Posts tagged: fly fishing henry’s fork

The Henry’s Fork Motorized Access Issue Boils Up (or, Yet Another Public Official Thinks You Don’t Spend Money)

November 11, 2010, by 8 comments

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.

Public Access to Harriman Ranch Stretch of the Henry’s Fork In Peril? (or, Time to Kick Political Butt & Leave the Name Taking For Later)

January 13, 2010, by 11 comments

To fly fishermen, The Harriman Ranch stretch of the Henry’s Fork might be the holiest water in a part of the country that’s famous for its holy waters.

And you could very lose access to it.

I remember fantasizing about the Harriman Ranch stretch it in my early teens (among other things). When you’re a kid, it’s easy to place yourself in the middle of epic Green Drake hatches on a stretch of water gifted to the public by a rich railroad family – even if you owned a fly rod, but had to see a coldwater fish close up.

Then, for a decade or so, the Henry’s Fork fell on hard times, but rebounded – largely as a result of the work of organizations like The Henry’s Fork Foundation.

According to the Henry’s Fork Lodge fishing report, last year’s fishing was about as good as it gets, so you’d think the Harriman Ranch stretch – a public access (and economic) success story by any measure – would be safe forever.

And naturally, you’d think wrong. From the Henrys Fork Foundation’s Facebook page:

Idaho Governor C.L. “Butch” Otter has proposed the elimination of general funding for the Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation (IDPR) as part of the 2010 state budget. The elimination of IDPR potentially means the loss of public access to state parks and facilities all over Idaho, including the world-famous Harriman State Park in Fremont County.

IDPR was established, in large part, as a result of the Harriman family’s gift of Harriman State Park to the state. The family made their gift on the condition (among others) that a professional state agency be created to manage the park. Since then, IDPR has grown to include more than two dozen parks all over the state, providing a wide range of recreational activities to the people of Idaho and to countless visitors from around the country, and the world.

The most obvious potential effect of IDPR being eliminated could be the loss to the people of Idaho access to the lands and facilities currently managed by the agency. These range from alpine Priest Lake in the north to the desert at City of Rocks in the south, and they provide an extraordinary range of recreational opportunities to an equally broad cross-section of the public. IDPR also manages several recreational programs, including park and ski opportunities, trail maintenance for a variety of recreational uses, avalanche awareness for snowmobilers, and equestrian opportunities (among others).

At no place would the potential loss to the public be more obvious than at the park that started the agency: Harriman. This 11,000 acre park with its eight miles of the Henry’s Fork is an international destination, arguably the most famous trout river in the world and one of Idaho’s most recognizable landscapes.

The Henry’s Fork Foundation was founded in a cabin across the river from Harriman State Park, and in 1999 Trout Unlimited members voted the Henry’s Fork the best trout stream in America. A study conducted by Colorado State University and sponsored by the Henry’s Fork Foundation and Trout Unlimited estimated that the Henry’s Fork generated nearly $30 million towards the local economy and supported, directly or indirectly, more than 800 jobs.

According to the agreement between the Harriman family and the state of Idaho, the park must revert to the family should the state default on any of the provisions of the agreement, including that of the provision of a managing agency. [TC: emphasis mine]

According to State sources, the Governor has recommended that responsibility for park maintenance be transferred to the Idaho Department of Lands, with a goal of continuing to operate state parks. This leaves many questions unanswered, among them how a land management agency with an overarching mandate to generate revenue (Idaho Department of Lands) will approach park management, and whether the elimination of IDPR, regardless of whether or not some of its functions are carried forward by other agencies, will constitute a violation of the terms of the Harriman agreement – not to mention the intentions under which other Idaho parks may have been established. Key concerns, and questions, include the following:

IDPR provides a vital public recreational and aesthetic benefit to the people of Idaho at a fraction of the cost of the overall state budget.

Eliminating IDPR is a false economy; although revenue generated by state parks and other facilities may not make a significant direct contribution to the State coffers, the funds generated by IDPR parks make tremendous contributions to the local economies in their areas.

If IDPR is eliminated, what will the State’s management philosophy be for state parks? How, in specific terms, does the State plan to ensure that the elimination of IDPR will not result in Harriman State Park (and other sites as applicable) passing out of public ownership?

At Harriman State Park (and other sites as applicable), how does the State plan to ensure that its future management of the park does not violate the terms of the gift agreement?

One source has already suggested to me this is power grab on the part of Otter – his control over the Department of Lands is greater than his ability to meddle in the Parks Department.

And yes, the CYA has already started; Otter’s instructed the Idaho Parks Department (IDP) staff not to discuss possible ramifications of the closure with the media or the public.

Anyone who’s dealt much with government agencies knows that denying the public both access and information amounts to standard operating procedure when someone’s been caught with their head in a dark, warm place.

This is just getting started; I’ve got feelers out, and I hope to have a larger story – with actionable bullet points – in another day or so.

See you on the Henry’s Fork, Tom Chandler.