Guest Column: Trout Unlimited President and CEO
Finding the Nexus Between Access and Conservation
By TU President Charles Gauvin , Guest Writer, 3-23-07
 |
|
 | |
| Charles Gauvin. Photo courtesy of Trout Unlimited. | |
|
In poll after poll, hunters and anglers from across the country identify access to places to hunt and fish as the most important issue for sportsmen. Knowing this, one might ask why Trout Unlimited would consider, and consider is the operative word, not engaging in disputes over access between private landowners and anglers, as reported in Hal Herring’s recent New West column.
Trout Unlimited’s mission – conserving, protecting and restoring North America’s trout fisheries and their watersheds – hasn’t changed since 1959. What has changed is the magnitude of threats facing North America’s fish and wildlife. Energy development, roads, drought and dewatered streams all form a grim baseline – even before considering how things can be made worse due to the effects of climate change.
Sportsmen, be they members of Trout Unlimited or not, need to work together to protect the best remaining fish and wildlife habitats and to reconnect those to restored watersheds. Trout Unlimited has a long record in Montana of defending roadless areas, restoring stream-flows, protecting places such as the Rocky Mountain Front from energy development and opposing mining below wilderness areas such as the Cabinet Mountains. I yield to no one when it comes to directing TU to be aggressive and adversarial if need-be with private, often seriously-moneyed interests, when doing so is part of the organization’s mission.
The problem with access disputes is that they pit TU members against TU members and sportsmen against sportsmen. Rich or poor, moneyed or not, site-specific access disputes involving private property inevitably devolve into he-said-she-said affairs. Without often long and expensive legal proceedings, the truth is hard to find. Rather than allow those types of battles to consume our energy and resources, sportsmen ought to work together at ways to expand sportsmen access without engaging in private property disputes with landowners.
For example, we ought to unite behind efforts to expand existing hunting and fishing access by securing new state and federal funding sources that provide incentives to landowners to allow sportsmen access. We ought to be working in concert with land trusts to acquire high value conservation lands that include easements for sportsmen access. We ought to be pressuring public agencies such as the Forest Service – which owns deteriorating road systems that harm fish habitat and effectively block sportsmen access – to take better care of their roads.
As sportsmen, we need access to places to fish and hunt. As conservationists, we need to be able to work with private landowners on restoration projects. Access disputes that devolve into class warfare arguments of the Haves and Have-Nots accomplish neither objective and slow progress toward our shared objectives of land protection and watershed restoration.
Charles Gauvin is the President and CEO of Trout Unlimited. He lives in Maine.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
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.
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.
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
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!"
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.