sections--and I have maps to show anyone that wants to look--are 

 connected with federal lands, with BLM land and with Forest Service 

 land'. The access is there. The lessee should have no right to deny 

 accefs to me if I want to go there. It's my land. I have the existing 

 use of that land. It's up to them to prove that I have lost it. At 

 what point in time has recreation been stripped from the general public? 

 I have a letter from the Department of Interior since I wanted to see 

 what their attitude was on this. They're a little vague also, but they 

 maintained that the lands were to be used to generate income for the 

 schools. But, in no place does it say much of anything else about 

 denying access. In fact, I can't find where it says anything about 

 denying access or that the recreation values we enjoyed before the 

 enabling act were stripped from us. In fact, the enabling act is silent 

 on recreation, it says nothing. It doesn't say that it's been stripped. 

 I might mention also that the letter says the Department of Interior 

 gave these public lands to the state of Montana. 



It says that Montana Fish and Game Department is responsible for 

 the administration of game laws within the state, including game law 

 enforcement on public lands administered by this bureau. It is a law in 

 this state that the wild animals belong to the public. And the Fish and 

 Game Department administers and manages the wildlife, except this 

 doesn't seem to apply on state land. I don't know why. But it doesn't 

 seem to apply on these 5.6 million acres. The Bureau of Land 

 Mangement and U.S. Forest Service work very well together, and I'm 

 not saying that the State Land Department doesn't work in some ways. 

 But I have been told that the Fish and Game Department will never 

 manage the game or the habitat on state land. I'm not so sure about 

 that. 



I have a letter from the Governor and I do believe the Governor is 

 trying to do everything he can to appease the public and be fair to the 

 rancher. His letter says that the lease entitles him to use the grass. 

 He feels that the department would like to do everything they could to 

 provide for multiple use as long as it's compatible. Now I personally 

 feel that all state land, all 5.6 million acres, has recreation value. I 

 defy anybody to point out one section or one acre of state land that 

 does not have some recreational value to somebody .. .one acre. 

 Therefore, it must be proven to me, not that recreaton is compatible 

 with other uses, but that other uses are compatible with recreation. 



I have here a grazing lease, it's a blank one. Now first off, I 

 want to say I'm for grazing. I don't want to do anything to interfere 

 with the present situation. Nothing that would injure any rancher in 

 any way because he's got a tough enough time as it is. And I basically 

 don't think that all that many ranchers want to deprive me of using my 

 land. As far as the Charlie Russell Game Range is concerned, or the 

 Mount Haggin Game Range area here, yes, I'm in favor of grazing on 

 these areas as long as there's a management plan and it is a plan that 

 works well with the habitat of big game. They've got to work 

 together. On these leases I see where if I'm to believe the 

 leases. . .what they say... if the lease says it's a grazing lease, then in 

 theory, on the back side of the lease, the lessee could not use those 



