ted in the practice of law was that I foimd myself dealing with lawyers con- 

 stantly and I sought to educate myself in some measure so that I might be 

 better able to communicate with them. This led me to law. 1 kind of fell 

 into it — backwards. It used to be that your dealing with lawyers as agri- 

 culture people were not very frequent. You saw the lawyer when Dad died to 

 take care of the administration of the estate and complain about the fee. 

 If you had a lease to be prepared, you walked down the street to the local 

 lawyer and got him to do that, but things have now become more complicated. 



We had a Montana Supreme Court decision just recently that gives me 

 some concern. There is a proposed subdivision in the Gallatin Valley called 

 Beaver Creek South. As you know, when you subdivide land an environmental 

 impact statement must be prepared and filed. A group of people with envir- 

 onmental interests have bonded together and brought suit on the basis that 

 the Beaver Creek EIS was not properly prepared. Out of this action came a 

 legal decision that I think has real interesting ramifications. I'm not 

 sure which groups were involved, but one of these groups was a party plain- 

 tiff and our Montana Supreme Court ruled that the groups had standing to 

 come in and prosecute its action. Heretofore, in Montana you could not bring 

 a legal action unless the problem had a direct personal impact on the indi- 

 vidual who seeked to get into Court. This environmental group, who was al- 

 lowed by our Supreme Court to prosecute the action, never alleged that they 

 had any more than a casual relationship because some of their members were 

 in the area. They enjoyed seeing it. They rode horseback through there and 

 because of that alone they felt that they had such an interest that the 

 court should allow them to come in and interject their thoughts and feelings 

 into our legal process. It seems to me the question then of public interest 

 in what are essentially private matters could extend far beyond that example. 

 Could not one of these organizations enter into a lawsuit to question deci- 

 sions made by the Forest Service with regard to grazing practices there, gra- 

 zing practices on grazing districts or even on use of state grazing leases? 

 The time may very well come when some court may allow or say it is right for 

 the Sierra Club to come in and base a legal argument in court on public need 

 and good and say, as an example, that land in Eastern Montana should not be 

 plowed. That such is not in the public interest even though it is private 

 land. Maybe that is the right thing to do. I know it is good for lawyers. 



108 



