Posted: June 2, 2012 at 12:35 pm
Bucy Leads on Public Access
A Madison County judge this week has weakened Montana’s stream access law by limiting public access to streams from bridges on roads with historic prescriptive easements.
It’s just the latest attack an access to public land–and this setback for hunters and anglers will need to be challenged. Pam Bucy pledged this week in a message to supporters that if she is elected, she will continue this fight to the Montana Supreme Court if necessary. Bucy has made the issue a major focus of her campaign and will be an Attorney General who will fight protect public access in Montana.
On her website, Bucy sites some of her experience working for hunters and anglers, including serving as Mike McGrath’s Chief Deputy for seven years. McGrath’s work for public access was the major legacy of his time in office. As a key member of the major litigation unit at the Department of Justice, Bucy successfully defended I-143, Montana’s game farm ban, all the way to the Montana Supreme Court. She also coauthored the brief used by Attorney General Mike McGrath to defend Montana’s prime big game habitat. There’s more, which you can read about on her website– including a list of the hunters, anglers, and conservationists endorsing Pam Bucy here.
Judge Loren Tucker kissing the Butts if the very rich again. He isn’t just a Madison county Judge, he is a Beaverhead County judge, Tha is beginning to leave a bad taste in the Mouths of everyday Montanans. The Guys up for election again, and running Unimposed that in itself is a shame!
Without having seen, the decision, it is difficult to believe that Judge Tucker did not have a sound legal basis for his ruling.
This points to the obvious conclusion that the battles over access are going to be fought and won or lost in the Legislature. In this case, Jesse Laslovich as an experienced and savvy former Legislator is in a better position to positively effect the outcome as Attorney General.
Every AG has a team of excellent attorneys, such as Ms. Bucy to carry on the litigation on behalf of the state. But, it is far better to be defending something you fought for and won in the legislative session than defending something that came out of the legislature as is presenly happening with the medical marijuana appeals.
AG us about policy and effectiveness in the legislatire, not whether or not law enforcement or sportsmen appreciated your handling of cases assigned to you. Laslovich is the better candidate on this count, by far.
Wrong. Montana has a clear stream access law passed and amended by various Legislatures over the years. But regardless of Legislative efforts, landowners, and in particular new-to-Montana wealthy landowners, still block access from bridges even though Legislative intent is clear. Stream access issues are ultimately fought and settled in the courts. We need a litigator, not a legislator.
Thia isnt the first time they have tried chipping away at the law. Prescriptive Easements are Adverse possession is a method of acquisition of title to property by possession for a statutory period under certain conditions. Adverse possession is statutorily addressed in Title 70, chapter 19, part 4, MCA. A prescriptive easement is a form of adverse possession.
There has been a substantial interest in prescriptive easements in recent years as indicated by the number of Montana Supreme Court decisions involving the issue. The rise in efforts to acquire prescriptive easements is almost certainly linked to changes in historic land use. As land use patterns have changed, concepts such as customary usage of others’ land and neighborly accommodation have
also changed. Concerns with private property rights and governmental action have also added to increased interest in preserving or denying what were traditional means of access.
In Zavarelli v. Might, 230 Mont. 288, 749 P.2d 524 (1988), the court found that the required elements for a prescriptive easement could not be met while a property boundary line was unascertained. The property owner could not know that a trespass was
committed until a survey of the property was complete. The court also stated that a party cannot both own the land and have a prescriptive easement in the land. The alleged easement would merge in the land title.
The sticking point in prescriptive easement cases is often “adversity”. In order to show that the use of a claimed easement is adverse, the claimant must prove that the use is exercised under a claim of right and not as a mere license or privilege revocable by the owner of the land.
You can read more at: http://leg.mt.gov/content/publications/services/legal/opinions/necessity.pdf But it sounds to me like more and more like BS was the case in this case.
I’ve already voted but I can say when you go to Mrs. Bucy’s page, she has pictures of she and her family actually on hunting trips. I wasn’t able to find anything of the sort on Mr. Laslovich’s website.
It seems to me if you are going to talk about hunting and fishing, you should have some photos of you doing it.
It seems to me if you are going to make two largely identical comments on two different blogs at the same time, you should at least have the decency to use one pseudonym.
Just saying. :)
Ladies and Gentlemen, this I submit to you. When constituents are requiring an Attorney General candidate to post pictures of their hunting bona fides before that candidate can have an opinion about sportsman’s access, then the race itself has reached and exceeded Peak Stupid.
Rob,
A quarter of the population hunts or fishes in Montana, it’s a big issue, and one that goes far beyond fin and fur. It’s about the habitats necessary to grow elk, deer, trout, wolves and pika. Pam’s leadership and track record make her the best candidate for hunters and anglers.
Requiring the hunting photos, well, I’ll plead guilty to that. I think they’re important. Roy Brown did a great job showing folks what kind of hunter and angler he was, just like John Kerry did. You can’t fake the grit and determination that a real hunter or angler has. The photo is a good opportunity to show the world what you’re made of.
Access to Montana’s public lands and waters is a cornerstone issue for a lot of folks. 450 people showed up at the Capitol in 2011 to protect it. Groups like PLWA fight for access all the time, and do so on a shoestring budget. They fight the folks who try and keep all of Montana to themselves. We need an AG who understands the importance of public access not only for hunters and anglers, but for small businesses who rely on the revenue that 250,000 customers bring with them.
Vote for Pam.
WHF? I have to show a picture of an animal I killed…. with me all smiling, sweaty, and dirty in the Picture to prove I hunt. What? The bones left over on the dining room table after the meal itself doesn’t prove it? What about a Picture of a freezer full of meat? Gimme a break!
Either your for hunting and fishing, or against it mister. And I was doing that long before Pam held a gun or a fishing pole. Any picture can be posed, It is the person’s word that determines their intentions, what sits on their dinner tale as wild banquet. Pictures don’t prove grit either. Actions do.
Jesse doesn’t need a picture to prove he hunts and fishes either.
Amen. It shows that you are the genuine article and not just signing on because others think we should in an election year.
I agree. Mike McGrath was a champion for the rights of hunters and anglers–another AG might be willing to put in the same work and take the same risks, but Pam Bucy will. The information on her sight means she doesn’t just talk the talk–she walks the walk too. Here’s to another 8 years of protecting public lands!
Ben,
I agree that hunting pictures are important, that’s why the ONE picture of Pam in hunters orange on her website speaks volumes. But I did not notice any pictures of Pam working as a laborer, so I guess that means she won’t be able to represent laborers as well as she could if she had a picture doing it. As a matter of fact I did not see any pictures of Pam working in any blue collar job so I guess that means Pam may not be able to represent blue collar Montana’s very well. Darn, I guess I better vote for Jesse.
It seems to me if you are going to talk about standing up for blue collar Montanans, you should have some photos of you doing it.
Ben Lamb, I am a sportsman. I hunt and I fish. Access is a huge issue to me, considering I live in the Gallatin Valley where access is shrinking by the day. I’m not now, nor have I ever questioned the issue or it’s importance.
But if you step back and take a look, “I need the pictures” is the 2012 version of “I’m votin’ fer Bush ’cause he’s the guy I’d like to have a beer with”. It is a flat-out goofy reason to support one candidate over another.
Whether she physically hunts is irrelevant. I am concerned with her willingness to defend the lands in court, not whether she likes venison. I would vote for a person who pledged to support access to public lands, especially water ways, even if they were Stephen Hawking.
Amorette,
From the Montana Conservation Voters letter endorsing Pam:
“Montana needs Pam Bucy as our next Attorney General because she:
• Successfully defended Montana’s ban on game farms (I-143) all the way to the Supreme Court with the Department of Justice;
• Defended the Roadless Area Conservation Rule as the coauthor of the brief Attorney General Mike McGrath used to advocate this policy, which is critical to our world class fish and wildlife and incredible outdoor heritage;
• Worked in the Attorney General’s office for seven years, serving as legislative liaison on critical bills affecting Montana’s state lands, our air, land and water and acting as the office expert on all matters Land Board;
• Is a member and supporter of multiple conservation groups;
• Tried civil and criminal cases in nearly every district court in Montana; and
• Argued before the Montana Supreme Court several times on key public policy matters”
She’s already shown a willingness and committment to defending access to public lands. I trust that her committment will continue after elected AG.
I’m going to need to see the pictures.
Lets put it this way, Though I make a mean and tasty wild dinner when asked, and Hunt and fish when I have Time ( and I make the time).
You also have to be for the conservation of the land, water, and air to make sure future Montanans have that right and heritage as well. I believe Jesse is for that, and I see no difference in how these two will successfully come to bat for Montanans, tp mske sure that future is secure.
should read on last line:”two will successfully come to bat for Montanans, to make sure that future is secure.”
Sorry about the spelling folks, changed the way the Keyboard sits on the desk as we added another screen to the computer for beta testing of games. and video composition. Just not used to it yet!
While I shoot all the time and am a novice Gunsmith, you will never see pictures of me hunting because I haven’t hunted (with a gun) in over two decades. It certainly isn’t because I can’t and it certainly isn’t that I haven’t in the past. I have hunted every big game animal in North America except Mountain Goat and Hog. It is that I simply don’t want to. I have gone hunting with others and probably will again, but I don’t see the need to hunt.
That said, I have fully supported hunting and fishing in Montana and have made that abundantly clear on many occations. I don’t have to hunt to respect and support hunters. This whole “well I haven’t seen pictures of Jesse hunting” is the height of stupidity and is one more reason why I will have a problem supporting Pam if she wins the primary. Do you guys even realise how much damage you are doing to your candidate by posting stupid crap like this?
So who is going to win?
ee gads, people. If people are so short sited to say they wouldn’t vote for Pam post primary because of a thread on website, well that would be simply ridiculous. One doesn’t need to look far right now to see how much the Montana Attorney General’s office is doing crucial work not only for Montana, but for the US in standing up against Citizens United. There is so much crucial work to be done in that office. No matter who wins tomorrow, let’s be grown ups here, and realize how crucial it will be to have an intelligent person in that office, and not someone (cough cough Tim Fox) who will carry us backwards instead of forwards.
Agreed. That’s why I suggest that ridiculous arguments against either candidate do damage to them both going well beyond the primary.
I’m Gonna vote in the general for whoever wins the primary. Cause I already voted my choice. Thats what a Real democrat does…. buries the hatchet!
I am not a “real Democrat” and while I certainly won’t vote for Fox, I also will not vote for a candidate I don’t believe in. It is not just “because of a thread on website” either. I have been accosted by those supporting Bucy long before I even had a chance to meet and speak with both of them. Having met both of them, I have to admit I was not all that impressed with Pam. Given the rancor displayed on both this website and Don’s, it makes it difficult to support a candidate that allows this kind of crap. Even if I do hold my nose and vote for Bucy, you probably won’t be seeing any endorcements thrown that way and she certainly won’t be seeing any donations – assuming she wins the primary.
So am I!