Montana Legislature
Stream Access Becomes a Three-Front War in Montana
By Daniel Testa, 4-12-07
 |
|
 | |
| Caption: Sen. Lane Larson, D-Billings, addresses the press flanked Sen. Larry Jent, D-Bozeman and anglers who gathered at the Capitol Thursday to support Larson's Senate Bill 78, which would clarify the legal ways a landowner can attach a fence to a county bridge abutment and still provide public access to the waterway. Photo by Dan Testa. | |
|
With the governor wading into the issue, the introduction of a new Republican bill to set up a two-year study, and a boisterous rally by Democrats and sportsmen Thursday, the stream access issue in the Montana Legislature has grown into a three-front war in the session’s final weeks.
But it is the nature of the Legislature that the more politicized and emotionally-charged an issue becomes, the less likely a solution will result, regardless of the problem’s simplicity.
You can practically see the marks in the hearing room carpet where lawmakers on either side of the issue are digging in their heels.
The stream access dispute is essentially a difference between landowners and recreationists over whether the land on either side of a county bridge is an easement or private property.
What this boils down to is fences.
And after months of study, amendments, hearings, meetings, debates, arguments, rallies and discreet hallway discussion, no one can agree on how to describe a fence that would allow fishermen to get through while keeping in cattle.
If you support Senate Bill 78, then anglers can access those rivers because they’re descending on public land and the bill provides landowners with a right they don’t currently have – to attach fences to county bridge abutments.
But agricultural interests represented by the Stockgrowers Association and Farm Bureau Federation question whether that easement applies to all county roads throughout the state, and argue SB78 represents the erosion of private property rights. They also say they have been deliberately excluded from meetings to craft SB78—that it is not the “consensus” bill its supporters say it is.
At Thursday’s hearing for House Joint Resolution 58, which sets up a committee to study the nuances of fence construction for two years, the SB78’s opponents spoke in support and vice versa.
The arguments and questions were identical to those raised in January meetings to craft Senate Bill 78, evidencing what little progress has been made over the last four months.
“Have any bills that you’ve seen defined what an acceptable fence is?” Rep. Ernie Dutton, R-Billings, asked Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks Director Jeff Hagener. “Does every access need to be acceptable to someone with a wheelchair?”
Opponents of SB78 question whether imprecise language will lead to a ballooning of stream access until counties and landowners are obligated to construct parking lots, wheelchair and boat ramps at every bridge in Montana.
But during the hearing for the House Resolution, those who supported SB78 were visibly frustrated at the idea of putting off making a decision on stream access until 2009.
“I’m not sure what another study will do,” Mark Aagenes of Montana Trout Unlimited, who drafted much of SB78’s language, told the committee. “The interim study will not make a decision, it’s you guys that will make a decision.”
HJ58 sponsor Mike Milburn, R-Cascade, said he has been receiving “violent, threatening e-mails from sportsmen” over his opposition to SB78.
Milburn said his resolution is not an attempt to put off a decision on stream access, but that emotions are running so high on the issue it needs to be taken off the burner so a new process that includes landowners can begin.
“We just need to cool the jets,” he added.
Milburn criticized Gov. Brian Schweitzer’s move Wednesday to amend stream access provisions into an unrelated bill, preventing counties from being able to use state money unless the county bridges provide stream access for sportsmen.
“It’s hurting things,” Milburn said, adding that amending stream access provisions to an unrelated bill is unconstitutional.
Schweitzer disagrees.
“If a bill comes to me that would abridge the constitutional rights of Montanans, then I have a right to amend it,” Schweitzer said. “This is simply saying that we won’t use funds to restrict their constitutional rights.”
Schweitzer calls Milburn’s study resolution “a sham.”
“People who live in Montana know what a fence looks like to keep cattle in,” Schweitzer adds. “There’s not a whole lot more to study.”
Underscoring the simplicity of the issue, Milburn complimented the language Schweitzer used in his amendment to describe stream access, while objecting to the bill in which the governor included it.
As Schweitzer’s amended bill returns to the House floor for a vote this week, Democrats are framing the vote as a referendum on support for hunting and fishing rights, a deft piece of political Jiu-Jitsu that puts Republicans in a tight spot.
At Thursday’s news conference, Democrats said they will try another “blast” motion Saturday or Monday to bring SB78 to the House floor.
Anyone who has been paying attention to this legislature knows that when an issue gets political, don’t hold your breath for a satisfying solution, particularly one as simple and intractable as stream access.
In Thursday’s hearing, a spokesman for the Farm Bureau Federation, speaking in support of the resolution for Milburn’s two-year study, seemed to contradict himself.
“If cooler minds could prevail I think we could sit down in two hours and figure this thing out,” John Younberg said. “If we can try and find some resolution we can get away from a lot of controversy on this.”
It’s funny that in 25 years of conflict over stream access in Montana, no one has been able to carve out those two conciliatory hours.
[End of article]Mikey milburn bemoans the fact that he's been gettin' "threatening e-mails". WHAT AN ASS THIS MAN IS! Mikey, let's just have a LOOKSEE at them threatening e-mails if you wil. For you see, mikey, you may fool a few people, but I happen to think that you're a lyin' sumbitch! Sides, only a freakin' idiot would oppose the public's right to access THEIR streams and rivers! Are you an idiot, mikey? But some good may come from you opposition to access, for you may finally cause your senate district to go Democratic! I mean, you come from the only Repubbie snob hill senate district in Cascade Co. (and I live on the other side of the river, the poor side, which is also in that district) But by God you just may have sent our district to the Dem column! Only a moron with a "burns" in their name could have achieved that! Good job, mikey. You just might join that other famous "burns" in the unemployment line!
Comment By Jesse, 4-12-07Exactly what kind of fence keeps a bull in but lets a boat thru? I read who the moron is, and its not Milburn.
Comment By Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers!, 4-13-07Exactly what kind of moron thinks that a bull has a greater right to a river than the PUBLIC that owns the rivers? I'd have to say that the moron is you!
Comment By Craig Moore, 4-13-07Larry, are you related to Don Imus? Kinda hard to have a discussion when it turns to derisive personal pejoritives. The only bull that I know that owns the rivers is the bull trout and the fishermen that spin tall tale yarns.
Comment By try it, 4-13-07Jessie seems to have all the answers to everything. Now he can add an answer on how to keep a bull in but lets a boat pass--It's a floating gate.
Comment By Jon, 4-13-07Polarization at it's worst! This issue should be easy to solve by reasonable people. Montanans have public access to our streams. Fences are necessary to keep cattle in and off the roads. It makes good sense for all involved to fence to bridges instead of across streams. Mt FW&P;, TU, etc. should help landowners design and build gates that allow easy access to streams.
Our state and nation have greater challenges to deal with than this. Let's solve it by working together & get on with the important issues such as health care, war in Iraq,huge deficits, etc. !!
Sorry, Craig, but I get damn pissed off when the Repubs try to block access to our streams. And as far as Milburn goes, talk is cheap. I seriously doubt that a sportsman "threatened" little mikey. Now, he can sure prove me wrong if he would simply share one of those "threatening" e-mails. For you see, every e-mail has a return address, right? So, WHO would be stupid enough to send mikey such an e-mail? Didn't happen. He's lyin'. Why? I don't know. You'd have to ask him.
Comment By Craig Moore, 4-13-07Larry, I don't care whether it's red or blue wire. Blocking stream access needs to stop. Ted Turner and his limosine "D" buddies don't get a pass from me.
Comment By Pat Munday aka EcoRover, 4-13-07This issue was not polarized until Mike Milburn, Ernie Dutton, and their cronies started pandering to the lawyers representing elitist non-resident landowners.
The few "stockgrowers" who testifed against SB 78/Bridge Access and who are tight with Milburn and Dutton and company are ranch managers for elitist non-resident landowners.
If you listened to the "stockgrowers" testifying against SB 78, you heard "We made a mistake in losing the Stream Access battle 20 years ago, and now is our chance to turn back the clock."
http://ecorover.blogspot.com
Pat-I have only been following this issue from a distance this year. It is interesting that the fuss is from new landowners from out of state and their capachino(sp) cowboy managers! Perhaps a more long lasting solution is for them to resell their spreads to old timers and buy ones in Texas where it is all private. We have witnessed similar problems in our valley from some of the new non-resident land barons. It is difficult for me to believe that some of our legislators are forgetting who votes them in. The out of statersdo not vote here nor pay income tax here!!
Comment By Jesse, 4-13-07Amendatory Veto has numerous flaws in it, one being not all bridges are available or suitable for access, so do these bridges not receive funding? SB-78 is a clear taking of private property rights, SB-78 and this Amendatory Veto will not solve anything. This will be litigated either way. The solution is to get all sides involved and work on a solution. The first lawsuit filed in Madison County was by the PLAAI for the very thing SB-78 authorizes, the County to allow and permit fencing to bridges. PLAAI sued the County for allowing a permitting process to attach fences. You can all read, so go to the County and read the lawsuit. It is very easy to obtain. All floating gates are considered experimental by the FWP they will not even pay to have one put in. So this cost is put on the landowner also!!!!!! Anyone who lives in and around Madison County knows that it is not cappucino cowboys, these Ranch Managers have made ranching their life for many years, most from 20 to 40 years, that is why they run ranches because they know ranching. The out of staters do pay Property Tax!!!!!! Which they pay on some of the County roads and all the right a ways, and the streambeds, with no just compensation, clearly a taking of private property rights.
Comment By Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers!, 4-13-07A "takings"???? Wow, Juicy. Kind of a stetch there little fella. I don't think there's a WHOLE lotta support out there for your nonsensical position. How bout we Montanans just take what is ours and ignore a moron like yourself! That's the Montana way. Ya see, little fella, we kinda feel that we have a RIGHT to access our streams, regardless of what some "ranch manager" might say. Hows that for a solution?
Comment By Jesse, 4-13-07obviously you aren't paying taxes on it!!
Comment By try it, 4-14-07Jessie, if you have not lost all your credibility keep your comments coming and let the people decide. Check it out with the Medicine River Canoe Club--Upper Dearborn River--"Partner up to build a Float Gate"--"Bruce Auchly from FWP---arranged to have FWP fund the project". Property taxes-yes-but how about conservation easements, taxpayer weed contol, subsdies,etc.? You need to research the word easement. Shouldn't you know what you'll get before you buy. The smart ones do.
Comment By floater, 4-14-07The word "easement" is in the Dictionary in case Jessie doesn't know how or where to look up the word.
Comment By Jesse, 4-14-07Just because SAL is a law does not make it right. If it was so right and so great then all the other States would have followed suit. Everyone has easements on their property but I don't see people using those easements to recreate.
Comment By Jesse, 4-14-07So anyone who uses the weed subsidy should allow anyone to recreate on their property because all our taxes paid for that subsidy. Montana is making stream side property values drop when they don't protect private property rights, the AG opinion states that the more the public uses the right of access the more rights the property owner loses.
Comment By floater, 4-15-07Okay Jesse - did you look up the word "easement" or are you one of those who has to go to the public library to look at a dictionary? Your last comment shows you definitely don't know the meaning.
Comment By Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers!, 4-15-07Ya now, juicy, we Montanans are basically friendly people. We don't get mad easily. But I will tell you this - and you can take it straight to your idiot boss kennedy - if he doesn't follow the law as laid out in the Montana Constitution and allow people to freely access their river, well then, we'll introduce him to another Montana tradition. The Rangers will notifiy him in advance so that he can be there with his "armed guards", and we will come down there and take what is rightly ours. We will remove his electric fences and re-take our access to the river. For you see, Juicy, we have guns too. (state of the art) And we don't like billionaire outta state bullies coming in and threatening Montana people. If it's a confrontation that he wants, we will gladly oblige him. Is that clear enough, Juicy? The law is clearly on our side, and if anyone gets hurt, the blame will rest solely on the lawbreaker, mr. kennedy. You see, Juicy, this is who the Rangers are. This is what we do. And we are very good at what we do. I hope that it doesn't come to violence. I hope that no innocents get hurt. But we Rangers are very civil people. We believe in giving our opponents the opportunity to do the right thing. We believe in giving them fair warning. We are not hiding. We do everything out in the open. We bet our lives on what we do. Will mr. kennedy?
Comment By Craig Moore, 4-15-07Whooooooooa! there Larry. No one has stream access from a jail cell, hospital bed, wheel chair, or cofin. Let's try and turn the conversation into "how". How do we create stream access? How do we respect landowner rights?
Here are some suggestions to discuss.
1. Create a BMA program specifically designed for fishing. It has proved successful for providing public access for hunting.
2. Accountabiltiy, responsibility, and respect. Landowners do not want their roads and land abused. They don't want their fences damaged. They don't want to deal with refuse and litter left behind by "access guests." Have the FWP survey fishable rivers and streams before the start of the season and record the state of condition. Get the landowner to sign it. This may require negotiation as I suspect only aiplane surveys will be practical. Now, if the landowner later has a complaint over damage and refuse left by "access guests" the FWP will close that section of fishable water pending investigation, repair, and reclamation. If the FWP agrees that the complaint is legit, that section of fishable water will remain closed to fishing and other recreation until the state effects repair and reclamation. The land and streamside will be posted with such notice.
3. If a landowner will not agree to reasonable public access to such waters, then the FWP will close such waters to all fishing and recreation use for everyone.
Comment By floater, 4-15-07craig moore- that's an idiot solution - to close the "fishable waters?" Of course Kennedy's henchmen will litter his land right after a floater has gone down our public waters. You 're just sucking in to an easy way out. FWP may discover the litter was the result of Kennedy's henchmen "goof balls". Then what? Why don't you address Larry's comments? - Kennedy does not own water-he might have a right to use water but those rights are registered with the DNRC.
Comment By Jesse, 4-15-07civil, right!!! I don't work for Kennedy, Turner, Huey Lewis. But I do work for the protection of private property rights. It shows how radical and down right crazy some people are, at least Craig has some sensible solutions unlike the enviromental rangers who go to extreme threats and know nothing of what they speak about. You won't find electric fences on Turners, Kennedy's or Huey Lewis property to cut, let alone trash they themselves would litter, because they are stewards of the land. Everyone has to share Larry's view or they are targeted and threatened, Wow, it is Larry's world.
Comment By Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers!, 4-15-07One more thing I forgot to mention about the Rangers. We don't negotiate with criminals! If kennedy wants to be a criminal, he can. But we have the right, duty, and will (and the ability) to protect the public's right to our waterways. Anyone who thinks that we don't just doesn't understand who the Rangers are. Our record is out there for all to see. As we like to say, we are the final part of the permiting process. When all legalities been exhausted, and the lawbreakers are still breaking the law, we willingly do law enforcement's job for them. We don't think that we need some outta state billionaire to interpret our Montana Constitution for us. For you see, as Steinbeck said of the Okies, "They are the land". And he said of the bankers, "The land was them". We Rangers are Montana. Kennedy is some rich moron from outta state who bought a nice piece of Montana. If he doesn't want to be a good neighor, we'll make him into one! Simple as that.
Comment By Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers!, 4-15-07p.s. End of story. Please take my missive to mr. kennedy. And let him know that Montana is Ranger country.
Comment By Jesse, 4-15-07Larry you give terrorists a bad name, why don't you deliver your missive yourself. As far as your group environmental rangers, shouldn't it be radical rangers, since when does an enviro group support access for recreating, don't you know that recreating hurts the environment. It's nice to see that the environmental rangers are above the law in your world, and what a grand world it is for Larry.
Comment By floater, 4-15-07Jesse - RE: last message to Larry! "You must have a hole in your head. How would one deliver a missive himself. Try to contact J.C. (he must think he is the 2nd) Kennedy, his gate is locked, try to get a phone # for him or his private henchman. Try to locate where he is at any point in time. Let us all know how to locate him and I'm sure many people would be happy to call him, pay him a visit, or write him." signed Floater
Comment By Craig Moore, 4-15-07Floater, if a landowner commits fraud on the state there are specific penalties, including jail, to address it.
Comment By Jesse, 4-15-07There are 306 beautiful access sites in Montana, the Ruby has several on it. The lower Ruby has a total of one good month if that to fish on it. The lower Ruby is not capable of being floated, or should it be floated. Currently there are ongoing hydrology studies being done on the lower Ruby. These studies will confirm it is not wise to allow floating for this portion. Let's use some common sense, even the outfitters don't fish the lower Ruby, why because its not that great, most of them go to Melrose, why, because that is where the fishing is good.
Comment By Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers!, 4-15-07p.s.s. Republicans and rich outta staters like Kennutty just have to be some of the dumbest sumbitches around. Do they even understand what Montanans do when the finally get real pissed off? I-137. That's what we do. But Republicans and outta staters are too friggin' stupid to understand. I feel a stream access initiative coming on. And guess what? It'll be a good one. And what Kennutty doesn't understand is that NO amount of money will defeat it. I-137. He's used to buying people. But when it comes to our outdoors, it ain't for sale! I suggest that Kennutty study some recent Montana history about the gold mining issues. We pretty much settled that one. And we're ready again! Here, mr. kennutty, google I-137.
Comment By Jesse, 4-15-07si senor Larry, Loco.
Comment By floater, 4-15-07Jesse - Tell the 100+ people who floated the Ruby during the Flotilla last summer that this lower section was not "capable of being floated." I don't think I'm going to comment on your statements anymore. I don't think that you know what you are talking about. Your credibility rates a zero. You still don't know what an easement is. Perhaps you should go back to grade school and learn to read and also pay attention this time and learn some logic. Larry is right - a statewide intiative will take the wind out of many locos.
Comment By Jesse, 4-15-07Obviously you were not one of the floaters, I was told by the floaters that they had to get out numerous times to navigate their floats around sand bars and floats were dragging on the bottom in places, it took one floater over 10 hours to just get to the park. So you need to get your facts straight. This was the float in with the PLAAI on the lower Ruby 2 years ago in July which ended up in the Riverside Park in the town of Twin where the fairgrounds are. The Flotilla, which you are talking about is held at the Fairgrounds in Twin, if you really knew what you were talking about you would know that is the Beaverhead River where the Flotilla is held, not the Ruby!!! The Ruby dumps into the Beaverhead. So who has no credibility now, with a tag name of floater you should know this.
Comment By floater, 4-15-07Jesse & J.C. I thought I was finished with your prattle but one more reply in case some reader wants to evaluate your credibility -- On 3.25.07 you wrote quote "THE GREAT MIGHTY FLOAT ... RIGHT THROUGH JAMES KENNEDY'S PROPERTY NOT TO MENTION OTHER LANDOWNERS... OVER 100 PARTICIPANTS, ON JAMES KENNEDY'S PROPERTY (correction-public waters)...The Flotilla that you refer to is a different one. It begins in Twin and is represented by a local businesses. We are only addressing the Flotilla where people floated on the lower Ruby-Beaverhead. You are a very confused man. So therefore floater is going to float away from any more of your comments unless you finally tell me the definition of an easement. If you think that the floaters had such a miserable time, just wait until you see the interest in the next FLOTILLA! You should plan on floating with Larry and the environmental rangers. floater
Comment By Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers!, 4-15-07Actually, I spoke to some other Rangers tonight and let them know that I was trying to pick a fight with this idiot billionaire kennutty and his henchmen. In the Rangers, we do everything kinda like the Native Americans did, by council. There are no leaders per se. Each man chooses for himself which mission he wishes to participate in. And to a man tonight, the Rangers I spoke with agreed that this was something that we need to do. We will be down in West Yellowstone around June 9 and 10th for a rendevouz with the Buffalo Field Campaign, our allies in the fight to protect the Yellowstone Bison. Then, we plan to head back through Ruby River area to get a look at mr. kennutty's property and his fence. Before we undertake a mission, we like to become familiar with the surrounding terrain. A recon if you will. It helps us to better plan for any eventualities that might occur. And then, if necessary, we will return and complete the mission. So, mr. kennutty, we'll see you soon.
Comment By Jesse, 4-16-07floater you are the confused one, you called it the flotilla I didn't. The flotilla and the float- in are two different things, now regarding the float- in, just because they throw floats in does not mean it was easy floating, as you can well note that on such a small stretch of river it should not take 10 hours to float unless you are having to get out and move your float along because it is getting caught on sand bars and dragging bottom. I personally talked to floaters that day and that is what they had to say. I even enjoyed a hotdog at the park and visited with the floaters. Did you? Larry how do you decide what species to protect? The bison deserve the great rangers protection but not the trout? What about the fisherman that are killing the fish, is that any different than those killing the buffalo? Just wondering where the radicals draw the line? So your posse will pull into the Ruby all one hundred of you crawling over the fences breaking down the shrubs, and banks, tearing up the soil to get into the river, tearing up all the delicate flora and fauna. Causing more erosion of the delicate river banks, causing the water temperature to rise in the river even more during the hot summer, because of the folage and brush you killed, mudding up the stream, putting extra stress on the trout, which in turn kills the trout. But you being the environmental ranger that you are, you know these things, But that environment isn't important to the rangers, because their hypocrites. Don't you know that TU got the trout water rights in Montana? They have rights now too. So you better be careful to not harrass the trout of the Ruby or TU will sue.
Comment By Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers!, 4-16-07Actually, I don't buy in to this latest ridiculous rightwing rich fella notion of the "tragedy of the commons". I'm sure that you're quite familiar with it. You know, the idea that some rich guy, by preventing public access, will take much better care of the land and thereby preserve it for all of us. What horse sh*t! And I can tell by your comments that that is where you're headed. I think that here in Montana we'll do as we've always done. And that is protect our resources ourselves. We don't need/want the beneficence of kings/billionaires. We in the Montana public are more than up to the task of stewardship of our resources.
Comment By Jesse, 4-16-07To all those who want to float, fish, recreate on the Ruby start at the dam and work your way down, go to each bridge site, go in and recreate, you will find that access is not being denied by the rich out of stater, this is just hype, while your at it, try the numerous FWP access sites along the Ruby, they are very nice as well. Larry the very thing you talk about is the very thing our NPS does. They are protecting the Parks from us the people, yet it is public land. They do it in the name of preservation. The very park your precious buffalo are in. Like I said before your a hypocrite, you don't practice what you preach or Teach.
This article was printed from www.newwest.net at the following URL: http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/stream_access_becomes_a_three_front_in_montana/C70/L37/