With Gov. Brian Schweitzer’s signing of a bill guaranteeing the rights of both property owners and anglers when it comes to accessing waterways from bridges, an issue that has inflamed the political sensibilities of Montanans for decades has been – dare I say? – put to rest.
The stream access issue is one that affects a relatively tiny handful of fly fishermen and landowners, mainly in Madison County, and yet it has, for some reason, dominated the last few legislative sessions. It’s a subject not nearly as grave as the death penalty, or the tax code, or drunk driving laws, and yet it draws the public in droves to testify for or against a given bill that tries to iron out the problem.
I covered the issue in depth for NewWest.Net during the 2007 session, and what struck me about the people who spoke about the bill – both anglers and ranchers – was the way they seemed to lament that a law like this was even necessary, that Montana was no longer a place where a fisherman simply knocked on a farmer’s door out of courtesy, and in turn was given free reign to walk where he or she needed to and fish where he or she wanted.
But that’s where the ugly necessity of laws and the excruciating process of lawmaking come in. When the process works, as it did here, it’s frustratingly slow, but this is often the only way to get two opposing sides on board with a bill. Rep. Kendall Van Dyk, a young Billings Democrat was particularly incensed in 2007 when Republican lawmakers dug in their heels and killed the bill in that session attempting to solve the problem, on the grounds that it did not protect property rights.
Clearly, Republicans and many agricultural interests two years ago did not feel as if they were included in the crafting of that bill. Great Falls Republican Rep. Mike Milburn took a lot of heat back then for proposing an interim study committee and kicking the issue down the road for two years. But if that’s what was required to come up with something people on both sides of the issue felt good about, well, that’s how the process is supposed to work. The result was a bill that sailed through the Legislature this time around.
The passage of the stream access bill also indicates that Van Dyk is a lawmaker worth watching. He clearly took the failures he observed in 2007 to heart and navigated the pitfalls of this legislature with aplomb. He deserves full credit for persistence toward a solution to an issue that has proven intractable in previous sessions. The public will reap the benefits.