The Henry’s Fork of the Snake is one of the best-known fly fishing destinations on the planet, yet – astonishingly – the Fremont County Commissioners (at least one of them) would have you believe its recreational value is negligible.
Thus continues the fight over motorized boat access to one of the world’s best-known fly fishing destinations, which has boiled over recently – and with the ugliness that rural fights seem to engender.
Here’s the overview: County Commissioners originally refused to implement a new motor ordinance on the Henry’s Fork (for years, everyone thought motors were forbidden, but they were wrong), but after angling groups voiced a lot of concerns, they’re finally offering up a plan, though it seems they’re not going far enough.
How far is not far enough? Imagine trying to fish a PMD hatch on a wadeable version of Fall River – with motorboats zooming through the fish.
That’s what Henry’s Fork fly fishermen are facing from Vernon Bridge to the Fun Farm area – at least under the proposed ordinance.
First, this from InTheBackEddy blog)
The proposed ordinance would allow motors up to 10 horsepower on several sections of the river, including the very popular stretch of the lower river below Vernon Bridge and the stretch upstream from Mack’s Inn. While this proposed ordinance protect The Ranch and Box Canyon, Fly Fisherman will have to hope the effect on these other important sections of river will be minimal.
Perhaps even more disconcerting is this line from the story:
Commissioner Skip Hurt said he doubted a Henry’s Fork Foundation study of the economic benefits the sport of fly-fishing brings to the county.
I remember the quote that spawned this line. Hurt questioned the validity of the study after Trafton and the other HFF folks had left the meeting.
This is the kind of attitude I have often encountered in Eastern Idaho (unfortunately). Many folks fail to recognize they live near one of the most iconic, beloved, and famous trout streams in North America.
And lest you think the proposed ordinance – which the county commissioners seem to favor – is a solution, then read this email comment from a fly fishing local:
because the proposed ordinance, though it is far better than the absence of any regulation, allows motors on a section of the lower Henry’s Fork from the Vernon Bridge to the Fun Farm area, a very heavily used stretch of the river (and excellent fishing, early and late summer). Motors would disturb fish, wading and drifting anglers, trumpeter swans and other wildlife.
Motors on the river are totally unnecessary, with plenty of boat access, ease of drifting from one launch to the next. Private landowners along the stretch are opposed because of noise from motors and shotguns, poaching and litter on their land from the same guys who would use motors (individuals known to many of us).
The local newspaper has covered the story thusly (though adds an odd comment at its conclusion):
From the Island Park News:
In a recent discussion with the Island Park News about motorized watercraft, Commission Chairman Paul Romrell said he thought it has been the most divisive issue the county has had to deal with. When the county decided not to pass the original ordinance but to let a nearly 20-year old ordinance stand, public outcry from the fly fishing community was fierce. The original ordinance and an amendment to it essentially allowed motorized watercraft in nearly all the county by not restricting it in most places. But for years, the public thought motors were off limits because fishing regulations erroneously stated that they were not allowed.
… It also revealed that some county residents do not want any restrictions and some resent favorable treatment toward the fly-fishing community.
The newspaper story ends with: “The News is awaiting comments from the fly-fishing community.”
Here’s What You Can Do
In the past, the local politicos responded only after a massive campaign (this around the issue of park closures), and that’s what’s probably needed here.
1. Stay tuned to the InTheBackEddy blog, which offers the best coverage of the issue.
2. Write a simple email to these three commissioners, reminding them (nicely) as a fly fishermen, you don’t vote locally but you do visit one of the world’s best-known fly fishing destinations (checkbook in hand), and want to see it protected.
Commissioner Paul Romrell, Chairman
Represents St. Anthony
208-624-4304
512 Park St
Saint Anthony, ID 834451122
promrell@co.fremont.id.us
Commissioner Le Roy Miller
Represents rural St. Anthony
233 N 2400 E
St. Anthony, ID 83445
208-458-4528
lmiller@co.fremont.id.us
Commissioner Skip Hurt
Represents Island Park & Ashton
208-623-4271
shurt@co.fremont.id.us
The more they hear from fly fishermen, the better the odds you won’t be dodging jet skis on the Henry’s Fork next year…
See you writing three emails, Tom Chandler.






























Thanks for the added publicity, Tom. This is as strange an issue as I have ever seen arise on a trout stream. It sure seems like the Fremont County is declaring open season on the golden goose.
In the Back Eddy(Quote)
Let me explain the last line in the Island Park News article noting that the paper is awaiting comments from the fly fishing community. We mailed the link to the article to some key local members of the fly fishing community asking for comments on the newest proposed ordinance and not one of them replied. The fact is, the public outcry is coming more from non resident anglers than from residents. We hear people are “working behind the scenes” to get the issue resolved but that does not appear to be the case at all, in light of the newest proposal, and when we check to see if there have been meaningful discussions between leading local anglers and elected officials. Henry’s Fork Foundation, Fed of FF, Trout Unlimited, local chapters – no public comments or statements.
Elizabeth Laden(Quote)
Like the story, your comment isn’t quite clear to me. If you’re suggesting the outcry is coming solely from non-residents, I have two comments.
First, that’s largely false. How do you think people like me found out about this issue? I’ve also been forwarded emails from several landowners (one who owns a sizable chunk of land bordering the river in the affected area) who are upset by the proposed ordinance, citing loss of revenue, noise, pollution, and trespass as primary reasons.
Despite offering up their views in multiple venues, the landownder’s emails seem united in the thought that their views have been largely ignored.
Second, it’s not clear to me if you’re suggesting that non-residents shouldn’t voice our concerns – especially if the ordinance affects our willingness to spend our vacation dollars in Island Park (which I’m told delivers nearly 60% of the tax revenue to the county)?
I’ve heard repeatedly from locals that the county government treat fishermen (and organizations like HFF) with something beyond disdain – a sad analogue to what happens in Siskiyou County.
Is it possible the local organizations think adding their voice will only make things worse – especially the claims from a wide range of people (see Eric’s comment) that the commissioners display a lot of antipathy towards fly fishermen?
I’d love to hear your clarifications on this issue – and if you think the commissioners have been fair to the locals who have spoken up.
Tom Chandler(Quote)
I said MORE comments against motorboats are coming from non residents than residents. I am not speaking of blog posts – I am talking about comments put on the record at the hearings and e-mails to the commissioners. I would NEVER suggest that non residents views should not be expressed. I have gone on record numerous times on this and other issues stating that the commissioners have NOT been fair to locals and nonresidents who oppose their views, as anyone who reads the Island Park News can attest. This is the reason Commissioner Skip Hurt banned the Island Park News from distribution in county buildings (which resulted in a boost in subscribers and a county-employee initiated underground distribution system). I have 43 e-mails opposing motorboats, and only a few said they sent the same e-mail to the commissioners. Only a few allowed us to publish their thoughts. The people vent to the paper and on blogs and in the coffee shops, but do not take a public stand. This is typical of most controversies here.
Elizabeth Laden(Quote)
My bad. I read the story and original comment incorrectly.
I agree that moving people to respond on the record is often a deeply frustrating experience. In the case of the Undergrounders, I suppose it’s true that my readers have little to lose – unlike the locals (I’ve heard that a couple involved people fear reprisals [loss of access via private property, etc] should they speak out too strongly). Sounds about right, but it’s not the whole excuse.
Good luck moving forward.
ps – Skip Hurt sounds like a real tool – and I’d bet there’s a first amendment case there somewhere…
Tom Chandler(Quote)
I have received personal feedback from one of the omissioners to the raft of email I’ve sent them. It is very obvious they both fear and resent fly fishermen and/or the fly fishing community, and have an irrational tendency to turn a deaf ear to their complaints. They will react to comments that address the “bad” of motorized watercraft that extend beyond (or in addition to) the deleterious effects on fly fishing.
Believe me, if they don’t believe the HFF “independent” study showing $50M spent by fly fishermen, they will not believe it if we simply tell them it is so. They don’t apparently care that 60% of their county tax dollars come out of Island Park either. They apparently don’t care that if their stupidity causes fly fishermen to choose another destination for their trips, the economy of Last Chance will dry up and blow away.
My last comments to them of about a dozen emails I’ve sent have thanked them (I nearly gagged!) for showing the willingness to come to some compromise in their last draft of the ordinance, and then concentrated on the non-fishing effects of motors on the lower river.
Eric Peper(Quote)
Eric, when the Underground’s reader flooded the Siskiyou County Board of Commissioners with email, their response was anger at those writing, followed by a constant need to cast themselves as the victims in our land use mess – despite the fact they’d written a land use policy that broke laws and attempted to make it illegal to fish huge swaths of our rivers.
Frankly, sounds like something similar going on here.
In truth, I’m still waiting for someone to offer up a series of “pro-motor” views on this, especially given the very *real* tourism dollars coming in to the county (HFF’s $50 Million number sounds fairly reasonable given what I know of other rural counties).
Good luck.
Tom Chandler(Quote)
Idaho (and for that matter, Montana) is still decades out of date when it comes to protecting classic fisheries. In a vein similar to this one, they have plenty of places with excellent put-and-take opportunities, yet run in horror from no-kill, no-bait, barbless regulations. I could care less if someone uses a spinner, as long as it is single hooked and barbless; and they put the fish back.
Philip(Quote)