Guest Column: Trout Unlimited President and CEO

Finding the Nexus Between Access and Conservation

Comment By jdj, 3-23-07

No, the issue at hand here in Montana is the simple act of supporting existing Montana law. The courts at several levels, sportsmen, the legislature (for the most part), and political leaders have stated time and again that our straightforward stream access law is legal and should be upheld. If TU cannot be trusted to do nothing more than reaffirm over 20 years of relativly uncontroversial law then they risk losing support of fishermen nationwide. Mr Gauvin should remember that incentives to enhance access includes upholding existing Montana law. TU can and should play a pivotal role.

This issue is not one of pitting fishermen against fishermen - it is plain and simple an issue of class. TU shows it's stripes in which class it prefers - the wealthy. They do so in an effort to support restoration and habitat preservation (meaning fish numbers) on private land. The reality may be that it results in higher donations to TU.

Access is the major concern, TU is the most legitimate voice for fishermen, I hope they stay involved in the access dispute.

Comment By WallowaJoe, 3-23-07

I applaud Mr. Gauvin for bringing to light the real issues and solutions here. Why are people compelled to place blame on others rather than finding common ground and working together from there? Knocking heads only leads to vendettas and mistrust over the long term. TU is working for long term solutions that bring people together for fish and fish habitat not selfish schemes to prove others wrong. Great article.

Comment By D. Haacke, 3-23-07

Mr. Gauvin, as a long time TU member, I guess for me it boils down to this: What's the point in protecting and restoring habitat if I, along with my family and friends, can't enjoy it? Should I be satisfied that only a few can, and that by isolating the public from our rivers and streams, we're somehow further enhancing the dwindling resources left to masses?

What you're doing is akin to proposing the world's art, once restored, should be protected (i.e. made inaccessible) from the public, solely for the purpose acquiring funding sources from art owners and dealers!

And please don't tell me I should be more involved with finding funding sources to expand access. That is precisely WHY I JOINED TROUT UNLIMITED and expected from TU in the first place. Look no further than Montana Trout Unlimited on how to both preserve, enhance and protect habitat AND support public access to our rivers and streams.

Comment By Phillip Taylor, 3-23-07

Mr. Gauvin recognizes the long held principle of the Golden Rule. In other words, those that have the Gold Rule! It is disgusting to me that TU is led by a gentleman who is willing to sacrifice the immense gains achieved by its members over the past 50+ years. There are many struggles going on today that were not envisioned several years ago, struggles with stream access being one of them. Why was stream access not a problem several years ago? Why is it a problem now? The Golden Rule answers these questions and Mr. Gauvin has lost (if he ever had it) his sense of the true meaning of democracy and citizens rights.

Comment By Pat Munday aka EcoRover, 3-23-07

Sorry, Mr. Gauvin, but you have again missed the point.

While it is true that conservation is a big tent that pulls in a broad congregation of those who care about trout, it is also true that it's hard to care about trout if you don't have access to the stream.

Montanans -- including many TU members -- worked very, very hard to win the stream access battle in the late 1970s/early 1980s.

Now, thanks to wealthy elite newcomers such as James Cox Kennedy and Huey Lewis, the stream access principles that Montanans worked so hard for are being challenged. While there are also many wealthy newcomers who respect the public right to access and travel within the highwater marks of Montana's streams and rivers, the ones who are challenging the well-established legal principle of stream access are the same types who are pressuring the National TU board to back off.

Rank-and-file Montana anglers and conservationists believe that National TU is selling them out to monied interests.

If National TU pursues its resolution to prohibit state or local TU chapters from being involved in stream access, then National TU will drive a deep wedge into the Montana angling/conservation community that will be a long, long, long time healing.

http://ecorover.blogspot.com

Comment By Jack, 3-23-07

Who is TU trying to 'buffalo' not us in Montana? TU has been supporting the rich and famous who block public land access to our public streams and rivers and take dough from the out of state rich to fight us the public, the fishermen.They have already taken 'hush money' from Kennedy to not support SB78 for access at bridges and the Montana Stream Access Law.TU is a has been organization in the pockets of the 'rich and famous' including Ted Turner. I encourge everyone to cancel their TU membership and don't renew or go to fund raising events. We are not a bunch of dummies in Montana and I am also a fly fisherman.TU IS A 'HAS BEEN' ORGANIZATION. Change your name to Trout Unlimited On The Take".."TUOTT" !!

Comment By wallowajoe, 3-23-07

Maybe you all should start a "Fisherman Unlimited" organization and deal with this problem. TU is about protecting and enhancing fish and fish habitat not people. Sorry. Get over it. Stop being so selfish and whiny like the rich folks you are so desperate to be better than. I certainly don't agree that rich people have the right to take away public fishing access on private property but I am realistic about how an organization such as TU must work to survive. They need those dollars to accomplish their goals for fish, not people. Let the State of Montana decide on public access and leave TU to help our watersheds.

Comment By NaturalMountainHigh, 3-23-07

You said it Joe. TU hasn't proved capable of uniting the warring factions, or even allowing disagreeing parties to work for the common good. Better to be fish positive and access neutral than to lose the whole thing.
I don't understand how anyone can be so selfish as to claim a stream as their own and not allow folks to fish, but I've sure run into that attitude. I was sitting on a friend's deck watching a beautiful woman in a bikini flycasting on the creek, and the landowner voiced his angst at the law allowing people to "come in and spoil my view!"

Comment By Jack, 3-23-07

Would it be too much to ask 3 things TU is doing 'on the ground' 'in the water' in Montana? Please don't include fish poisoning projects like Ted Turners Cherry Lake /Cherry Creek project to 'rid us' of an outstanding fishery and introduce the Anaconda hatchery 'west slope' that won't survive and projects to kill the brook trout for the same reason. Maybe I should ask for 2. Any access projects to the public fishery?

Comment By Muddler, 3-23-07

I applaud Charles Gauvin's leadership. Bottomline: We can't and don't conserve that which we consume. Tell me again how new roads and "bridge access" restore riparian habitat fragmented by a century of mindless roading? The "what-good-is-a-fish-if-I-can't-get-to-it" crowd is an embarrassing intellectual eddy in the stream of conservation theory. Myopic selfishness. "So once you're dead and gone, sir, then by your logic it is OK to subdivide this stretch of creek?" Much better to encourage and applaud the efforts of those conservationists who restored the Mitchell Slough riparian area, despite the dire cost extracted by the media and chapter access activists. Like the riparian landscapes we're trying to restore, the conservation movement is fragmented by the antics of these undisciplined and unprincipled political activists. Like drunks banging on the doors of a whore house, these chapter activists demand more and more from our fragile resource, two-thirds of which in Montana is privately owned. Mission failure is inevitable if we concede the future of conservation to these political whoremongers. TU should act now to divorce itself from them. Let them cut up their cards and sulk back under the banners from which they came: Montana Coalition for Stream Access (the "Coalition of One") and Public Lands Access Association (35 grumpy old men). They don't share TU's mission. They've been openly trading on TU's credibility as a nationwide conservation organization to advance their own radical political agenda. They aren't preserving law; they're breaking existing law and trying to make new law. TU shouldn't be carrying their water. In the cold hard light of day, the access movement and its nuclear political leadership cannot muster widespread public support for their unprincipled political philosophy. Left to hang alone, separated from their unwitting surrogate shill TU, this crass misguided movement will die alone in the dark as it should. TU and all major national conservation groups are correct: advocate and reward consensus based access; don't tear down the Constitution in the name of "access." Remember: what these radicals are doing to their celebrity Tar Babies throughout the West, they are doing to each of us who owns a home or property.

Comment By mike, 3-23-07

My goodness gracious, you certainly ARE a muddler.

Comment By Jack, 3-23-07

Muddler you are so full of it.We are enjoying the public land access and access to our public water due to the efforts of gruppy old men,biologists and concerned sportsmen.Where were you in 1985 when all the effort was made to create the Montana Stream Access Law? Where were you in 1991 when the few made access to 5.2 million acres of public state land a reality? Where were you when all the other laws were created to protect our streams from degradation.You were probably in diapers in California. Muddler you don't know what you are talking about.Your one of those late comers who enjoy what others efforts made access to public land and water possible.Don't try to defend TU, their mission is over they are in bed with the rich and famous.The wealthy want to keep us off public land and water and are greedy, selfish and in the outfitting business for the 'right people' and uncooperative. Do you even support SB78 and access from public county roads to public water,doubt it. You are a voice box for the rich and famous who are screwing up our great state.No TU hasn't done much except collect money and for what? What do they do with all the money? Could TU help finance the attorney for stream access issues? Ha! that would be the day. Now TU is a 'fence rider' and won't defend the very resource and access to that resource the name implies.What about the young fisherman who want to enjoy the sport? TU forgot about them. You will have to be a millionaires kid if OTHERS didn't do what THEY are doing NOW. Projects for the rich and famous like Ted Turner and Kennedy is that TU donated money? What about Teds 15 fish feeders in the Ruby that were illegal ? There are 5 access projects on the Bighole River now a BLM biologist promoted and got it done the signs are there as well but no one remembers his name.They are sure used alot now that was thinking about the future of fly fishing. Do you even know who worked on the Montana Stream Access Law or care? You are full of it Muddler.

Comment By CCB, 3-23-07

I think TU is correct to review this issue. But does the proposal go far enough? What if chapter access personnel cut up their national cards but remain in control of the local chapters? How will national protect its brand and the mission? TU can't stop individuals from using their personal funds and personal efforts to fuel the access political machinery. At the chapter level, the vocal access personalities are the TU brand. It will be very difficult to obtain a true separation from them unless as has been suggested there is an exodus or a purge. In fact, next week the Grant's Chapter is holding a fundraiser in conjunction with the annual meeting of the Public Land Access Association. The governor and the attorney general are keynote speakers of this access event. What a shame that coldwater trout conservation is not the drawing card for these high level officials.

Comment By Muddler, 3-23-07

Jack: I'm sorry my blurb upset you. I respect your opinion and appreciate the fact that access is important to you and others. I'm frustrated, however, and support TU's move. I've never had a stream access problem in Montana. Rather, I've been more affected by over-crowding and in more recent times habitat loss from riparian development. Sorry. In Colorado, people can't even float on water that crosses private land. Same in Oklahoma. In Wyoming, you can float on water that crosses private land, but you can't wade in it. In Montana, you can do it all, regardless of who owns it. At what point will or can Montanans simply be thankful for what they have? Why do some of the natives like you insist that we all load up sacks of marbles and slap our backs and wail over the injustice of the constitutionally protected right to own property? Can't we just enjoy and move on? Get the hate out of your heart, man. It's not worth it. Do you even know anything about the people you target with such vengeance?

Comment By Jack, 3-24-07

Muddler...Sorry no "hate in my heart as you stated". I hate no one please stay with the issue and don't get personal. I have been involved with these issues more years than you know and very respected by sportsmen,biologists and others.Native Montanans like myself have seen all these changes and I am fully aware about stream access in other states they have little.We all as sportmen should be thakful for the Montana Stream Accss Law and individuals like Jerry who devoted so much time to it as well as access to state lands by others.We are not a bunch of old foggies as you describe us. Also there is far more public land in Montana than you describe.You should know if you were ever involved in an issue related to fish & wildlife you must choose. You can't be 50/50 and ride the fence. The success we enjoy today on public access was not accomplished by 'fence riders'.Don't descibe me as 'hate in my heart' that p---- me off!

Comment By Jack, 3-24-07

Don't you have a first name Muddler? "Muddler" is a fishing streamer you can do better than that.

Comment By NaturalMountainHigh, 3-24-07

Hey Mudd...Speaking for myself, who is the only one for which I can truly speak, me & mine grew up here enjoying the benefits of this wonderful place. (I could make the usual brag about how many generations, but I won't.) I could have left to seek my fortune, as so many have, but like Norman McLean's little brother, there were too many trout left to catch. I wonder, sometimes, at my decision when I hear about average incomes in other states being nearly double Montana's, but I've not yet been willing to give up what we have here. I realize how priceless it is, and it really is worth it to me.
However, from my perspective, this is very scary business. Jack hit the nail on the head. Most places with good fishing command incredible prices, which most Montanans can't afford. I've lost most of my favorite hunting grounds to folks who made enough money elsewhere that they can move to Montana and buy up a choice piece of ground and keep everybody out. When I asked nicely for permission, the new owners said, "This is PRIVATE LAND!!!" and looked at me like I had three heads or something. Obviously, where they came from, the very thought of allowing access to private land was sacriledge.
As I see it, the problem is that these folks bring their attitudes along with their money, and want to change Montana to be like the place from which they escaped. In Montana, "POSTED" used to mean, "Stop and ask...I'm willing to let folks fish and hunt, but I want to know who's in there and why, so there's no misunderstanding, and I've heard horror stories of what happens when people are allowed in without the common courtesy of a conversation with the landowner...might keep people honest and respectful when they know I know who to come to if there's a problem."
But that 'Montana attitude' is being usurped by the 'This place is MINE, and I deserve it. You go and get your own!!' attitude that also says, "You want to use it? PAY ME!!!"
I don't want to live in a place like Scotland where there is incredible trout fishing only for the richest of the rich. We need to save the fish, but not so that only the elite few can fish for them.
I wish TU could be like RMEF and get the different sides to work together, but if they can't...

Comment By JESSE, 3-24-07

HEY MUDDLER, TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU AND YOUR SUPPORT THROWN TOWARDS TU. CHARLES GAUVIN IS RIGHT ON. NOT SO FOR JACK. JACK REALLY DOESN'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE PEOPLE HE TARGETS WITH A VENGEANCE, HE IS JUST PART OF THE FLOCK, FOLLOWING THE MISGUIDED, ADDING TO THE LIE'S AND INUENDO. I WAS PRESENT DURING THE GREAT MIGHTY FLOAT IN, RIGHT THROUGH JAMES KENNEDY'S PROPERTY NOT TO MENTION OTHER LANDOWNERS, OVER 100 PARTICIPANTS, SO THE PAPER WAS TOLD BY THE ELITE PLAAII. THEY LAUNCHED BOATS OFF BRIDGES, URINATED ON JAMES KENNEDY'S PROPERTY, TRESPASSED, DID DAMAGE TO THE BANKS OF THE RIVER, NOT TO MENTION THE DAMAGE THEY DID TO THE TROUT BY STRESSING THEM OUT, DURING THE HOTTEST TIME OF THE YEAR, WITH THE LOWEST WATER LEVELS OF THE SEASON. HOW THEY EVER FLOATED IT I WILL NEVER KNOW, THE WATER LEVEL WAS SO LOW. THE FWP DID NOT CARE ABOUT THE IMPACT TO THE TROUT, THE RIVER, THE ECOSYSTEM, WITH 100 FLOATERS DESCENDING ON THE RUBY THAT DAY. BUT NOT ONE OF THOSE WHO TRESPASSED GOT A TICKET, AND THERE WAS TRESPASSERS, CLEARY OUT OF THE HIGH WATER MARK, STANDING ON GRASSY BANKS AT LEAST 5 TO 6 FEET FROM THE RIVER. THIS IS ALL DOCUMENTED AT THE COURT HOUSE IF ANYONE REALLY CARED TO FIND THE TRUTH. BUT JAMES KENNEDY NEVER STOPPED ANYONE AND NEVER HAS STOPPED ANYONE FROM FISHING THE RUBY. NO ONE HAD TROUBLE GETTING OVER THE FENCES THAT DAY. JAMES KENNEDY HAS CHANGED HIS FENCES AT LEAST 3 TIMES THAT I AM AWARE OF, TRYING TO SATISFY THE RECREATOR, BUT THERE IS NO SATISFACTION, FOR RADICALS. THERE IS A GREAT SITE RIGHT ABOVE JAMES KENNEDY'S PROPERTY CALLED SILVER SPRINGS, SET UP TO PUT BOATS IN THE RIVER, VERY NICE PLACE WITH TRASH RECEPTACLES, PARKING, EVEN A TOILET, WHY NOT USE THAT, LESS IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. BUT I HAVE EVEN SEEN THE RECREATOR USE SILVER SPRINGS AND NOT CLOSE THE GATES, WHILE THERE ARE COWS ON THAT SITE. SO NOW YOU GET A TRUE FACTUAL STORY OF WHAT IS HAPPENING AT THE MADISON COUNTY BRIDGES.

Comment By Dean, 3-25-07

NO JESSE I AGREE WITH JACK HE IS RIGHT ON NOT YOU.YOU ARE ONE WHO LOOKS AFTER ,HELPS THOSE WHO KEEP US OFF PUBLIC WATER. I MISSED THE FLOAT LAST YEAR BUT FISH THE RUBY.WILL THE FLOAT BE THROUGH TURNERS THIS YEAR? IF SO, I WANT TO BE ON THAT ONE AND LOOK AT ALL THE HIGH WILDLIFE DEATH FENCES.CAN I JOIN YOU IN YOUR BOAT JESSE?

Comment By JESSE, 3-25-07

DEAN, JACK IS BASHING KENNEDY FOR NO REASON, PEOPLE HAVE FISHED AND RECREATED ON THE RUBY THROUGH KENNEDY'S PROPERTY FOR AS LONG AS HE HAS OWNED IT. HE HAS TRIED TO FACILITATE ACCESS BY CHANGING HIS FENCES AT LEAST 3 TIMES TO ACCOMODATE THE RECREATOR, A FEW ARE STILL NOT HAPPY, BUT DURING THE FLOAT IN OVER 100 PEOPLE HAD NO PROBLEM WITH KENNEDY'S FENCES OR GETTING ACCESS. SOME WERE SO FLAGRANT THAT THEY OPENLY TRESPASSED, URINATING IN OPEN VIEW OF THE ROADWAY CONSIDERING THIS IS ILLEGAL IN ITSELF, INDECENT EXPOSURE, LITTERED, BROKE DOWN RIVER BANKS, DID NOT EVEN CARE ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT THEY DESCENDED ON. IT'S NO SECRET THIS KENNEDY BASHING WAS SPEAR HEADED BY A DISGRUNTLED CONTRACTOR THAT USE TO WORK FOR KENNEDY. I CANNOT AGREE WITH BASHING THE RICH, THIS IS NOT A RICH/POOR BATTLE, YOU GO ALONG ALL THE RIVERS AND STREAMS IN MONTANA AND YOU FIND FENCES ATTACHED TO BRIDGES, 90% OF THESE PROPERTIES ARE OWNED BY LOCAL RANCHERS NOT OUT OF STATE WEALTHY LAND OWNERS. SB-78 IS ATTACKING THESE RANCHERS, NOT THE WEALTHY, THE EXPENSE IS GOING TO BE PAID BY THESE RANCHERS WHO ARE TRYING TO EKE OUT A LIVING, THE COUNTY'S ARE GOING TO PAY WITH TIME CONSUMING LAWSUITS NOT TO MENTION THE EXPENSE OF THESE LAWSUITS. FWP HAS A PROGRAM IN PLACE TO FACILITATE BRIDGE ACCESS, AND TO MAKE IT SAFE FOR ALL THE PEOPLE AND THE ENVIRONMENT WHICH WOULD STOP THE LAWSUITS AND THE ABUSE. DEAN IF YOU REALLY WANT TO SEE WHAT IS HAPPENING AND GET SOME ACCURATE INFORMATION THEN GO TO THE MADISON COUNTY COURTHOUSE AND VIEW ALL THE COURT DOCUMENTS ON THIS LAWSUIT BY THE PLAAI, IT WILL TAKE YOU AT LEAST SEVERAL DAYS, BUT YOU WILL COME AWAY WITH A NEW UNDERSTANDING OF THIS ISSUE AND HOW IT IS AFFECTING THE RANCHER WHICH IS OUR MONTANA HERITAGE.

Comment By Hayes, 3-25-07

Hey Jesse, you sound like one of our most famous outfitters. Worried about stressing trout when water levels are low and temps are high. Let's hear it from you...your and outfitter. You hate stream access. How dare the people of the state have access to what is yours to buy and own and sell. If MT is ruining stream habitat then move to Colorado or Oklahoma. There you can sit on a black top highway and look at all the perfect riparian habitat through your spotting scope. Numbers matter and your and mudler's opinions are far in the minority.

Hey Muddler, are you and outfitter too? I live in Livingston, have for all my life. I don't see the stream access law ruining the Yellowstone river and Paradise Valley; rather all the houses built by the Realators Association. Do you live in one of those river-side houses? Do you moonlight as a realator?

If TU pulls out of stream access they will simply fade away. So be it.

Comment By Dean, 3-25-07

Jesse, do you really expect us to believe that line Kennedy is a 'real rancher'? The 'real ranchers' are the native Montana ranchers who still cooperate and are nice folks to talk to. We have some down in that area... nice folks..."come on in and have a cup of coffee". Yes nice folks. Then we have the make believe ranchers ...gentlemen ranchers from out of state the wealthy folks your kind of folks who are also in the outfittting business for guiding those 'right folks" and don't want us on public water with red paint everywhere. Yes, Jesse we just didn't fall off the turnip truck here in Montana. I do "appreciate your support for HB78 however. Want a go fishn' some day Jack we can take my truck I know a friendly Montana rancher down there....real nice folks!!! I haven't seen them since last fall. I will take a nice gift down. The Ruby looks good now Jack and clear.... my Montana rancher friend called yesterday and said "come on down". Those are nice folks down there but you always have a 'few bad apples' your folks Jesse. What ya say Jack?

Comment By Jack, 3-25-07

Thank's Dean you understand what this issue is all about. Why do those folks get down to personal attacks? well, I guess that's their way Dean makes them happy I guess. I like cooperation to Dean. Good fishing Dean.

Comment By JESSE, 3-25-07

SO NOW YOUR BASHING OUTFITTERS, I SUPPOSE YOU AND JACK ARE THE ONLY DECENT PEOPLE IN MONTANA. WHERE DID I SAY KENNEDY WAS A RANCHER. I SAID THAT 90% OF THE PROPERTY THAT HAS FENCES ATTACHED TO BRIDGES IN MONTANA IS OWNED BY RANCHERS, THE VERY HERITAGE MONTANA WAS BUILT ON. THESE OUT OF STATE LAND OWNERS YOU WANT TO BASH HAVE PROVIDED MANY JOBS, BOOSTED ECONOMY, LEASE THEIR LANDS OUT TO RANCHERS FOR THEIR HAY PRODUCTION, POTATOES, CORN, AND COWS. THEY PROVIDE SCHOLARSHIPS FOR OUR SCHOOLS, THEY DONATE MONEY TO OUR HOSPITALS OUR NURSING HOMES, OUR PARKS, THE VERY PARKS THE RECREATORS USE. STEWARDSHIP OF OUR NATURAL RESOURCES IS A MUST IF WE WANT TO CONTINUE TO USE IT. THAT DOESN'T MAKE ME A TREE HUGGER. JACK YOU WERE THE ONE WHO STARTED THE PERSONAL ATTACK ON JAMES KENNEDY. DO YOU EVEN KNOW THE GUY? NO!

Comment By Jack, 3-25-07

No Jesse never met him. Next time I am down there I will stop by and ask to go fishing. Like Dean I always do that if crossing private land. Will he let us? No look back Jesse I was not the one to start any attacks. I am supporting SB78 as well and bridge access from our public county roads. We all donate money even us who don't have much. We who don't have much money have always donated to public land access issues as well and not for some big tax write-off. Who are are you trying to 'dazzle' anyway... are you an outfitter/guide for the wealthy who don't want us on public water ? Sounds like it to me. Just follow the money trail and see where it leads Jesse.

Comment By Hayes, 3-25-07

Hey Jesse or Muddler (probably the same people).

I don't think that Jack and I are the only decent people in MT. I know thousands of them who are pushing SB 78 because it benefits the vast majority of people. I know thousands of people who put critical fish and game habitat in front of their desires to hunt, fish, or recreate. The only people I know who put success in front of ethics are outfitters or people who wish they were outfitters but couldn't pass the test. The almight dollar drives success for this croud. Three summers ago the water temperatures were reaching unhealthly levels, for trout,in the Yellowstone river. MT FWP ask for people to voluntarily not fish in the afternoon hours to protect the stressed fish. All of the people I know and call friends stopped fishing completely. The resourse out weighted their desire to fish. Protect first; enjoy later. The outfitters refused to follow suit. No only did they fish the mornings but the afternoons also. Use the resource and then move on.

The common hard working people of MT have for generations recreated on this state's rivers and streams. SB 78 protects the people's 'right' to access what it is they own. And I stress the word 'right'. This thread started on TU possibly pulling out of stream access and now were are on SB78; and easy transition. Since it was brought up.

There is no taking associated with SB 78 because county road right-of-ways remain unchanged. The width of county roads have always been 60 feet unless otherwise stated in the petition or dedication creating the road or unless a different width was established by prescriptive easement. This has been the law since 1874. (Sec. S 1061 5th Div. Rev. Stat. 1879: "All county roads shall be sixty feet in width, unless the commissioners shall,' upon the prayer of the petition for the same, determine on a less number of feet in point of width). The Attorney General ruled: "Absent definition in the easement or deed to the contrary, the width of a bridge right-of-way easement is the same as the public highway to which it is attached." 48 Atty. Gen. Opinion 13 (2000).

SB 78 does not change the width of any right-of-way. The width of the right-of-way is 60 feet unless the road was established with a different width. Therefore, there can be no "taking" by SB 78 because the bill does not alter or attempt to alter the right-of-way of any county road. The bill is completely consistent with the Stream Access Statutes. SB 78 establishes a peaceful and
fair way to accommodate fencing to bridges for livestock control and to ensure use of the county road right-of-way for traditional access to streams and rivers. A recreationist has the right-of-way to access streams and rivers at county bridges as part of the public's right to travel on county roads. 48 Atty. Gen. Opinion 13 (2000). This access is by using the public property of the right-of-way (the county road easement) for one of its public purposes. This is true however the road easement was established or created. The only possible exception is a county road
created by prescriptive user where the public road purpose did not include access to a stream or nver. While this situation would be very rare, it is not changed by SB 78.

The public has a right to use a public right-of-way to access streams and rivers at bridges. This is in contrast to the provision of the Stream Access Law that says the public does not have any right "to enter onto or cross private property in order to use such waters for recreational purposes." S 23-2-302 (4), MCA. Also, S 23-2-322 (2) says the public may not acquire a prescriptive easement by "the entering a crossing of private property to reach surface water."

The Stream Access Law does not allow the public, as a matter of right, to cross private property to get to a stream or river. SB 78 deals only with using public property (the county road right-of-way) to access a stream or river. SB 78 is completely consistent with the Stream Access Law.

Comment By Timothy Border, 3-25-07

This is rather simply. What the rich elite have manage to accomplish in almost all other states –by removing the public from its assets; water, fish, wildlife, and lands – thus their monied elite do not have to contend with public and the publics ownership issue.

National TU is in the process of being bought off by these rich elite to do the same thing here in Montana. But Montanans have seen what has happened in other states and have been watching this greed crowd move to Montana in increasing numbers has we truly are the Best Last Place. We will not be fooled by the slick talking lawyers and paid hacks -some of them hiding behind the name of fly patterns in this column.

We know what is ours and as always, we will fight tooth and nail for every inch of it. If the rich and famous are blooded by it, so be it. If the resolution now before National TU were passed, I would expect to see TUs presence disappear in Montana. Remaining a member of TU would send the message that “I am here to trample on the rights of Montanans in the name of the rich elite”. That will fly as well as a lead balloon. No doubt the cold water fishermen and women of this state will pick up where National left off, continuing the good fight of protecting our resources and access to them.

Comment By Dean, 3-25-07

Those are truly great comments by the last writer. I don't think anyone could have said it better. I have no more to say after that . He said it all for all of us you enjoy the sport and public access to our public water and public fish in those streams and rivers.THANK YOU!

Comment By Jack, 3-25-07

Hayes your comments were terrific as well. It it really assuring we have sportsmen like yourselfs out there representing the resources we share in Montana. Montana has always been that way. We must look at future generations of young sportsmen as well so they will have the opportunities we have enjoyed as Montanan's.Thanks Hayes,Timothy and Dean

Comment By JESSE, 3-25-07

WELL JACK I'M SURE KENNEDY WILL LET YOU WALK ALL OVER HIS PRIVATE PROPERTY AFTER YOU ACCUSED HIM OF GIVING TU HUSH MONEY, SO DO YOU HAVE PROOF OF THAT? IF YOU WERE AT THE FLOAT IN JACK THEN YOU WOULD KNOW YOU DON'T NEED PERMISSION, THIS ISSUE IS NOT ABOUT ACCESS YOU ALREADY HAVE ACCESS, IT'S JUST NOT THE ACCESS YOU WANT, YOU WANT IT ALL.

HAYES, NOT ALL OUTFITTERS ARE AS UNCARING AS YOU WOULD LIKE ALL TO BELIEVE. I AM ALL FOR ACCESS, ACCESS IS ALIVE IN MONTANA. OUR CURRENT STREAM ACCESS LAW IS THE MOST LIBERAL IN ALL OF THE UNITED STATES. SB-78 STATES THAT IT WAS NOT WRITTEN TO DIMINISH LANDOWNER'S RIGHTS. BUT THAT IS WHAT IT DOES. SECTIONS 1-3 OF SB-78 DIRECTLY CONFLICT WITH THE EXISTING STATUTE IN THE SAL (STREAM ACCESS LAW)
MCA 23-2-302 STATES "THE RIGHT OF THE PUBLIC TO MAKE RECREATIONAL USE OF SURFACE WATERS DOES NOT GRANT ANY EASEMENT OR RIGHT TO THE PUBLIC TO ENTER ONTO OR CROSS PRIVATE PROPERTY IN ORDER TO USE SUCH WATERS FOR RECREATIONAL PURPOSES. LAND UNDERLYING A COUNTY ROAD IS OWNED BY THE ADJACENT LANDOWNERS (PRIVATE PROPERTY). THE COUNTY ONLY HAS A RIGHT OF WAY. THIS IS A CLEAR TAKING OF A PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHT. ON MCA 23-2-301 (12) ALLOWS PUBLIC RECREATIONAL USE UP TO THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK. SB-78 ALLOWS THE PUBLIC ACCESS OUTSIDE THE HIGH WATER MARK ACROSS PRIVATE PROPERTY. SECTION 4 OF SB-78 PROVIDES 3 PAGES OF LEGISLATION FOR THE SIMPLE ACT OF A LANDOWNER ATTACHING A FENCE TO A BRIDGE TO CONTAIN LIVESTOCK. FENCES HAVE EXISTED, ATTACHED TO BRIDGES, ALL ACROSS MONTANA AND ARE NOT ENCROACHMENTS UNDER THE LAW. OUR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WILL NOT BE ABLE TO ATTEND TO COUNTY BUSINESS BECAUSE THEY WILL BE BUSY WITH LAWSUITS FROM SB-78 IF IT PASSES, THEY WILL ALSO BECOME FENCE POLICE. OUR COUNTIES WILL GO BANKRUPT. SB-78 IS NOT THE ANSWER. SAL HAS WORKED SINCE ITS INCEPTION, THE VERY GROUP THAT SPEARHEADED SAL WAS THE MONTANA STOCKGROWERS, THEY HAVE STOOD BEHIND IT ALL THESE YEARS, NOW SB-78 IS ATTACKING THEIR MEMBERS THE VERY RANCHERS WHO SUPPORTED THE SAL. THE STOCKGROWERS WERE NOT EVEN ASKED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE DRAFTING PROCESS OF THIS BILL, NO PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER GROUPS WERE ASKED TO PARTICIPATE, IT IS A VERY ONE SIDED BILL.

Comment By Jack, 3-25-07

No, I don't want it all Jesse.What's private is private I know that and respect private property and the ranching community. What's public is public and I know that as well. So, if I stop by I guess I will be talking with you then, there now. I wasn't on the float last year so I don't know axactly where the home place is. How would I get there to talk with you? Relax you are so up tight...go fishn' or something. Im watching Fox news now I really like Bill O'Reilly how about you?

Comment By Jack, 3-25-07

Jesse......Are you aware the streambeds are state land? There's one you can probably comment on. Public water over state land, state land is for multiple-use unde rthe Montana Statute MCA.

Comment By JESSE, 3-25-07

YOU WON'T BE TALKING TO ME, JUST BECAUSE I THINK KENNEDY IS A STAND UP GUY DOES NOT MEAN I AM KENNEDY. THERE ARE ALOT OF PEOPLE THAT THINK HIGHLY OF KENNEDY AND RESPECT HIM. SO YOUR BASHING KENNEDY BUT YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHERE HIS PROPERTY IS? YOUR NOT THE ONLY ONE, EVEN THE PLAAI HAS IT WRONG. IT WOULD BE NICE IF WHAT EVERYONE WRITES ABOUT KENNEDY HAD SOME REAL FACTUAL BASIS OR SB-78 FOR THAT MATTER. I HAVE SPENT OVER 4 YEARS READING COURT DOCUMENTS, SO I HAVE TAKEN THE TIME BEFORE I RUN MY MOUTH. I SPEND ALOT OF TIME AT THE CAPITAL GOING TO HEARINGS, HOW ABOUT YOU? I LIKE O'REILLY BUT I LIKE GLENN BECK MORE.

Comment By Jack, 3-25-07

Yes, I know where the property is on my map but I was referring to the ranch hdqtrs. Glad to know he is a stand up guy because I am as well. I never did say I dislike him because I never met him so I believe you then. Your comments are appreciated Bob. I guess I don't know Glenn Beck. Is he on Fox News to?

Comment By Hayes, 3-25-07

Jesse,

The sky is falling...The sky is falling. We've hear it all before. Most of your comments are fabrications, opinion at best. Scare tactics that big brother is taking your land, your rights, everything.

Jack thanks for the comments. Dean and Timothy too. It is about time that sportsmen and women start to speak up and defend what is all of ours (which include the agric. community).

Jesse, I wouldn't ask the stockgrowers the time of day for fear they would file suit for private property takings. The stockgrowers have proven time and time again that it is their way or the highway. Their support of legislation which 'takes' from the public grows every year. Privatize the fish and game to maximize 'entire ranch' income. SB 78 is an excellent, diverse, well thought-out compromise. It is the best thing going.

An after thought...arguing over the internet is like running in the special olympics...even if you win you're still retarded.

Comment By JESSE, 3-25-07

NO, YOU ONLY ACCUSE HIM OF PAYING TU HUSH MONEY, I REALLY DON'T THINK TU NEEDS HUSH MONEY. NOR WOULD JAMES KENNEDY PAY HUSH MONEY, WHEN HE CAN AFFORD A BEVY OF LAWYERS. SPEAKING OF LAWYERS, CAN YOU PROVE YOUR HUSH MONEY ACCUSATIONS, IN A COURT OF LAW? YOU MAY HAVE TO. BOB? NO, I'M NOT BOB NOR AM I WITH THE FWP. JESSE IS MY NAME! JACK? GLENN BECK IS ON HEADLINE NEWS.

Comment By JESSE, 3-25-07

HAYES, SO WHY ARE YOU DOING IT? TO SELL YOUR PROPAGANDA?

Comment By Randy Lowder, 3-25-07

I am employed by Jim Kennedy, and have been following these comments with great interest. Mr. Kennedy has never instructed me to interfere with any fisherman attempting to access the river, nor have I ever done so on my own. The one interaction that I have had was last year with a person preparing to start a float trip and was very positive. I would be happy to e-mail you the name of the person involved. I know of no sportsman’s group who approached Mr. Kennedy with a positive attitude. Everything was neck bowed, hackles raised, and adversarial. Perhaps the old adage “you can catch more flies with honey than you can with vinegar” would have been applicable in this situation.

Comment By Dave, 3-25-07

Hey guys in case you are interested George Grant TU and PLWAA will be having a joint fund raising Banquet at the Copper King Inn in Butte to help raise funds to defend stream access.The date is March 31 st at 5:30 HOPE TO SEE YOU ALL!

Comment By BlackDog, 3-25-07

While I'm sure these "anti-access" people have convinced themselves that they are trying to conserve the resource, the reality is that they want to use public water to grow trout for them and only them. Only in the vaguest sense is that conservation. In fact, if the water is clean and cold and the flora and fauna populations are not being depleted, then it is being conserved.

For example look at the Madison. The conservation issues are things like whirling disease and water being warmed by the pond in Ennis, not the numbers of people. Access there is fairly easy, but the numbers of people aren't the source of the problems the water faces. Here in MN the relevant consevation issues are things like poor agricultural land use, erosion from row-cropping, lack of riparian zones, etc. Sure, there are more people fishing and paddling; we've all "been more affected by over-crowding," as Muddler says. But the public having access to the water is NOT the problem. Trust your instincts on this. We aren't dealing with conservationists vs. sportsmen. We're dealing with the selfish few vs. those who think the public should have access to public water.

Interestingly, even though this issue arose in MT, it may be more important to people who live outside of MT who do not enjoy similar easy access to most public waters. IMO access is an utterly essential element of TU's mission, and would advocate for the removal of Mr. Gauvin and Trustees who support this proposal if it they continue to press forward with it.

Comment By Bob, 3-26-07

After following all this I am sure national TU is on a separate road than many TU chapters in Montana. TU chapters that favor access to our public streams and rivers should separate themselves from national TU. National TU appears to not favor access to public water by all but the privileged few and and 'riding the fence' on the issue. Send a message to national TU...by cancelling your membership.Fly Fishermen magazine is another one to watch they allowed advertisement in their magazine that public streams in Montana, blue ribbon trout streams, were privately owned. In the meantime support SB78 in Montana and access from public county roads to public streams and rivers.It's about time sportsmen got upset with what is going on and losing public access from public property to steams and rivers.Red paint and red signs on a public rights of way and any public land is illegal and the private landowers who do this should be fined heavily. If they have a public grazing license on public lands federal and state they should lose /cancel the license and that is written in the stipulations as well. I will check Ted Turners red paint on the bridge along the Red Rock river south of Clark Canyon Reservoir as well.

Comment By JESSE, 3-26-07

BOB, WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THE STIPULATIONS? WHAT STIPULATIONS?

Comment By JESSE, 4-02-07

HEY JACK, WHY ISN'T THE PLAAI ALL OVER THIS? FENCING OFF PUBLIC LAND. THIS POST WAS ON WUERTHNER: HUNTING


By mike, 3-28-07
I'm a rancher, in Montana, and am fortunate to have and protect a full gamut of wildlife, including wolves and other predators, on the place, although I sure don't advertise it; I don't want "help" from the public. I've had some minor livestock losses and some focused actions have been taken to prevent one animal from teaching others and to keep things from getting out of control; but, again, I don't whine or advertise.

I graze a combination of public and private lands, which I know irritates George; but, I still have to agree with him on many of these issues. Although I learned to hunt more than fifty years ago and hunted frequently in the past, I have come to not be very fond of today's hunters in general. Under the circumstances, I would vote for wolves over hunters for elk control and I'm sure not in favor of any hunting at all in any of our national parks. In fact, I finally had to quietly fence the public land under my control, with the agreement of the government, because of the damage being done by off-road vehicles and the large amounts of trash that motorized vehicles can carry and that almost always gets left behind. People can still walk in, at least those who will still stoop to use their own power; but, many will not and those who will can't carry cases of glass bottles, which reduces the time that I have to spend picking up broken glass. No, not all of the damage and littering comes from hunters; but, the pace sure picks up in the fall. A wolf kill is dispersed and going to soil within a couple of years in this country; human damage seems to last forever. Frankly, I also find wolves better company than today's class of hunters anyway. I could tell you just horrific stories of hunter behavior and attitudes; they're just not the kind of people that they used to be and just not very well bred today.

I would also tell you that, because nothing has been hunted in this little valley for so many years, the wildlife is just a joy to be around. I can cross the flats at the bottom of the valley and the pronghorn will come up and cough at me and walk alongside within thirty yards. Elk are curious and approachable and, if you sit still for a while, you'll find that mule deer love you to toss your watermelon rinds out about twenty feet in front of them, although they prefer the bland doritos over the spicy ones. In a little world free from guns and traps and such, wildlife come to see you as just another member of their perpetual version of home-alone. I like to hike Yellowstone for the same reason and hunters won't improve it. There is a time to grow up and hunters just aren't there yet.

Comment By Jack, 4-17-07

Mike, I am in Montanan 4th generation. Wondering if you are on the same planet. I am also a native Montanan. Where is your little piece of "Montana Heaven"? It sounds like a national park.You have BLM,N.F. & DNRC public grazing on public lands to? You pay for grazing for a licensed grazing season only. It's public land our land 12 months a year. You have what they call a 'grazing privilege'.

This article was printed from www.newwest.net at the following URL: http://www.newwest.net/main/article/finding_the_nexus_between_access_and_conservation/