Stream Access Law? Private Property Rights? Sportsman Access? … Who Wants To Know?
By Greg Lemon, 5-24-06
When telemarketers call I try to remember my Sunday School lessons. I actually try to be gracious and give them a chance to state their business before I hang up. Monday afternoon, just as I was ready to shut off the computer and crack open a beer, the phone rang. I expected the institutional voice I got on the other end of the line. What I didn’t expect were the questions he asked.For nearly 20 minutes he grilled me concerning my views on issues, people and groups all involved in public access in Montana.
The first questions probed me about my feelings concerning a variety of interest groups like the Montana Farm Bureau, Montana Wildlife Federation and the Montana Stockgrowers association. Then he wanted to know how I felt about Gov. Brian Schweitzer, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks and Montana’s Stream Access Law. He also asked me how I felt about out-of-state landowners. When I asked him to clarify what he meant by “out-of-state landowners,” he couldn’t. He said he didn’t have a sheet of definitions, only questions.
For the past two years I have been reporting on land management and sportsmen issues in Western Montana. Given the recent decision concerning the Mitchell Slough in Ravalli County and the ongoing struggle around public access to the Ruby River near Dillon, the stream access question piqued my interest. And the fact that he dropped the over-used buzz-phrase, “out-of-state landowners,” was certainly another tickle.
Over the course of the survey I was asked whether public access has decreased in Montana, did I think private landowners had an obligation to provide public access and how did I feel about possible legislation giving land owners financial incentives for allowing public to hunt big game on their land.
Before I hung up, I asked the surveyor who was funding the survey, what company he worked for and where was he calling from. His call center was in New Mexico and he worked for Research Data Design, but he had no idea who was funding the survey.
Yesterday morning I woke up determined to find out who was funding the survey and why. Research Data Design has an office in Missoula and they were my first call. They wouldn’t answer any questions but rather forwarded me on to the corporate office in Portland.
The corporate office told me there was a confidentiality agreement and they couldn’t give me the name of the people who funded the survey nor could they provide me a list of questions.
Odd huh? They could ask the public these questions but they couldn’t give them the survey?
However they did throw me a bone – they would pass my contact information onto the mystery group backing the survey and let them know I was interested in talking to them.
Undeterred, spent the rest of the day calling everyone from the Governor’s office, to the Montana Farm Bureau and Montana Trout Unlimited. I talked to conservatives and liberals alike trying to sniff out a lead on what this mystery organization was. I got nowhere, but every one I talked to was keenly interested in the survey and any information I could find.
During my research, I was told that during an election year surveys are common. The type I was given is an expensive kind – long and thorough. The guy I talked with at the BlueRibbon Coalition guessed it may have cost upwards of $1 million.
So someone with a lot of money wants to know what Montanans think about some of the most controversial issues facing sportsmen and private landowners today. I don’t expect a call from the mystery group, but I do expect to see some hint of the results within a month or two. My guess is the information gathered will be used to support their cause. Just what that cause is, I guess, is the true mystery. [End of article]
Well, my first response would have been, who are you and who's funding this study. Without a good answer, I would have hung up immediately.
Comment By Steve Thompson, 5-24-06Good luck in tracking down whomever commissioned this survey. Knowing the source would give a good idea if our public access rights are under imminent attack or if someone is just preparing to keep them alive.
One conclusion I draw from this column,however, is that the Blue Ribbon Coalition, an advocate for unfettered backcountry motorized access, is a very unreliable source of speculative information. The price tag for a 20-minute survey of randomly selected Montana residents most definitely is not $1 million ... not even close. A high-end estimate for a robust 600-person survey would be more like $60,000.
Greg,
As a video producer, I believe I was contacted to shoot video for Data Research Design when they were doing focus groups in Montana a few years ago. I didn't take the gig -- probably should have just to learn what they were up to. What I did find out was that they were working for the opposition to the clean water initiative that was on the ballot that year. You know, the one banning cyanide heap leaching. From their focus groups they crafted a series of advertisements telling us how great gold mining was for the state of Montana. They also ran some push polls -- the polls that start out sounding like surveys but end up with a message. Something like, "If the election were held today would you vote to ban gold mining in Montana, thereby throwing hundreds of people out of work and sending the Montana economy into a downward spiral?" This kind of sounds like the survey you got. Good luck tracking these varmints down.
If there is any big money behind support for Montana's stream access law, it is news to me.
As far as I know the big money is always there for the endless legal challenges to stream and public lands access
as Mr. James Cox Kennedy has demonstrated on the Ruby River..
Dispite the laws in place ArticleIX,Section3(3)of the Montana Constitution that provides "the the waters in the State or property of the State for use of its people" and the landmark Montana Stream Access Law(1984)HB 265 which reinforces the public's right to use stream and rivers up to the high water mark efforts continue to take away what is lawfully ours.Efforts to challenge Montana's Stream Access Law failed twice in federal district court.The latest attempt to fence and provide 'barriers' at bridges is an attempt to circumvent the law.Little help seems forthcoming from counties to enforce the 60' right of way on county roads,30 feet from the center line which should be marked at all bridges. Having the countires carry out the Attorney Generals opinion is little more than the 'fox guarding the hen house'.Where is our Attorney General on this issue today? ..can't be found. 'Influence peddling' by mostly out of state wealthy landowners who don't want us on our public water catching our public fish seems on the increase. Clever fences to keep us out of our streams and rivers and to 'privatize' our public wildlife.Real estate 'peddles' all this as well when they sell property to the out of state rich and won't tell the truth on Montana's Stream Access Law..follow the money trail.Wake up Montanans and FWP this will get more serious.The rich and famous want our fish and wildlife you can count on it,will we let them? The laws are on our side so use them.Put more pressure on the Attorney General&FWP;to enforce our stream laws that is what we are paying them to do.The streambeds are also public as well.The Unlawful Inclosures Act of 1885 as amended applies here as well(people access to and from public land) in my opinion but no one has look into it why? Ask an Attorney,ask our Attorney General that is why we pay him. We sent it all there two years ago so where is it? Jack D.Jones
This article was printed from www.newwest.net at the following URL: http://www.newwest.net/main/article/stream_access_law_private_property_rights_sportsman_access_who_wants_to_kno/