Home Forums Fishing Flyfishing Trout Unlimited - Montana stream access Laws

Up until a couple years ago I was a faithful supporter of TU. TU then caved to money and rich land owners and didn't support Montana and the right of way stream access laws. I emailed and called TU to cancel my membership till they supported the average fisherman or woman in Montana and our rights to fish to the high watermark.

Does anyone know if TU changed their policy?

I would love to support Tu agian.

ddj

I was a member for years and then they really seemed to go to the way left in the environmental issues. Full buy-in to man-made global warming, all development bad etc and I dropped them. Wasn't aware of their position on access.

I am, I suppose, drifting back and I spent the day hauling stocking boxes down one of our local streams stocking 500 browns. I think instead of joining the national organization I'm going to concentrate on my local MD stuff.

FWIW, if you live in a place that stocks this was a of fun, also the inside info is good Several of our trout were in the 4-7 lb class.

I live in a trout desert. There ae no trout for 5 hours really. That was the reason I enjoyed TU. I was able to support them a make a difference, but not at the expense of giving up my fishing rights.

I was hoping that some of our Montana members might have some info.

ddj

I was a Life member of TU, and very active in the 1980's, then one day I got a letter from them, they when after the Life membership for a bunch of money for something called the Bright Water Trust. Now I didn't have a problem if they wrote to the general membership. but they only did to the life members. And the way it was worded made me a cheap Axxhole if I didn't join in and send an amount from 1000 to 10000 dollars. I drop them the same day. Look you don't need TU to go fishing.

My fishing buddy moved to Omaha. Nice house after selling house here but not a trout within many zip codes. At least I can taunt him about something.

As far as I know there has been no change by TU on their stance. I also dropped them when they showed no balls with the stream access issue here in Montana. There are certain things that are sacred in this state (and should be in other states as well). If you are living in a state where wealthy landowners can prohibit you from fishing on any stream, I feel for you.

TU has really lost touch with their original goal. It sure seems like it is being run more as a business nowadays. I have the montana TU plates on my truck, this will change next time they are due. Old George Grant is probably rolling in his grave.

I've never heard of any TU emphasis on access, stocking, season durations, or bag limits. Here in Oregon, the focus has been habitat improvement and doing away with stream stocking to promote native genetics. They were an early flash here, but one seldom hears of them anymore until there is some meeting that allows comments on statewide issues.

I have a question about your "access" to streams. What do you mean? Do you expect access to a stream when it is owned by private landowners on both sides?
I guess most land is "owned by someone" and some are public land. I was always taught that you could float a river and even fish or hunt on it but the moment you stepped on the land (even a stream or river bed) it was called trespassing. Duck hunting is a place where this can be critical. You can float somewhere and hunt on a river but technically, if you shoot a duck and it lands on the bank, you would trespass to retrieve the duck.

Maybe I am missing what you are talking about with the private land stream access. As a landowner, I can appreciate a limitation because if someone was fishing in the creek that runs across my property, they would have most likely had to trespass on my land to get there.

Thanks in advance for clarifying what you are talking about.

Pondjumpr: The take here in the Pacific northwest is that one may walk within the high water line of any navigable stream. That includes some fairly small streams if one wants to run his kayak down some skinny water during high flow. It probably dates back to pioneer days when folks floated logs or goods down streams during high flows. The streams/rivers were indeed thought of as public highways, and if one had a wreck, he may indeed need to access the bank.

Those rules today are mostly exploited by fishermen, me being one. I'll walk 9 or 10 miles a day to get at steelhead if the boat can't make it down. One can not cross private land to get to a particular stream, but if public land, a road, or another land holder provides access, one is in. Don't ask who defines the extent of the highwater mark, as I don't know. Given looks at some of our record flood events in the past though, it can put one well up on the bank.

Unlike many other states, all of Oregon/s beaches are public. One may buy beachfront property, but cannot stop those folks that want to walk the coastline. Personally I think it's a good law, but yes, it may cause some landowners grief if folks abuse their rights. To my knowledge, there have been no successful challenges to repealing these laws although many have tried.

Mt, Wy, Or, and Idaho have great expanses of rivered public holdings. Restricting passage would cause considerable hardship to boaters/hikers if they ran 60 miles of river and encountered a 2 acre bank parcel that blocked or tolled for passage. Old timers know of and are tolerant of those rights. For want of a better term, however, "outsiders" often pick up river front property, and become upset when a floater goes by beneath their deck.

There are reams of arguments about holdings that bound streams. If surveys claim midstream as property a line, and many do, what happens when the river moves a half mile east? Does one gain or lose property? If so, will his stock have access to water or not. What about an irrigation diversion that left the river in that span? Things can get real hairy, so I guess that's why we have lawers and judges.

On land, we do have issues with many of the old roads that were never officially maintained by the county or state here. Such a road might encounter a 40 acre parcel in the middle of a million acres of public land and the owner can indeed post or gate and block passage. Typically though, folks will simply get to work, and in short order have a two track running right around the fence and continue on. One can also go to court, and if he can document historic use, get the run reopened to the public.

Nevada has some intersting water issues because they have always encouraged mining. One may run a dairy and rely soley on a stream for his stock and irrigation water. Someone can start mining further upstream and divert and use the entire flow for his endeavors. Is that fair? Don't know, but it's legal.

We have some other intersting issues in a few of our western states too and I can't remember the specifics right now. I think it's either Wyoming or Colorado. There are large areas of land that have checker board parcels of private and public holdings. In some states it is not legal for one to find the four corners area and step from one public holding to another. It's called corner jumping. I don't know how the rule would be read if you used your ultra light to fly from one parcel to another. Maybe we could just spread our arms and say we flew in. That one probably dates back to a cattle baron that had political connections and was trying to keep other stockmen out of his realm.

It's an interesting world....

Interesting, indeed.

I live in South Carolina and many of the same things you mention as rules or laws out West, are present here. A waterway may not be blocked by a fence or a dam without some sort of permit. I guess that keeps a man who owns both sides of a river from putting up a fence and blocking passage.
Most of the rivers around here are not used for commercial use anyways but are often used for recreation.

I think where everything gets cloudy is when someone has to interpret "high water marks" or some other vague or possibly changing point of reference.

I fish on a river in the North west corner of our state. Much of the river is on State owned land and the river is the border between Georgia and SC. One nice thing is that your license is reciprocal for either state as long as both states border the river.
Further down the River, there are houses along the road. I have fished from the bank near these houses and in the river right in front of them. I have never had any issues with someone saying i am fishing where I shouldn't be but I always feel like I might be walking a thin line when I am there.
I generally feel that I am OK if I entered the river on public land and walk up or downstream while in the river. When I put my feel on land is where I am uncertain.
another instance is this; My primary residence is in a neighborhood. I live on a small pond but I am not the only one that owns property on the pond. I am, however, the only person with a nice dock.
If someone puts a boat in and fishes right in front of my place, even though I technically own the ground under it, I feel I have no right to say anything and would never say anything.
However, if someone is standing on the bank or on my dock... That's a different story. I feel like that is my property and in turn, if someone were to get hurt, I would be liable.
I let the neighbor's kids fish from the dock now but I will admit that it does make me a little nervous. Not to mention if they are there, I feel like I can not use my own dock. (They never even ask anymore )

We are allowed to fish/boat boundary waters (Snake and Columbia) between states, but can not step on shore with a rod in hand if not carrying a license for the second state.

Same here. You can wade the Potomac and fish shore to shore with either a WV or MD or VA license but if you step on shore you need a license for that state.

SC and Georgia allow fishing from the bank on either side, with either state's license. NC and SC, however, don't honor the other's license at all. Water or land, if you are fishing in NC without a NC license, even if you are in a boat, on a lake mostly in SC, NC says it is illegal. I think that is a bit extreme but then again, I don't write the laws...