1. What is your view of the 2004 Attorney General Opinion regarding access to streams from county road bridges ?
There is no 2004 Attorney General opinion regarding stream access and county bridges. There is however a May 6 2000 Att. Gen. Mazurek Opinion in which he held: 1.) Use of a county road right-of-way to gain access to streams and rivers is consistant with and reasonably incidental to the public's right to travel on county roads. 2.) A bridge and it's abutments are a part of the public highway, and are subject to the same public easement of passage as the highway to which they are attached. Therefore, the public may gain access to streams and rivers by using the bridge, it's right-of-way, and it's abutments. 3.) A member of the public must stay within the road and bridge easement to gain access to streams and rivers. Absent definition in the easement or deed to the contrary, the width of a bridge right-of-way easement is the same as the public highway to which it is attached. 4.) Access to streams and rivers from county roads and bridges is subject to the valid exercise of the county commission's polics power and it's statutory powers to manage county roads. 5.) Access to streams and rivers from county roads and bridges created by prescription is dependent upon the uses of the road during the prescriptive period. Firther, when Att. General Mazurek was questioned about the public's right to access to three county road bridges in Madison County on the Ruby River he noted three different kinds of roads. Dedicated, dedicated with restrictions imposed by the grantor, and prescriptive. He held that the public has a right of access at the first, declined to advise on the second, and said the public's right at prescritptive roads depends on historic use. Thus, my view of Att. Gen Mazurek's Opinion is that it pretty much reinterates or reconfirms the current state law, Recreational Use of Streams 23-2-301 through 23-2-322. And, both the Att. General's Opinion and state law concur that not all county road bridges provide the public with legal access. It is also my vies that any elected official, state employee, or member of the public claiming the public has a right to access streams and rivers at all county road bridges is intentionally and egregiously misrepresenting the law.
2. In your opinion are public property rights important - often as important as private property rights?
No. As an elected official in the State of Montana, I have taken the oath of office, "I do solemnly swear that I will support, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and the constitution of the state of Montana." In the Montana State constitution the right to acquire, possess, and protect private property is an inalienable right. And in both the U.S. Constitution and the State Constituion land cannot be taken without just compensation, and without due process of law.
3. Do you believe the state should be allowed to acquire water rights sufficient to allow major streams to function as natural aquatic systems?
The Montana State Constitution does not prioritize one beneficial use of our water over any other beneficial use. Also, we have good water laws in this state that currently protect aquatic systems from damage. I see no reason or justification for the state to acquire water rights for this purpose.
4. Are you familiar with and do you support the Public Trust Doctrine?
The framers of our 1972 State Constitution did discuss and consider including the Public Trust Doctrine in our state constitution. However, they decided not to include the Public Trust Doctrine. Both the U.S. Constitution and the state Constitution recognize and protect public lands, and provide for the use of public lands for all. I support multiple use and access to public lands for all uses.
5. Should we consider the sale of water in Montana’s rivers to be moved out of state?
This might take a Constitutional amendment, to sell Montana water out of state. During plentiful water years, with all Montana water right appropriations being met, it could be something to consider.
6. Should the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks remain the sole decision maker for the allocation of licenses and permits that determine who may legally hunt and harvest Montana wildlife ?
Fwp should continue to manage the wildlife in Montana according to law. This agency must adhere to state wildlife management plans and hunting quotas and licenses issues must be based on wildlife population objectives and current and correct data. Deciding who may legally hunt in Montana, might be beyond this agency's authority. Currently, changes to hunting regulations and licensing are state law and may only be amended or repealed by the legislature.
7. What should be done to reduce elk populations that exceed optimum numbers as defined in current management plans?
Currently and legally according to state law the agency has three options: 1. the department may decided to open a special season on the game 2. the department may destroy the animals 3. the department may authorize and grant the holders of the property permission to kill or destroy a specified number of the animals
|