Trout stream access controversy arises over Bill 78

Dear Editor:

I know I'm not the Lone Ranger when I say I'm out of patience with politicians pushing their own agendas, rather than doing what's best for the people they represent.

Rep. Chas Vincent reinforces my frustration with his letter printed in Libby's Western News on May 7. In it, he touts his own horn and thanks a Mr. Munday (a college professor and avid fisherman from Butte) for giving him the "credit" for sinking Senate Bill 78, also known as the Bridge Access Bill.

I considered ill 78 a common sense no-brainer when it was introduced. Its intent was to clarify, or codify, in legal lingo, recreational access from county bridges of our rivers and streams. Montana's Stream Access Law guarantees these waterways are open to everyone. By denying entry from public right of ways, a few fat cats have tried to make stretches of the blue ribbon trout streams running in front of their estates—the Madison, Beaverhead, Ruby and others—their private domain. Attaching fences to county bridges has become a dubious technique to accomplish this. Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks has indentified approximately 131 sites where problems and the potential for future conflicts exist. Each situation ill have to be interpreted and resolved on a case-by-case basis involving the County, landowner and sportsperson or group questioning the access. This sounds like a lawyer's dream come true.

Local sportsmen's groups, county commissioners and Trout Unlimited looked forward to having this issue resolved, not exactly groups I would describe as "bad actors". Personally, I wouldn't think you'd need a lawyer to figure out if a river is easily accessible, but, in retrospect, you obviously do. Gov. Schweitzer, a rancher himself, put in perspective when he said, "I know what a fence looks like to keep a bull in and I know what a fence looks like to keep a boat out".

Only in the 2007 Montana Legislature could trout fishiing turn into a bipartisan controversy. Judging from the tone of Rep. Vincent's letter, he seems to relish the fact he used his political maneuvering to stik it to the sportsmen of Montana. I'm scratching my head because I know ranchers who take their fishing seriously, along with quire a few Republicans, too. Not to mention, representing Lincoln County where the traditions of hunting and fishing are probably more revered thann anywhere on the planet, spending valuable legislative time (and being proud of it!) "sinking" this bill was definitely not in the best interests of his constituents.

I'm really confused by Rep. Vincent's letter with some of the issues he perceives he addressed in his stance on Bill 78 —"partisan politics, urban and rural realities of life," defining "reasonable access" (which was actually dropped from the final draft, anyway), "private property" rights—when the issue is public property rights. All this over a bill that just might have let me go fishing some Saturday afternoon without winding up in court. That's all that was really on the agenda.

Tom Horelick