Montana Wild - A disgraceful film company

[John Rhoades]

I have followed Montana Wild on Facebook and their internet site and elsewhere for the past several years. They have produced a number of trout fishing and hunting videos, and published many outdoor pictures during that time.

Now, I see this: http://fwp.mt.gov/news/newsReleases/...t/nr_0275.html

What a shame! It is a crime what some people will do to take a pretty picture or video, or make another buck.

I hope all of their advertisers run away from these guys as fast as they can. They got off too easy with just a few thousand dollar fine, in my opinion. I think they should have been put in jail.

John

[NJTroutbum]

Now that its public, jail time would be irrelevant. Advertisement money will drop off and the business they were doing it for will fold.

[maodiver]

They do make some valid points in their defense.
http://www.montana-wild.com/a-statem...-montana-wild/

[John Rhoades]

They do make some valid points in their defense.
http://www.montana-wild.com/a-statem...-montana-wild/

I can understand where the regs may at times be unclear or misinterpreted, but to me the most serious alegations made against Montana Wild guys were...

"the fishing violations that took place on the South Fork Flathead River and its tributaries could have devastating impacts on the bull trout populations based on the over handling issue in which some fish were handled for up to 12 minutes or longer after they were in the net. In one instance a bull trout was caught, netted, handled and released (with the hook still attached) only to be fished again for underwater filming, concluding with the fish being netted, handled and released again."

Nowhere in Montana Wild's reply have they presented evidence to refute those claims.

[gmac209]

It is always good to hear both sides of the story.

I had one of our crew come in from the field and tell me he had mentioned to one government employee that the property we were surveying for them looked like a good fishing spot. Well he jumped all over him and said he would be charged if found fishing there it was closed to fishing.
I took particular interest in this because I fish there all the time.
I followed up with head office and was informed that the local conservation agency does not have the right to impose no fishing regulations that was the purview of the next higher tier of government.
Onto them.
Yes there was a stretch of water that had been a sanctuary for a brief period 25 or so years before for an ill conceived experiment to reintroduce salmon but had long since been rescinded and it was perfectly legal to fish there.

So I can totally believe these fellows were misinformed by part of the agency. I guess it is just a matter of how far do you have to take your due diligence.

[NJTroutbum]

I would say at a glance, that if they went to the lengths of acquiring the proper permits to fish, there w no "intent" demonstrated to violate the law.

Not picking sides, just pointing out what I've seen over the years.Which with game laws "usually" results in a fine, and nothing further.

[Marco]

Somehow " IGNORANCE" is no excuse unless there is NO excuse for IGNORANCE" is applicable here. My caveat, however, is that I have NOT viewed the film nor read the entire transcript of charges. From afar, it seems a tempest in a teapot.

Mark

[Longs for Cutts]

There are only a handful of waters in MT where it is legal to target bull trout. They are clearly listed in the regulations. If the company fished any other waters, they did it illegally and presumably knowably. Among those waters explicitly NOT open are tributary streams to the waters that are open.

Also, the USFS regulations are very clear to anybody who checks. PFS has to have a USFS permit to operate in the Gallatin NF (and it costs us $13 per client-day now). They have pamphlets explaining what is permitted with or without a CUA free for the taking at any district office.

Edit: I don't even live in a part of the state where there are bulls, and even I knew the correct regs. Also, their little statement says that the SF is the "only" place where it's legal. That's not correct either. Lake Koocanusa and a couple other places are also open. So they still don't know what they're talking about.

[NJTroutbum]

Somehow " IGNORANCE" is no excuse unless there is NO excuse for IGNORANCE" is applicable here. My caveat, however, is that I have NOT viewed the film nor read the entire transcript of charges. From afar, it seems a tempest in a teapot.

Mark

For the sake of discussion, I would have to say that a blanket statement of "Ignorance" doesn't always fit with fish and game code. I've hunted and fished from both the left and right hand of this country over the years, and have seen far too many instances where the "full" letter of the law is no where to be found in the published F&G license literature. A sportsman should not be required to do research to be within the law. Nor should they need to phone or contact the F&G or to "verify" that the published code is accurate. If there was no mention of the "tributary" exclusion in the published code, there should be no violation. But further to your point, I agree....."IF" it was there in plain print, failure to fully read the regs and understand the them, is no excuse for violating the law.

[Longs for Cutts]

In the Montana regulations, tributaries are ALWAYS discussed separately from the main river and have been ever since I started guiding. The South Fork mainstem's bull trout angling opportunity is an exception to the MT Western District's general rules and has always been listed as such, and as stated in the regulations, general rules apply to all waters not explicitly discussed in the exceptions. I looked in the 2015 regs book (still valid to the end of this month) and with a casual look found four places different places where the bull trout regulations are discussed. The company's statement would do credit to a politician caught in bed with his mistress in terms of how they frame the narrative.

I doubt you'd find a single guide in Montana who'd think this company is anything but the villain here, even if we would like to fish for those sweet, sweet bulls ourselves if it was legal.