lands for himself for hunting and fishing because it's another us that 

 he is not paying for. That's what it says. I have here a clipping 

 dated Friday, March 10, 1978, from the Great Falls Tribune on the State 

 Land Department. If I read this correctly it says out of the 5.3 million 

 acres of the state there are about 600,000 acres of land that have some 

 recreational value and about one-third more of those have high 

 recreational value. Now I'm curious as to why all of the land does not 

 have recreational value. How is it determined that some land does not 

 have recreational value. It all has recreational value. 



In 1889, when the 5.3 million acres were given or gifted or 

 however it got here, to the state of Montana, there were 37,000 acres 

 that the state did not receive for one reason or other. So the State 

 Land Department has 37,000 acres still coming. Now in all probability 

 these 37,000 acres, when they apply for them, will belong to the 

 Bureau of Land Mangement. Now the Bureau of Land Management has a 

 policy that the grazing lease does not alter or restrict the authorized 

 public land, including hiking, fishing, hunting, chasing butterflies or 

 whatever. So you can do those things. But if the State Land 

 Department takes this land, it will revert to the same policy that is now 

 in use by the State Land Department. In other words, the State Land 

 Department has one biologist for 5.3 million acres. 



Now I understand it is probably because of funding, but 

 nevertheless, they have one biologist, who couldn't possibly manage 

 this many acres of land. And for some unknown reason, although we 

 have a magnificant Fish and Game Department here and ample biologists 

 throughout all these areas, they're not being used to their fullest on 

 state lands. They're being used on other public lands. Forest Service 

 land, BLM lands, but not to the fullest on the state land. Now their 

 wildlife program lists roughly how many antelope or mule deer are found 

 on these areas. They've got a good plan going. What is going to 

 happen to that plan when the State Land Department takes over this 

 land? What would happen to all of the land in Montana if the 

 Sagebrush Rebellion in fact did take place? Where would the public be 

 today? I have another leter, a statement to interested parties written 

 by the State Land Department. It says, "the Montana Fish and Game 

 Department is concerned that these rules"--and they mean the rules of 

 the State Land Department--"do not protect the wildlife's resources on 

 state land. In this regard, it must be recognized that the board is 

 constitutionally required to act as a trustee in managing state land for 

 the benefit of the state school trust. This managment principal is not 

 always consistent with the management of fish or wildlife." 



On the same question, rule 16 discusses reservations. In these 

 rules it says that the state is reserving to itself a number of rights 

 and uses. "I would like to suggest that these specified items be 

 expanded to include the protection of fish and wildlife habitat. The 

 Lands Department reply... "the protection of fish and wildlife habitat is 

 not a proper right to be reserve to the lessor or to be granted to the 

 essee, therefore, the rule is not amended." The next rule, number 17, 

 discusses operations and agreements and includes under number two, 

 "Ihe contorl of noxious weeds and pests." Here I feel it is importatnt to 



