Madison River Fisheries Management: Outfitter Industry Voice

1. Madison River Fisheries Management: Outfitter Industry Voice To Participate: typehttp://etc.ch/2UqM into the browser on your device January 12, 2019

2. Welcome / Purpose of Session • Take the “temperature of our industry” • Gauge urgency and response to some ideas for potential Management Options • Help the Outfitter Reps on the Negotiated Rule Making Committee best represent you and our industry • Inform the discussion and on-going conversations To Participate: type http://etc.ch/2UqM into the browser on your device

3. Session Flow • Introduction / Purpose • How to participate • Demographics • Urgency of the Problem • Proposed Management Solutions Polling To Participate: type http://etc.ch/2UqM into the browser on your device

4. Get Ready to Participate • Connect to local wi-fi • Open the internet browser on your phone • Type in: http://etc.ch/2UqM • Or use the QR Code:

5. Demographics • These questions will help us understand who is here today • 5 questions polling on: • Role represented • Size of Outfitting business represented • SRP’s for the Madison • Where services are provided • Membership affiliation To Participate: type http://etc.ch/2UqM into the browser on your device

6. Demographic Poll Results

7. Demographic Poll Results Cont.

8. Problem Urgency • These questions will help us understand what you think about the urgency of potential problems on the Madison River. • Interested in your perspective based on your experience • 3 Questions polling on: • Real impact possible through regulating Outfitted interests • Degree of biological impact • Degree of quality impact To Participate: type http://etc.ch/2UqM into the browser on your device

9. Urgency / Problem Poll Results

10. Management Options Polling Process • Each topic area background presented • No real time for discussion – ACKNOWLEDGED! • Management Options posed • Respond to: How supportive are you of this Management Option? • Not at all Supportive • Somewhat Supportive • Moderately Supportive • Fully Supportive • No Opinion To Participate: type http://etc.ch/2UqM into the browser on your device

11. MOT 1 Cap Special Recreation Permits (SRPs) to 2017 Levels Currently, there is no limit on the number of outfitter permits that can be issued by the SRP program. Under this proposal, no new SRPs would be issued. Management Option Cap the number of Special Recreation Permits issued on the Madison River to the number of active permits in 2017, approximately 200.

12. MOT 1 Cap Special Recreation Permits (SRPs) to 2017 Levels Poll Results

13. MOT 2 Cap Overall Commercial Use to Historic Levels The SRP program tracks commercial use according to how many trips each permittee logs each year. Under this option, SRPs would be capped and permittees would be held to the number of trips logged historically. In the event the permit holder sold his or her business, the new owner’s allocated use would be capped at the previous owner’s historic use. Trips could be freely traded on the open market. No mechanism exists under this model to increase or decrease total guided trips. Management Option Cap and allocate the number of annual commercial trips per SRP holder at historic levels.

14. MOT 2 Cap Overall Commercial Use to Historic Levels Poll Result

15. MOT 3 Distribute Use Based on State-Managed Concessionaire System An alternative to the Special Recreation Permit program would be a Special Use Permit system that would treat outfitter permits like concession permits. Permits for large concessions would be let for multiple years and small ones would turn over every year. Special Use Permits would be awarded by the State based on the size of the concession and could be adjusted over time. Performance standards and use levels would be established within the contract. Management Option Issue Special Use Permits through a Concession Contract based upon a prospectus system managed by the State.

16. MOT 3 Distribute Use Based on State-Managed Concessionaire SystemPoll Result

17. MOT 4 Manage Outfitter Use of Fishing Access Sites to Address Crowding This is an alternative to rest and rotation. Management would be applied to those currently holding SRPs. It would involve regulating use at fishing access sites temporally or geographically. Management Options (note: 3 polls) Manage each outfitter to a specified number of launches per day. Manage when each outfitter to a specified number of launches per day at any one fishing access site. Manage when outfitters can launch based on time of day and/or day of the week.

18. MOT 4 Manage Outfitter Use of Fishing Access Sites to Address Crowding Polling Results

19. MOT 5 Establish a Rest and Rotation System for Outfitters Rest and rotation involves closing specific river reaches or fishing access sites to outfitter use based on the day of the week. Management Options (note: 2 polls) Close one fishing access site to all outfitter use each day of the week based on a predetermined schedule. Close one reach of the river to all outfitter use each day of the week based on a predetermined schedule.

20. MOT 5 Establish a Rest and Rotation System for Outfitters Poll Results

21. MOT 6 Enforce Closures of Wade-Only Reaches of the River to Fishing from Vessels Two reaches of the Madison River—from the outlet of Quake Lake to Lyons Bridge, and from Ennis Bridge to Ennis Lake—are currently closed to fishing from a vessel or float tube, but wading anglers frequently express concerns about encounters with anglers who use float tubes or vessels to gain access to these waters. FWP cannot limit floating on a navigable waterway, but they do have statutory authority to limit fishing. Management Option Enforce existing regulations that close specified reaches of the Madison River to all vessels with fishing equipment.

22. MOT 6 Enforce Closures of Wade-Only Reaches of the River to Fishing from Vessels Poll Results

23. MOT 7 Regulate Some Stretches of River and Leave Others Unregulated Mobile anglers can freely move from one water to another depending on conditions. Therefore, the Madison River is influenced by events at other fisheries. This proposal leaves one stretch of the Madison Fishery unregulated to help absorb angler traffic in the event of compromised conditions at a nearby fishery. Management Option Regulate use from Quake Lake to Ennis Lake and leave use unregulated from Warm Springs downstream unless a biological problem develops.

24. MOT 7 Regulate Some Stretches of River and Leave Others Unregulated Poll Results

25. MOT 8 Close the Lower Madison River to All Commercial Use Closing part of the Madison River to all commercial use is one of the most restrictive options that has been proposed. Management Option Prohibit commercial use on the reach of the Madison River between Greycliff and the confluence of the Jefferson River.

26. MOT 8 Close the Lower Madison River to All Commercial Use

27. MOT 9 Share the Burden Among User Groups A significant portion of the crowding negatively impacting user experience is due to use by the general public and by non-outfitted commercial operators who perform shuttle services under a Commercial Use Permit. The proposed negotiated rulemaking effort focuses only on the guided angler segment to affect quality of experience. An alternative is to restrict all uses proportional to their contribution to the total activity on the river. At present there is no demonstrated conservation concern for fisheries in the Madison River; fishery stocks are considered stable at historic levels.

28. MOT 9 Cont. Share the Burden Among User Groups Management Options (note: 3 polls) Restrict only commercial outfitter use to address crowding and quality of experience concerns. Restrict use among ALL users (outfitters, non-outfitted commercial users and members of the public) to address crowding and quality of experience concerns. Impose minimal restrictions on outfitted use now and introduce restrictions on ALL users if fishery stocks decline.

29. MOT 9 Cont. Share the Burden Among User Groups Poll Results

30. MOT 10 Restructure Fee Requirements for Commercial Non-Outfitted Users Under the SRP program currently in place, non-outfitted commercial users must pay 3 percent of their gross revenue for use of BLM fishing access sites. These users operate for free on FWP sites. This incentivizes non-outfitted commercial operators to use FWP sites and impacts crowding dynamics. Comparatively, outfitters must pay an SRP fee of 3 percent regardless of whether they use BLM or FWP sites. Management Option Require non-outfitted commercial users to pay 3 percent of their gross revenue into the SRP program regardless of whether they use BLM or FWP fishing access sites.

31. MOT 10 Restructure Fee Requirements for Commercial Non-Outfitted Users Poll Results

32. MOT 11 Manage Use Seasonally Currently there are no seasonal parameters regulating SRP holder use. Management Options (note: 2 options) Narrowly define the period of regulated use (i.e. June 15 to July 30) leaving the remainder of the season unregulated. Broadly define the period of regulated use (i.e. June 1 to September 30) leaving the remainder of the season unregulated.

33. MOT 11 Manage Use Seasonally Poll Results

34. What’s Next Little – no time – for discussion here… ACKNOWLEGED!!! You have… • Provided data on where to target discussions • Sparked the topics on some management options • Seen the options that have been thought of so can relay other options to your NRM reps How this will be used... • Results given to your NRM reps for use in discussions • Follow-up provided if you signed in

35. Thank you!