Latest / The Wild Idea / Jim Klug, Hal Herring & Alex Leone: River Access Is Not a Spectator Sport

Transcript

Jim Klug, Hal Herring & Alex Leone: River Access Is Not a Spectator Sport · The Wild Idea

• 0:00
  Welcome to our continuing conversation, or, or is it conversations, uh, I don't know, for a wild and changing world, a, a podcast we call The Wild Idea. My name is Bill Hodge, and my passion is for wild places, the American idea of designated wilderness, and our incredible system of public spaces. I am joined for these conversations by a longtime skilled advocate for the laws and policies that guide our public land experience, Anders Reynolds. And today, we are gonna talk access, specifically stream access in the state of Montana. But it is a topic that goes well beyond one state and way beyond just the flowing rivers and streams. Access is a word that has become a weapon and an opportunity and a challenge all rolled into one. We will be joined in this conversation by Jim Klug from Yellow Dog Fly Fishing, Alex Leone from the Public Lands and Waters Alliance, and by someone known to our die-hard fans as our very 1st guest on the pod, Hal Herring. But now, it's time to welcome my co-host with the most. What's up, Anders?
• 1:04
  Oh, hi, Bill.
• 1:06
  Bill, Bill, Bill. I, uh, I need to revisit something before we start because-
• 1:12
  Is this like, is this like a sharing moment? Are you gonna have a sharing moment here?
• 1:15
  Yeah. This is a, this is a safe space. I've been sitting on something, and I can't sit on it anymore.
• 1:21
  A couple weekends back, you picked me up from a trailhead, and I was in a mood. And you laughed at that mood. You got a real kick out of my mood because I told you that I had met a couple
• 1:38
  up at Strawberry Lake in the Jewel Basin who had with them their dog, their dog named Descartes.
• 1:46
  A dog, I'll add, who had, like, 0 [laughs] interest in me. He only wanted to swim. And so as I parted ways with this couple, I told them, "He swims, therefore he is," you know, referencing Descartes. But then I spent the entire hike down to the trailhead convinced that I'd humiliated myself, convinced that that, that cogito, "I think, therefore I am," wasn't Descartes at all, that it was Immanuel Kant.
• 2:17
  And you just let me sit in that shame.
• 2:23
  [laughs]
• 2:24
  But here's the problem, Bill.
• 2:27
  I was right.
• 2:29
  Cogito, ergo sum. Descartes, 1637, Discourse on the Method, baby. Kant doesn't get born for another 100 plus years. So, you know, you drove me back marinating in my shame, but we need to be clear about who should be embarrassed here. You.
• 2:46
  I- I'm not embarrassed. I just, I just, like, love that you were stewing in that egg head of yours with, uh, you know, famous phrases and incredibly high-dollar words that I, I, I wasn't letting you stew. I just thought it was a quintessential
• 3:04
  Anders moment that you were wondering if you got it wrong, you know? And it just... I don't know. It kind of... It didn't bring me joy so much as satisfaction, if there's a difference between joy and satisfaction, that you were... And, and, and good for you that you, you didn't have it wrong, but good for me that I got to watch you stew over whether you did give it wrong. 'Cause again, in your, your glorious egg-headedness, your incredibly large brain that you have to carry around on your incredibly slender shoulders, I just think it's, it's very, [laughs] it's very funny that it ends up that you were being right, and yet you still had moments of doubt. And, and with that, I think this is a really good moment to kick off something I've been wanting to kick off 'cause again, as I said, you're, you, you... Either you use them or you really enjoy it when some of our guests use these. I'm gonna just call them high-dollar words. They're words that occasionally I may, in my simpleton mind, have to go look up after the recordings. And so I thought, "You know what I'm gonna do? I'm gonna find some high-dollar words, and I'm gonna challenge you." Right? I think I'm gonna challenge you. That sound fair?
• 4:10
  Okay. Okay.
• 4:11
  So-
• 4:12
  [laughing] Well, what do you have in mind?
• 4:13
  Well, I think, I think every week, I wanna give you a high-dollar word. I wanna give you a word and say, "I want you to slip this word into this week's conversation on the Wild Idea podcast." Does that sound like a fair challenge?
• 4:27
  Game on. Challenge accepted. I love this idea. I lo- I, I hope we do this every week. I hope this is a new segment. I am, I am all in. So, uh, what's this week's word?
• 4:41
  Galvanic response.
• 4:43
  [laughs] Hang on. The segment is one word. It's one word. You've been running this thing for exactly one episode, and you're already over budget. I asked you what word, and you gave me a phrase. This is- [laughs]
• 4:56
  Oh, it's 2 words.
• 4:57
  This is so you.
• 4:58
  It's 2 words.
• 4:58
  This is the entire relationship in, in miniature. I want shorter episodes. You want longer episodes. I say, "Sure, I'll take one word," and you hear that and think, "But what if it were 2?"
• 5:10
  [laughs]
• 5:10
  I mean, in a month, this is gonna be, you know... The word of the day is gonna be a paragraph with footnotes.
• 5:17
  Yeah. Eventually, it might be. I want you to slip this entire question into today's interview. [laughs]
• 5:22
  [laughs]
• 5:22
  But today, today's word is galvanic response. [laughs]
• 5:26
  Oh.
• 5:27
  I wanna see you slip that in.
• 5:28
  Galvanic response. This is... I, I can... I, I believe in myself. I believe in myself. You saw me at my lowest after I met Descartes the dog, but I, I feel confident in myself. And here's the thing. Oh, here's the thing. You wanna know what a galvanic response is? It's the little jolt you get in your nervous system, the one I'm having right now over the fact that [laughs] you've already built it into 2 words. Oh, this is a great idea, Bill. You're gonna, you're gonna regret it. I'm gonna win every week.
• 5:55
  Well, we're gonna have, we're gonna have fun with it. [laughs] Let's see how you do. Let's join the conversation with Jim, Alex, and Hal, a great conversation about access to Montana's streams and rivers. Well, Jim, Alex, Hal, thank you for joining us so much for today. We're super excited to have this conversation about the Montana Stream Access Law and its history. You know, normally, I like to dig into individual origin stories at the beginning of the episode, but today I wanna start at the top with the subject itself. And this is something I think you all should weigh in on, but Hal, I will start with you. Can you talk a little bit, how did Montana come to have the protections for stream access and what some would argue is a gold standard? And, and, and let's start with what even the term stream access means.
• 6:44
  Thanks, Bill. And, um, I think we were talking about before we hit record, um, I, I did the first story on this that I can remember in 1999 for the Bitterroot Star. Um, we did a front page, like, full out
• 6:57
  in-depth dive into stream access, because back in the Bitterroot, this is before the, the bigger cases at Miller Slough and that stuff. Um, but this was-- We obviously saw with the growth in the Bitterroot that the stream access there was going to be a big issue, right? Really fast. Um, so I did some deep diving back then, and man, it's so long ago, and I, uh... Really, the stream access law, as we understand it, was a law passed in 1985 by the legislature. [inhales sharply] And it, it was based on, as, as we'll get into later, um, it was based on, like, the Roman doctrines of, of the public trust, right? That air and water are-- must be shared in common. You can't really own the water. Um, and, and, uh, Montana was unique in this because they, with the trappers and with, with the early, early conflicts, man. Um, there was a guy over in, uh, near Fort Benton who built a squatter house own- own-- below the high water mark. And when the landowner told him, you know, he had to leave, he was like, "Well, I'm not leaving. I live below the high water mark." And this was, uh, 1995, right? Uh, so the courts did decide that he could not build a structure there, that the, that the public trust doctrine didn't apply to a person who wanted to get, take up residency on somebody else's land, right? And that's really important to what happened. Um, and so I'm just gonna skip to 8-- to 1972 when the Montana Constitution was written.
• 8:33
  And that constitution, [chuckles] unlike other states in the West or certainly in the South, included a kind of dynamite box. And it said, "All surface, underground, flood, and atmospheric waters within the boundaries of the state are the property of the state for the use of the people and are subject to appropriation for beneficial use as provided by law." Well, that law became-- was the 1985, right? Later. And, and the only reason we have that law, the only reason that constitution was ever asked, "What does this mean for people who wanna go swimming with their kids or fishing?" was that early on, 1970s,
• 9:14
  um, a guy named Lowell Hildreth fenced the Beaverhead River. And, and it...
• 9:22
  I, I, I wanna
• 9:23
  pre-case this, that, that Montana rivers and streams have a more loose idea of navigability than most states because of the trapper times, right? And specifically because of the tie-hacking days when we were cutting so many railroad ties that they had to have a way to get them to, to mill. 100,000 railroad ties went down the Dearborn River.
• 9:45
  You know, uh, I don't know how many went down the Beaverhead, but they were using all the rivers to transport logs. And one of the definitions was, can you float a log in it? Well, you can float a log in a lot of creeks, especially if you use a splash down, right? Which they were doing at the time. So navigability in Montana was always a little looser.
• 10:03
  And, uh, it all kind of... Lowell Hildreth fencing of the Dearborn, there were some great populists in Butte, some, some wild... Tony Schunen was one, some of the great Montana minds and, and people, right? And they had the Montana Coalition for Stream Access back, was it the '70s, Alex?
• 10:23
  Yeah, they started in, like, late '70s, early '80s. Yeah, and it was, uh, Tony Schunen, Jerry Manley, Tom, uh, Buni, and also, uh, Tom Daniels.
• 10:33
  Tom Daniels. And then they hired a remarkable attorney, Jim Getz.
• 10:38
  And, um, so they went... They, they told Hildreth that, that they can't-- you can't block the Beaverhead, right? [inhales sharply] Well, a- and that was-- that went on for a long time, but it didn't... It wasn't anything compared to what happened on the Dearborn, which is really close to my house. I, I d- I rely on this case for so much of what I do in my... with my kids and my life because of the Dearborn. The Dearborn had been used to push railroad ties. It was obviously navigable. And a, a man, he had made his money in oil, uh, oil services, Mike Curran, had a huge ranch over there. It's owned by Siebel now. It's the Dearborn Ranch. And Mike Curran was determined that nobody should go down that river through his property. And if you, if you're listening from Montana, it's a 287 bridge. It's right in the middle of Dearborn Ranch. And, uh, Mi- uh, Curran was a very angry... He had a lot of anger, you know? And he became kind of a poster person for this blocking access. And at one point, although I couldn't verify this recent, uh, uh, last night when I was going through this, uh, he, he re- used his truck to rage over some peoples from Helena, some, some ladies, over their ra- over their rafts and fishing tackle and everything when they were trying to put in there at, around the 287 bridge. And that'll come up later, right? That's a right of way, right? And, and we're gonna talk about that. But, uh, Curran was such a, an... He was so angry, and he, he did stuff like he filed a 10 million dollar counter-lawsuit when the Montana Coalition sued him. Uh, over this thing. And he lost definitively, like, be- he-- because of the tie hacking record of the navigability of the water, uh, because of the public access, and, and based on the 1972 Constitution.
• 12:32
  And what Jim Getz won, the attorney for Montana Coalition for Stream Access, was as, as many people said, I think Tony Schuenen said it later, it was greater than they had ever imagined. Um, and it, and it guaranteed Montanans and, and citizens of, uh, um... What is it? It's, it's, um, recreational access to the high water mark. And the high water mark had already been guaranteed, right? We've been talking about this since the 1990s or, and before. In, in fact, since Roman times. But, but this guaranteed a, a level of access that, uh,
• 13:08
  even Jim Getz, I think the attorney couldn't have imagined. It was challenged immediately, uh, by the Galt family, the Galt challenge, 1987. Immediately, he was like, "No way." And he said, "This represents a takings of my private property because I am paying taxes on property to which I do not have the sole use."
• 13:29
  And I, I-- Actually, everybody said that's a pretty good argument. [laughs] Right? And, and later on, we could get into that, but in 2009, the legislature actually removed the stream bottoms, river bottoms from the tax base, so you don't pay on it, which is one of the most brilliant moves in my opinion. I, I know people who opposed stream access law before that, old-timers who told me that was what tilted them in favor, you know? And, and one of the so- Montana Supreme Court judges, and I, and I couldn't find this quote either, but he said at the end of the Galt thing, he said, "Let's face it. The vandal hordes that were predicted to use this law to destroy landowners' rights have failed to show up."
• 14:14
  Um, and one last thing was the, the Galt challenge, 87, 2014 challenge by James Cox Kennedy on the Ruby, all of this, it's never been safe. It's been going on and on and on. But the Galt challenge did limit the law in that it's some-- you, you can't build duck blinds or you're not even shouldn't camp close to, you know, in, in controversial places on the rivers that are below the high water mark. So in, in a way, Galt, he won part of it, and he also, he lost definitively on the access thing, but he did help clarify that. And I, I would argue that that actually helped landowners accept it more.
• 14:53
  Hal, I mean, I, I do wanna bring back to... So, so 85
• 14:58
  creates the clarity of what the Constitution meant, uh, in terms of the waters belong to the state,
• 15:05
  but then they had to come back later and define that if you get to that access through a right of way, right, that, that, that as long as you have a legal ability to get in the river, which would be a right of way, bridge, you know, bridge crossings become, you know... But when did that sort of come to be?
• 15:22
  2009. That was when the challenges came out, and it was down around Dillon and Beaverhead County. They had some legislators down there, and, and I don't know if Kennedy was involved with this or not, but they had some legislators down there who are bound to determine that the stream access law would, would not be the-- you know, would be challenged.
• 15:42
  Um, and it emphatically says also that, like, you cannot cross. This, this goes back to 18, uh, 18, late 1880s. Um, you cannot cross high water mark to get to the river. You can't. You-- There's a lot of... I mean, you can't abuse this thing if you wanna keep it.
• 16:00
  That's for sure. Like, it depends upon a sort of, uh, popular agreement.
• 16:07
  So Jim, I wanna bring you in as, as someone that has stood in the fight in your waders and someone that realized that having the law does not mean the fight is over. In fact, the fight seems to always come back over and over again. But one of the arguments, um, besides just the constitutional rights to, to the water is the economic argument, right? The economics of what this means to the state. Could you talk about that a little bit?
• 16:35
  Yeah, absolutely. And, and thanks again for having us on. Um, you know, as we know, Montana currently has some of the strongest public stream access protections in the country, and it is one of the things that makes the state so unique. Um, you know, Hal pointed out a lot of the historical kind of milestones that got us to where we are today. Um, the stream access laws that we currently have in Montana are wildly popular with Montanans, right? They're, they're almost, almost universally supported. Um,
• 17:06
  eh, but the reason we continue to have these conversations, to some of Hal's points, uh, and, and really why we continue to ask the question of, well, why does this matter today? If it was clarified in 85, if it's withstood the, the test of time and, and subsequent court challenges, why are we still having this conversation and why does it matter? Well, what I would say to that is that Montana's rivers are very much a part of the identity of this state. And,
• 17:36
  you know, I work in the, in the fly fishing industry. We think of fly fishing and, and recreational angling as a major use of the rivers, and that's true, but stream access is not just about fly fishing or, or any type of fishing for that matter. You know, it matters to, to families, to floaters, to rafters, uh, hunters, bird watchers, uh, and communities all throughout the state of Montana. Uh, because in the end, uh, as it has been guaranteed by the courts and, and clarified numerous times, Montana's rivers do belong to all of us. But to your question,
• 18:12
  stream access also supports a massive economic ecosystem, and this is really important. I mean, you have guides, outfitters, fly shops. You have outdoor manufacturers that are based in the state. You also have- Countless numbers of hotels, restaurants, campgrounds. You have shuttle services, all forms of businesses that are tied to general tourism. Um, all of those, uh, depend on Montana's stream access laws, and it's one of the reasons that our outdoor economy in Montana is so robust and so much a part of the economic driver of Montana.
• 18:48
  But, you know, beyond just the economics, I think there's something more that remains fundamentally at stake with this entire issue, and that's that, you know, ordinary people have the freedom to experience these extraordinary places. And again, going back to, to what I said at the very beginning here is, that is one of the things that makes Montana so unique. Um,
• 19:10
  you know, we talked about the ordinary high water mark. That's a key definitive factor whenever you have this conversation. Um, but, you know, at the same time, and, and back to a comment that, that Hal made, um, the stream access law, while guaranteeing our rights to utilize the rivers and streams of Montana, uh, it also protects private property rights, and this is really important. You can't trespass across someone's ranch to reach a river. Um, you have to access the water legally, and you have to respect private land. And, you know, I think that's one of the things that also makes the stream access laws in the state so unique and important. It delivers strong public access rights while at the same time protecting private property rights.
• 19:51
  Alex, I've gotta get in here and, and ask you about your organization, the Public Land Water Access Association, and about the, the access work that y'all do in general. Um, you helped birth the stream access law. You won the fight over the Ruby River bridges that Hal mentioned, and I'm sure your team fields calls day in and day out about newly closed off access to public waters and public lands. But walk us through what that work really looks like day to day, and, and while you're at it, if you don't mind, connect the dots for us. You know, right, right now you're in court alongside back country hunters and anglers over corner crossings, which I'd argue is just the same principle as stream access, uh, just on dry land. And when you say Montanans deserve clear, consistent guidance on how they can access their public lands and waters, what are you up against in order to get it?
• 20:42
  That's a very big question with, uh, lots of tentacles, so let me start with just kind of explaining what PLWA is and just kinda clarifying our history with the stream access, um, coalition and stuff. So PLWA's mission is really simple. It's to maintain, defend, and perpetuate public access to the boundaries of all Montana's lands and waters. Um, we've been around since 1985, membership-driven, really a grassroots, small group. Um, at the beginning, we really worked a lot on, like, trails and roads in the Bozeman area, but then expanded in the 90s and 2000s to kind of, uh, actually take a lot of the same folks that were part of the Montana Coalition for Stream Acc- Access joined into PLWA. So the Montana Coalition for Stream Access, which was those Butte socialists, as some might say, um, that really helped push this forward, uh, a lot of those folks, as that coalition kind of waned and they won those battles, came over to PLWA. So, um, when it comes to, like, what we're dealing with on, like, a day-to-day basis, Hal did a really good job, so did Jim. Like, the stream access law has faced numerous challenges over the years. PLWA has been involved in several, but one of the things that's so amazing about Montana, we are a small state, but the number of small grassroots groups that have been involved in defending stream ac- stream access across the state is the reason we still have it. There are still small rod and gun clubs in almost every small town in Montana, and when needed, those folks show up. Um,
• 22:09
  when Hal described some of the stuff that happened in the 80s during the legislature, and I, I think we need to get here again, honestly, but sportsmen and women showed up with paddles, and they were in the legislature just, like, demanding these rights. So as Jim said, Montana has really, like, enshrined this. It's an incredibly popular thing across the political spectrum. You know, messing with stream access in Montana is political suicide still. It really is. Um, but what we're seeing, I think, and it's kind of changed over time, is we're seeing a lot more nuanced challenges to stream access. So the big, the big heavy hitters, Mountain States Legal Foundation in 2000, some of these very well-funded groups, a lot of those big challenges and the big money has, has been spent. They've lost on some of the fundamental aspects of the stream access law that Hal brought up, right? Like, that public trust doctrine being enshrined in our ability to use Montana waters for recreation is pretty solid. But there have been attempts, and there continue to be attempts to kinda, like, you know, chip around the surface. Um, and we see that in a lot of different ways. Uh, you know, extreme surveillance on rivers now. There's just the ability for people to camera the hell out of rivers. So, um... And let me take a step back. Sorry, 'cause this was a huge question, Anders, and I'm pretty good at trying to track stuff, but let me just take a step back. Um, the way that we operate as a little organization, and we've done this since 1985, is we get reports from the public every year. We get, like, 60 to 80 issues a year, and that number's growing. About 10% are stream access-related issues. And with each one of those issues, it's usually someone that's, like, driving on a road. They think it's a county road. They run into something. Um, you know, Hal is so knowledgeable. I mean, he's reported an issue to us that we worked on on the Dearborn River where... And, and they're broad, so let me describe another one. Some rancher legally fenced a river on the Dearborn, um, and ran into some issues with the social, some social media outrage. People were super pissed off. So we inserted ourselves as an organization, investigated the issue, determined that what they were doing wasn't illegal, and are working with them to fix the fence. So we deal with a, a wide variety of issues from just, like, things that are super blatant violations of the stream access law to those little nuanced things. Um, but our main mission is just to try to defend the stream access law, and part of that involves working with the landowners. As Jim brought up, Hal, Hal knows this as well, um, the stream access law doesn't work without them. So.
• 24:35
  Hal, I wanna scope way out. Um, the idea underneath the stream access law isn't new. It isn't even American. As you mentioned, it, it runs back to Roman law and this notion that a few things like running water and the air and the sea are all, by their nature, [laughs] common to everyone and, and can't be owned by any one person. And Montana just wrote that ancient idea into a modern statute better than any other state has so far. So when a society decides who gets to stand in a river, it's really deciding something about itself, right? Like, what do you think this fight says about where we are as a country right now? Because
• 25:20
  it, it's my perspective that the same question just keeps surfacing everywhere it wants. You know, just last summer, Senator Mike Lee tried to write the sale of millions of acres of federal land across the Western states into a, a, a budget bill, and it only died because Americans from every corner of the country had a galvanic response, right? They really raised this outcry. So stream access, the public land sell-off, corner crossings, these all sort of look like separate skirmishes, but they're the same thing, right? It's the same question. Does, does a shared world still exist? Or are we deciding parcel by parcel and river mile by river mile that everything eventually belongs to whoever can afford it?
• 26:03
  Well, the, the-- this was not original to me, but the default setting, uh, for any society that stops fighting, that, like, lacks any unity,
• 26:14
  the default setting there is either feudalism or/plutocracy.
• 26:20
  So when people are too divided to, to agree on, on commonalities, when everything becomes politicized, um, it- it's not even the, the very wealthy people aren't actually doing this on purpose. They simply take control of all the common assets. The public trust doesn't exist, for instance, in, say, um, El Salvador, where 14 families controlled the entire government for all my adult life, you know, even now. Um, the public trust doesn't exist in-- The people fought it in Honduras. There was a, there was a, a mining and, um, river disaster in the making there, and the local people simply fought with everything they had because they risked their lives. They didn't risk a day in court,
• 27:06
  right? So what we're seeing is with the, with the incredible, uh, wealth disparity in the United States of America, you're seeing the top one or 2% are ca- are, are ab- absolutely can buy the entire place.
• 27:21
  And you have to ask, why wouldn't they, right? And so y- it's not their fault that they have a trillion dollars and don't want anybody walking down their river. I mean, the governor, uh, was one of those challenges to this, sued FWP, our governor right now, and people voted for him nevertheless. Um, and so
• 27:43
  I, I, I just say, if you want a democratic republic, which implies that there's a government, a state, that representative government that, that guards the public trust,
• 27:56
  you can't have an authoritarian government. You can't have... You, you've gotta have some unity. And you were talking about what opposed Mike Lee's bill
• 28:05
  was a demonstration of, of a democratic republic and, and people participating in their democratic republic. If you don't participate, you get plutocracy. If you have plutocracy, you're not gonna go take your kids to swimming in the Dearborn, as I was able to do for all of their growing up.
• 28:25
  That's great, Hal.
• 28:26
  Hal, can I add one thing? I was listening to a bunch of the Montana Coalition for Stream Access, um, interviews in the Angling Library, and every single one of those gentlemen ended, Jim Getz, Tony Schuman, ended with that comment. Like, "People need, people need to get involved again. People need to participate." Like, just thought that was telling.
• 28:45
  We step aside for a word from our sponsor, and we'll be right back with more of the conversation.
• 28:51
  I'm Brian Miles from Memphis, Tennessee, and you're listening to The Wild Idea.
• 28:55
  What's in the water, no pun intended, in Montana that makes people so willing to step out about this stuff? [laughs] I mean, you just... Every state's got, like, passionate advocates, but it really does feel like Montana's ground 0 for this, that people really get the connection. Why is that?
• 29:12
  You know, I think it's a, it's a big reason why so many of us live here. You know, whether you, you grew up here, you're multi-generational, if you moved here years ago or you're a recent transplant, I mean, I think it's one of the biggest draws to Montana is certainly, um, that recreational, you know, outdoor recreational mindset, the opportunities the state provides, and the access that we have. Um, and, you know, to, to summarize what Alex and, and Hal just said, you know, there's that famous quote that democracy is not a spectator sport, and I would say the same thing about access issues. Um, Mike Lee certainly found that out the hard way last year when he tried to touch that hot stove and, and got badly burned with a, uh, a rousing response from, you know, all across the country, all across the different political spectrum. I mean, it was amazing how many people stood up and fought for access and sounded off. But, you know, uh, these access issues, they're not going away. In fact, they're only going to get more difficult in the years ahead. And I'll tell you what, if this is something you care about, whether you live here in Montana or anywhere else in the country where you appreciate the access you have to amazing wild places, you know, it cannot be a spectator sport.
• 30:21
  That's a great call to action, Jim.
• 30:22
  Yep.
• 30:22
  I, I wanna ask you, um, to dig in a little bit. So through Yellow Dog, you're booking river trips for people from all over the country. So you know exactly what the alternatives to Montana's [laughs] stream access law look like. You know, in most states-
• 30:37
  Yeah
• 30:37
  ... like Wyoming and Idaho right next door, it's illegal to walk a river without the landowner's permission. And someone can correct me if I'm wrong here, but my understanding is that in places like Colorado and Utah, that the rivers there are locked down pretty tight as well. So when someone from one of those places fishes Montana for the 1st time and they realize they can wade the Yellowstone right through a private ranch as long as they stay below that high water mark, what's their reaction? And, and having seen how the rest of the world handles it, is Montana's stream access law genuinely the best model out there, or does someone somewhere else do a better job?
• 31:11
  I'll, I'll answer that thing, because I, I do think actually Idaho has got a pretty strong stream access law. Theirs are very similar to Montana's. The other states you mentioned, especially Colorado, Wyoming, large portions of Utah, very, very different. But, you know, I've been fortunate enough to spend my entire career in, in fly-fishing and in the outdoor industry, and through Yellow Dog, the 27 years we've had the company, I've also, you know, traveled the world in search of great fishing destinations where we send our clients. Um, and the more I've traveled and fished around the world, you know, the more I've realized just how extraordinary we have it here in Montana. And, you know, there's very different access situ- situations, say when you go to Colorado or Wyoming, uh, where if you are the landowner, you own the stream bed, you own the gravel bars, you own the rocks in the river. I mean, if you're, you know, floating in Wyoming on pretty much every river on the state, there's a few exceptions, but, you know, if you're drifting through, not even stopping and getting out on the banks, but if you drop anchor, and I would say to retie or deal with a snag or, or net a fish, you're trespassing. If you brush up on a rock in a skinny section of water and, say, your raft or your drift boat kind of gets stuck on that rock and take a push off, you're trespassing. Um, and it's the same way in Colorado. So it is very, very different. Um, it's one of the things, and, and we talked about, you know, the economic impact to the state of Montana that our stream access laws have. Um, you know, people are blown away when they come here, and they understand that these resources, these, you know, class one and class 2 rivers and streams, these waters do belong to the people of the state, and that they are open and available to us for, for recreation, whether it's spending time with your kids in the outdoors, uh, whether it's to go out and, you know, go on a bird-watching trip as you canoe down a river, or whether you're, you know, out fly-fishing on your own or with an outfitter or guide. Um, you know, it's a, it's a big part of the identity of this state. It's something that does make us, uh, you know, very unique from, from other states in the country and especially other Western states. And yeah, people are, are blown away by, uh, by what we have up here. It is, uh, it is something that's really special. And, and one of the things we continue to come back to time and time again, Alex, Hal, myself, so many other people that are involved in this issue, is that is why it's so important to get involved, to, to speak up, to show up, to sound off. Um, and, you know, if you don't, you stop paying attention, you know, this is never safe. This can, this can always either be diluted or watered down, or it can just outright go away if we're not paying attention.
• 33:48
  Yeah, th-this whole conversation has continued to point in one direction, which is, like, if you don't participate, you will lose it. Uh, it just will happen that way. Uh, and there is a timeliness to this conversation because the threats are still real. The threats are imminent, but also that response, um, is imminent. Alex, can you talk a little bit about the rally that is coming up? Uh, Jim, you can jump in here, too. Like, you know, what, what's planned? When is it happening? How do people get involved? And outside of the rally, the other ways that people can stay in tune with what the threats are and how we hang on to something that has just been demonstrated to be so valuable and so precious.
• 34:25
  I'm gonna let Jim go on the specifics, Jim, of the rally. How about that? And I'll talk about what they can do outside of the rally. Does that work?
• 34:32
  Yeah, that's great. Um, so on Thursday, September 17th, here in Bozeman, right downtown on the lawn of the Emerson Cultural Center, um, we are having the Montana Stream Access Rally. It kicks off at 5:30, uh, that evening. It's a great afternoon, evening event. It'll go till about 8:30 that night. Um, this is the second time we've done a stream access rally, and the first time was heading into the 2024 elections. Uh, a, a small group of us, Alex was included in that, we started kicking around the ideas of the importance of, of raising that public awareness and getting more people involved and, and keeping them paying attention to this issue. We did it with maybe 3 or 4 weeks notice. It was kind of a last-minute deal on the first stream access rally we did. We did it at the fairgrounds. We had about 450 people show up. I mean, it was amazing, the turnout for kind of a last-minute event. Well, as we head into the next election cycle, um, we thought, well, what a great time to do it again for the simple reason that we want our elected officials in Helena and we want every candidate for statewide office to know that Montanans are paying attention to this issue. This is a hot button topic that I don't care if they're Democrats, if they're Republicans, if they're running as independents, they need to know that this is an issue that is near and dear to the hearts of Montanans and that Montanans are paying attention. Our intent with, uh, hosting this rally on Thursday, September 17th, we wanna get 1,000 people, we wanna get 1,500 people, as many people as we possibly can to show up and sound off on the importance of stream access. It's gonna be a fantastic event. Um, it's a great outdoor setting right in the heart of downtown Bozeman. Everybody's invited. It's free. It's open to everyone. It's gonna be a lot of fun. We've got live music before and after. Um, a, a great slate of speakers that we have. Both Hal and Alex will be speaking at the event, as well as some other special guests that we have coming in. We've got food trucks, beer gardens. Um, we've also got an incredible slate of sponsors. They're some of the biggest outdoor brands in the state of Montana, all of whom who have donated, uh, well in excess of 10,000 dollars- ... in prizes that you have to be present. You scan a QR code to, to register for that, and we're gonna be giving away a ton of stuff at the event. So the whole intent is to get as many people as possible into Bozeman on the 17th. Um, we want politicians, whether they're in attendance or candidates that are in attendance, or if they see footage of this rally later, or they see photos of it later and they see the density of Montanans and stream access supporters that have shown up to sound off for stream access, that, you know, this next legislative session when a little bill comes along or something that, you know, they might, you know, try to attach to a, a larger bill or sneak in there that would somehow chip away or dilute at stream access, we want them to think twice 'cause we want them to know that Montanans are paying attention to this issue. And, uh, you know, this is a great way for everybody to get involved on a specific day, on a specific, uh, a, a specific event. And, and come from wherever you are in Montana. You wanna drive over from Billings or, you know, down from Kalispell or out in Missoula, come and show up and, and let your voice be heard. Um, and then stay involved after that fact. And, and Alex, you can talk a little bit about ways that people can continue to be spokes- you know, people for stream access and, and weigh in on the importance of that.
• 37:57
  Thanks, Jim. Great explanation and great summary of the event. We're really looking forward to it. Um, and I think when it comes to, like, what you can do outside of it, there's a few things. Obviously, I'm gonna plug becoming a member of a group like PLWA. Our membership's only 20 bucks a year. Um, we do not email that often. And, you know, I think what we're-- the information we're putting out there is pretty pertinent and relevant to a lot of folks. I think 2nd, everyone's been hammering this, but, like, conservation is graying across the country, and we need to get more folks involved. Like, Montana may have these little clubs all over the state, but a lot of them outside of Bozeman and Missoula and Kalispell are struggling. So I think getting folks invol- involved, getting them understanding how policy impacts their fishing, how maybe a weird decision by the, you know, Fish and Game Commission could close off fishing for a season. You know, just understanding how things are tied together is really key to prepare for the next challenge. Like, we, you know, we have a slate of stream access issues we're working on right now. Maybe one of those is the next Ruby River case. We don't really know. But challenges will continue as, you know, Montana continues to change. So that's why we're so appreciative of Jim, Yellow Dog, and this... It's kind of weird. There's, like, this grassroots meeting with this behemoth of a outdoor industry, and I think it's awesome and much needed.
• 39:18
  It- it's gonna be a good event. And, and I would just add to it that, you know, this isn't... Th-this rally event on September 17th, this isn't an angry protest, right? This is a celebration of what we have. It's an educational event, and most importantly, it's an opportunity and message we can send to Helena to show them that Montanans are paying attention. But we got, uh, great information, montanastreamaccess.com. Check it out. There's all kinds of information about the rally event. You can go online, get all the details. Uh, also there's great links to PLWA, you know, and to a lot of, uh, important information on how you can continue to stay involved.
• 39:52
  That's great. I was g- I was gonna ask, and, and you teed that up perfect there, Jim, on how, how people find out about it. Uh, Alex, I was gonna ask you, outside of the rally itself, you know, how do people find out what's going on with PLWA?
• 40:05
  Plwa.org. Really easy. Go to our website. You can sign up. Um, we also have this new kind of, uh, advocacy list. It's called Access Advocates, that give folks opportunities to comment on these exact things we're talking about, like these public comment opportunities. So
• 40:20
  please visit our website and sign up. We don't have that many people. We need more.
• 40:24
  Yeah, that's great. And, and, and Jim, when, when you're not organizing this incredible rally, and, and by the way, I wanna give a shout-out to Oboz who, who 1st teed up for us that we needed to have this conversation, what, uh, what's going on with Yellow Dog that folks need to know?
• 40:36
  Yeah. I mean, we're based here in Bozeman. Um, we started 27 years ago as a, uh, destination angling and, and booking company. We send people all over the world to wherever great fly fishing is found. Obviously, a lot of that is right here in the Northern Rockies and in our home state of, of Montana. Um, you know, and anglers, uh, you know, so often we take what we have for granted because, you know, maybe you live on the Missouri or you live on the Beaverhead or you're, you know, on the banks of the Yellowstone, and it's, it's just what we know. It's what we have here in Montana. But, you know, sometimes we forget that people will travel from all over the country, and in fact, from all over the world to come and experience what we have here in Montana. That is how special our rivers and our streams and our resources are in this state. Um, you know, as a Montana business that, that focuses on, on sending people to great places, we're really pl- proud when we can, you know, show people what Montana has to offer. And, and again, going back to the, you know, the original question you asked me at the beginning of the program, you know, this is an important economic driver for our state. It, it brings in a lot of dollars to Montana. It provides for a lot of jobs, and it does it in a, a very, um, you know, respectful, renewable way. So it's, uh, it's a good industry for the state of Montana. And, uh, yeah, it's a exciting one to be a part of. We feel super fortunate. Um, you know, along with all the travel services and destinations we provide, we also, um, have fly shops, including our main shop here in Bozeman as well. So, uh, we feel really lucky to be a part of the fly fishing industry, um, and we are really happy that we're based right here in Montana.
• 42:07
  Great. Thanks, Jim. I, we, we can't wrap up without bringing the Oracle back in here. Um, and, uh, [laughs] and, uh, since we last had Hal on, and for, for those of you maybe listening to us for, you know, most recently, don't know Hal was guest number one. Uh, so he is now officially a repeat offender, as Tracy Stone-Manning created the term. But Hal, the, the Oracle has pivoted and has moved. Can you talk to us a little bit about what's going on with Carrying the Fire podcast and what's going on there?
• 42:35
  Yeah. Well, I've just, um, I went off on my own. Uh, I had a wonderful run at Backcountry Hunters and Anglers with their podcast, hosting that. And, um, I think did 227, 230 episodes. Um, and I wanted to just be... I wanted to take something of my own that wasn't, wasn't- Well, if I said it, say anything rad- radically inflammatory, I want it to be mine. Uh, so I, I decided to move off on that. I'm running Carrying the Fire. Um, I've got... Uh, I just had Kyle Lybarger down in Alabama, Native Habitat Project. Um, it's really a,
• 43:11
  a, as, as Jim you were saying, it's a celebration. Um, it's, it's less policy-oriented and more experiential, I'd say. Um, I've got, uh, a guy who does beautiful audio recordings of the Tongass National Forest, um, with this incredible gear that he has. Um, he wrote a, a biography of Richard Nelson, if you've ever heard of him. And, um, it's just, uh, I'm having a really good time with it. And I'm finishing up a long project of my own on public lands, working through the edits and just ready for... So I'll tell you the truth, I'm just ready to go back to the river and the mountains so much at the moment
• 43:49
  that that's all I can really think about. Uh, I, I wanted to add something. Um, Jim Pozawitz was a big part of my life, you know. And, um, Pozawitz always said that, uh, y- you could only protect things from people. Say you're a landowner and you wanna protect the river from people, right? They don't wanna hurt it and all. He said that, that seems to be great at the time, but once you've walled people away from a resource and, and, and let's say, let... Resource is a, is a silly word for that. W- wall them away from experience and beauty and the smell of that mint and the sea- and those caddisflies jumping up and down, getting taken by a trout. Once you've walled people away from that for a while, in a few generations, they don't care about it. And the only thing that has done American conservation is numbers of people. It might have been inspired by blue bloods and scientists who knew things, but the numbers of, of citizens that were invested in the rivers and the mountains and the public lands and all, that's why we got it. And that's why Jim Pozawitz always told me, he said, "You cannot... Access is 1st. People have to know what to love. They have to be able to experience it in order to be willing to fight for it." And so it, it might be well-meaning for somebody to, to lock up a big place and say, "Well, look, it's just nature. It's... Everything's fine." But we're actually all losing ground at that point. And, and, uh, I'm a Pozawitzian thinker. I...
• 45:21
  He, he, he planted that seed in my head and that... and it, it has, it has proved out over the, over the decades.
• 45:30
  That is a really lovely way to end things, Hal. You and Alex and Jim, y'all are those dudes. I'm so glad y'all came on today. Um, I hope everybody listening goes to montanastreamaccess.com 1st thing. Don't do anything else. Go straight there and see what you can do. Thanks, guys, for coming on.
• 45:50
  Thank you.
• 45:53
  [instrumental music] Really great having you on. We look forward to, uh, hopefully seeing everybody in Bozeman coming up for sure. Coming up on the Wild Idea podcast, we will talk with Fitz Cahall from the Dirtbag Diaries about his drive behind the effort called Save Public Lands Day. We get into rural community economics with the folks from Center for American Progress and Headwaters Economics, and we catch up with Marshall Johnson, who we last spoke with on the stage of the Old Salt Festival about his work as the chief conservation officer for Audubon. We hope you have signed up for our newsletters, and this reminder that you can find the Wildline now in its own feed on your podcast player of choice. You can support what we're doing here via Buy Me a Coffee, which is on our website at thewildidea.com, where you can find the show notes from today's conversation. Let's pull on the waders, hit the water, and we will see all of you on down the river.
• 46:42
  [instrumental music] The Wild Idea is a production of Wild Idea Media and hosted by Bill Hodge and Anders Reynolds. Production and editing by Bren Russell at Pod Lab. Digital support by Holly Wilkoszewski at Daypack Digital. Our theme music, Spring Hill Jack, is from Railroad Earth and was composed by John Skehan. Our executive producer and ringleader is Laura Hodge. You can find The Wild Idea wherever you listen to or download your favorite podcast. If you have a minute, please take a minute to give us a rating. And if you really like us, we hope you'll subscribe. Learn more about us at thewildidea.com.