The AG stream access opinion (May 2000) generally states that, “A bridge and its abutments are 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 also states that accesses to streams are subject to the county commission’s police power and its statutory power to manage county roads. Finally the opinion stated that access to streams from bridges on county roads created by prescription is dependent upon the uses of the road during the prescriptive period. I see this opinion as giving access to streams from highways and most county roads, depending on the use of the county road during the prescriptive period. Because there is ambiguity and apparent confusion around the issue, this opinion and its interpretation, I also think legislation to clarify access from county roads would be in order. The 2007 state legislative session failed to complete a bill to address this ambiguity and confusion due to the inability of land owners and sportsmen groups to come to consensus on a bill which addressed the concerns of both parties. As with many pieces of important legislation, the bill must be a win, win for both parties. It is particularly important in my view to maintain good relationships between landowners and sportsmen for the long term benefit of both parties’ interests. I think progress is being made on this issue and it will be addressed satisfactorily in the 2009 session. This is a bipartisan desire of both Republicans and Democrats and I am looking forward to working together to complete a good stream access bill in 2009.

The Montana constitution states that “acquiring, possessing and protecting property” are “inalienable rights” (Article II Section 3). The US constitution states that no State may “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property with out due process of law” (Article 14 sections 1). Clearly private property rights are primary in the US and Montana constitutions. It is my belief that when private property rights cease to have supremacy, our nation will fail to provide the freedom and therefore the prosperity that makes it great and unique among nations. No nation that does not protect private property will survive nor will its citizens prosper or be enabled to “pursue happiness”. The Montana constitution also states that “The opportunity to harvest wild fish and wild game animals is a heritage that shall forever be preserved to the individual citizens of the state and does not create a right to trespass on private property or diminution of other private rights” (Article 9 section 7). Therefore the opportunity to hunt and fish does not supersede inalienable private property rights. That said, the Montana constitution also states that public lands “shall be held in trust for the people” (Article 10 section 11). I think there is a clear trust the state has to enable access to public lands and streams. The Montana constitution makes clear private property is paramount, but that we also have a harvest heritage that shall be preserved for the individual citizens of the state. In this context, I do believe the stream access laws should to be clarified, and worked out so private land owners rights and considerations are respected, and the public is enabled access to public lands and streams. Both can and should be accomplished

HB 298 of the 2005 special session allowed the state to enter into voluntary leases to provide emergency in-stream flows during low water conditions. I voted for this bill and support this idea over the state buying water rights.

The public trust doctrine is the principle that certain resources are preserved for public use, and that the government is required to maintain it for the public's reasonable use. Unless I misunderstand, that is what the Montana constitution has in mind in Article 10 section 11. I have taken and oath to uphold the Montana constitution.

One should never say he will never consider anything. However, I don't see any compelling reason to do this.

The legislature is elected and accountable to the Montana voters and has the power to confer to the Montana department of Fish Wildlife and Parks authority to allocate licensees and permits and determine who may legally hunt and harvest Montana wildlife. FWP (nor anyone else) does not have nor should it have sole decision making power, it must manage wild game and fish according to law set by the legislature.

I understand that under state law FWP has several options. 1. Open a special season to harvest the game 2. Destroy the animals 3. Authorize and grant the holders of the property permission to kill a specified number of animals. I support the first option as the best option and then work with land owners to address the problem that has created excess elk populations. In some cases access may be a problem. I also support improving access if that is an issue in the over population of the elk.