Essentially if you are using the Montana Stream Access Law to hike up a small stream to access public land above private property for "big game hunting", then no.
Is transportation a viable use of water ways in Montana? If so, I have used the boat/ canoe for a viable use (towing, transportation) of a waterway it seems. It's not a ruse at all...and not deception. I am transporting goods across a waterway...be they a firearm, deer or myself. BTW- What the hell is a landowner going to do...take away access that I already don't have? Try to change a law that will likely make everyone except the landowner mad which would cause even greater angst among the thousands of people who use stream access currently AGAINST the landowner? You see it as landowners having the upperhand in this...I see it as voters having the upperhand...
The pictures you posted are fairly cut and dry but there are many streams that are fairly in between these pictures. Dry stream beds...no. However, many streams can be accessed via a hard shell canoe (my kids have 2 of them) with 120 lbs of meat on top as well as a rifle. It may scrape bottom a couple of times but float the largest portion of the time. The question then becomes...is TRANSPORT a viable use of waterways in Montana via the stream access law. Sounds like the New Mexico Wildlife Federation may be trying to roll back a Game and Fish rule using a 1945 stream access law. Right now, they don't have the power of numbers...but nothing is being taken away, they are trying to gain something. The other way around creates much more displeasure from the normal users. As MT already has a legal precedent from the MT Supreme Court and also legislative action...reversing the decision would create much more of an uproar....money talks but a ton of recreationists and those who make money off of those recreationists speak just as loudly...and they vote as well. I get frustrated by those who always say...it could be worse, we could get more public taken away. They may be correct, but talk about a defeatist attitude...it's like playing a prevent defense the entire game. You'll lose, but not by as much as you could have lost. Fact is, you lose either way. How about playing to win, push the boundaries the other way and make them start playing prevent defense? (BTW- this isn't anything personal against you or straight arrow but it seems to me that playing to not lose has lost the public a ton of access and a ton of rights/ privileges.) You don't see the NRA playing to not lose...they push the envelope everyday to gain more gun ownership rights...causing everyone else to play defense.
Exactly! It seems we hunters are prone to shoot ourselves in the foot year after year by gaming the system and doing for our own personal benefit what we judge to be legal ... rather than striving to do what's right and portrays hunters as stand-up citizens. Go ahead and drag that hard shell canoe up the stream, hunt, and drag your game back down in spite of the landowner glaring at you ... but when he says, "Hell no!" to Block Management, as many have due to hunter questionable behavior, don't blame those noble icons of public access who fought so hard to embed the Stream Access Law into the books for the purpose of recreational fishing and other actual water recreation between high water marks ... not up the creek to access big game!
If it were block management...the stream access wouldn't be an issue. Do either of you think when the stream access law was created that land owners fell over themselves to say yes? Do you think the people who fought for stream access said...well, the landowners don't like it...may as well give up? Hell no. They fought and scratched to get it, then recreationists allowed (and by allowed gave up pushing for more) the state legislature to redefine and create new statute "defining" stream access. This happens to roads, corner crossing, stream access, etc. Be happy with what you got because you might lose it. I'm frustrated and tired of people "being happy cause it could get worse". Fact is...it is worse. Every time someone is not admitted on public land for some reason...it is worse. Then people who use the entire scope of the law to gain access become assholes. Guess what, they aren't! They want to broaden the rights of the PUBLIC to gain more for the PUBLIC. Private landowners aren't shutting down access because of "bad hunters"...they are selling leases for MONEY. They pull out of BMAs not because of bad hunters, it's because they can make more money using their land in other ways or they aren't getting as much as they thought they would. I can't do anything about private...and I don't want to (as I'm not communist) but I sure as hell don't fear losing what I don't currently have. I also don't fear losing what I do have because I may make Joe Private Landowner mad because private landowners aren't going to quit attacking stream access whether I use the full scope of the law or don't use the law at all. As you have stated, every year there is a push to restrict stream access. Do you think that if everyone followed even the most stringent version of the law that the same groups won't be pushing legislation and trying to get stream access stopped? You are foolish to think so. The same groups, unless there is NO stream access, will fight against stream access every year (no matter how you use or don't use the law). In my opinion, shooting ourselves in the foot is not using the law to its fullest extent thereby giving up rights without even a fight.
No, you are correct and I agree. The big difference is that their solution to this issue of seeming ambiguity concerning stream access to public land for big game hunting and retrieval between high water marks is that they would analyze the issue, draft legislation, and find someone to carry it to clarify and codify the right to access and retrieve big game. They likely wouldn't just charge up the crick with their kids' hard shell canoe to "push" the issue with questionable hunter behavior.
I agree...but none of are lawyers (to the best of my knowledge) and skirting the law is still staying within the law. Speed limit is a bad example (it's cut and dry...maximum speed is 75). "Water recreation" is fairly vague and as others have posted...fish your way up and back. Is that not skirting the law? I don't know, it seems completely legal so to me it's using the full extent of the law. Also, using a stream solely for access goes against state statute but does the state statute go against the MT Supreme Court ruling? The state made the rule after the ruling in order to "define" the terms in the ruling. Fact is, just like corner crossing, you have to break the rule in order for the courts to make a ruling. Personally, I don't hunt, fish or recreate anywhere this would be an issue...nor would I have to use corner crossing. However, fully using the extent of the law that hasn't been fully defined seems justified. When the speed limit was reasonable and prudent...people pushed the envelope doing 90 and were able to get away with it...while others defined it as 55...tell me who was right and who was wrong in that instance?
