SB 497 - Attack on Stream Access

[sacountry]

Anyone have an idea why the NW contingent (Fuller, Glimm, Regier) was mostly Yeas, doesn't seem like a big issue in the Flathead. Freedom caucus stuff?

Regier voted for it the day prior in the Judiciary Committee so there's no way he'd not vote for it today. Fuller was to vote against it but I think the amendment sparked a change of heart just before the vote. The amendment removed the river bed access from the bill. Guessing Glimm was the same, but he's also more of a hardliner so he me have voted Yea to support Fitzpatrick

 

[Jock Conyngham]

Regier voted for it the day prior in the Judiciary Committee so there's no way he'd not vote for it today. Fuller was to vote against it but I think the amendment sparked a change of heart just before the vote. The amendment removed the river bed access from the bill. Guessing Glimm was the same, but he's also more of a hardliner so he me have voted Yea to support Fitzpatrick

SA, there are a number of legislators voting for things in committee that are voting the other way on further voter engagement. I saw an email today from Jonathan Windy Boy that demonstrated that. We all need to keep in mind what sustained engagement can achieve.

 

[OntarioHunter]

Regier voted for it the day prior in the Judiciary Committee so there's no way he'd not vote for it today. Fuller was to vote against it but I think the amendment sparked a change of heart just before the vote. The amendment removed the river bed access from the bill. Guessing Glimm was the same, but he's also more of a hardliner so he me have voted Yea to support Fitzpatrick

I thought the GG crowd probably would have a "we can fix it" amendment sitting in someone's back pocket waiting for the opportune moment. Glad that trick didn't work ... this time.

So is it your impression this was actually Fitzpatrick's baby?

 

[Rack Daniels]

Stuff like that is said every legislative session and then people continue to vote against there own interests every 2-4 years

…In hopes that they will remember their conservative roots. Though our sportsman issues are extremely important, the overall outlook is what’s voted on. Thanks. Look where the big dawg you voted for got us… cmon…

 

[Rack Daniels]

My bad Randy...
we as sportsman are winning on the bad bills. It’s a non partisan issue WITH US individually. I may vote right wing, and yet I agree with you all with EVERY bad bill against our rights to access in EVERY way. If any leftist wants to play the blame-game, well that’s a shame. (Ima poet btw) cheers everyone and thank you all for the information on this thread

 

[BuzzH]

…In hopes that they will remember their conservative roots. Though our sportsman issues are extremely important, the overall outlook is what’s voted on. Thanks. Look where the big dawg you voted for got us… cmon…

They did remember their conservative roots...they've always hated stream access, always. Been trying to repeal it since the day it passed. They have long memories and are still stinging from it.

They didn't hide it during campaigns, didn't hide it by who they receive campaign funding from, they simply aren't inclined to be pro public land or pro public access. Doing exactly what they said they would, nothing shocking.

Just that simple...and they play the long game. It may be over for this year, thankfully, but it's not going away. Sportsmen have to be more relentless than they are, if not we're toast.

 

[SAJ-99]

They did remember their conservative roots...they've always hated stream access, always. Been trying to repeal it since the day it passed. They have long memories and are still stinging from it.

They didn't hide it during campaigns, didn't hide it by who they receive campaign funding from, they simply aren't inclined to be pro public land or pro public access. Doing exactly what they said they would, nothing shocking.

Just that simple...and they play the long game. It may be over for this year, thankfully, but it's not going away. Sportsmen have to be more relentless than they are, if not we're toast.

This is another example of where a divided, two party government is better. It keeps this stupid shit to a minimum. Of the 300 bills thrown in, all they have to do is toss in a couple of doozies to distract and the other BS gets through. It chips away on any gains that were made when compromising was a necessity.

 

[sacountry]

I thought the GG crowd probably would have a "we can fix it" amendment sitting in someone's back pocket waiting for the opportune moment. Glad that trick didn't work ... this time.

So is it your impression this was actually Fitzpatrick's baby?

no I don't think it was Fitzpatrick's baby. UPOM had multiple points to gain. Based on how quickly Fitzpatrick accepted the amendment to strike stream access from the bill, I'm guessing UPOM really wanted to strike the ability for plaintiffs to collect legal fees in easement cases and to a much lesser degree cared about stream access. What's interesting...the point was made by many, including Fitzpatrick, that easement cases which qualify for collecting legal fees are rare....so why go through the trouble of the bill? Was Denowh in need of political win for his PAC? Dunno.

 

[peterk1234]

Ben, I am curious just what arguments were put forth to support this bill? I am baffled how anyone could make it look at all beneficial.

Go onto flyfishingforum.com. Many of them think this bill is benign or actually a good thing. Amazing.