Letter: Setting record straight on SB78

(Editor's note: The following letter was originally submitted as a response to a letter that appeared in the Missoulian. That letter appears in this edition of The Western News).

Dear Editor:

I am writing in response to Mr. Horelick's attack on Representative Vincent and the bridge access bill (SB78).

To set the record straight, Rep. Vincent did not vote against access ' he proposed a much-needed amendment in an attempt to mitigate the erosion of sportsmen/landowner relationships that would have followed without it.

Horelick stated that the intent of the bill was to 'clear up the legality' of access streams at brides. This bill fell far short of that intent. SB78 would have actually increased litigation, increased liability for landowners and counties, and created more controversy.

For example, SB78 provided three pages of legislation for the simple act of a landowner attaching a fence to a bridge to contain livestock, and it expanded county road and bridge rights-of-way to 60 feet without due process and without compensation. Overall, SB 78 was a poorly drafted and internally inconsistent piece of legislation.

This bill conflicted with existing law on stream access, county bridges and county roads. SB78 was also likely unconstitutional in its expansion of rights-of-way. In fact, after the House committee hearing, both Democrat and Republican legislators expressed serious doubts about the bill and it died.

Following the recent court decision by Judge Tucker on the bridge access issue, there is clear precedent that will allow us to move forward productively with this dialogue. We have an opportunity now to protect private property rights and sportsmen's rights, instead of focusing on past failed legislation that did neither.

Terry Murphy

St. Ignatius