... this one to an editorial in today's Missoulian by Bruce Farling, executive director of Montana Trout Unlimited.

http://missoulian.com/news/opinion/c...cc4c03286.html

I agree with a lot of what he has to say, but he does himself and the issue a disservice by not quoting the language of HB309 which is the source of his concern. Maybe because the language is not there ??

My experience with statutes and Supreme Court decisions, which is not so recent but is quite extensive, tells me that the "vagueness" of HB309 is ultimately to the benefit of its opponents, if it comes to litigation, not to the writers, sponsors, and supporters of HB309.

The best test of the intent of the supporters is to sit down with them and come up with language which clearly states that intent, both as to what it does mean and what it does not mean.

The next best thing is to keep this on a front burner through the next election cycle, if necessary - remembering that if the existing Stream Access statute can be modified by this Legislature, the one it comes up with can be modified by the some future Legislature, if not resolved sooner in the Courts.

John