Just another situation where a company or club decides that this or that is theirs, and Joe Public is having to sue them to get it back - all very sad - is there no end to the greed and deception???
B](http://midcurrent.com/2011/12/05/supreme-court-to-decide-case-with-nationwide-flyfishing-implications/)est regards, Dave S.
… thanks for posting the link to the MidCurrent article which contains links to some of the actual documents relating to this case and to some commentary on the proceedings in the SCOTUS.<BR><BR>I had a very enjoyable time reading the entirety of the Montana Supreme Court decision ( except for only scanning the parts of the decision on the “damages” owed to the State of Montana ). Interesting stuff on a very cold day with a lot of stiff water in the neighborhood. I also read some of the commentary about what is actually being considered in the SCOTUS proceedings and what transpired in the initial hearing on the matter.<BR><BR>Having said that, I will respectfully disagree with the points you made in the opening post in this thread, and with the comments made by the writer ( Benjamin Clary ) of the MidCurrent article. Quoting from the article -<BR><BR>“At stake for the participants is $40 million in back rent PPL Montana would owe the state if the U.S. Supreme Court upholds the Montana high court?s decision. However, at stake for flyfishers is the privatization of three iconic Montana rivers.”<BR><BR>The author of the article may be right that PPL may end up owing the State of Montana $40 million in back rent for use of state owned property ( and, further, be required to enter into a lease agreement with the State of Montana for continued use of that land ). Given the state of the proceedings, that is as likely as not what will happen. I say that because it seems to me there is a gap in the proceedings at this point - the gap being that if the State does not own the land on which the PPL dams are located, who does actually own them ?? And that issue apparently is not being addressed by the SCOTUS. ( In the Montana case, PPL never claimed ownership of the land, only that the lands were for the public trust and available to PPL for “beneficial use” without compensation to the State. )<BR><BR>The author is dead wrong that this case is about “privatization of three iconic Montana rivers” and the suggestion that fly anlgers, or others, could somehow lose the right to fish them. If the SCOTUS finds in favor of PPL, there will be some short sections of the three rivers that may fall under private ownership at some point ( see parenthetical comment above that PPL never claimed ownership of the land under dispute ) but the vast majority of the rivers’ lengths will still be public lands.<BR><BR>John