Decisions about our natural resources and their management should be based on sound science and an analysis of social, economic and resource-related issues and concerns. While there may be a lot of opinions about what course of action to pursue, and there may be disagreement about the science supporting the analysis, those who disagree have an obligation to provide the facts and analysis to support their position.

Unfortunately, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks managers are choosing speculation over peer-reviewed science and sound economics to drum up opposition to the Flathead Lake Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Here’s what FWP is not including in their information in opposition to the proposed plan for gill-netting on Flathead Lake.

• The Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes employed the scientific method with peer review using data and state-of-the-art population modeling developed by well-regarded experts. This was undertaken at great cost, just as the tribes fund the Mack Days contests to the tune of $350,000 per year. Biologists in the various agencies involved in this process, as well as other research, support implementing one of the reasonable alternatives to reduce the over-abundant lake trout population.

• “Secure” to FWP means status quo, meaning you can’t fish for bull trout in the lake and river, angling for cutthroats will continue to be catch-and-release, and bull trout will continue to be managed not by the state of Montana but by the federal government because the fish will continue to be listed as threatened.

• There is a reason most other biologists and nationally known fishery geneticists disagree that bull trout are “secure” in the Flathead. First, far fewer bull trout are showing up in sampling nets in the lake. Second, although the overall number of spawning redds in the North Fork and Middle Fork of the Flathead River combined appears to be steady — or as FWP claims “secure” — the North Fork population is dropping precipitously. The decline is masked by combining spawning there with the healthier Middle Fork population.

• Sticking with existing management on the lake means significantly fewer angling opportunities for the public, as evidenced by the steep decline in angler-days since lake trout have exploded — from a high of 170,000 angler-days a year to 33,000 in 2011. Research from elsewhere indicates catch rates for lake trout are likely to remain the same or slightly less than today. The benefit will be higher catch rates for other species in the lake and river system. Even if the most aggressive alternative in the draft environmental impact statement is selected, there would still be more than 1 million lake trout in Flathead Lake.

• Bycatch is rightly a concern to be addressed and avoided, and the tribes are committed to this. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service must approve and monitor the level of estimated bycatch before and during any netting on Flathead Lake. Accurate data from other regional waters show that reducing lake trout populations can be accomplished without adverse effect on native bull trout and cutthroat populations. FWP’s own data on Swan Lake has shown that bull trout bycatch can be minimized in the netting process.  

• The $20 million figure is misquoted as the value of the lake trout fishery. That is the value of the total Flathead fishery, including money spent angling on the Flathead River and Flathead Lake. Only slightly more than half is spent on the lake, and 40 percent of that is not spent in pursuit of lake trout. When you include all the fishing money spent in other tributaries and lakes within the Flathead watershed, the value of the small mackinaw fishery pales in comparison. The Flathead Lake DEIS estimates that the loss to the two-county economy due to suppression would be less than 0.1 percent, and that would likely be made up by increased river angling.

• Don’t believe the myth that if you buy electricity from the Bonneville Power Administration, you will pay for this plan. BPA sets aside mitigation funds every year for worthy projects. That money will be collected and spent regardless of whether or not it is spent on Flathead Lake.

“Belief” and speculation cannot take the place of thoughtful, rigorous science and sound economics in this important process to recover native fish in the Flathead. FWP needs to re-engage and support this process and live up to their promises to recover native fish in the Flathead.

 Larry Timchak, of Kalispell, is president of the Flathead Valley Chapter of Trout Unlimited.