Montana Supreme Court Rules on Mitchell Slough

Ravalli Republic -- Mitchell Slough Ruled Open to Recreation

The Montana Supreme Court overturned two earlier rulings by state district courts that found Mitchell Slough to not be a "natural, perennial-flowing stream". The supreme court's ruling is a win for local sportsmen's groups and recreationists because it makes Mitchell Slough subject to Montana's stream access law and thus open to the public.

For those readers not familiar with Montana's stream access law, Montana's rivers, streams, and river beds are public domain, thus open to any person wishing to use the waterways for recreational purposes. People are able to access Montana rivers and streams at public boat launches, through public land, and at public bridges. People are allowed to move up and down the river through private land without trespassing as long as they stay within the high water mark, a line usually distinguishable by its lower elevation, plentiful river rock, and lack of vegetation.

Public Access, the Environment, and Mitchell Slough

Montana's stream access law makes it possible for anyone to access and enjoy some of the best trout fisheries in the lower 48. Less restrictive stream access laws are a win for the average Joe and a win for the public over private moneyed interests.

That being said... I must admit that though I support the Montana Supreme Court's ruling and champion stream access laws, I understand the benefits of limiting human access to waterways. There is no arguing that ecosystems where human pressure is minimal fare better than those where man is persistently present. Humans have a way, whether intentional or not, of throwing ecosystems out of wack. The question we should always ask is how many people can a river ecosystem support before it is adversely affected? At this point in time, Montana's stream access law works in Montana because its rivers benefit by existing in a place sparsely populated by humans. Imagine setting the Madison, Gallatin, or Yellowstone River down in the middle of southern California. Less restrictive stream access laws would allow the massive population to love the river to death.

Applying this reasoning to Mitchell Slough... I am troubled because I don't know what affect the Supreme Court's ruling may have on the waterway. Much of Mitchell Slough's length is modeled like a spring creek, a slow moving meandering creek lined with grassy banks. Spring creeks are more susceptible to human pressure because the riparian vegetation that supports the banks are more sensitive to foot-traffic. A handful of fisherman along its edges may do no harm, but a steady stream of fisherman pounding the stream banks daily could do long term damage.

The fight over Mitchell Slough may have been avoided if the private property owners along the slough, Montana FWP, and local sportsmen's groups had come together on a set of guidelines to regulate the Mitchell Slough like a spring creek fishery and restricted the number of fishermen allowed to access the creek to a daily quota in exchange for a "rod fee". The fee could have been small and the money garnered set aside to maintain the slough. Alas, that window of opportunity passed. The private property owners swung for the fences and ultimately struck-out. Private interest's loss is a win for the public, but let's see how the slough handles increased public pressure. Because if the slough suffers long term effects, everyone loses.