A proposal to designate a section of the Whitefish River as a non-motorized corridor will go before the Fish, Wildlife and Parks Commission with strong backing from local residents.

At a public hearing April 10 in front of local Fish, Wildlife and Parks officials, 36 people spoke in favor of the proposed rule, with six speaking in opposition.

The proposed amendment would restrict river traffic to manual- and electric-powered watercraft from the railroad trestle south of Whitefish Lake to the bridge on JP Road.

The city of Whitefish submitted a petition to restrict motorized boating in part to “provide a unique quiet and safe refuge for locals and visitors who are seeking an alternative recreational experience.”

A no-wake restriction from the outlet of Whitefish Lake to the JP Road bridge has been in place since the 1980s, but many at the hearing said that’s not enough to prevent riverbank erosion and safety issues. Supporters of the proposed rule called it a good compromise.

“I love powerboats, but we’re surrounded by water,” said Whitefish resident Barbara Palmer. “There are all these places for powerboat people to use. We’re talking about a very small section of the river. I don’t think the city is asking too much.”

Whitefish resident Steve Thompson called the river a tremendous resource that more and more people are taking advantage of now that BNSF Railway has finished a five-year effort to clean up petroleum-contaminated sediment.

“There’s going to be a lot of use,” he said, noting possible safety issues with motorboats and paddlers on the river. “Now is the time to nip it in the bud.”

Sonny Schierl, owner of the Paddlefish Sports in Whitefish, says he prefers to instruct paddleboarding lessons on the river rather than the lake.

“I don’t have to worry about boats,” he said. “When parents see me take kids down the river, they have a sigh of relief.”

He called the non-motorized proposal a “no-brainer.”

Whitefish Fire Chief Tom Kennelly lives on the river and reiterated the safety concerns.

“On the occasion we do have powerboats, their definition of ‘no wake’ and mine are at polar ends,” he said. “My observations are that a motorized boat coming up the river presents an obstacle.”

He said that as ‘Safety Dad,’ he cringes every time a motorboat passes by while kids are playing in the river.

Whitefish Convention and Visitor Bureau director Dylan Boyle said the nonmotorized designation could bring an economic boost to the city.

“The river is an incredible tourism asset, not just in the summer but in the spring and fall, too,” he said. “The economic benefits could really be important in the long term.”

Others cited environmental benefits of keeping motors off the waterway.

Chris Schustrom noted cutthroat are being caught on the river since the cleanup, while Doug Chadwick said he has seen mink, otters and a variety of waterfowl on the river.

The few who spoke against the proposal said there wasn’t enough evidence to support elimination of the historical use of motorboats.

“There are a lot of ‘what ifs’ and ‘maybe ifs,’ but not a lot about what’s happened with motors on the river as a safety issue,” Kurt Lewis said.

“I don’t get why we let a special interest group take away the rights of fishermen and sportsmen who are buying licenses.”

Larry Campbell said the nonmotorized proposal was addressing issues that don’t exist.

“I fish the river a lot when the fish are in from June to August,” he said. “I’ve never seen a motorboat on there. I don’t see a problem. Natural resources should be for everyone to use.”

Lee Beers lives on the river and often takes his kids fishing on the waterway.

“We do motor up and go fish,” he said. “The kids love it. Taking that away from them would be a shame.”

Leonard Howke disputed the notion that motorboats are causing erosion.

“I’ve lived on the river for 70 years in the same house,” he said. The riverbank is still there like it was many years ago.”

Gary Whitman called the proposal unnecessary and disputed claims of safety issues.

“Police told me they know of no injuries on the river because of boats,” he said. “It’s an over-reaction. If we don’t have a problem, let’s not fix it.”

Fish, Wildlife and Parks Warden Capt. Lee Anderson said there haven’t been many boating violations on the river that he’s aware of.

“As far as citations and complaints, we haven’t had a lot of issues with that,” he said.

He also noted there hasn’t been a specific study on the impact of motorboats on the waterway.

Comments from the hearing will be given to the Fish, Wildlife and Parks Commission, which will consider the matter at its June 12 meeting. If approved, the new rule would go into effect in August.

Anderson said the commission will consider resource damage, health, safety, conflicts of use and other criteria when deciding on the new law.

Written comments are being accepted until April 18.

Comments may be mailed to Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Region 1 Office, 490 North Meridian Road, Kalispell, MT 59901; faxed to 257-0349; or emailed to cjust@mt.gov.