# What did I miss? FS proposal to close MF Salmon in August?



## shappattack (Jul 17, 2008)

Post up this "mangled description of a bill being proposed"


----------



## wshutt (Jun 20, 2013)

shappattack said:


> Post up this "mangled description of a bill being proposed"


 Shapp, I wish I could. It was a conversation. I did a quick search and pulled up nothing. The person telling me had apparently gone ballistic and contacted a bunch of people but this was the first I heard. The item in question was pulled from the bill that was presented but I'd sure like to know more.


I'm hoping someone can shed some light.


----------



## 50119 (Jan 17, 2016)

If there were conversations, I would assume the the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes could possibly be the movers of any new "restrictions". I believe the Interior Dept. - USFS has juristiction over the lands/water/use and they would be the ones to initate restrictions suggested by the USFWS and Tribe. If someone in the area could "delicately" contact these other agencies, it might be possible to get some insight if the Forest Service declines comment.

The main reason - ESA listed spring chinook recovery efforts in the Snake Basin. 

My thought's with over 30 years in the "business".


----------



## markhusbands (Aug 17, 2015)

I'll just toss out a couple things. Federal agencies don't really write bills. And the United States Forest Service is not in the Department of the Interior. And NOAA has jurisdiction over anadromous fish. And NOAA published this recovery plan in 2017 for spring/summer chinook and it does not at a glance seem to touch on recreational boating at all. https://www.westcoast.fisheries.noa...snake_river_basin_steelhead_recovery_plan.pdf


----------



## 50119 (Jan 17, 2016)

markhusbands said:


> I'll just toss out a couple things. Federal agencies don't really write bills. And the United States Forest Service is not in the Department of the Interior. And NOAA has jurisdiction over anadromous fish. And NOAA published this recovery plan in 2017 for spring/summer chinook and it does not at a glance seem to touch on recreational boating at all.


Correct you are - I mis-spoke USFS is under the Dept of Ag. Good luck to anone getting anything off the record/not published from NOAA Fisheries. 
Where I live, the general public play and muck around in all the rivers where ESA spring chinook and steelhead spawn/rear and NOAA appears to look the other way. 
Those individuals that have to work with/around these species need a permit do do so legally.


----------



## shappattack (Jul 17, 2008)

I hate to hazard any guesses with so little info, but if there was some discussion with the local guide community by the USFS about closing the MF Salmon during August, it would probably be as some scoping about proposing that as a conservation measure for the next round of ESA Section 7 consultation that USFS has to conduct with NOAA Fisheries and USFWS for the boater management/permit system (Private and Guides) that the USFS administers (of which we all love so much). The next round of ESA Section 7 consultation for the boaters permit program is not too far off in the distant future. I don't have the last Biological Opinion about it right in front of me, but I think it is a year or 2 off, which means they might be starting to think about it now. Of course, if the USFS did propose such a measure, its 100% not biologically based as I have discussed numerous times (regarding the policy of not re-issuing permits from Aug 15 - Sept 15 for Chinook spawning protection). The reason such bogus measures get proposed in the first place is because they feel like they have to propose something instead of addressing the real issues like dams and climate change effects (primarily on ocean productivity drivers), which are not under the USFS preview in this matter anyway.


----------



## wshutt (Jun 20, 2013)

I was hoping someone in the Salmon/Sun Valley area guiding community might be able to enlighten us. Crickets. 
I'm going digging.


----------



## wshutt (Jun 20, 2013)

I'm getting snippets:

"About a month ago three major outfitters went to DC to speak out against this proposal by the FS to close the Frank Church because boaters were the cause of fires. Outfitters saying August is their money making time and that any damage could be blamed on the private groups. This Frank Church piece was buried at the bottom of a big Senate bill, the bill is still undecided" 
. 
Someone out there must know what this is all about.


----------



## shappattack (Jul 17, 2008)

Boaters cause more fires than lightning? Well the river corridor is almost all burnt up now anyway so that don't make no sense


----------



## Rivers (May 13, 2010)

Who were the three major outfitters? Can we glean any beta from them?


----------

