THANK YOU for posting this; this is why I'm on fishing forums! There is a great deal of education that can happen in this manner, and as fisherman, we need more knowledge than just when does one throw the size 16 para adams? (which is one of my all time favorite
So here's my question since I'm not completely up on this issue. Besides the cross claims asserting a Constitutional violation with the stream access and ability per Montana Code to access streams off of a bridge or public right-of-way (which is the attack on MT stream access), isn't this issue simply about determining the definition of the easement that this bridge is on? I'm looking at MCA 23-2-312(2) which makes us look at the easement itself. My initial thought is that this is more seeking to clarify the easement's language in construction.
So is Kennedy just arguing that the easement's language is stating that it extends less than the usual width, thus bringing it under the statute for access?
It's not that I'm pro-Kennedy, just aware that MT has some awesome access that gets eroded when Big Ranch owners get ticked off. Bad facts make bad law, and I'm trying to figure out if this is an attack on our access or just Kennedy using the language of the statute. I know his other claims are the attack for sure, but in my simple head, stating that the language in the easement is just further solidifying Montana's law. As always, the local ranchers have bigger problems than dealing with someone dropping off a bridge to fish and its the "invaders from afar" who try to create their own fiefdoms out here in MT.
for the most part, I try to be the one approaching the landowner before any issue arises. Most of the time, they are good-ol MT ranchers and farmers who are excited to see someone ask instead of tromp through their land. That being said, I've happily wandered the Ruby in full view of those who wish me the upmost of "ill-harm."