# Montana Fish and Wildlife Commission: regular meeting, October 14, 2026 [Meeting page](https://fwp.mt.gov/aboutfwp/commission/october-2026-meeting) · [Recording](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA) Generated from the recording by the gov-watcher prototype. The text is written by AI and has not been checked by a person. Every time shown is a link to that moment in the recording. 19 Matters · 42 Actions · 298 Comments · 115 Digest statements ## Not on the agenda **Motions and amendments brought up at the meeting** - **2027-2028 Fishing Regulations:** Amendment (from the floor): Brooke proposed from the floor an amendment to lift the Beaverhead River spawning closure under Proposal 37 immediately; she withdrew it because a change to the 2026 regulations needed 24 hours' public notice. [3:06:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=11203s) - **Upper Flathead Drainage Brown Trout Regulation:** Amendment (from the floor): Commissioner Gagnon moved to replace the carcass delivery language with: 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. The amendment was drafted during the meeting and seconded. [3:54:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=14052s) - **Grizzly Bear Release Sites:** Amendment (from the floor): Gagnon moved to amend the motion to remove Site 144, near Blacktail Mountain and the Wild Bill area, from the proposal; Wargo seconded. The amendment was proposed at the meeting in response to public comment and was not posted beforehand. [4:15:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=15304s) - **Citizen Petition – Swan Lake Motorized Use Restriction:** Amendment (from the floor): Gagnon proposed changing the petition's 500-foot no-wake distance to 300 feet; legal advised the pending motion to deny had to be decided first, so it was not taken up. [6:38:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=23923s) **Matters a Member raised that were not on the agenda** - License Ambassador Program [1:06:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=3985s) - Hoot owl restriction temperature criteria [1:20:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=4838s) - Timing of public comment on Commission amendments [2:43:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=9838s) ## What was decided **Approval of Minutes (August 19, 2026 Regular Meeting and September 24, 2026 Special Meeting)** - Motion: Brooke moved to approve the minutes of both the August 19, 2026 regular meeting and the September 24, 2026 special meeting; Wargo seconded. [0:23:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=1389s) - Vote: Voice vote on the motion to approve the minutes of the August 19, 2026 regular meeting and the September 24, 2026 special meeting. **Motion carries.** · Wargo: Aye [0:23:29](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=1409s) **Approval of Commission Expenses (FY 2027 Current)** - Motion: Motion to approve the Commission expenses as presented (the updated expense report). [0:24:29](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=1469s) - Vote: Vote on the motion to approve the Commission expenses as presented. **Motion carried** [0:24:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=1493s) **2027-2028 Fishing Regulations** - Motion: Burrows moved to approve the 2027-2028 fishing regulations as proposed by the department; Wargo seconded. [1:31:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=5500s) - Amendment: Wargo moved to keep the Western District standard kokanee limit of 20 daily and 40 in possession on Little Bitterroot Lake instead of the department's proposed reduction; Brooke seconded. [1:38:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=5893s) - Amendment: Wargo moved to extend the Hungry Horse Reservoir and South Fork Flathead regulation boundary from Crossover Boat Ramp to Peters Creek Campground, prohibit live and dead bait, and allow only catch-and-release bull trout angling from the third Saturday in May through July 31 with a catch card; Gagnon seconded. [1:55:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=6933s) - Amendment: Wargo moved to keep the single-point hook rule on the Flathead River only down to Church Slough and remove it from Church Slough to Flathead Lake, with related winter bait changes; Brooke seconded. [2:06:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=7613s) - Amendment: Wargo's posted Flathead Lake amendment to change lake trout, yellow perch and northern pike limits was not introduced; he withdrew it after the department committed to a broader review of Flathead Lake management. [2:22:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=8550s) - Amendment: Gagnon moved to remove Proposal 41, which would have cut setlines on the Yellowstone River from the I-90 bridge in Billings to the Bighorn River mouth from 6 to 3 between May 1 and June 15; it was seconded. [2:23:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=8598s) - Amendment: An amendment was moved, narrowed at the meeting to run from the Yellowstone National Park boundary to Ennis Lake, setting catch-and-release for all trout, artificial lures with barbless single-pointed hooks only, and ending the exception letting anglers 14 and under keep one trout on the Upper Madison River; Wargo seconded. [2:32:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=9158s) - Amendment: The Lower Madison portion of the posted Madison amendment, covering Ennis Dam to the mouth at the Jefferson River, was split off as a separate amendment and then pulled by its sponsor to be taken up in two years. [2:48:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=10123s) - Amendment (from the floor): Brooke proposed from the floor an amendment to lift the Beaverhead River spawning closure under Proposal 37 immediately; she withdrew it because a change to the 2026 regulations needed 24 hours' public notice. [3:06:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=11203s) - Vote: Vote on the amendment to keep the 20 daily / 40 possession kokanee limit on Little Bitterroot Lake. **amendment number 1 fails** (2 in favor, 3 opposed) [3:28:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=12501s) - Vote: Vote on the amendment extending the Hungry Horse/South Fork Flathead boundary to Peters Creek Campground, banning bait, and setting catch-and-release bull trout angling from the third Saturday in May through July 31. **amendment number 2 passes** (3 in favor, 2 opposed) [3:29:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=12542s) - Vote: Vote on the amendment removing the single-point hook requirement on the Flathead River from Church Slough to Flathead Lake. **amendment number 3 fails** (1 in favor, 4 opposed) [3:29:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=12583s) - Vote: Vote on the amendment removing Proposal 41 on Yellowstone River setline limits. **amendment number 5 passes** (5 in favor, 0 opposed) [3:30:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=12615s) - Vote: Vote on the amendment for catch-and-release and barbless single-hook artificial lures on the Upper Madison River from Yellowstone National Park to Ennis Lake. **amendment number 6 fails** (2 in favor, 3 opposed) [3:30:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=12615s) - Vote: Vote on the main motion to approve the 2027-2028 fishing regulations as amended by the Hungry Horse/South Fork bull trout amendment and the removal of Proposal 41. **Motion carries** · Burrows: Aye [3:33:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=12823s) **Upper Flathead Drainage Brown Trout Regulation** - Motion: Commissioner Gagnon moved that the Commission approve the proposed emergency regulation change for brown trout in the Upper Flathead Drainage; the motion was seconded. [3:35:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=12953s) - Amendment (from the floor): Commissioner Gagnon moved to replace the carcass delivery language with: 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. The amendment was drafted during the meeting and seconded. [3:54:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=14052s) - Vote: Vote on the amendment letting anglers either deliver the whole brown trout to FWP or contact FWP staff within 10 days of capture. **Not stated** · Wargo: Aye, Robinson: Aye, Burrows: No [3:57:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=14237s) - Vote: Vote on the amended motion to approve the emergency brown trout regulation for the Upper Flathead Drainage. **Motion carries.** [4:02:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=14544s) **Grizzly Bear Release Sites** - Motion: A Member moved that the Commission approve the proposed grizzly bear relocation sites and contingency sites, as shown in the accompanying maps and spreadsheets, for a 5-year period; Gagnon seconded. [4:11:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=15083s) - Amendment (from the floor): Gagnon moved to amend the motion to remove Site 144, near Blacktail Mountain and the Wild Bill area, from the proposal; Wargo seconded. The amendment was proposed at the meeting in response to public comment and was not posted beforehand. [4:15:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=15304s) - Vote: Vote on the amendment to remove Site 144 from the grizzly bear release site proposal. **Motion carries** [4:15:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=15353s) - Vote: Vote on the motion, as amended to remove Site 144, to approve the grizzly bear relocation sites and contingency sites for a 5-year period. **Motion carried** [4:16:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=15382s) **Approval of Northern Leopard frog transplants from eastern Montana to FWP Regions 1 and 2** - Motion: Burrows moved that the Commission approve the proposed northern leopard frog translocations into FWP Regions 1 and 2 during 2026 through 2037 as presented by the department; seconded by Gagnon. [4:20:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=15600s) - Vote: Vote on the motion to approve northern leopard frog translocations from eastern Montana into FWP Regions 1 and 2 for 2026 through 2037. **Motion carries** [4:20:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=15655s) **Temporary Full Closure of Kona Bridge Fishing Access Site** - Motion: Gagnon moved that the Commission adopt a temporary full closure of the Kona Bridge fishing access site from fall or early winter of 2026 until construction is complete and the site is safe for public use; seconded by Wargo. [4:46:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=17204s) - Vote: Vote on the motion to adopt a temporary full closure of the Kona Bridge fishing access site until construction is complete and the site is safe for public use. **Motion carried** [4:47:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=17264s) **Public Use and Commercial Use Fee Schedules** - Motion: Brooke moved that the Commission adopt the public use and commercial use fee schedules; seconded by Gagnon. [4:56:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=17777s) - Vote: Vote on the motion to adopt the public use and commercial use fee schedules. **Motion carried.** [5:14:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=18858s) **Thompson Island Acquisition** - Motion: Gagnon moved that the Commission approve the proposal authorizing the department to accept transfer of the 38-acre Thompson Island on the Stillwater River; the motion was seconded. [5:21:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=19261s) - Vote: Vote on the motion authorizing the department to accept transfer of Thompson Island on the Stillwater River for a fishing access site. **Motion carried.** [5:24:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=19457s) **Hannah Ranch Term Conservation Easement** - Motion: A Member moved to approve the Hanna Ranch 99-year term conservation easement as presented (first misstated as Stafford Ferry because of an error on the agenda paper, then corrected to Hanna Ranch); seconded by Burrows. [5:36:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=20204s) - Vote: Vote by show of hands on the motion to approve the Hanna Ranch 99-year term conservation easement as presented. **Motion carries** [5:53:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=21207s) **Citizen Petition – Swan Lake Motorized Use Restriction** - Motion: Wargo moved that the Commission deny the citizen petition to extend the Swan Lake no-wake zone from 200 to 500 feet (Alternative B); it was seconded. [6:21:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=22881s) - Amendment (from the floor): Gagnon proposed changing the petition's 500-foot no-wake distance to 300 feet; legal advised the pending motion to deny had to be decided first, so it was not taken up. [6:38:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=23923s) - Vote: Vote on the motion to deny the citizen petition for a 500-foot no-wake zone on Swan Lake. **The petition is denied** (4 in favor, 1 opposed) [7:10:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=25800s) **Decision on Final Adoption of Bitterroot River Motorized Watercraft Closure** - Motion: A Member moved final adoption of an amendment to ARM 12.11.618 prohibiting motorized watercraft year-round on the Mitchell Slough channel, including its east, west and middle subchannels and all connected tributaries; seconded by Gagnon. [7:21:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=26478s) - Vote: Vote by show of hands on final adoption of the year-round motorized watercraft prohibition on the Mitchell Slough channel and its subchannels and connected tributaries. **Motion carries.** (3 in favor, 2 opposed) [7:33:59](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=27239s) ## Matters ### 1. Approval of Minutes (August 19, 2026 Regular Meeting and September 24, 2026 Special Meeting) On the agenda · [0:22:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=1368s) to 0:23:45 - The Commission took up approval of the minutes of its August 19, 2026 regular meeting and September 24, 2026 special meeting, with Robinson asking for a motion to approve both if there were no corrections or additions. [0:22:59](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=1379s) > **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. - Brooke moved to approve the minutes of both meetings, and Wargo seconded. [0:23:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=1389s) > **Brooke:** I will make that a motion to approve the minutes of both meetings. - After no corrections or additions were offered, the motion to approve both sets of minutes carried on a voice vote. [0:23:29](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=1409s) > **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? **Points made (1)** - The chair asked twice whether there were any corrections or additions to the August 19 and September 24 minutes, and none were offered before the vote. [0:23:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=1395s) **Actions (2)** - Motion: Brooke moved to approve the minutes of both the August 19, 2026 regular meeting and the September 24, 2026 special meeting; Wargo seconded. [0:23:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=1389s) - Vote: Voice vote on the motion to approve the minutes of the August 19, 2026 regular meeting and the September 24, 2026 special meeting. **Motion carries.** · Wargo: Aye [0:23:29](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=1409s) ### 2. Approval of Commission Expenses (FY 2027 Current) On the agenda · [0:23:29](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=1409s) to 0:25:05 - The Commission took up approval of its expenses using an updated expense report, which had been emailed and placed in the binder and the Drive because the earlier version was missing some expenses. [0:23:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=1434s) > **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. - Gagnon said he had not yet submitted his September expense report, and Robinson said it could be sent after the meeting. [0:24:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=1466s) > **Robinson:** No, we can send it after the meeting. - Burrows moved to approve the expenses as presented. [0:24:29](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=1469s) > **Burrows:** Madam Chair, move to approve the expenses as presented. - The motion to approve the Commission expenses carried; no vote count was stated. [0:24:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=1493s) > **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? **Points made (2)** - An updated expense report was emailed and placed in the binder and the Drive because the earlier version was missing some of the expenses. [0:23:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=1434s) - In response to a Member who had not yet submitted a September expense report, it was explained that the report could still be sent after the meeting. [0:24:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=1466s) **Actions (2)** - Motion: Motion to approve the Commission expenses as presented (the updated expense report). [0:24:29](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=1469s) - Vote: Vote on the motion to approve the Commission expenses as presented. **Motion carried** [0:24:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=1493s) ### 3. Commissioner Reports & Meeting Disclosures On the agenda · [0:24:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=1493s) to 0:59:53 - Opening the commissioner reports, Burrows reported that Region 2 wardens and wildlife staff are responding to bear conflicts almost daily, many involving improperly secured attractants. [0:25:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=1507s) > **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. - Burrows reported that staff estimate about 100 white-tailed deer deaths from a localized EHD outbreak southeast of Stevensville, which a hard frost is expected to curtail. [0:27:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=1666s) > **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. - Burrows reported that the dam at the outlet of Placid Lake, an important barrier against invasive northern pike and smallmouth, is beginning to fail and staff are working with homeowners on temporary and long-term fixes. [0:29:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=1749s) > **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. - Wargo reported an EHD outbreak between Kalispell and Whitefish with over 70 documented deer deaths, which he called unusual for Northwest Montana but not expected to have a district-wide effect. [0:34:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=2045s) > **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. - Brooke reported that Region 3 has removed 70 black bears to date against a typical annual average of 8 to 10, mostly over property damage from unsecured garbage, bird feeders and other human food. [0:36:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=2190s) > **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. - Gagnon reported attending a Red Lodge town hall on bear conflicts with about 140 residents and roughly a dozen Region 5 staff, including wardens. [0:43:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=2611s) > **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. - In giving the Region 4 report, a Member said they had held several discussions with FWP fisheries staff, Madison River outfitters, retailers and individuals in preparing an amendment to be presented at the meeting. [0:55:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=3302s) > **Unidentified (voice P):** 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. - Robinson gave the Region 6 report and also delivered a Region 7 update on behalf of Commissioner Lane. [0:56:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=3413s) > **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. **Points made (37)** - Burrows reported that Region 2 wardens and wildlife staff are responding to bear conflicts almost daily, many involving improperly secured attractants, and that waterfowl opening weekend was busy but success was down with warmer weather. [0:25:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=1507s) - Burrows reported that electronic gates are to be installed before winter at five Region 2 state parks, and that the Lower Blackfoot River floating closure for railway bridge work was lifted on October 2, though another closure will likely be needed for highway bridge repairs next year. [0:26:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=1592s) - Burrows reported that staff estimate about 100 white-tailed deer deaths from a localized EHD outbreak near Stevensville, which a hard frost is expected to curtail. [0:27:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=1666s) - Burrows reported that 11 beavers were transplanted into Spotted Dog WMA in September at sites restored with Natural Resource Damage Program funding. [0:28:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=1705s) - Burrows reported that the dam at the outlet of Placid Lake, an important barrier against invasive northern pike and smallmouth, is beginning to fail and staff are working with homeowners on temporary and long-term fixes. [0:29:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=1749s) - Burrows added that staff have received reports of dead or dying white-tailed deer in the Blackfoot Valley near Ovando and suspect EHD there as well. [0:29:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=1794s) - Burrows reported discussing with stakeholder groups a staff report on hunter pressure and non-resident trends, including that non-resident mule deer harvest now exceeds resident harvest in eastern Montana. [0:30:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=1836s) - Wargo reported that about 636,000 acres are enrolled in block management in Region 1 for 2026, of which 625,000 acres are open to year-round public recreation. [0:31:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=1878s) - Wargo reported that three large Region 1 block management areas have new sign-in requirements and that hunters should review current BMA maps before heading out. [0:32:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=1962s) - Wargo reported that Region 1 has a new CWD coordinator and a priority surveillance area this year, and encouraged hunters to submit samples. [0:33:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=1999s) - Wargo reported an EHD outbreak between Kalispell and Whitefish with over 70 documented mortalities, which he described as unusual for Northwest Montana but not expected to have a district-wide effect. [0:34:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=2045s) - Wargo reported a large increase in Region 1 bear conflicts tied to poor huckleberry crops and urged the public to secure garbage and other attractants. [0:35:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=2115s) - Brooke reported that Region 3 has removed 70 black bears to date compared with a typical annual average of 8 to 10, mostly over property damage from unsecured garbage, bird feeders and other human food. [0:36:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=2190s) - Brooke reported that the City of Bozeman, which lacks bear-proof dumpsters, is beginning discussion of a bear-proof dumpster program on a four-year timeline, and that the Region 3 online conflict dashboard is underreporting because staff are prioritizing field response. [0:37:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=2231s) - Brooke reported a record count of more than 450 sandhill cranes in the Helena area and relatively quiet archery hunting activity. [0:37:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=2274s) - Brooke reported that FWP started a targeted whitetail doe hunt on a 50-acre property north of Livingston where the landowner is suffering severe deer damage. [0:38:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=2318s) - Brooke reported that Region 3 hunter and bowhunter education instructors held 36 classes and field days and certified 764 students. [0:39:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=2395s) - Brooke reported four warden vacancies to be filled in the October general hire. [0:40:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=2433s) - Brooke reported that wardens are investigating a supplemental feeding case in Bozeman that led to the removal and euthanasia of 14 black bears. [0:41:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=2477s) - Gagnon reported attending a Red Lodge town hall on bear conflicts with about 140 residents and roughly a dozen Region 5 staff, including wardens. [0:43:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=2611s) - Gagnon reported hearing from many individuals about the fishing regulations and from a number with comments and concerns about the Hannah Ranch conservation easement proposal on the agenda. [0:44:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=2647s) - Gagnon reported that the Hooked on Fishing program is expected to reach about 1,000 students in grades 4 through 6 this year. [0:45:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=2720s) - Gagnon reported that fall sampling found a smaller, younger trout population in good numbers on the West Rosebud and Bighorn for the first time in more than five years, which he called encouraging. [0:45:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=2756s) - Gagnon reported that prairie fish sampling on Big Coulee Creek found degraded water quality and habitat with low species diversity at downstream sites, and that a pilot roving creel survey is underway on the Upper Bighorn through November. [0:46:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=2815s) - Gagnon reported antelope hunter numbers down at the Broadview check station and up at Big Timber but still well below the long-term average. [0:48:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=2905s) - Gagnon reported increased bear conflicts with livestock in Stillwater County and that grant funds for fencing are being sought. [0:49:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=2949s) - Gagnon reported that very few license ambassadors are available in the Billings area, causing heavy traffic at the department office. [0:49:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=2988s) - An unidentified speaker reported slow Region 4 early-season hunting activity due to mild weather, with 166 birds checked at the Freezeout waterfowl opener but participation well below long-term averages. [0:51:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=3063s) - An unidentified speaker reported that Region 4 wolf harvest is zero so far and staff are handling many grizzly bear conflict calls along the Rocky Mountain Front. [0:51:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=3109s) - An unidentified speaker reported Region 4 fisheries habitat projects on the Marias, Marsh and Hound Creeks, Sheep Creek and Harley Creek, and Smith River boat camp improvements. [0:52:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=3174s) - An unidentified speaker reported holding several discussions with FWP fisheries staff, Madison River outfitters, retailers and individuals in preparing an amendment to be presented at the meeting. [0:55:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=3302s) - Robinson reported attending a lightly attended informational deer and CWD meeting in Malta. [0:55:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=3322s) - Robinson reported that Region 6 now has nine towns with local license ambassadors, mostly libraries, and that Fort Peck and Nelson Reservoir surveys show game fish, especially walleye, doing well. [0:56:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=3367s) - Robinson reported that the Region 6 Chinook salmon egg take is vital because the species does not spawn successfully in the reservoir, and that the Havre FWP office is nearing completion. [0:56:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=3413s) - Robinson, reporting on Region 7, said a mule deer public meeting and a mule deer CWD open house in Miles City each drew about 15 members of the public. [0:57:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=3454s) - Robinson reported that Region 7 antelope check stations saw plenty of animals but upland bird success was poor, and that a lack of berries has bears foraging more. [0:58:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=3500s) - Robinson reported that Rosebud Battlefield State Park and other staff received the Governor's Award for planning the 150th anniversary commemoration of the Battle of the Rosebud. [0:59:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=3540s) ### 4. FWP Director's Report On the agenda · [0:59:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=3584s) to 1:06:24 · [1:09:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=4179s) to 1:10:13 - Staff reported that the department's chief legal counsel has returned to private practice, an acting chief legal counsel is serving, and the position is being advertised with the aim of filling it before the legislative session starts at the beginning of the year. [0:59:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=3594s) > **Unidentified (voice E):** 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. - Staff said the department continues to speak at town hall meetings on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's proposed 4D rule for bears, whose comment period closed in August with more than 100,000 comments, and expects the rule to be modified or finalized by spring rather than during this bear season. [1:01:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=3676s) > **Unidentified (voice E):** 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. - Staff reported that the Environmental Quality Council approved all but one of the department's proposed agency bills, and that the bills and the budget being finalized with the Governor's Budget Office will be presented to the Commission in December. [1:03:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=3798s) > **Unidentified (voice E):** 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. - Staff explained that House Bill 932, passed in 2025, broadened the Wildlife Improvement Program grants from noxious weed treatment alone to a wide range of habitat improvement work, with an advisory council making funding decisions and 2026 being the first grant cycle under the new rules. [1:04:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=3884s) > **Unidentified (voice E):** 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. - Staff reported that the 2026 grants funded 10 projects in four FWP regions and on one Indian reservation, covering streams, wetlands, wildlife-friendly fencing, invasive plant control and grassland and sagebrush restoration across an estimated 108,000 acres of wildlife habitat. [1:05:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=3927s) > **Unidentified (voice E):** 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. **Points made (11)** - Staff reported that the department's chief legal counsel has returned to private practice, an acting chief legal counsel is serving in the meantime, and the department is advertising the position with the hope of filling it before the legislative session begins at the start of the year. [0:59:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=3594s) - Staff described an unusually busy bear season requiring all hands on deck, thanked bear conflict specialists and enforcement staff, and acknowledged that situations such as the 14 black bears that had to be euthanized take a toll on staff. [1:00:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=3634s) - Staff reported that the department continues to speak at town hall meetings about the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's proposed 4D rule for bears, whose comment period closed in August with more than 100,000 comments, and that the rule is expected to be modified or finalized by spring rather than during this bear season. [1:01:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=3676s) - Staff reported the September 29 opening of the donor-funded avian walkway at Montana Wild, which now allows all the birds to be visible during the day. [1:01:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=3718s) - Staff reported that Montana hosted a three-day tri-state meeting in Whitefish with Wyoming and Idaho wildlife agencies to share issues and approaches, and that staff attended the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies meeting for updates on endangered species, conservation partnerships and federal programs. [1:02:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=3760s) - Staff reported that the department presented its proposed agency bills to the Environmental Quality Council, which approved all but one, and that both the bills and the budget being finalized with the Governor's Budget Office will be presented to the Commission in December. [1:03:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=3798s) - Staff reported that a vendor was awarded the contract for the department's licensing system and that the department is working on upgrading its FWP app. [1:04:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=3842s) - Staff explained that House Bill 932, passed in 2025, created the Habitat Legacy Program, which splits into three subaccounts: the Wildlife Improvement Program, the Land and Water Stewardship Account, and the Big Game and Wildlife Crossings Account. [1:04:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=3842s) - Staff explained that House Bill 932 broadened the Wildlife Improvement Program grants, previously focused only on noxious weed treatment, to a wide array of habitat improvement work, with funding decisions made by an advisory council and 2026 being the first grant cycle under the broadened rules. [1:04:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=3884s) - Staff reported that the 2026 grants funded 10 projects in four FWP regions and one Indian reservation, addressing streams, wetlands, wildlife-friendly fencing, invasive plant control and grassland and sagebrush restoration across an estimated 108,000 acres of wildlife habitat. [1:05:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=3927s) - Staff said the list of funded habitat projects will be sent to each Commissioner individually, noting the program now covers expanded work such as conifer encroachment rather than primarily noxious weed control. [1:09:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=4185s) ### 5. License Ambassador Program **Not on the agenda, raised by a Member** · [1:06:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=3985s) to 1:09:36 - The License Ambassador Program was not on the meeting's agenda; it was taken up at a Member's request, and staff gave an update and answered that Member's questions. [1:07:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=4069s) > **Unidentified (voice E):** Did you have questions about how, what it act, what the ambassador program actually does? Was that one of your questions, Madam Chair? Okay. - Staff reported 183 active license ambassadors statewide, including 29 rural county libraries recently added after department administrative staff trained library staff to help residents apply for licenses. [1:06:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=3994s) > **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. - Staff explained that ambassadors now route all sales through the department's online licensing portal rather than using specialized devices, collecting customers' money and remitting it weekly, and that they no longer receive a commission. [1:07:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=4078s) > **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. - Robinson asked whether purchases are credit card transactions like buying from home, and staff confirmed they are, noting that ambassadors cannot take cash although Fish, Wildlife and Parks offices can. [1:09:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=4153s) > **Unidentified (voice G):** Yes, ma'am. Yep, yep, those ambassadors can't take cash, but our Fish, Wildlife, and Parks offices do. **Points made (5)** - Staff reported that there are currently 183 active license ambassadors across the state, including 29 rural county libraries recently brought into the program after department administrative staff visited and trained library staff to help community members apply for licenses. [1:06:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=3994s) - Staff noted the ambassador count is roughly on par with about 189 at the same time last year, and that the department continues to recruit interested businesses to participate. [1:07:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=4037s) - In response to a Member's question about what the program does, staff explained that ambassadors now route all sales through the department's online licensing portal, replacing the old model in which vendors used specialized devices, collected money from customers and remitted it weekly. [1:07:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=4078s) - Staff explained that ambassadors still receive regulations as before but are no longer paid a commission, and that each location may operate as self-service or with ambassador staff assisting customers depending on customer needs. [1:08:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=4120s) - Asked by a Member whether purchases are credit card transactions like buying from home, staff confirmed they are, noting ambassadors cannot accept cash although Fish, Wildlife and Parks offices do. [1:09:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=4153s) ### 6. 2027-2028 Fishing Regulations On the agenda · [1:10:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=4214s) to 1:20:37 · [1:31:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=5500s) to 2:43:56 · [2:47:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=10041s) to 3:24:37 · [3:24:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=12291s) to 3:33:59 - Staff presented the 2027-2028 fishing regulations package of 41 proposals, developed through scoping that began in winter 2026 and drew 261 public comments and 94 public regulation ideas. [1:12:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=4351s) > **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. - Brooke brought up from the floor, without it being on the agenda or posted, an amendment to lift the Beaverhead River spawning closure under Proposal 37 immediately, and she later withdrew it because it needed 24 hours' public notice. [2:55:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=10511s) > **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. - An amendment by Wargo to keep the 20 daily and 40 possession kokanee limit on Little Bitterroot Lake failed 2 to 3, after staff said the department's proposed reduction protects the lake as the backup kokanee brood source. [3:28:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=12501s) > **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. - An amendment by Wargo passed 3 to 2: it extends the Hungry Horse Reservoir and South Fork Flathead regulation area to Peters Creek Campground, bans bait, and allows catch-and-release bull trout angling from the third Saturday in May through July 31, despite staff saying the current rules should stay. [3:29:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=12542s) > **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? - An amendment by Wargo to drop the single-point hook rule on the Flathead River from Church Slough to Flathead Lake failed 1 to 4, after staff, the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes and Trout Unlimited defended the rule as protecting bull trout. [3:29:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=12583s) > **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? - An amendment by Gagnon to remove Proposal 41, which would have cut Yellowstone River setlines from 6 to 3 between Billings and the Bighorn mouth, passed 5 to 0 after staff agreed more data were needed. [3:30:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=12615s) > **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. - An amendment to make the Upper Madison River from Yellowstone National Park to Ennis Lake catch-and-release for all trout, with barbless single-hook artificial lures and no youth harvest exception, failed 2 to 3 after staff said barbless hooks make essentially no difference to mortality and Brooke objected to the short public notice. [3:30:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=12615s) > **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. - Burrows's main motion to approve the 2027-2028 fishing regulations, as amended by the Hungry Horse/South Fork bull trout amendment and the removal of Proposal 41, carried with no count stated. [3:33:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=12823s) > **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. **Points made (58)** - Staff explained that the package came from scoping that began in winter 2026, with public meetings, 261 public comments, 94 public regulation ideas and a further comment period, resulting in a final recommended package of 41 proposals. [1:12:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=4351s) - Staff said all recommended changes aim at clarification and simplification and are driven by the best available information. [1:13:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=4396s) - Asked about a public comment that scent-infused soft plastics such as Gulp and PowerBait should be treated as bait, as Wyoming and other states do, staff said it would be very hard for enforcement to tell whether a soft plastic is infused, so the department kept its proposal as written. [1:15:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=4523s) - Wargo thanked staff for their work on the soft-plastics issue, which he said was the most contentious topic at Region 1 scoping meetings because of the heavy traditional use of soft plastics on rivers such as the Flathead. [1:17:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=4645s) - Asked by Robinson who decides how bait and lures are defined, staff said this falls under a Commission rule, so the Commission has jurisdiction. [1:20:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=4823s) - Supporting Amendment 1 to keep the 20 daily / 40 possession kokanee limit on Little Bitterroot Lake, Wargo argued that the population shows density dependence and declining fish size, so there is no urgency, and that removing 1,000 to 2,500 fish for brood stock would barely be measurable. [1:37:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=5831s) - Staff said the kokanee brood source at Lake Mary Ronan is in jeopardy from rising northern pike numbers and warming water, and that Little Bitterroot Lake is the proven backup brood source the reduced limit is meant to protect. [1:39:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=5951s) - Staff said Little Bitterroot Lake could become Montana's main or only kokanee egg source, needed to reach a target of over 2 million eggs a year, which is why the department wants a conservative limit. [1:44:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=6249s) - Burrows worried that deciding the kokanee limit at the level of a single lake could reduce brood stock needed across the state. [1:40:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=6051s) - Asked by Gagnon about creel data on Little Bitterroot Lake, staff said they could not point to a creel survey but standard surveys indicate kokanee anglers there routinely take their limit. [1:41:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=6108s) - Staff explained that kokanee normally feed on zooplankton near the surface, but in lakes with deep-water mysis shrimp some kokanee switch to feeding on the shrimp, which staff are still studying. [1:47:59](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=6479s) - On Amendment 2, Wargo noted that South Fork Flathead bull trout redd counts rose from 171 in 2024 to 215 in 2026, and surveys of other tributaries found about 178 more redds. [1:50:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=6654s) - Wargo argued that a major source of bull trout mortality is spring harvest and dead-bait fishing in the Crossover area of Hungry Horse Reservoir, and that the earlier last-minute season cut was a 'Band-Aid' that cancelled booked outfitter trips. [1:53:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=6818s) - Wargo said wilderness area closures are poorly enforced and only outfitted anglers tend to follow them. [1:54:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=6897s) - Staff said the best available information shows angler harvest has no population-level effect on bull trout, that the current Hungry Horse and South Fork rules rest on annual pressure surveys of about 1,200 catch-card holders, and that the department favors keeping them. [1:57:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=7025s) - Staff opposed the bait ban in Amendment 2, saying the department supports opportunity-based angling and that bait such as worms matters to some anglers. [2:01:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=7301s) - Supporting Amendment 3 to drop the single-point hook rule below Church Slough, Wargo said that stretch is fished almost only for lake trout, pike, whitefish and bass; that the rule hampers removing non-natives; that bull trout there are only bycatch; and that the issue drew heavy opposition at public meetings. [2:05:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=7504s) - Staff said the Lower Flathead single-point hook rule rests on research showing large numbers of spawning bull trout gather in the lower river and delta, and noted that lures such as Rapalas can still be used with single hooks. [2:08:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=7736s) - Staff confirmed to Gagnon that the department's package had no proposal to make the changes in Amendment 3. [2:10:29](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=7829s) - Asked by Burrows, staff said there are no mortality data comparing single, double and treble hooks, but fewer points mean less hook scarring and less accidental snagging of non-target fish. [2:11:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=7879s) - Explaining Amendment 4 on Flathead Lake, Wargo said lake trout suppression contests have run more than 20 years yet now catch more lake trout than at the start, while bull trout redd counts stay flat. [2:16:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=8174s) - Wargo said bull trout caught as bycatch from very deep water on Flathead Lake are unlikely to survive without a deep-water release device. [2:16:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=8215s) - Wargo said the statewide fisheries plan lacked a broader Flathead Lake strategy and urged revisiting kokanee re-establishment with partners. [2:17:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=8272s) - Wargo said he would not introduce Amendment 4 because the department had committed to a deeper look at Flathead Lake management. [2:22:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=8550s) - Gagnon said Region 5 staff felt Proposal 41, cutting setlines on the Yellowstone River from the I-90 bridge in Billings to the Bighorn mouth from 6 to 3 between May 1 and June 15, was premature for lack of data. [2:23:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=8598s) - Staff agreed more data are needed before limiting setline opportunity there and supported removing Proposal 41. [2:25:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=8711s) - The sponsor of Amendment 6 said it concerns the quality of the fishing experience on the heavily fished Upper Madison, not fish mortality. [2:28:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=8886s) - The sponsor said Amendment 6 would replace a patchwork of rules with catch-and-release for all trout and barbless single-hook artificial lures from Yellowstone National Park to Ennis Lake. [2:31:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=9084s) - The sponsor said a regional biologist described the current Madison rules as socially based with no biological reason, and that the amendment would end the exception letting anglers 14 and under keep one trout. [2:32:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=9120s) - Staff said preliminary results from the barbless test sections on the Upper Madison show barbless hooks make essentially no difference to mortality. [2:35:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=9324s) - Staff said 90% or more of anglers already release their catch voluntarily, so a blanket catch-and-release rule is not needed. [2:36:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=9360s) - Staff said harvest does not limit the Madison trout population and the department wants to keep some harvest opportunity. [2:36:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=9401s) - The sponsor replied that it is circular to reject the rule because anglers already practice catch-and-release, and that the rule should reflect what anglers already do. [2:37:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=9470s) - Brooke opposed Amendment 6, saying the public had only about an hour and ten minutes to comment in writing and that it would take away a child's harvest opportunity that creel surveys show has no impact on the fishery. [2:38:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=9536s) - Brooke said Henry's Fork biologists told her their barbless rule is socially based and so hard to enforce that they are trying to repeal it. [2:40:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=9627s) - Robinson noted that the amendment could have been brought for the first time at the meeting itself and the Commission would still have authority to act on it. [2:41:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=9682s) - The sponsor said the amendment was sent to the department and regional biologist the previous week, and called the changes modest consolidations rather than dramatic. [2:42:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=9747s) - The sponsor said there are better places for children to keep fish and that the Madison is a chance to teach catch-and-release ethics. [2:43:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=9814s) - A Kalispell man who said he had been regional fisheries manager for 30 years said only about 10% of Little Bitterroot kokanee go deep and were quickly fished down, and warned that dropping the limit of two over 12 inches would eliminate the larger fish. [3:09:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=11340s) - The former regional fisheries manager said the July 1 opener exists so that as many upstream-spawning bull trout as possible can leave Hungry Horse Reservoir before it opens. [3:09:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=11382s) - A Trout Unlimited representative opposed Amendment 2, saying a longer catch-and-release season is not warranted and that handling is the main angling stress on bull trout. [3:19:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=11962s) - The executive director of a fishing outfitters association supported Amendment 2. [3:11:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=11497s) - A member of the public supported stronger bull trout protections in Hungry Horse Reservoir and the South Fork Flathead under Amendment 2, but urged keeping the single-hook rule on the Lower Flathead. [3:21:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=12069s) - A Kalispell angler said treble hooks should be allowed on the Flathead River from Brenneman Slough down to Flathead Lake. [3:10:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=11423s) - The fisheries manager for the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes opposed Amendment 3, backed the state's balance between angling opportunity and protecting native species, and said coordination with Region 1 has much improved. [3:16:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=11773s) - The Trout Unlimited representative opposed Amendment 3, saying the single-point hook rule rests on science and the lower Flathead is important migratory habitat for bull trout and cutthroat. [3:19:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=11993s) - Staff described the department's Flathead Lake commitments: an annual multi-stakeholder meeting, an annual online video on lake trends, more study of the recreational fishery, and work toward kokanee brood sources for restoring kokanee. [2:52:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=10362s) - Closing on Amendment 6, the sponsor said the Madison gets close to 300,000 angler days a season and the change would reduce hook injuries and release time. [2:47:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=10076s) - Burrows asked whether the wording about pinching barbs with pliers could put anglers who flatten barbs another way in violation, and was satisfied once it was noted that the wording says 'may'. [3:03:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=11021s) - Gagnon noted that other regulations, such as for paddlefish, already refer to pinched barbs so anglers can adapt their existing gear. [3:07:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=11228s) - An outfitter and guide on the Madison since 1993 who served on the Madison River Working Group supported Amendment 6, saying the current mix of rules confuses anglers and children should be taught catch-and-release. [3:13:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=11587s) - A non-resident angler and former California Trout Unlimited council chair supported Amendment 6, citing heavier pressure and visible hook injuries on Madison trout. [3:17:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=11848s) - The fishing outfitters association director opposed Amendment 6 as unfair, last-minute and broad, and said it would distort ongoing Montana State barbless studies on the Madison. [3:12:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=11546s) - A speaker who said he was president-elect of a Montana outfitters and guides association opposed Amendment 6, citing a lack of data linking barbless hooks to mortality or scarring and the lack of public scoping, and asked to revisit the issue in two years. [3:15:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=11716s) - Another member of the public opposed Amendment 6, arguing management should rest on science and on the amount and type of use, and that anglers already self-regulate, so the rules need not be more complex. [3:24:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=12243s) - Speaking on the final motion, the Trout Unlimited representative said extending the Amendment 2 area 4 miles downstream and banning bait were positive, but still opposed lengthening the season because bull trout are crowded and vulnerable in that lower stretch. [3:32:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=12727s) - An Ennis outfitter and fly shop owner supported Amendment 6 as a sign of commitment to conserving the Madison. [3:25:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=12320s) - The Ennis outfitter added that crowding is the real problem on the Madison and criticized the lack of a river management plan over 15 years. [3:26:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=12366s) **Actions (15)** - Motion: Burrows moved to approve the 2027-2028 fishing regulations as proposed by the department; Wargo seconded. [1:31:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=5500s) - Amendment: Wargo moved to keep the Western District standard kokanee limit of 20 daily and 40 in possession on Little Bitterroot Lake instead of the department's proposed reduction; Brooke seconded. [1:38:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=5893s) - Amendment: Wargo moved to extend the Hungry Horse Reservoir and South Fork Flathead regulation boundary from Crossover Boat Ramp to Peters Creek Campground, prohibit live and dead bait, and allow only catch-and-release bull trout angling from the third Saturday in May through July 31 with a catch card; Gagnon seconded. [1:55:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=6933s) - Amendment: Wargo moved to keep the single-point hook rule on the Flathead River only down to Church Slough and remove it from Church Slough to Flathead Lake, with related winter bait changes; Brooke seconded. [2:06:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=7613s) - Amendment: Wargo's posted Flathead Lake amendment to change lake trout, yellow perch and northern pike limits was not introduced; he withdrew it after the department committed to a broader review of Flathead Lake management. [2:22:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=8550s) - Amendment: Gagnon moved to remove Proposal 41, which would have cut setlines on the Yellowstone River from the I-90 bridge in Billings to the Bighorn River mouth from 6 to 3 between May 1 and June 15; it was seconded. [2:23:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=8598s) - Amendment: An amendment was moved, narrowed at the meeting to run from the Yellowstone National Park boundary to Ennis Lake, setting catch-and-release for all trout, artificial lures with barbless single-pointed hooks only, and ending the exception letting anglers 14 and under keep one trout on the Upper Madison River; Wargo seconded. [2:32:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=9158s) - Amendment: The Lower Madison portion of the posted Madison amendment, covering Ennis Dam to the mouth at the Jefferson River, was split off as a separate amendment and then pulled by its sponsor to be taken up in two years. [2:48:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=10123s) - Amendment (from the floor): Brooke proposed from the floor an amendment to lift the Beaverhead River spawning closure under Proposal 37 immediately; she withdrew it because a change to the 2026 regulations needed 24 hours' public notice. [3:06:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=11203s) - Vote: Vote on the amendment to keep the 20 daily / 40 possession kokanee limit on Little Bitterroot Lake. **amendment number 1 fails** (2 in favor, 3 opposed) [3:28:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=12501s) - Vote: Vote on the amendment extending the Hungry Horse/South Fork Flathead boundary to Peters Creek Campground, banning bait, and setting catch-and-release bull trout angling from the third Saturday in May through July 31. **amendment number 2 passes** (3 in favor, 2 opposed) [3:29:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=12542s) - Vote: Vote on the amendment removing the single-point hook requirement on the Flathead River from Church Slough to Flathead Lake. **amendment number 3 fails** (1 in favor, 4 opposed) [3:29:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=12583s) - Vote: Vote on the amendment removing Proposal 41 on Yellowstone River setline limits. **amendment number 5 passes** (5 in favor, 0 opposed) [3:30:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=12615s) - Vote: Vote on the amendment for catch-and-release and barbless single-hook artificial lures on the Upper Madison River from Yellowstone National Park to Ennis Lake. **amendment number 6 fails** (2 in favor, 3 opposed) [3:30:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=12615s) - Vote: Vote on the main motion to approve the 2027-2028 fishing regulations as amended by the Hungry Horse/South Fork bull trout amendment and the removal of Proposal 41. **Motion carries** · Burrows: Aye [3:33:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=12823s) ### 7. Hoot owl restriction temperature criteria **Not on the agenda, raised by a Member** · [1:20:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=4838s) to 1:31:39 - A Member brought up hoot owl restriction temperature criteria at the meeting, although the topic was not on the agenda. [1:20:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=4838s) > **Unidentified (voice P):** 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. - The Member noted that hoot owl restrictions are currently triggered at 73 degrees, and that a detailed letter and a number of interested parties have asked for that threshold to be lowered. [1:20:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=4838s) > **Unidentified (voice P):** 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. - Staff (Adam Strainer) said hoot owl criteria are set in an administrative rule rather than in the fishing regulations, so changing them through the regulations is probably outside the Commission's authority, though the department's post-legislative rule revision process could consider such a change. [1:22:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=4925s) > **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. - A Member hoped the topic would get a fresh look in the fish management plan and relayed a suggestion for a date-based restriction, from after the 4th of July weekend into August, with an earlier afternoon cutoff. [1:23:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=4982s) > **Unidentified (voice P):** 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. - Gagnon urged that the upcoming fisheries plan also consider water temperature impacts on cold water species in reservoirs and other closed water bodies, such as lake trout and salmon at Fort Peck. [1:24:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=5043s) > **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. - Staff clarified that the temperature trigger stays in the administrative rule, but the Commission may have discretion to change fishing regulations, such as daily start and stop times, on waters under hoot owl restrictions, with the hoot owl designation identifying where the regulation applies. [1:27:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=5233s) > **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. - Staff said members of the public seeking a change to the hoot owl temperature rule can submit a petition to initiate rulemaking or informally ask a commissioner, followed by the public notice and adoption process. [1:29:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=5379s) > **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. - Asked by Burrows whether the Commission itself could petition to change hoot owl temperatures, staff said jurisdiction needed closer review but that virtually any entity can submit a rulemaking petition, so they would be reluctant to say the Commission lacks that authority. [1:30:59](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=5459s) > **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? **Points made (10)** - A Member raised the hoot owl restriction temperature trigger, currently set at 73 degrees, noting a detailed letter and a number of interested parties who would like to see that threshold reduced. [1:20:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=4838s) - Staff (Adam Strainer) explained that hoot owl restrictions and closures are not regulations but are policy-driven under the statewide fishery management plan, with the criteria established in an administrative rule (ARM) that the department follows. [1:21:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=4893s) - Staff (Adam Strainer) said changing hoot owl criteria through the fishing regulations is likely outside the Commission's authority, but the department's lengthy post-legislative ARM revision process is a place where such a change could be considered. [1:22:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=4962s) - A Member hoped the topic gets a fresh look in the fish management plan and relayed a suggestion from interested people for a date-based restriction, such as from after the 4th of July weekend into August, with an earlier afternoon cutoff to give fish a break in hot months. [1:23:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=4982s) - Gagnon encouraged the upcoming fisheries plan to consider water temperature impacts on cold water species in reservoirs and other closed water bodies, such as lake trout and salmon at Fort Peck, not just in rivers. [1:24:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=5043s) - Staff clarified that while the hoot owl temperature and its implementation are set in the ARM, the Commission may have discretion to change fishing regulations on water bodies under hoot owl restrictions, with the hoot owl designation serving as the identifier of the stretch where the regulation applies. [1:27:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=5233s) - Staff (Adam Strainer) confirmed the Commission could regulate a start and stop period during the day on such waters, but the department's determination to impose hoot owl restrictions is based in the ARM. [1:26:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=5187s) - Staff said that since the Commission can close water bodies, it can also impose lesser additional restrictions on waters identified under the department's hoot owl ARM. [1:29:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=5342s) - In answer to how the public could seek a change to the hoot owl temperature rule, staff said members of the public can submit a petition to initiate rulemaking or informally ask a commissioner, followed by the public notice and adoption process. [1:29:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=5379s) - In answer to Burrows's question whether the Commission itself could initiate a petition to change hoot owl temperatures through the MAPA process, staff said jurisdiction would need closer review but virtually any entity can submit a rulemaking petition, so they would be reluctant to say the Commission lacks that authority. [1:30:59](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=5459s) ### 8. Timing of public comment on Commission amendments **Not on the agenda, raised by a Member** · [2:43:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=9838s) to 2:47:56 - Burrows raised, without it being on the agenda, the question of when the Commission takes public comment on amendments, noting that taking comment on the posted amendments at this meeting could set a precedent. [2:43:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=9838s) > **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? - Legal advice given in response was that the timing is at the Commission's discretion, since the public's right to participate is met as long as comment is allowed before the final vote. [2:45:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=9947s) > **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. - Burrows proposed setting a minimum number of days an amendment must be posted and taking public comment on any amendment posted later, especially floor amendments, and Robinson agreed to discuss more predictability while saying the current process has been proper because nothing is final until the final vote. [2:47:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=10041s) > **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? **Points made (8)** - Burrows said one of the biggest public critiques he hears is that amendments made on the floor get folded into a main motion without the public having a chance to comment on them first. [2:44:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=9878s) - Burrows observed that taking public comment on the posted amendments at this meeting could set a precedent or change how the Commission has done business in the past. [2:43:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=9838s) - Burrows asked for clarification on how public comment on amendments will be handled going forward, including whether it is up to the commissioner bringing the amendment and whether it happens before the main motion. [2:45:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=9915s) - In answer, a speaker giving the legal view said it is at the Commission's discretion, and that the public's right to participate is met as long as public comment is allowed before the final vote, with comment on amendments before they are voted being another option. [2:45:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=9947s) - Robinson explained that public comment was being taken on the amendments at this meeting because there were quite a number of them. [2:45:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=9926s) - Burrows proposed a consistent, predictable model: set a minimum number of days (such as three or five) that an amendment must be posted, and take public comment on any amendment posted later than that, especially amendments made on the floor. [2:46:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=9982s) - Burrows said that, like Walsh, he thought hearing public comment on amendments would be beneficial, and he left the question of a predictable process to the Chair. [2:47:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=10021s) - Robinson stressed that the Commission's current process has been proper because nothing is final until the final vote, but said he was happy to discuss making the process more predictable. [2:47:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=10041s) ### 9. Montana wolf population Raised at the meeting · [3:24:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=12268s) to 3:25:19 - During public comment, a speaker who described themselves as a wildlife biologist speaking on behalf of Montana's wolves cited Montana FWP's 2026 report, which estimated about 1,094 wolves statewide. [3:24:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=12281s) > **Brooke:** I'm a wildlife biologist. Speaking on behalf of the Montana wolves, Montana FWP's 2026 report estimated around 1,094 wolves statewide. - Robinson stopped the wolf comment because wolves were not on the agenda and said such comments would have to wait for the period for items not on the agenda. [3:24:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=12291s) > **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. **Points made (2)** - A speaker who described themselves as a wildlife biologist speaking on behalf of Montana's wolves cited Montana FWP's 2026 report, which estimated about 1,094 wolves statewide. [3:24:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=12281s) - Robinson stopped the wolf comment because wolves were not on the agenda and said such comments would have to wait for the period for items not on the agenda. [3:24:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=12291s) ### 10. Upper Flathead Drainage Brown Trout Regulation On the agenda · [3:33:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=12823s) to 4:02:47 - Staff proposed an emergency regulation on brown trout in the Upper Flathead Drainage to stop further illegal introductions and the spread of an unwanted species, citing new survey results and confirmed reports from the summer. [3:34:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=12861s) > **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. - Commissioner Gagnon moved that the Commission approve the proposed emergency brown trout regulation for the Upper Flathead Drainage, and the motion was seconded. [3:35:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=12953s) > **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. - Commissioner Gagnon worried that requiring anglers to deliver the whole fish to an office within 10 days during business hours would burden anglers who travel or work long hours and hurt compliance, and he asked about alternatives such as meeting a warden. [3:38:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=13087s) > **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. - Staff said the whole fish, not just a photo, is needed for biological data such as otoliths, age, length and diet that can show where a fish came from, but said the department would support adding an option for anglers to contact FWP. [3:41:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=13282s) > **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. - Commissioner Gagnon's amendment was drafted during the meeting and was not on the agenda or posted beforehand. [3:54:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=14052s) > **Gagnon:** So yes, Madam Chair, I would like to I propose this replacement language as a motion. - In a voice vote on the amendment, which requires anglers within 10 days of capture to either deliver the entire fish to FWP or contact FWP staff to coordinate information exchange and possible transfer of the carcass, the Chair noted one opposing vote and announced no outcome. [3:57:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=14237s) > **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. - Four members of the public, including a Trout Unlimited representative, a Flathead Valley outfitter, a Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes biologist and an outfitters association director, supported the regulation and the amendment as needed to protect native westslope cutthroat and bull trout. [3:58:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=14306s) > **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. - The amended motion approving the emergency brown trout regulation for the Upper Flathead Drainage carried. [4:02:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=14544s) > **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. **Points made (17)** - Staff explained that new information on brown trout in the Flathead drainage emerged this summer after initial findings, and that the proposal aims to stop further illegal introductions and the spread of an unwanted species in the drainage. [3:34:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=12861s) - Staff said the proposal was brought separately from the main fishing regulation package because it was not part of the original scoping, and that later surveys and confirmed reports led the department to recommend it. [3:34:59](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=12899s) - Commissioner Gagnon was concerned that requiring anglers to submit harvested brown trout carcasses to the department would burden them and could lead to poor compliance. [3:36:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=12972s) - Staff said catch, kill and report rules are used because surveys cannot cover everywhere, and that they matter especially in this important native species management area. [3:36:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=13011s) - Staff said education and outreach by regional and statewide staff would spread the message about reporting brown trout, and that the requirement is warranted despite the challenges for anglers. [3:37:29](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=13049s) - Commissioner Gagnon said delivering the whole fish to an office within 10 days during business hours could be a hardship for anglers who travel or work long hours, and asked about alternatives such as meeting a warden. [3:38:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=13087s) - Staff acknowledged that similar existing regulations have very limited compliance, but said this is the department's current precedent and that it is open to improving the process. [3:38:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=13132s) - Asked whether a phone photo of the fish would be enough, staff said the whole fish is needed for biological information such as otoliths, age, length and diet, which can show where a fish came from, as with walleye in Swan Lake traced to Lake Helena. [3:40:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=13223s) - Staff said the department would support adding an option for anglers to contact FWP, since the most important thing is that anglers contact the department. [3:41:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=13282s) - Commissioner Gagnon asked whether contacting regional headquarters would lead to an arrangement between the angler and the office for delivery or pickup of the carcass, and staff confirmed that it would. [3:44:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=13455s) - Commissioner Robinson noted that the original language lets anglers deliver the fish to any FWP office, and the reference to Region 1 was dropped in favor of a general reference to a regional office. [3:44:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=13478s) - Commissioner Gagnon dropped his idea of extending the deadline to 14 days and asked that the whole process, either delivering the fish or contacting staff, be completed within 10 days of capture. [3:51:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=13914s) - Members agreed that the revised wording should say anglers "must" rather than are "requested" to deliver the fish or contact staff, to make clear that one of the two is required. [3:54:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=14045s) - Commissioner Wargo noted the contrast between protecting brown trout from hook scarring in the Central District and requiring them to be killed in the Western District, and urged future discussion of the Commission's approach to non-native fish. [3:55:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=14155s) - Four members of the public supported the regulation and the amendment: a Trout Unlimited representative, a Flathead Valley fishing outfitter, a Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes biologist, and the director of a fishing outfitters association. [3:58:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=14306s) - A Trout Unlimited representative called brown trout in the drainage an urgent problem because they outcompete native fish, threatening the Upper Flathead as a stronghold for westslope cutthroat and bull trout. [3:58:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=14306s) - A Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes biologist said mandatory kill and submission of full carcasses is the best way to gather data on these fish, and welcomed the consideration given to anglers. [4:00:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=14444s) **Actions (4)** - Motion: Commissioner Gagnon moved that the Commission approve the proposed emergency regulation change for brown trout in the Upper Flathead Drainage; the motion was seconded. [3:35:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=12953s) - Amendment (from the floor): Commissioner Gagnon moved to replace the carcass delivery language with: 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. The amendment was drafted during the meeting and seconded. [3:54:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=14052s) - Vote: Vote on the amendment letting anglers either deliver the whole brown trout to FWP or contact FWP staff within 10 days of capture. **Not stated** · Wargo: Aye, Robinson: Aye, Burrows: No [3:57:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=14237s) - Vote: Vote on the amended motion to approve the emergency brown trout regulation for the Upper Flathead Drainage. **Motion carries.** [4:02:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=14544s) ### 11. Grizzly Bear Release Sites On the agenda · [4:02:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=14544s) to 4:16:30 - Staff asked the Commission to renew the list of approved grizzly bear release sites for another 5 years, including some contingent sites just outside currently mapped occupied grizzly range. [4:03:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=14607s) > **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. - In answer to Robinson, staff said that avoiding sites within about 10 miles of a livestock allotment where possible is a main consideration, following Commission direction 5 years ago. [4:07:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=14828s) > **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. - A Member moved to approve the proposed grizzly bear relocation and contingency sites, as shown in the maps and spreadsheets, for a 5-year period, and Gagnon seconded. [4:11:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=15083s) > **Unidentified (voice P):** 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. - A member of the public, a wildlife biologist at Flathead Ridge Ranch, supported the proposal but objected to Site 144 near Blacktail Mountain and the Wild Bill area, saying it is too close to farmland and heavily hunted, and could lead to more conflicts. [4:13:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=15212s) > **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. - Staff said they could not speak directly to Site 144, which Region 1 staff had added, and that the Commission could remove it or direct that it be used only as a last resort. [4:14:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=15270s) > **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. - Gagnon brought up at the meeting, without prior posting, an amendment to remove Site 144 from the proposal, which Wargo seconded. [4:15:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=15304s) > **Gagnon:** Madam Chair, Commissioner Gagnon here. I would, uh, propose an amendment to remove Site 144 from the proposal. - The amendment to remove Site 144 carried, with no count stated. [4:15:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=15353s) > **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. - The motion as amended, approving the release and contingency sites for 5 years without Site 144, carried, with no count stated. [4:16:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=15382s) > **Robinson:** All opposed, same sign. Motion carried. Okay, northern leopard frog transplants. **Points made (13)** - Staff explained the Department is seeking approval of grizzly bear release sites for another 5 years, noting that state law allows it to relocate only bears not in conflict, or conflict bears captured within a grizzly bear recovery zone. [4:02:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=14569s) - Staff said conflict bears captured outside recovery zones must be relocated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which is not required to use the Commission-approved sites but has been asked to. [4:03:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=14607s) - Staff explained that the list includes contingent sites just outside currently mapped occupied grizzly range; the map is revised every 2 years, and approving these sites now avoids returning to the Commission if the line moves to include them. [4:04:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=14663s) - In answer to a question from Gagnon about changes to the site list, staff said the only changes are about 4 contingent sites in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem that sit just outside the occupied-range line and are expected to fall inside it once the line is recalculated. [4:10:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=15035s) - Staff said all sites are on public lands, were developed with the public land managers, and are checked with those managers again before each bear is moved, for example to learn whether a trail crew is working in the area. [4:04:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=14688s) - Staff said the list holds far more sites than will be used so that alternatives are available for time of year, access and other activities, citing a recent snowstorm that left most Region 4 sites inaccessible. [4:05:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=14723s) - Staff reported that over the last 5 years the Department relocated 49 bears (about 10 per year) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service moved 48, all at or very near Commission-approved sites. [4:06:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=14762s) - In answer to Robinson's question about livestock near release sites, staff said this is a main consideration, following Commission direction 5 years ago to avoid, where possible, sites within about 10 miles of a livestock allotment. [4:07:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=14828s) - In answer to Gagnon's question about which conflicts lead to relocation, staff said livestock-killing bears are typically not moved, and relocation is generally used for circumstantial conflicts such as garbage or fruit trees, which moves the bear away while the attractant is cleaned up. [4:09:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=14943s) - Staff said the number of bears relocated is too low, across occupied range in Regions 1 through 5, to dramatically affect population or density, answering Gagnon's concern that relocations could cause future conflicts. [4:09:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=14983s) - A member of the public speaking for the Montana Wildlife Federation supported the proposal, saying it gives Department professionals tools for science-based recovery and that sites outside recovery zones support the connectivity needed for lasting recovery. [4:12:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=15134s) - A member of the public, a wildlife biologist at Flathead Ridge Ranch, supported the proposal but objected to Site 144 near Blacktail Mountain and the Wild Bill area, saying it is too close to farmland around Lake Mary Ronan and Browns Meadow, gets heavy archery and rifle hunting and other recreation, and could lead to more conflicts. [4:13:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=15212s) - Staff said they could not speak directly to Site 144, which Region 1 staff had added, and said the Commission could either remove it or direct that it be used only as a last resort. [4:14:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=15270s) **Actions (4)** - Motion: A Member moved that the Commission approve the proposed grizzly bear relocation sites and contingency sites, as shown in the accompanying maps and spreadsheets, for a 5-year period; Gagnon seconded. [4:11:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=15083s) - Amendment (from the floor): Gagnon moved to amend the motion to remove Site 144, near Blacktail Mountain and the Wild Bill area, from the proposal; Wargo seconded. The amendment was proposed at the meeting in response to public comment and was not posted beforehand. [4:15:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=15304s) - Vote: Vote on the amendment to remove Site 144 from the grizzly bear release site proposal. **Motion carries** [4:15:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=15353s) - Vote: Vote on the motion, as amended to remove Site 144, to approve the grizzly bear relocation sites and contingency sites for a 5-year period. **Motion carried** [4:16:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=15382s) ### 12. Approval of Northern Leopard frog transplants from eastern Montana to FWP Regions 1 and 2 On the agenda · [4:16:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=15382s) to 4:21:04 - Staff asked the Commission to approve moving northern leopard frogs from eastern Montana into FWP Regions 1 and 2 to establish self-sustaining populations, noting the frogs are now very rare west of the Continental Divide and are a species of greatest conservation need. [4:16:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=15390s) > **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. - Staff said the department would follow protocols the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes used in a successful reintroduction, moving no more than half of an egg mass and replacing transport water to avoid spreading invasive species. [4:17:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=15433s) > **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. - Staff said initial reintroductions are planned for 2027 and 2028 with authorization sought for 10 years, and that an environmental assessment drew two supportive comments plus two comments on the Commission proposal. [4:17:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=15476s) > **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. - Staff acknowledged the environmental assessment likely was not included in the Commission's materials and said costs would be mainly staff time funded through the non-game checkoff work plan. [4:19:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=15544s) > **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. - After no public comment was offered, the Commission carried Burrows's motion, seconded by Gagnon, to approve the translocations into Regions 1 and 2 for 2026 through 2037. [4:20:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=15655s) > **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? **Points made (9)** - Staff explained that northern leopard frogs, once more common, are now very rare west of the Continental Divide and are listed as a species of greatest conservation need in the State Wildlife Action Plan, so the proposal is to move frogs from eastern Montana to establish self-sustaining populations in Regions 1 and 2. [4:16:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=15390s) - Staff noted that the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes successfully reintroduced leopard frogs in the Little Bitterroot River drainage, and the department intends to follow their protocols. [4:17:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=15433s) - Staff described the protocol as moving egg masses rather than adult frogs, taking no more than half of an egg mass to avoid impacts at the source, and gradually replacing transport water at a rearing facility to avoid moving invasive species. [4:17:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=15433s) - Staff said tadpoles would be held about 10 days after hatching before release, an environmental assessment was completed, and two supportive comments were received on the EA plus two comments on the Commission proposal. [4:17:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=15476s) - Staff said initial reintroductions are planned for 2027 and 2028, but authorization is sought for a 10-year period to allow follow-up efforts if needed. [4:17:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=15476s) - In response to a Member's question, staff acknowledged the environmental assessment should have been but likely was not included in the materials provided to the Commission. [4:19:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=15544s) - Asked about costs, staff said they are mainly staff time for collecting eggs and facilitating reintroduction, funded through the non-game checkoff work plan the Commission previously approved. [4:19:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=15544s) - Wargo said documenting the effort would be worthwhile because it shows the agency cares about more than big game, countering claims to the contrary. [4:19:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=15573s) - No members of the public online or in the regional offices offered comment on the motion. [4:20:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=15647s) **Actions (2)** - Motion: Burrows moved that the Commission approve the proposed northern leopard frog translocations into FWP Regions 1 and 2 during 2026 through 2037 as presented by the department; seconded by Gagnon. [4:20:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=15600s) - Vote: Vote on the motion to approve northern leopard frog translocations from eastern Montana into FWP Regions 1 and 2 for 2026 through 2037. **Motion carries** [4:20:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=15655s) ### 13. Temporary Full Closure of Kona Bridge Fishing Access Site On the agenda · [4:44:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=17075s) to 4:47:52 - Staff requested a temporary full closure of the Kona Bridge fishing access site on the Clark Fork River west of Missoula, to start in fall or winter and last until construction is complete. [4:44:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=17082s) > **Unidentified (voice H):** 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. - Staff said the closure is needed for a bank stabilization project addressing significant erosion, since the site would not be safe for public use during the work, and that the usual public notification and signage would be provided. [4:45:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=17114s) > **Unidentified (voice H):** 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. - Asked by Gagnon how long the closure would last, staff said the project goes out to bid by the end of the month with a 90 to 120 day contract dependent on the contractor's timeline, but the actual work is expected to take around two weeks. [4:46:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=17171s) > **Unidentified (voice H):** 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. - Gagnon moved to adopt a temporary full closure of the site from fall or early winter of 2026 until construction is complete and the site is safe for public use, seconded by Wargo, and no members of the public or regional offices commented when invited. [4:47:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=17223s) > **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. - The motion carried on a voice vote, with no count stated. [4:47:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=17264s) > **Robinson:** All opposed, same sign. Motion carried. Okay, public use and commercial use fee schedules, please. **Points made (4)** - Staff explained that the request is for a temporary full closure of the Kona Bridge fishing access site on the Clark Fork River west of Missoula, starting in fall or winter and lasting until construction is complete. [4:44:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=17082s) - Staff said the closure is needed for a bank stabilization project to address significant erosion along the river, since the site would not be safe for public use during the work, and that the usual public notification and signage would be provided. [4:45:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=17114s) - Asked by Gagnon how long the closure would last, staff said the project goes out to bid by the end of the month with a 90 to 120 day contract dependent on the contractor's timeline, but the actual work is expected to take around two weeks. [4:46:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=17171s) - No members of the public or regional offices offered comment when invited before the vote. [4:47:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=17223s) **Actions (2)** - Motion: Gagnon moved that the Commission adopt a temporary full closure of the Kona Bridge fishing access site from fall or early winter of 2026 until construction is complete and the site is safe for public use; seconded by Wargo. [4:46:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=17204s) - Vote: Vote on the motion to adopt a temporary full closure of the Kona Bridge fishing access site until construction is complete and the site is safe for public use. **Motion carried** [4:47:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=17264s) ### 14. Public Use and Commercial Use Fee Schedules On the agenda · [4:47:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=17264s) to 5:14:31 - Staff asked the Commission to approve updated public use and commercial use fee schedules for fishing access sites, wildlife management areas and wildlife habitat protection areas, while state park fees will be decided by the State Parks and Recreation Board in December. [4:47:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=17274s) > **Unidentified (voice H):** 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. - Staff said the cost of operating and maintaining fishing access sites nearly tripled from $3.2 million in fiscal year 2022 to about $8.9 million in fiscal year 2026, mainly because heavier use requires more infrastructure such as latrines and larger parking areas. [4:48:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=17315s) > **Unidentified (voice H):** 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. - Staff confirmed that a 3% gross revenue fee on the six restricted rivers, included in the version put out for public comment, was dropped from the proposal pending five-year rule reviews, wider public discussion and coordination with federal partners next spring. [4:55:29](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=17729s) > **Unidentified (voice H):** 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. - Brooke moved that the Commission adopt the public use and commercial use fee schedules, and Gagnon seconded. [4:56:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=17777s) > **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. - Burrows said the $150 annual fishing access site permit fee for guides and outfitters seemed low and out of proportion with other fees given their impacts. [4:59:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=17988s) > **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. - Staff replied that the outfitter permit fee received only a Consumer Price Index adjustment because more data are needed on the trips and rivers used under the roughly 1,700 annual permits, and that fees will be reviewed every two years. [5:01:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=18060s) > **Unidentified (voice H):** 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. - A representative of an outfitters and guides association supported the fee updates, calling the Consumer Price Index adjustments responsible and the comparison with surrounding states and federal entities a sound foundation. [5:11:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=18709s) > **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. - The motion to adopt the public use and commercial use fee schedules carried. [5:14:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=18858s) > **Robinson:** All opposed, same sign. Motion carried. Okay, next we have— thank you, Renee. Next we have Thompson Island position, Bill Schenk, please. **Points made (20)** - Staff explained that the proposal updates the public use and commercial use fee schedules for fishing access sites, wildlife management areas and wildlife habitat protection areas, while state park fees will be decided separately by the State Parks and Recreation Board in December. [4:47:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=17274s) - Staff said the cost of operating and maintaining fishing access sites nearly tripled from $3.2 million in fiscal year 2022 to about $8.9 million in fiscal year 2026, mainly because more visitors require added infrastructure such as latrines and larger parking areas. [4:48:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=17315s) - Staff cited six new fishing access sites in five years and a 30% rise in latrine pumping costs, and noted that public use fees had not been comprehensively updated since 2014. [4:49:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=17350s) - Staff said commercial use fees had not been updated since 2007, fishing access site fee revenue had grown only about 8% to just over $1 million, and the proposal would raise an estimated additional $300,000 for fishing access sites and wildlife areas and $1.1 million for state parks. [4:49:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=17387s) - Staff explained that user fees cover only about 11% of fishing access site expenses, with the rest coming from earmarked fishing license revenue (about $800,000), a vehicle registration fee share (about $400,000) and the general license account. [4:51:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=17471s) - Staff said the fees were set mainly through Consumer Price Index adjustments and comparison with surrounding states, and that over 160 public comments raised themes including higher non-resident fees, affordability concerns, support for covering rising costs, and fees on restricted rivers. [4:51:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=17512s) - In answer to a Member's question, staff confirmed that a proposed 3% gross revenue fee on the six restricted rivers was dropped from the proposal, pending five-year rule reviews, broader public discussion and coordination with federal partners next spring. [4:55:29](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=17729s) - Staff said fishing access site camping fees were changed to a resident and non-resident structure of $20 and $40 to match state parks, and duplicate language from rules and statute was removed to make the fees less confusing. [4:53:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=17592s) - Two Members praised staff for the transparency of the multi-year effort and for working through the proposal with commissioners and stakeholders. [4:56:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=17777s) - When Gagnon questioned whether group facility fees should have a half-day rate since set-up and clean-up leave little room for a second user, staff said regional staff wanted to keep the half-day option as an affordable choice for events like birthday parties, especially in urban areas where demand exists. [4:58:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=17906s) - Burrows said the $150 annual fishing access site permit fee for guides and outfitters seems low and out of proportion with other fees given their impacts. [4:59:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=17988s) - Staff responded that the outfitter permit fee received only a CPI adjustment because more data are needed, such as how many trips the roughly 1,700 annual permits produce and on which rivers, and that fees will be reviewed every two years. [5:01:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=18060s) - Burrows argued that rivers are inundated with floaters and the department should act on the problem rather than repeatedly deferring it for further study. [5:02:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=18158s) - In answer to Wargo, staff said firewood cutting permits are rarely requested and are mainly used at Thompson Chain of Lakes State Park after big wind events. [5:04:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=18248s) - Wargo suggested firewood cutting should not carry a fee, noting the Flathead National Forest issues free permits and that people clearing downed trees help reduce fire risk. [5:04:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=18270s) - A speaker urged the department to look at surrounding states' guide fee structures and at guide trip prices, which have risen faster than inflation, and favored heavier fees on heavily used rivers like the Madison to restrict traffic rather than limiting guide permits. [5:05:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=18358s) - Asked by Gagnon about fees stacking on top of each other, staff said stacking concerns arise mainly on rivers with multiple managing agencies, requiring coordination with federal partners, and that staff have received no complaints about paying both fishing access site and state park fees on one trip. [5:07:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=18472s) - A member of the public representing a fishing outfitters association supported the fee proposal, praised staff's outreach, and said commercial fees on restricted rivers should be adjusted through administrative rules and in coordination with federal agencies. [5:10:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=18619s) - A member of the public representing an outfitters and guides association supported the fee updates, calling the CPI adjustments responsible and the benchmarking against surrounding states and federal entities a sound foundation. [5:11:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=18709s) - The outfitters and guides association representative raised concern that stacking fees across state and federal entities makes it harder for outfitters to run a business and asked for continued discussion. [5:12:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=18756s) **Actions (2)** - Motion: Brooke moved that the Commission adopt the public use and commercial use fee schedules; seconded by Gagnon. [4:56:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=17777s) - Vote: Vote on the motion to adopt the public use and commercial use fee schedules. **Motion carried.** [5:14:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=18858s) ### 15. Thompson Island Acquisition On the agenda · [5:14:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=18858s) to 5:24:27 - FWP's Land and Water Unit asked the Commission to approve accepting title to a future transfer of an island of about 35 acres in the Stillwater River, with an administrative access easement, to create a new fishing access site. [5:14:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=18873s) > **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. - The project is led by the Disaster and Emergency Services program at the Department of Military Affairs, which asked FWP to be the receiving partner for a FEMA grant that became available after the 2022 floods. [5:15:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=18947s) > **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. - No environmental assessment had been done yet; Disaster and Emergency Services would prepare one combined with a federal NEPA document, and completion could take one to two years. [5:17:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=19060s) > **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. - Asked by Gagnon what would happen if the grant were not funded, the presenter said the department has no agreement with the landowner or Disaster and Emergency Services that would commit it to any financial obligation. [5:19:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=19173s) > **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? - Gagnon moved that the Commission authorize the department to accept transfer of the 38-acre Thompson Island on the Stillwater River, and the motion was seconded. [5:21:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=19261s) > **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. - A representative of Trout Unlimited and Montana Trout Unlimited supported the acquisition for its public access to good wildlife habitat and to hard-to-reach BLM land. [5:21:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=19299s) > **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. - The presenter clarified that the island would be open to the public as a float-in site and that the easement is for administrative access only. [5:23:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=19410s) > **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. - The motion to accept transfer of Thompson Island carried on a voice vote. [5:24:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=19457s) > **Robinson:** All opposed, same sign. Motion carried. Okay, now we will go to the Hanna Ranch. Director Clark. **Points made (13)** - A presenter from the Land and Water Unit explained that FWP was seeking the Commission's approval to accept title to a future transfer of an island property of about 35 acres in the Stillwater River, along with an administrative access easement, to create a new fishing access site. [5:14:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=18873s) - The site lies roughly midway between the existing swinging bridge and Jeffrey's Landing fishing access site; it is mainly one ownership with a small BLM portion and another private owner on the island, and it borders about 80 acres of BLM land. [5:15:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=18911s) - The project is being led by the Disaster and Emergency Services program at the Department of Military Affairs, which asked FWP to be the receiving partner for a FEMA grant that became available after the 2022 floods. [5:15:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=18947s) - The grant is meant to prevent development harmful to the river in future floods; the island holds a residence that is no longer accessible and was likely damaged in the flood, which Disaster and Emergency Services plans to remove before remediating the site. [5:16:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=18983s) - Disaster and Emergency Services will do the bulk of the work, including survey and boundary work, but cannot spend money on that due diligence until it knows FWP can take title and the FEMA grant is secured. [5:16:59](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=19019s) - No environmental assessment has been done yet; Disaster and Emergency Services would prepare one combined with a federal NEPA document because of FEMA's role, and completion may take one to two years. [5:17:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=19060s) - Gagnon stated full support for moving the proposal forward. [5:18:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=19116s) - Gagnon asked what would happen if the funding request were not granted and whether any purchase agreement with the landowner placed a financial obligation on the department. [5:18:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=19124s) - In answer, the presenter said the department has no agreement with the landowner or with Disaster and Emergency Services that would commit it to any financial obligation. [5:19:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=19173s) - The presenter said the grant appeared essentially in hand, but if the transaction did not work out FWP could not take title unless it pursued the property as a completely separate project. [5:20:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=19231s) - A representative of Trout Unlimited and Montana Trout Unlimited supported the acquisition because it would provide good public access to excellent wildlife habitat and access to BLM land that is otherwise very difficult to reach. [5:21:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=19299s) - A representative of the Montana Wildlife Federation supported the acquisition, saying the flood-prone island poses safety concerns for permanent dwellings and is better used for wildlife habitat, public access and hunting and fishing, and that with FEMA funding and a donation from the homeowner there was no fiscal reason for the state to object. [5:22:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=19348s) - The presenter clarified that the island will be open to the public as a float-in site, the easement is for administrative access only, and regional staff would like to work with the landowner in future toward greater public access to land beyond the island. [5:23:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=19410s) **Actions (2)** - Motion: Gagnon moved that the Commission approve the proposal authorizing the department to accept transfer of the 38-acre Thompson Island on the Stillwater River; the motion was seconded. [5:21:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=19261s) - Vote: Vote on the motion authorizing the department to accept transfer of Thompson Island on the Stillwater River for a fishing access site. **Motion carried.** [5:24:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=19457s) ### 16. Hannah Ranch Term Conservation Easement On the agenda · [5:24:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=19457s) to 5:54:01 - Staff proposed that FWP buy a 99-year term conservation easement on 3,652 acres of the Hanna Ranch, about 17 miles west of Lewistown, for $3,491,250, which is 95% of the appraised value of the same easement if it were perpetual. [5:24:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=19484s) > **Unidentified (voice E):** 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. - Staff said a term easement was chosen because opposition to perpetual conservation easements had grown, including proposed legislation to limit them and difficulty moving individual easements through approval. [5:26:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=19604s) > **Unidentified (voice E):** 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. - Burrows and Gagnon argued that a perpetual easement would cost only about $183,750, roughly 5%, more than the 99-year term, so the extra money for perpetuity would be well spent. [5:29:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=19797s) > **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. - Staff said the Commission could only approve or reject the proposal as presented, and that rejecting it to pursue a perpetual easement would essentially mean starting over with a new environmental assessment and rewritten contracts. [5:36:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=20177s) > **Unidentified (voice E):** And the contracts— the contracts are written as a 99-year term easements. And so it would require basically a start over. - A Member moved to approve the Hanna Ranch 99-year term conservation easement as presented, saying 99 years is a long time and the easement is a great thing for the public, and Burrows seconded. [5:36:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=20204s) > **Unidentified (voice P):** 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. - The landowning family said they had first asked for a perpetual easement and would still welcome one, but had made their peace with the 99-year term and were pleased that the walk-in access to national forest land would be perpetual. [5:40:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=20415s) > **Unidentified (voice E):** 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. - A representative of the Montana Wildlife Federation supported the project but objected to the 99-year term, calling the choice between this or nothing a false choice when the landowners and the public prefer a perpetual easement. [5:46:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=20763s) > **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. - The motion to approve the 99-year term easement carried on a show of hands, which Robinson said looked unanimous. [5:53:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=21207s) > **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. **Points made (22)** - Staff explained that FWP proposes to buy a 99-year term conservation easement on 3,652 acres of the Hanna Ranch, about 17 miles west of Lewistown, for $3,491,250, which is 95% of the appraised value of the same easement if it were perpetual, to protect wildlife habitat, provide public access and keep the land in agricultural use. [5:24:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=19484s) - Staff explained that the easement includes a 15-foot-wide, roughly 0.53-mile walk-in access easement from a parking area to national forest land, and at the landowners' request this access piece will be perpetual while the rest of the easement ends after 99 years. [5:26:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=19565s) - Staff said a term easement was chosen because opposition to perpetual conservation easements has grown, including proposed legislation to limit them and difficulty moving individual perpetual easements through approval. [5:26:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=19604s) - Staff noted that Montana's 1975 Open Space and Voluntary Conservation Easement Act allows easements in perpetuity or for a term of years, and that the statute authorizing FWP to acquire easements does not require them to be perpetual. [5:27:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=19648s) - Staff reported that a full MEPA review was completed, all comments were addressed, no significant negative impacts were found, and FWP recommends approval. [5:28:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=19727s) - Burrows and Gagnon argued that a perpetual easement would cost only about $183,750, or roughly 5%, more than the 99-year term, so the term easement is a poor deal and the extra money for perpetuity would be well spent, with Burrows adding that a willing buyer and willing seller is the most fundamental property right. [5:29:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=19797s) - In answer to Brooke's question about whether taxpayer money was involved, staff said the funds come from the Habitat Montana Fund, which combines sportsman dollars and recreational marijuana tax dollars. [5:32:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=19956s) - Brooke noted that sportsmen wanted access 100 years ago and will still want it 100 years from now, which favors a perpetual easement. [5:32:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=19930s) - Asked whether the Commission could change the proposal, staff said the Commission could only vote yes or no on it as presented. [5:34:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=20065s) - In answer to Wargo's question about how long it would take to pursue a perpetual option, staff said rejecting the proposal would require a new environmental assessment and rewritten contracts, essentially starting over. [5:36:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=20177s) - Wargo said he supports the 99-year easement but would prefer honoring the landowners' wish for a perpetual easement and letting the Land Board decide. [5:35:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=20117s) - The Member who made the motion said a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, that 99 years is a long time, and that the easement is a great thing for the public. [5:36:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=20204s) - The landowning family said they originally asked for a perpetual easement and would still be happy with one, but have made their peace with the 99-year term and are pleased the forest access will be perpetual. [5:40:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=20415s) - A landowner said she looks forward to carrying out grazing and water development plans that will benefit wildlife and the ranch, and wants to avoid the kinds of land changes she has seen elsewhere. [5:38:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=20281s) - A son of the landowners said the easement is the family's strategy for keeping the six-generation ranch intact for future owners while protecting native grasses and wildlife habitat. [5:42:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=20535s) - A representative of Trout Unlimited and Montana Trout Unlimited supported the easement, praised the family's land ethic, especially the perpetual public access to national forest land, and urged approval. [5:45:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=20711s) - A representative of the Montana Wildlife Federation supported the project but objected to the 99-year term, saying the landowners prefer perpetual, the public overwhelmingly favors perpetual, and offering only this or nothing is a false choice that threatens private property rights. [5:46:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=20763s) - The Montana Wildlife Federation representative added that the project was first scoped as perpetual with a letter of support from the Fergus County Commissioners, that bills to limit perpetual easements were defeated, and that it is presumptuous to assume the Land Board would reject a perpetual easement. [5:46:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=20800s) - Brooke said future easement proposals should be scoped with both term and perpetual options so the Commission is not limited to an up-or-down vote. [5:48:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=20897s) - Gagnon thanked the family for their conservation mission and persistence but expressed disappointment that the easement is not perpetual as they first wished. [5:49:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=20972s) - Asked by Wargo whether they wanted the project to proceed today, a landowner said perpetual would be ideal but the family really wants the project to move forward and can make the 99 years work. [5:50:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=21034s) - Wargo said he strongly supports conservation easements over fee title acquisition because the land stays in active stewardship, and he would like Habitat Montana funds also spent on actual habitat enhancement. [5:52:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=21164s) **Actions (2)** - Motion: A Member moved to approve the Hanna Ranch 99-year term conservation easement as presented (first misstated as Stafford Ferry because of an error on the agenda paper, then corrected to Hanna Ranch); seconded by Burrows. [5:36:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=20204s) - Vote: Vote by show of hands on the motion to approve the Hanna Ranch 99-year term conservation easement as presented. **Motion carries** [5:53:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=21207s) ### 17. Citizen Petition – Swan Lake Motorized Use Restriction On the agenda · [5:53:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=21207s) to 7:11:39 - The petition asked the Commission to amend ARM 12.11.3106 to extend the no-wake zone on Swan Lake from the current 200 feet to 500 feet from shore, after a similar petition was denied in February 2025. [5:55:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=21323s) > **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. - The petitioners, who described themselves as long-time Swan Lake residents, said ever-larger surf boats create bigger waves that are causing shoreline erosion and dock damage. [5:58:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=21512s) > **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. - Wargo argued that the real issue is enforcement and funding rather than distance, and that wardens funded by fishing license dollars should not bear the burden of policing wake boats. [6:18:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=22718s) > **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. - Wargo moved that the Commission deny the rulemaking petition (Alternative B), and the motion was seconded. [6:21:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=22881s) > **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. - Brooke argued against denying the petition or deferring to the legislature, saying each lake has unique circumstances best decided lake by lake by the Commission after public comment. [6:27:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=23265s) > **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. - Gagnon brought up at the meeting a proposal, not on the agenda or posted beforehand, to change the petition's 500-foot distance to 300 feet. [6:38:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=23923s) > **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. - Legal advised that the pending motion to deny had to be decided first, so Gagnon's 300-foot amendment was not taken up. [6:39:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=23982s) > **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. - The motion to deny passed 4 to 1, and the petition was denied. [7:10:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=25800s) > **Robinson:** Okay, any other questions before we vote on the motion that's on the table? Okay, I would like you guys to raise your hands, please. All those in favor of the petition denying the petition, raise your hand, please. Okay, we have four. All those opposed to the petition? **Points made (39)** - Staff explained that the petition seeks to amend ARM 12.11.3106 to extend the no-wake speed zone on Swan Lake from the current 200 feet to 500 feet from shore, and that a similar petition was denied in February 2025 partly because it tried to amend statute through administrative rule. [5:55:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=21323s) - Petitioners, who described themselves as long-time Swan Lake residents, said ever-larger surf boats create bigger waves that are causing shoreline erosion and dock damage. [5:58:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=21512s) - Petitioners said that when surf boats operate, especially on the narrow part of the lake, small-boat users get off the water and children are kept from swimming, and that loaded boats can approach five tons. [5:59:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=21550s) - Petitioners acknowledged they were unsure 500 feet was the right distance and asked the Commission mainly to start the Montana Administrative Procedure Act process so stakeholders could work toward a possibly amended proposal. [6:06:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=21995s) - Asked about the Commission's jurisdiction, staff said the Commission could let the petition proceed through rulemaking as written, modify the proposed language and then proceed, or deny it. [6:08:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=22082s) - Staff noted that earlier similar petitions for Lake 5 and Half Moon Slough were sent to citizen advisory working groups and were ultimately denied. [6:08:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=22122s) - Brooke said that of the petition's four issues (safety, bank erosion, property damage and water quality) only safety and water quality seemed within the Commission's decision space, and asked about the lake's depth and reported water quality testing. [6:09:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=22156s) - Staff cited statute giving the Commission authority to adopt rules on recreational use of public waters in the interest of public health, safety, welfare and protection of property and public resources, and said the Commission has authority to change the existing 200-foot rule. [6:12:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=22346s) - In response to Gagnon's question whether the process could lead to a ban on wake boats, staff said the proposal could change through amendment or public comment, but a full ban would require extremely strong safety evidence and staff knew of no precedent. [6:16:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=22560s) - Wargo said the issue is not unique to Swan Lake but stems from new wake-boat technology, and that it would be better addressed on a broader scale, possibly by the legislature, than through a single-lake rulemaking. [6:17:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=22676s) - Wargo argued that the core issue is enforcement and funding, and that wardens funded by fishing license dollars should not bear the burden of policing wake boats, suggesting sheriffs' departments would be more appropriate. [6:18:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=22718s) - Staff said a rulemaking started on this petition would be limited to Swan Lake and could not extend further without a separate rule proposal. [6:20:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=22804s) - In response to Gagnon, Region 1 enforcement reported no particular problem with no-wake violations on Swan Lake compared with other Region 1 waters. [6:22:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=22958s) - Enforcement explained the shoreline no-wake rule applies to most larger Western Fishing District waters, shorelines are not buoyed, and wardens enforce it by observation using rangefinders. [6:23:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=23031s) - Gagnon said literature he found suggested about 300 feet as a typical maximum no-wake distance, making 500 feet a significant departure, and enforcement replied it knew of no Montana no-wake distance larger than 200 feet. [6:26:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=23191s) - Brooke argued against denying the petition or deferring to the legislature, saying each lake has unique circumstances best decided lake by lake by the Commission after public comment. [6:27:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=23265s) - A speaker said the enforcement burden would be no different at 500 feet than at 200 feet, that a broader decision has not come in years of asking, and that the petition should go through rulemaking. [6:31:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=23476s) - A speaker warned that deferring would mean no action for Swan Lake through summer 2027 and possibly until 2029, and said the petitioners, who had filed twice, raised valid concerns about heavier boats and bank erosion. [6:50:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=24636s) - Staff said the Commission could not expand the petition to the whole Western Fishing District because the agenda and the rule at issue were specific to Swan Lake, and a broader change would require a new petition or a later notice. [6:35:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=23753s) - Staff said a Swan Lake rulemaking could eventually lead to a broader rule only if public comment prompted it, which would require amended public notice. [6:37:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=23877s) - Burrows said the Commission keeps having the same discussion lake by lake and proposed denying this petition and instead pursuing a science-based rulemaking for western water bodies. [6:41:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=24060s) - Staff said the Montana Watersports Association is working on legislation that might create a statutory working group to look at the issue statewide, though no bill draft had been seen. [6:42:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=24174s) - Staff said the Commission could ask the department to analyze the issue and draft a broader rule, but that this should not be an action item at this meeting because it is broader than the agenda item. [6:48:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=24502s) - Robinson said she was not comfortable handing the issue to a special interest group and that FWP should lead any broader effort. [7:07:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=25656s) - A member of the public who said he has lived on Swan Lake for about 27 years opposed the petition, saying the lake shore is largely granite with little erosion potential and that many neighbors were unaware of the proposal. [6:53:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=24813s) - The same commenter said only about 10 to 12 of the roughly 30 petition signers are property owners, compared with more than 200 cabins on the east shore. [6:54:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=24873s) - A representative of the Montana Wildlife Federation supported the petition, saying the 200-foot zone may no longer suffice for heavily ballasted wake boats, that 500 feet adds no enforcement burden, and asking the Commission to start rulemaking instead. [6:55:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=24924s) - A Kalispell water sports dealer manager opposed the petition, saying no link has been established between lawful boating beyond 200 feet and the alleged damage, and that other complaints involve conduct already covered by existing law. [6:57:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=25061s) - The dealer manager said the proposal would remove 600 feet of operating water and in some areas about two-thirds of the lake's usable room for boaters. [6:58:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=25103s) - A representative of a national water sports trade association said education rather than restrictions is the answer and that petitioners conceded the proposal does not address most of the problems. [7:00:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=25227s) - The trade association representative said the petitioners misrepresented a University of Minnesota study, noting Minnesota agencies and Lake Minnetonka do not use its recommendations and Minnesota recommends the same 200-foot distance. [7:01:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=25265s) - A representative of the water sports industry and marine manufacturers opposed the petition, citing about $660 million in boating economic activity and 3,000 to 4,000 jobs in Montana. [7:02:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=25372s) - The industry representative said roughly 110 written comments opposed the petition and only about 20 supported it, and that piecemeal rules would burden FWP and confuse boaters. [7:03:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=25397s) - A member of the public supporting the petition said the 500-foot figure was developed after consulting game wardens and legal staff about what could be enforced, and that petitioners were willing to adjust it. [7:05:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=25517s) - The same commenter said lakes differ and need lake-specific rules, and argued against deferring to the legislature or to boating associations driven by profit. [7:06:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=25600s) - Staff noted that because it is past October 1, any rulemaking initiated in December would require review by legislative committees, which could take the rule out of the Commission's hands. [7:08:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=25684s) - In response to Gagnon, staff confirmed that the proposed 500-foot no-wake rule would apply to all watercraft, not only wake or surf boats. [7:09:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=25780s) - Staff said it would prepare a written notice of the denial to the Secretary of State as required by rule. [7:10:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=25849s) - Robinson asked staff to email commissioners about options for a broader approach to the wake boat issue. [7:11:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=25863s) **Actions (3)** - Motion: Wargo moved that the Commission deny the citizen petition to extend the Swan Lake no-wake zone from 200 to 500 feet (Alternative B); it was seconded. [6:21:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=22881s) - Amendment (from the floor): Gagnon proposed changing the petition's 500-foot no-wake distance to 300 feet; legal advised the pending motion to deny had to be decided first, so it was not taken up. [6:38:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=23923s) - Vote: Vote on the motion to deny the citizen petition for a 500-foot no-wake zone on Swan Lake. **The petition is denied** (4 in favor, 1 opposed) [7:10:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=25800s) ### 18. Decision on Final Adoption of Bitterroot River Motorized Watercraft Closure On the agenda · [7:11:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=25901s) to 7:34:43 - Staff explained that the proposed motorized watercraft closure on Bitterroot River tributaries was meant to address boating safety, potential impacts to native fish habitat, and conflicts in shallow channels, and was narrowed to the Mitchell Slough after public comment criticized its broad scope and enforceability. [7:11:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=25911s) > **Unidentified (voice B):** Yes, Madam Chair, uh, members of the commission, for the record, this is Kevin Reckhoff, current Chief of Operations for Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks. This agenda item is similar to the previous item, but it's the end of the MAPA process. So earlier this year, the Commission approved the department's request to initiate rulemaking on a motorized use closure on tributaries to the Bitterroot River. The department's purpose in bringing the proposal forward was to address concerns about boating safety, potential impacts to native fish habitat, and conflicts associated with motorized use in shallow channels. During the MEPA process, the department received public comments and feedback concerning the rules, the rule's broad scope and enforceability. - Staff offered three alternatives: leave the current restriction unchanged, prohibit motorized watercraft year-round on the Mitchell Slough only, or prohibit it year-round across the broader area in the original proposal. [7:12:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=25951s) > **Unidentified (voice B):** The department agreed with those sentiments and amended the proposed rule language to only apply to the Mitchell Slough as opposed to numerous tributaries along a reach of the Bitterroot River. Today there are 3 alternatives in front of you. First, the commission can choose not to amend the current motorized watercraft restriction, keeping the status quo in place. Second, the Commission could approve the amended rule to prohibit the use of motorized watercraft year-round on the Mitchell Slough. Third, the Commission could approve the amended rule to prohibit the use of motorized watercraft year-round in the broader geographic area as described in the original proposal. - Asked by Wargo why a narrowed rule could proceed when a petition seeking a broader scope had just been denied, staff said narrowing to the Mitchell Slough stays within the scope of the original proposal that went to public review. [7:15:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=26136s) > **Unidentified (voice B):** Madam Chair, Commissioner Wargo, yes is the short answer to that. Um, in, in basically within the, um, and I'll let, let Stu or Marty answer, but from the walking through the rule process, the initial rule scope was broader broader stretch of the, of the Bitterroot, which included the Mitchell Slough. Through public comment, this proposal as amended narrows the scope of the applicability and enforceability of the rule itself. So it was basically within the scope of the original proposal, which would be sort of the opposite, as you highlighted, the previous agenda item where we had a narrow issue and the idea was to broaden it for a scope outside of what was considered for public review. - A game warden captain reported increasing motorized use of the Mitchell Slough, which is less than 10 yards wide in places and shared with wade anglers, hikers and waterfowl hunters, and said fast motorboats there pose an inherent safety risk. [7:19:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=26342s) > **Unidentified (voice J):** I'm a game warden captain out of Missoula here. So yeah, just to kind of reiterate what Kevin made mention of there is we have seen an increased motorized use in the Mitchell Slough Channel over the last several years, probably a noticeable uptick last year, I would say. And anytime you introduce motorboats traveling fast in a narrow channel of water, there's inherent risk there, safety risk. And that's what we're seeing here. The Mitchell itself is a very narrow channel of water, in some places less than 10 yards wide. - The regional fish manager said the department has not collected information on fish use of the Mitchell Slough, so impacts to fish and habitat are only a potential risk. [7:20:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=26432s) > **Unidentified (voice J):** Chair Robinson, Vice Chair Walsh, my name is Pat Saffell. I'm the regional fish manager and Missoula. I guess it's the potential risk to those, to those resources. We don't have a lot of information about fish use of Mitchell Slough. I just haven't had the opportunity to collect that information. So I guess right now it's, it's a potential risk to those resources. - A Member moved final adoption of an amendment to ARM 12.11.618 prohibiting motorized watercraft year-round on the Mitchell Slough channel, its east, west and middle subchannels, and all connected tributaries, and Gagnon seconded. [7:21:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=26478s) > **Unidentified (voice P):** Yeah, Madam Chair, in an effort to move things along, I move the Montana Fish and Wildlife Commission approve the final adoption of an amendment to ARM 12.11.618 To prohibit the use of motorized watercraft year-round on the Mitchell Slough Channel, including its east, west, and middle subchannels and all connected tributaries. - Brooke and Robinson objected that the closure rests on potential rather than demonstrated impacts, with Brooke calling it another way to keep the public out of the slough for private landowners, while supporters cited the warden's safety concern and said landowners had not allowed the department to study the area. [7:23:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=26611s) > **Unidentified (voice P):** I'd agree with that comment. I think along with this, for the private landowners who are listening, The reason why this is being cast as potential is that private landowners aren't allowing the department to come on and and research the areas that they need to to move. My support for this is we moved it into the map-up process. We've now gone through the process. We've heard from the warden that there is a valid safety concern, and I think I'd love to hear from Commissioner Burrows on this topic. I think. Closest to it, and would appreciate his outlook. - In public comment, the Montana Wildlife Federation warned of a piecemeal approach and unclear justification, while other commenters, including Montana Trout Unlimited and a Stevensville resident who uses the slough on foot, supported the closure, noting that floating and walking access would remain. [7:28:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=26892s) > **Unidentified (voice J):** Sorry about that, Madam Chair, members of the Commission. Thanks for your service. It's been a long day. I'll try and keep my comments fairly brief. We are very much in support of this closure. I appreciate that it may not be a drainage-wide MAPA process or rule, but when issues become emergent, especially when you're looking at the safety side of it, we feel like it's okay to make this closure. As it's been pointed out, access is not going to be removed. It's motorized access that's going to be curtailed. You can still float it, you can still walk it. - The motion carried on a show of hands, 3 in favor and 2 opposed. [7:33:59](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=27239s) > **Robinson:** Thank you. Okay, there's no one else with their hand raised. Wait just a minute. Okay. Any other questions or comments before we go to a vote? I'd like to also do it by hand raising again, please. Um, all those in favor of the motion, signify by raising your hand. Okay, we have 3. Okay, all those opposed, raise your hand please. So 2. Motion carries. **Points made (24)** - Staff explained that the department proposed the motorized closure to address boating safety, potential impacts to native fish habitat, and conflicts from motorized use in shallow channels, and narrowed it to the Mitchell Slough after public comment criticized the original rule's broad scope and enforceability. [7:11:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=25911s) - Staff laid out three alternatives: keep the current motorized watercraft restriction unchanged, prohibit motorized watercraft year-round on the Mitchell Slough only, or prohibit it year-round across the broader area in the original proposal. [7:12:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=25951s) - Staff noted that the Commission has adopted similar safety and conflict-based motorized watercraft restrictions within the past five years. [7:13:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=25991s) - Staff explained that adopting a rule after October 1 before a legislative session requires a statement of why it could not be adopted earlier, and that the meeting schedule and a longer-than-expected comment and hearing process caused the delay; the rule would take effect October 30, 2026 if adopted. [7:13:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=26030s) - Asked by Wargo why a narrowed proposal could proceed when a petition seeking a broader scope had just been denied, staff answered that narrowing to the Mitchell Slough stays within the scope of the original proposal that went to public review, unlike broadening a proposal beyond what the public saw. [7:15:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=26136s) - Asked by Burrows whether the department considers motorized use on the Mitchell Slough a significant safety concern, staff said yes, noting that the slough has seen more motorized use than other Bitterroot tributaries, raising enforcement staff's concerns. [7:18:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=26303s) - A game warden captain reported increasing motorized use of the Mitchell Slough over several years, with a noticeable uptick last year, and said fast motorboats in a channel less than 10 yards wide in places pose an inherent safety risk. [7:19:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=26342s) - The warden captain said the safety risk is heightened because wade anglers, hikers and waterfowl hunters use the same narrow channel. [7:19:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=26382s) - The regional fish manager said there is little information on fish use of the Mitchell Slough because it has not been collected, so the impact to fish and habitat is only a potential risk. [7:20:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=26432s) - Brooke argued the closure rests on potential, unknown risks and appears to be another way to keep the public out of the Mitchell Slough for the benefit of private landowners who do not want the public there. [7:21:59](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=26519s) - Brooke said the decision is inconsistent with the Commission having just declined a similar restriction on Swan Lake. [7:22:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=26561s) - Robinson agreed that decisions this significant should not be based on potential impacts rather than demonstrated ones. [7:23:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=26586s) - A Member supporting the motion said the impacts are described as potential because private landowners have not allowed the department to research the area, and that the warden has established a valid safety concern. [7:23:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=26611s) - Burrows said that, despite the lack of a biological assessment, the slough is not a water body suited to motorized use, and videos showed boats must travel fast to stay on plane there. [7:24:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=26690s) - Burrows said he remained torn because loss of public access is serious, but called motorized use a growing issue that will cause problems if nothing is done. [7:25:29](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=26729s) - A representative of Montana Wildlife Federation thanked the department for narrowing the scope but said the same safety or resource justifications would apply to other similar Bitterroot tributaries and sloughs, as with the Swan Lake wake issue. [7:26:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=26779s) - The Montana Wildlife Federation representative agreed motorized use seems inappropriate on the slough but warned of a piecemeal approach across the state's rivers and said it remains unclear whether the problem is resource, safety, or social in nature. [7:27:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=26820s) - A member of the public supported the closure, arguing that emerging safety issues justify acting on a single water body and that public access is not removed, only motorized access, since people can still float and walk the slough. [7:28:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=26892s) - A Stevensville resident living near the slough, who accesses it on foot to hunt, fish and float, supported the closure, describing the channels as unique and very small, averaging less than 30 feet wide. [7:29:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=26970s) - The Stevensville resident said increasing motorized use threatens the slough through user and landowner conflict, public safety risks, noise, and degradation of its character and its wildlife and fisheries. [7:30:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=27036s) - The Stevensville resident reported that brown trout currently spawn in the slough and that he observes rainbow trout spawning there every spring. [7:30:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=27057s) - Wargo stated that there are landowners who will let the department on to conduct surveys. [7:31:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=27092s) - A representative of Montana Trout Unlimited supported the item and thanked the department for revising the rule so it does not limit motorized access on the Bitterroot main stem. [7:31:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=27105s) - A commenter describing themselves as an avid recreationist urged closing all waterways adjacent to the Bitterroot River to motorized watercraft, saying the narrow, twisting channels with blind curves cannot safely support two-way motorized traffic alongside waders, hunters and paddlers. [7:33:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=27198s) **Actions (2)** - Motion: A Member moved final adoption of an amendment to ARM 12.11.618 prohibiting motorized watercraft year-round on the Mitchell Slough channel, including its east, west and middle subchannels and all connected tributaries; seconded by Gagnon. [7:21:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=26478s) - Vote: Vote by show of hands on final adoption of the year-round motorized watercraft prohibition on the Mitchell Slough channel and its subchannels and connected tributaries. **Motion carries.** (3 in favor, 2 opposed) [7:33:59](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=27239s) ### 19. 24-hour trap check requirement Raised at the meeting · [7:34:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=27294s) to 7:36:43 - During public comment on items not on the agenda, a member of the public asked the Commission to revisit the proposed change and require traps to be checked every 24 hours, suggesting trappers be encouraged now to build daily checks into their routines to ease a future transition. [7:35:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=27322s) > **Unidentified (voice S):** Hi, I'm Tracy Knight, and I want to thank the Montana Fish and Wildlife Commission for your continued efforts to coexist with all wildlife and for hearing my comments today. I'm hoping that you will revisit the proposed change and mandate checking traps every 24 hours. One day this may be a requirement, so until that time, perhaps trappers could be encouraged and supported to find a way now to fit it into their days and routines, so it is a simpler transition for them in the future when the rule is hopefully enforced. - The same commenter said Montana's trapping regulations and trapper education are more respectful of wildlife than some other states, but that steel jaw traps are not humane because any time an animal spends caught means intense pain and terror. [7:35:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=27357s) > **Unidentified (voice S):** I have read all of the Montana Fish and Wildlife Commission's trapping and hunting regulations and researched trapper education licensure programs, and I find them to be much more respectful of wildlife than some other states. However, traps especially steel jaw traps, are not humane. Even if it's only been an hour since an animal's been caught, any living being that experiences excruciating pain and terror for any length of time is suffering immensely. So I ask that until the 24 versus 48-hour rule can be revisited, the trappers could willingly begin to check traps every 24 hours, at least out of compassion. - The commenter asked that, until the 24-hour versus 48-hour trap check rule is revisited, trappers voluntarily check traps every 24 hours out of compassion; the Commission took no action on the matter. [7:35:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=27357s) > **Unidentified (voice S):** I have read all of the Montana Fish and Wildlife Commission's trapping and hunting regulations and researched trapper education licensure programs, and I find them to be much more respectful of wildlife than some other states. However, traps especially steel jaw traps, are not humane. Even if it's only been an hour since an animal's been caught, any living being that experiences excruciating pain and terror for any length of time is suffering immensely. So I ask that until the 24 versus 48-hour rule can be revisited, the trappers could willingly begin to check traps every 24 hours, at least out of compassion. **Points made (3)** - A member of the public asked the Commission to revisit the proposed change and require that traps be checked every 24 hours, suggesting trappers be encouraged now to fit daily checks into their routines so a future requirement would be an easier transition. [7:35:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=27322s) - A member of the public said Montana's trapping and hunting regulations and trapper education are more respectful of wildlife than some other states, but that steel jaw traps are not humane because any time an animal spends caught means intense pain and terror. [7:35:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=27357s) - A member of the public asked that, until the 24-hour versus 48-hour trap check rule can be revisited, trappers voluntarily begin checking traps every 24 hours out of compassion. [7:35:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qHUYt9_KA&t=27357s) ## Voices | Voice | Identified as | Minutes | Passages | |---|---|---|---| | C | Robinson | 59.5 | 405 | | K | Wargo | 56.7 | 156 | | A | Gagnon | 29.2 | 102 | | Q | Adam Strainer (staff) | 27.4 | 65 | | J | Unidentified (voice J) | 25.9 | 71 | | M | Burrows | 24.6 | 74 | | P | Unidentified (voice P) | 23.8 | 82 | | D | Brooke | 18 | 50 | | N | Unidentified (voice N) | 17 | 54 | | E | Unidentified (voice E) | 16.2 | 61 | | L | Unidentified (voice L) | 14.4 | 60 | | H | Unidentified (voice H) | 12.1 | 31 | | S | Unidentified (voice S) | 11.3 | 31 | | R | Unidentified (voice R) | 9.4 | 37 | | I | Unidentified (voice I) | 9.3 | 60 | | B | Unidentified (voice B) | 6.4 | 32 | | O | Unidentified (voice O) | 6.4 | 17 | | G | Unidentified (voice G) | 2.4 | 17 | | F | Unidentified (voice F) | 0.2 | 46 |