Montana stream access

[JAD]

Well here we go again, the rich boys are trying to back door us again, this time they want to make it illegal to access the rivers from PUBLIC road bridges. Bill sponsored in the house by a republican rep from Billings. Call your local Reps and start screaming. On a positive note there is another bill that just passed in the Senate that would require landowners to provide public access off of bridges if they fence up to them. We need to support this one. Get on the phone, this is the real deal.
The bad bill is HB 642, and it was introduced by the chairman of the Fish & Game committee Mike Milburn R-Cascade . The chairman saw to it that the good bill SB78, which has passed the Senate, would be heard after his bill, which is scheduled for its first hearing on Tuesday.
I would urge you to IMMEDIATELY email members of the committee (I've listed their email addresses below). Here's what I wrote them (please re-word your comments and personalize to suit):
Dear Fish & Game committee member:
I have just learned of the introduction of HB 642, which flies in the
face of the 2000 Attorney Generals opinion that clearly established
the right of the public to access our streams and rivers from public
bridges and the rights-of-way of the roads approaching bridges.
HB 642 is in direct contravention of the 1985 Stream Access Law, which
grants members of the public access to rivers and streams for
recreation purposes between the ordinary high-water marks.
Appallingly, this bill clearly seeks to undermine the Stream Access Law
and restrict the public right to access our precious, public resources.
I STRONGLY urge you to defeat HB 642 and support SB 78, which codifies
the Attorney Generals opinion and infringes on NEITHER the public nor
the landowner. HB 642 is an embarrassment to Republicans and landowners
(both, like myself) who realize that what makes Montana great is not
only our natural resources, but having the ability to access them.




Thank you!

mmilburn@mcn.net
arlene_becker@bresnan.net
hendrickhd14@yahoo.com
grt3177@smtel.com
branae@earthlink.net
bcdc@digisys.net
rdriscoll@peoplepc.com
dutton4mt@hotmail.com
groesbeckforhouse@hotmail.com
ehilbert@midrivers.com
rickjore@hotmail.com
klock@mtintouch.net
koopman@imt.net
kenneth59@bresnan.net
mikephillips@montana.net
kendallvandyk@gmail.com
cvvincent@hotmail.com
hd84ward@wmconnect.com
bw22@bresnan.net

JaD

 

[jrcll]

I go to missoula montana every year and fish with the same guides and they say every year there is somone tries to get a bill passed to restrict public access look what ted turner did on the ruby afew years ago, putting a fence across it saing he owned it and it took the gov of montana to get him to remove it, the native people of montana have no problem with public access its the rich moving in from cali that are trying to change things

 

[JAD]

The commission is currently seeking additional funding to purchase access to streams and lakes in Pennsylvania. In response, many are concerned that it might pave the way to landowners wanting reimbursement for access to their waters, setting into motion a domino effect throughout the state, in somewhat the same manner private clubs may have an impact on the amount of water open to the public. The question, not yet fully answered, is what lakes and streams are worth paying access fees for and which ones aren’t.
The blue-collar public, once the backbone of hunting and fishing and thus license sales, may not be able to afford the tariff in the future, which can and often does run well into thousands of dollars per year. Often billed as “Exclusive” fishing or hunting clubs, the meaning of the world alone should be something to sit up, read and comprehend, “excluding certain people, as for social or economic reasons.”
The problem has been impacting anglers and hunters for years, and was once the rule of the England many of our ancestors departed in search of a better life. Perhaps if anglers and hunters would have been better caretakers, picking up their trash and not leaving gates open and fences in need of mending, the problems would have not have come as quickly. Of course most hunters and anglers are not to blame, but that faction that resides in every community.
Today, the trend to pay far more than the cost of a license and gear seems to be spreading across the state and the country at an alarming rate and all water resource users should take notice.
While we do have the privilege to fish and hunt state lands, , many, many waters are found on private lands. While the PFC may think that purchasing access is a good idea, it may comeback to haunt us in the future, even though at the moment it may seem like a good idea and would allow access to a far greater number of resource users than it might under private control.
The answers will most likely be played out throughout the country in a wide variety of courts, not an inexpensive course to take, but one that will, as it often does, find its way into every corner of outdoor recreation. I would hope that a compromise could be reached before it happens and some thoughtful people could sit down and hash out the land issues that have extremely important sides. This land is my land, this land is your land isn’t as cut and dry as it may first seem


JaD