Marine Board Takes Public Comment On Proposed Motorized Boat Ban On The Siletz River

The Oregon State Marine Board held a public hearing on proposed rule changes for motorized boat use on the Siletz River, taking testimony from tribal members, local residents, fishing guides, and recreational anglers. The hearing is part of an ongoing rulemaking process launched following a petition from the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians seeking a motor ban above Jack Morgan Park.

PROCESS AND TIMELINE

Marine Board staff explained that the board approved proposed rules at its April 23 meeting as a starting point for public discussion; those rules are not currently in effect. The proposal would remove the existing “jet motor prohibited” language and instead allow motors of 15 horsepower or less from Jack Morgan Park to Old Mill. Above Old Mill and on tributaries in that reach, motors would be prohibited.

Key dates: – Public comment is open in writing until June 30. – A work session and additional public comment opportunity are set for June 17 at the Marine Board office, with a similar format to this hearing. – The board is scheduled to consider final rules July 30 in Madras. The board may adopt the rules, request amendments (which could trigger re-noticing and more public comment), or take other action. If adopted, rules could be in effect for the upcoming fishing season.

ARGUMENTS OPPOSING A MOTOR BAN OR STRONG RESTRICTIONS

Many guides and anglers argued against banning motors above Jack Morgan or further restricting their use. Key themes:

Safety and accessibility: Several older anglers and people with physical limitations testified that small outboard motors are essential to safely launch, land, and navigate the river, particularly in slack water and at ramps such as the town ramp, Slide, and Jack Morgan Park. They said without motors they would effectively be unable to fish the Siletz.

Economic impacts: Fishing guides said limiting motor use would reduce the number of clients they can carry, especially at higher winter flows when rowing heavy boats is more difficult. Some estimated a 20–40 percent hit to winter income, with one guide saying he could lose $15,000–$18,000 per season on the Siletz. Others warned that reduced fishing pressure would hurt local businesses in Siletz and Newport.

Opponents of the ban said conflicts exist on all shared-use rivers and should be addressed through etiquette, education, and self-policing rather than regulation. Some said the petition sets a dangerous precedent by allowing one user group to restrict another based on perceived conflict, and complained that tribal and non-tribal sides have not been able to sit down together despite attempts.

ARGUMENTS SUPPORTING THE TRIBE’S PETITION AND STRONGER RESTRICTIONS

Tribal leaders, tribal members, and some local residents and anglers urged the board to adopt the tribe’s original petition to ban motors above Jack Morgan Park, arguing the current compromise proposal does not solve the underlying problems.

Cultural rights and sovereignty: Members of the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians described the Siletz River as an ancestral lifeline, food source, and place of ceremony, not just a recreation site. They emphasized that tribal families still rely on salmon and lamprey for sustenance and cultural continuity. Several speakers stressed that the tribe is not just another “user group” but the host on this river, and asked non-tribal anglers to respect that role.

Environmental and habitat concerns: Supporters of the petition cited high-speed wakes, bank erosion, disturbance of spawning and juvenile habitat, and overall stress on a river already affected by low flows, high summer temperatures, algae blooms, and heavy municipal and industrial withdrawals. They argued that concentrated motor traffic in the upper river, especially from guides, intensifies pressure on shrinking salmon and steelhead runs.

Safety and river experience: Bank anglers and tribal members reported feeling physically endangered by wakes and crowding, and said some do not fish the river anymore because of motorized traffic and confrontations. They argued that banning motors above Jack Morgan would reduce user conflict, make the river safer and quieter, and still leave substantial motorized opportunity in tidally influenced reaches below Jack Morgan.

SUPPORT FOR PROPOSED “HYBRID” RULES AND CALLS FOR COMPROMISE

Some commenters backed the Marine Board staff’s proposed compromise, which would restrict but not completely ban motors in the upper river. They argued a hybrid approach might reduce impacts while maintaining some motorized access and preserving eligibility for Marine Board funding.

Others, including people who opposed a full ban, still called for some middle ground: for example, gas motors only in lower reaches, electric-only in upper reaches, or etiquette-based restrictions on repeated “laps” through holding water. At the same time, several tribal speakers and supporters said the hybrid line at Old Mill is arbitrary, would concentrate conflict in a shorter stretch, and fails to address the issues that prompted the petition.

PUBLIC COMMENT OPPORTUNITIES

Staff emphasized that: – This hearing is part of the formal rulemaking record. – Written comments, documents, and videos can be submitted to the board through June 30. – A June 17 work session will include another public-comment opportunity with the board present. – The July 30 meeting in Madras is scheduled for board deliberation and possible final action; public comment on this issue will not be taken that day unless the rules are re-noticed.