the public and an amended MAPA process. So it might get there in the end, but it would not start in that place.

6:38:24

Wargo Yes, that's my, my concern on, on using this particular petition as a, as a launch pad, so to speak. And then again, I don't know that the distance is really the issue, it's enforcement.

6:38:39

Robinson Commissioner Gagnon.

6:38:43

Gagnon Madam Chair, I'm not sure in terms of process, next steps here, and if it would impact this or even be allowable, but if possible, prior to putting this out to public comment and a vote, I would like to propose to amend that 500-foot value to 300 feet. And I'm not sure it's possible or impactful, but I don't know that There's reasonable justification for 500, especially since, as many others have stated, I'm not sure that the feet from shore is the real issue here. But it may alleviate some concerns and create a process which could provide some public input.

6:39:28

Gagnon So just some thoughts if that's possible at this point, or if we would have to go through public comment and a vote before an amendment.

6:39:39

Robinson Legal, please.

6:39:42

Unidentified (voice I) Thank you, Chair. At this point, there's a motion on the table to deny, so that motion has to be handled first before an alternative motion, unless they are— they would consent to a friendly amendment.

6:39:55

Robinson That wouldn't be very friendly. You'd have to— I think you'd have to—.

6:39:59

Unidentified (voice I) Yeah, it's pretty much changing it, so yes. Probably vote. I think that's probably right, Chair. I think we probably address the motion to deny first before an alternative amendment can be made.

6:40:12

Gagnon Thank you.

6:40:15

Robinson Commissioner Burrows.

6:40:17

Burrows I was just going to hit on that, and Commissioner Walsh brought it up earlier. This is about the, what, 3rd or 4th time we've talked about this, and every time we say the same thing. Let's stop focusing on a body of water and see if we can come up with some some scientific, uh, peer-reviewed information that says here's how far away causes shoreline damage, dock damage, property damage. And I think if we could punt on this petition today and agree that we'll come back, because I— we've just dropped the ball on taking it up, but it comes in on a specific water body. We have this same exact discussion.

6:41:00

Burrows We say let's look bigger picture, and then it sits for six months until the next petition comes up. So I guess what I would ask is if we if we could deny this and then truly take a look at a map a process on western water bodies and really get that information because we're guessing 500 feet. 300 Feet, 250 feet, uh, 12-foot deep, 20 feet deep. We, we don't really know. So let's, let's take a holistic approach, a scientific approach, and kind of try and get some resolution on this issue of wake boats.

6:41:44

Robinson So suggestion— I just have to say, uh, Casey and I have been on here the longest, and this is the exact conversation we have every time, and nothing has ever moved forward. So I guess my question to the headquarters is, where can that discussion start, and who implements it?

6:42:11

Unidentified (voice I) Where do we—.

6:42:11

Robinson Where would we even start with that?

6:42:14

Christy Clark (staff) Well, Madam Chair, this is Uh, Kristy, I spoke with the Montana Watersports Association over the summer, and I met with them, and I know they are working on legislation to clarify this process so that it's not just the one-off petitions that you guys are stuck grappling with. But I haven't seen any bill draft, and I haven't heard how that's going. So I mean, from my perspective, there is— that is a— there is a needed legislative fix. I think we talked about that. That's where my mind goes. Other than that—.

6:42:54

Kevin Rechkoff (staff) Madam Chair, Director Clark, I would just add on part of that concept as we understood it was the potential for— I don't know if it's called an independent working group or a body that would— that would look more holistically at this issue. So to get the concern, Commissioner Wargo, Commissioner Burrows, of your kind of keep coming back to the same conversation and a desire to incorporate scientific data or erosion data into that process. I think that was part of the intent from what we understood may be coming in the next few months in the session.

6:43:24

Robinson So who would put that working group together? And it wouldn't be the first working group because we have, we have directed the FWP to put working groups, but it's been individuals. You know, these individual petitions, but never has a working group been put together to holistically look at things.

6:43:49

Christy Clark (staff) Yeah, it would be Montana Water Sports Association. Brad Longcake was the staff person that Kevin and I worked with. It's been a couple of months since we met with him.

6:44:01

Unidentified (voice I) Yeah.

6:44:01

Christy Clark (staff) And I haven't heard any follow-up.

6:44:03

Kevin Rechkoff (staff) No, I haven't heard any follow-up, Director. Madam Chair, I would just add that to your point on the Commission's past actions on appointing, directing FAP to form working groups, this would function more as a statutory creation. So it would be a direction to the department from the legislature to, you know, appoint probably a broader constituency of folks who look at the issue statewide. So it wouldn't come from— conversely with what we've done in the past.

6:44:30

Unidentified (voice F) Thank you.

6:44:30

Kevin Rechkoff (staff) On, as Marty mentioned, I think it was Church Slough, some of the other ones up in Region 1, Lake 5. Forgetting, there's one more slough, Half Moon.