New West Breaks Down the Montana Stream Access Legislation
By Tom Chandler on Jan 11, 2007 in News
The access battle has been raging in Montana for years, particularly along the Ruby River. Landowners try to keep anglers out. And anglers try equally hard to get in.
A new law designed to clarify stream access has been introduced, and New West (an online magazine worth reading) lays out the latest stream access legislation for us, including this explanatory passage:
Sponsored by Sen. Lane Larson, D-Billings, the bill would define and codify public access to streams and rivers from a county bridge adjacent to private property. Under the law, ranchers wishing to control livestock or private landowners with other uses would be allowed to attach fences to county road bridges or abutments, so long as the fence provides “adequate” public access to streams and rivers.
Landowners attaching a fence to a public access point would, for example, be required to cover a few feet of their barbed wire fence with PVC piping, use smooth wire at that section, or build a gate. The bill provides $10,000 in funding to the Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks to reimburse landowners for steps they take to improve access, and outlines how an arbitration committee would settle disputes.
“They’re doing it now,” said Larson, referring to the actions of private landowners to attach fences. “They’re not attempting to keep their cows in, they’re attempting to keep people out.”
Issues like this don’t make for entertaining blog fodder (unless you’re making farting noises with your armpit while reading this).
Still, coupled with the privatization discussion below, it’s clear what’s become the Underground’s Massive Issue of the Week So Far.
Source: Montana Stream Access: New Legislature, Old Problem | Politics | New West Network
Technorati Tags: montana, stream access, ruby river, new west, larson, fly fishing
C4CRaine | Jan 11, 2007 | Reply
I’m glad it’s not just us fisherman picking up on the new fencing policy…”Fence ‘em out” might be a good motto.
On a side note, you amaze me with the breadth of topics on the underground…where do you find the time?!
Tom Chandler | Jan 11, 2007 | Reply
I’m a Renaissance man. And pretty much a huge slacker.
clara chandler | Jan 12, 2007 | Reply
It would be nice if you could fish where you wish and the land owner used to be glad to share. HOWEVER there is two sides to this story and the other side needs to be told. How many of your gender did not lock the gate behind you, cut the fence instead of working your way around it. Leave your trash and other remains where ever it drops, take home a bit of the land with you like a calf or even a whole cut up animal? Do you ever pound nails into the trees to hang your belongs on? How can you tell the fisheman from PETA who is entering the land and doing dangerous things to the animal? Do the good fishermen wear good guy tags? The land was shared at one time. Why do you think perhaps this has stopped? Be fair and think this through. I know, I was from the land and still love the food that comes from it.
Tom Chandler | Jan 12, 2007 | Reply
Aha! This indeed an auspicious day. Undergrounders, welcome to the post below the first post of the Trout Underground’s Mom!
She grew up on a farm in upstate New York, so her perspective is certainly valuable. I remember visiting the relatives and hearing the horror stories about snowmobilers cutting fences, scaring the cows, etc.
And she makes another good point: since you can’t tell the “good guys” from the people who litter, trespass, whatever, everyone’s going to get tarred with the same “worst case scenario” brush.
Clay | Jan 14, 2007 | Reply
I have found that if youre courteous, approach the land owner and ask permission they are more apt to let you fish. (Don’t try to sneak on the property, that is what pisses them off). If you leave the property litter free, (maybe even pick up some trash from the property/river) you may even make a friend. I have property and have had both scenarios. The people who “sneak” on I remember and have bannished. The courteous ones I have eventually fished with and invited to stay for dinner or a scotch. If you use respect you get respect (and sometimes good scotch).
Tom Chandler | Jan 14, 2007 | Reply
The courteous approach is always good, but the issue at hand in the article has to do with landowners attempting to deny lawful access.
We’ve had our share of those issues here on the Upper Sacramento, though certainly not to the extent they have in Montana.