# TU Proposes Backing Out of Stream Access Debate



## Hamilton Reef (Jan 20, 2000)

Trout Unlimited Proposes Backing Out of Stream Access Debate

Trout Unlimited, one of the nations largest and most active conservation organizations, is considering pulling itself out of the debate over public access to Americas rivers and streams. 
A proposed TU resolution states: Involvement in stream access disputes is divisive and a distraction from the mission. .The proposed amendments would prohibit TU involvement or participation in disputes that pit claims of public stream access against claims of private property rights.

It has become a surrogate for class warfare, Wood says.

Bloom has no patience for the proposed decision by the national board to abandon the access issue. This decision was made in the shadows by a bunch of East Coast city slickers who caved in to some rich landowners. 

http://www.newwest.net/index.php/to..._backing_out_of_stream_access_debate/C41/L41/


----------



## steelie (Sep 20, 2000)

Good Day,

Unfortunate. So is this to say, without actually saying it, that they are supportive of private stream ownership? It may only be a matter of time then before the US is like Europe in the sense of having to purchase daily licesnses to fish OUR rivers and streams. Dissappointing.

Steelie


----------



## quest32a (Sep 25, 2001)

steelie said:


> Good Day,
> 
> Unfortunate. So is this to say, without actually saying it, that they are supportive of private stream ownership? It may only be a matter of time then before the US is like Europe in the sense of having to purchase daily licesnses to fish OUR rivers and streams. Dissappointing.
> 
> Steelie


----------



## Hamilton Reef (Jan 20, 2000)

Stream access bill killed in committee

HELENA  What was billed as compromise legislation on the tricky issue of public access to rivers and streams ended up being anything but Tuesday night, when the bill died in committee because no one could agree on it.

"I'm really, really disappointed that they played politics with a bill that so many Montanans wanted," said Mark Aagenes, conservation director for the Montana Chapter of Trout Unlimited, one of the bill's leading supporters.

http://www.greatfallstribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070404/NEWS01/704040313/1002


----------



## Hamilton Reef (Jan 20, 2000)

No fence-sitting here
Montana residents are battling over access to prized trout streams

MISSOULA, Mont. -- Oh, give me land, lots of land Under starry skies above. 
Don't fence me in.

It is unlikely that more than 70 years ago, when Robert Fletcher, a Montana poet and state highway department worker, wrote the words popularized by Cole Porter and sung famously by Roy Rogers, that he envisioned a day when ranchers, landowners and lovers of the outdoors would battle over the right to fence off public trout streams.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...ll=chi-newsnationworld-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true


----------



## 22 Chuck (Feb 2, 2006)

Many in ND and Montana are now fenced. Just drive across those two states and there will be a fence on both sides of the interstate for 8-900 mi. We own most of both states but you would never know it .


----------



## steelie (Sep 20, 2000)

Good Day,

This is of concern I think to all, including the residents of Michigan. If I remember, every few years there is some incident that pits land owners against sportsman (in this case fisherman) over the rights of access to water. If I remember, current Michigan law states that access can be had up to the historical (averave) high water mark. I personally believe this to be too vaque and therefore too open to conjecture, opinon, and subjective descision making vs. a hard line delination of what the "line" of access is. Perhaps we should consider the "Queensway" like they have in New Zealand. As I recall it states that on all waters and lands, excepting those owned by the Maori, have a right of way of three meters or nine feet from sadi waterway on all lands is considered public. So... in high water, low water, mid level water, what have you, the line is easy to define... 9' from the existing level of water. Current Michigan law however does not apply to Native Americans due to treaty. As long as the activity is for ritualistic purposes, if I am correct.... 

One of the other issues out West is that some state laws allow for the ownership of the land under the water, therefore effectively outlawing wading or anchoring a boat over said "land". 

Steelie


----------



## Ozzman (Apr 12, 2007)

Reading the previous postings on this issue, do you believe that this could be tied in to the newest version of the Humane Society of the United States, the Wildlife Land Trust. This is where our favorite Wackaloons are looking for land donations, that would effectively privatize the land under the Humane Society's control. They could then legally ban all hunting fishing activites on that land?

Just a thought?

Ozzman


----------

