Tomorrow, people will begin converging on the Montana Capitol Building in Helena to put the boots to those supporting HB 309 – the latest anti-stream access legislation making it’s way through the Montana legislature.
The Montana fly fishing blogs have done an admirable job keeping the rest of the world informed about what’s really happening: Chiwulff states their case here, and WillFishForWork offers up an excellent summary of the whole mess in this information-laden post (excerpt follows, but you’ll want to read the whole thing):
Tuesday March 8th is the big day in Helena. Senate hearings start up and on the agenda is Montana Stream Access HB 309, the “ditch†bill. Stream access supporters will be gathering to tar and feather the representatives supporting the bill voice opposition to this bill. The Rally will start at 2 PM, in the Old Supreme Court Chambers in the Capital Building in Helena.
The dust has settled a bit over the last week or so since the bill made it through the house and onto the senate floor. Askaboutflyfishing.com was good enough to donate some of it’s air time on Wednesday evenings show to put a quick spotlight on HB 309 and posting a link off their site to find out more about putting this bill down.
On the opposite side of the ditch issue we hear from Rep. Debby Barrett (R) from Dillon on Montana TU’s opposition to HB 309, Barrett refers to the TU as Dr. Suess’ Lorax, “I am the Lorax, I speak for the trees†and (Trout Unlimited) “professes to speak for sound water policy and senior water right holders in Montana, but the honest truth is that Trout Unlimited represents a very narrow and radical view on Montana’s water that helps no one but Trout Unlimited make a name for itselfâ€. Hmm, narrow and radical view. Sounds like pot calling the kettle black. If Montana TU is a narrow minded bunch of radicals, what does that make the Montana Farm Bureau, the Senate Ag committee, Huey L. and Charles S.? The voices of open democracy?
If you’re not up-to-date on this issue, HB 309 is an attempt by a handful of legislators to redefine “irrigation ditch” so a couple wealthy landowners won’t have to abide by a recent Montana State Supreme Court decision granting public access to Mitchell Slough.
The misinformation flowing from HB 309 proponents has been intense; they invariably neglect to mention that irrigation ditches are already clearly defined under Montana law, and that HB 309 has serious potential for misapplication – some have noted that some Montana’s biggest (and best) fly fishing destinations could be reclassified as “ditches” under the law.
As noted above, a couple of attacks have been launched against Montana Trout Unlimited and those who would are fighting to kill HB 309 – attacks which invariably ignore the real issues in favor of a constant stream of strawmen.
Let’s hope this hummer doesn’t have the votes to get out of the Montana Senate, and that a sizable crowd shows up tomorrow and drops the hammer on this whole charade.
See you in the ditches, Tom Chandler.
Wow, TU is considered “radical”? These are funny times.
Matt(Quote)
Seems to me that Montana has a lot riding on the trout fishing industry. It’s hard to understand why the state legislature would allow that to be hijacked by a few selfish (and sometimes absent) landowners.
Kentucky Jim(Quote)
In most of the western states (and Siskiyou County), tourism and recreation have far larger financial impacts than ranching or extractive industry (mining, timber, etc), yet those groups have always wielded far more power.
In Siskiyou County, the supervisors for the north (ag) end of the county have made statements like “fishing isn’t a viable economic activity in Siskiyou County” and undercut tourism & recreation at almost every opportunity.
Tom Chandler(Quote)
Who are these wealthy landowners? Seems one could troll through the political contributions to Rep. Jeff Wellborn and find some of those names. Perhaps those folks should get listed as cosponsors and be publicly castigated (or castrated).
Steve Z(Quote)
Of the 36 folks who gave over $100 to Welborn (up to the $160 max), 5 were professionals (attorneys, bankers, etc), 5 were retirees, 10 ranchers, 9 business owners and 7 who didn’t fit in the above categories. He also took ~$1,500 from PACs. None of the names jumped out at me but I assume ranchers, professionals and retirees with $s probably all count in the wealthy landowner category.
Steve Z(Quote)
Unfortunately Steve, it’s very unlikely that Welborn was the one that actually did anything but submit the bill – in all likelihood it was drafted and put forth by others who do get money from Huey Lewis and Schwab and no doubt Mr. James Kennedy of the famous Ruby Valley fiasco… The folks with that kind of $ won’t contribute in any way that can be directly linked to them, but make no doubt, it’s not a bunch of “small ranchers and farmers†that are interested in keeping the big bad sportsman from floating down their irrigation ditches, this is a political power grab by some very wealthy, very much out of state interests who seek to keep their little piece of “heaven†to themselves…
KrisInBZN(Quote)
According to the UN.. world population will double to around 9 billion by two thousand fifty.
Even if this bill passes I cant see humanity allowing a privelleged few to lock up access to such a wide natural resource. What you see in Libya at the moment will look like The Vienna Boys at choir practice compared to what will ultimately prevail.
Matt(Quote)