I strongly support the 2004 Attorney General opinion regarding access to streams from county bridges. In the opinion, the AG stated, in essence, that since rivers and streams in Montana are public rights-of-way, and certainly, county roads are, then the intersection of those two rights-of-way--county bridges--are public for purposes of access to rivers and streams. I was the House sponsor of Senate Bill 78 in the 2007 Legislative Session, and tried to "blast" the bill from the House Fish, Wildlife, and Parks committee where it had been tabled. In my remarks, I said, "Montana’s Stream Access Law states that all Montanans have the right to use their rivers and streams for recreation. In addition, our Constitution in Article 9 [Art. 9, Sect. 3 (3)] provides for the use of the waters of the state for its people and to hunt and fish [harvest heritage—to harvest wild fish and game [Art. 9, Sect. 7]]. Senate Bill 78 clarifies access for each and every one of us--landowners, recreationists, county governments, and ranchers. Montana’s stream access is a fundamental part of our Montana legacy of outdoorsmanship, stewardship, and recreation. This bill is a balance between recreationists and private property owners because it affirms the private ownership of the land and Montana’s public rivers and streams. In 1985, Montana passed its Stream Access Law. Now, twenty-two years later, we have Senate Bill 78 to clarify access and property owner’s rights. This bill is very limited in its scope: it addresses only stream access at county bridges. It does not condone trespass onto private property, nor does it take property for access. It does clarify that landowners, for the first time, may legally attach bridges in a county right-of-way. Hunting and fishing are important Montana values and traditions, and the vast majority of recreationists and landowners, are respectful of the land and are courteous. But there are those who cross private property, or those who block public access, and so there are a couple of court cases in progress now. Montanans could wait for the courts to decide our access issue, but we as the policy-making body should be the ones to clarify public access for ourselves, our friends, neighbors, our families, constituents, guests, and citizens. We can bring this bill for consideration in the form it which it had bipartisan support from the Senate. I have faith in this body. As elected representatives of the people, we can solve this issue, instead of leaving it to the courts. We can balance the rights and responsibilities of the public, and of private landowners, and of county governments. Without rules, there will be people who go too far, and we should be the ones to shape workable law for ourselves. Good fences make good neighbors. This bill helps make both." I don't know anyone who fishes or hunts only on property they own; no one. And the Montana heritage of responsible land stewardship, hunting and fishing, recreation, and sport must be preserved. Montana will not become a pay-to-play state. I support public access, and our rights to our watercourses and wildlife as guaranteed in our constitution.

Public property rights are as important as private property rights, and for different reasons. The Montana heritage of hunting and fishing and access to public lands and waterways is well-established in our constitution, and we must withstand pressures to privatize. Private landowners do not have the right to bar people from public roads and public access sites. Gallatin County, part of which I represent, has fought landowners who have placed locked gates across county roads, who have hired armed "gatekeepers" to subdivisions that are accessed by public roads, etc. Montana landowners have responsibilities to their private and public lands.

Yes. I co-sponsored House Bill 831 in the 2007 session, a truly bipartisan effort. The bill protects water quality and water quantity in closed basins, five of which exist, all in western Montana. One of the key motivators of the bill for me was consideration of the limitations of closed basins, where all of the available water is appropriated for beneficial uses (and for which the basin, or river drainage, is closed to more applications for water rights.) In-stream flows in some of our most pristine, valued, and threatened watercourses--the Gallatin, Madison, and Jefferson Rivers, among others--drove the legislation. I worked to establish standards by which changes in water use could be filed, for which the aquifers could be recharged with quality water, not sewage, and for which in-stream flows in watercourses were as important as water users' rights. The bill requires, for the first time, the two agencies tasked with enforcing water quality and water quantity issues--the Department of Environmental Quality, and the Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, respectively--to both consider applications for new water rights in closed basins. Until HB831 passed, the agencies did not consider both quantity and quality of waters in the most appropriated basins! I also supported other in-stream flow legislation and will continue to do so.

Yes. The Public Trust Doctrine establishes that wildlife in Montana is not under private ownership, and that the legal public access to that wildlife, and the right to hunt and fish, is well-protected for the public.

Many of us have already recognized that we must protect our waters, and that, as established in our state constitution, waters of the state are the property of the state for use by its citizens. In the 2007 session, I gladly supported legislation to keep minimum water levels in Fort Peck Reservoir. The bill was needed to counter pressure from downstream states to release waters so that barges could be floated on the Missouri, but we recognize that our water is more precious in our beneficial uses than as a medium by which to transport goods. I am also working on legislation and policy to protect Montana waters from upstream waters coming into Montana from other states and provinces that has been polluted with mining wastewater, highly salinated and mineralized, and affecting our rivers and our beneficial uses. I believe our water is our most precious resource; in the years to come, we'll need to protect and defend our headwaters more than ever before.

Yes.

Last year, hunting seasons were extended to reduce elk and deer populations. I support extending hunting seasons per FWP guidelines for managing populations to reduce the stress on habitat and on herds.