What's going on with House Bill 309, the "Ditch Bill"

[JimBaker488]

Originally Posted by nature's cathedral

It isn't certain the effect it will have on Mitchell Slough, but I have seen many, many, many, streams and rivers here in the valley and in the NFs with some but not so many people as to cause an overcrowding. Yet, there never seems to be a limit to the desire to find another place to fish. I am starting to think that there is a serious addiction problem with fly fishing.

When I meet other men of slightly more liberal bent in their 50's and older they almost all ask "do you fish." A similar experience to when I was in college someone would say do you want to party or do you have weed." I am never asked if I hunt. Now isn't that interesting.

My brother in law is obsessive about it. He literally pulled out his rod and fished the pond on the 9th hole. I like photography, but I didn't think golf was a good time to start shooting photos.

So I view the rancor and fuss over this bill and frankly the initial suit and decision as this addiction on a mass scale. Legally it might have been a correct decision, but is there ever a limit to all this intrusion in the name of catching a fish. I think if there was a modern incarnation of the Communist Party in Montana the hammer and sickle would be replaced with a trout.

Yes, I am being quite glib. I want people to enjoy themselves, but shouldn't there be even the slightest bit of shame with feeling you have a right to access what another person thought was his and his alone for many, many years? Or is the answer: no comrade, there are fish in there!

Interesting, even provocative comments, I guess ? Without knowing anything about you, I'm really not sure how serious you are but you said you were being glib so I won't take you too seriously ?
Even though I'm the one who started this thread, I'm actually not much of a fisherman and even less of a fly-fisherman. I live in CST zone, but look forward to my Rocky Mountain trip every fall as I love the Northern Rockies of the US more than any other part of the country and when there I enjoy doing a little fishing, but it's not the centerpeice of my trip. Being in the Rockies in the Fall is the idea. And BTW I was happy to learn recently that one can fly-fish without really fly fishing because one can use nymphs with spinning reel & rod equipment. Too me fly fishing is really all about casting, and I'm frankley uninterested in spending a lot of time casting a line. I just want to walk the streams and catch a couple trout while visiting the most glorious part of our country.

[nature's cathedral]

To say that Trout Unlimited doesn't give a **** about property rights would be an understatement. The glib part is in reference to a modern day communist party. The truth is that this state is an income and development basket case holding onto industries and tourism that will never provide an economic future for the children of Montana. It truly appears that the people of this state would rather see their kids have to move to Seattle or elsewhere to get jobs so that a few more fishing holes can be had.

The bill was tabled by addicts in the State Senate. It wouldn't have harmed a single fishing hole despite the whining.

The simple truth of the Mitchell Slough is that it would have turned into a marsh decades ago if not for the work done by the property owners so yes the addicts are truly rent seeking off the work of others. The real spit in your eye part of it is that under a judicial doctrine called the private attorney general doctrine the land owners are having to pay $325,000 in the legal cost of those who fought them in the suit. So if the state had brought the suit against the land owners then they wouldn't have to pay the opposing parties fees but because the state didn't meaningfully intervene then they have to pay the costs. The land owners had just as much a constitutional issue of claim as the addicts and it should have been litigated, but to make them pay the attorney fees is unconscionable. The fees should be paid by the state because they are the ones who didn't intervene but even that is questionable especially when there is no fraud or strict liability tort issue at play. The land owners have no ability to force the state to act but they must pay for the burden of the state's inaction. They should take this to the federal level under the due process clause.

[JimBaker488]

Originally Posted by nature's cathedral

To say that Trout Unlimited doesn't give a **** about property rights would be an understatement. The glib part is in reference to a modern day communist party. The truth is that this state is an income and development basket case holding onto industries and tourism that will never provide an economic future for the children of Montana. It truly appears that the people of this state would rather see their kids have to move to Seattle or elsewhere to get jobs so that a few more fishing holes can be had.

The bill was tabled by addicts in the State Senate. It wouldn't have harmed a single fishing hole despite the whining.

The simple truth of the Mitchell Slough is that it would have turned into a marsh decades ago if not for the work done by the property owners so yes the addicts are truly rent seeking off the work of others. The real spit in your eye part of it is that under a judicial doctrine called the private attorney general doctrine the land owners are having to pay $325,000 in the legal cost of those who fought them in the suit. So if the state had brought the suit against the land owners then they wouldn't have to pay the opposing parties fees but because the state didn't meaningfully intervene then they have to pay the costs. The land owners had just as much a constitutional issue of claim as the addicts and it should have been litigated, but to make them pay the attorney fees is unconscionable. The fees should be paid by the state because they are the ones who didn't intervene but even that is questionable especially when there is no fraud or strict liability tort issue at play. The land owners have no ability to force the state to act but they must pay for the burden of the state's inaction. They should take this to the federal level under the due process clause.

Sounds like you might have more than one axe to grind up in Montana ?
Well it makes no difference to me, as long as I have some stream access when I'm up there in the Fall. I'm gonna try the "Big Hole" this year for the first time, among other streams.
But I'm curious about your theory of exactly where the "economic future for the children of Montana" is to be found ?

[arctichomesteader]

Well, here in Vermont we've had a tradition since the earliest days of settlement that a person can hunt and fish wherever he wishes, regardless of property ownership, unless land is posted (and until lately, land was rarely posted...). It's never caused a problem here really until the outsiders invaded. MT seemingly has something similar with fishing. If someone is paranoid about people fishing on their property, why don't they just post their land and be done with it, instead of changing state law, I wonder?

[arctichomesteader]

Originally Posted by JimBaker488

Sounds like you might have more than one axe to grind up in Montana ?
Well it makes no difference to me, as long as I have some stream access when I'm up there in the Fall. I'm gonna try the "Big Hole" this year for the first time, among other streams.
But I'm curious about your theory of exactly where the "economic future for the children of Montana" is to be found ?

Don't you know, if people are allowed to fish on unposted land, it will destroy the economy? lol