QUESTION : I'd like to ask Jack Atcheson a question. When you 



mentioned about a lessee asking you to remove yourself from hunting on 

 state lands, it says on your license that you should ask permission 

 befuSfe you hunt. Do you think you should ask the State Land 

 Commission's permission, or do you think you should ask the rancher 

 who leases that land for permission? 



ATCHESON : I thought I was on BLM land. There's a section of BLM 

 land right there and we thought we were on the BLM. And the lessee 

 came and told us that we were on his land and to get off, it was his 

 land. He didn't say anything about it being public land. He said it's 

 his land and I actually assumed he meant it was private land, which is 

 why I left so readily, because I didn't want to be there. But I 

 personally don't think that anyone regards private land any higher than 

 I do. I believe that a man's home is his castle and if he owns that 

 land he should be able to do what he wants to do with it. That's his. 

 But I don't feel that a lease on public land gives him any right to 

 wanting to remove me from my onw land any more than I would feel that 

 if someone told me to get off BLM land or forest land. But I would 

 certainly respect the right of the lessee if it were private land. 



QUESTION : Jack Atcheson, do you think that you should have to ask 

 permission of the person leasing the state-owned land to use that land 

 for recreation such as hunting and fishing. . .that being non-destructive 

 to the elements they're using for grazing? Should you have to ask 

 permission to use land that belongs to the state? 



ACTCHESON : I don't think so. I have no reason to think that I 

 should. My intentions are good. I'm not going to cause any more 

 destruction on state land than I am on BLM land or forest land. I see 

 no reason why I should announce my presence there, taking into 

 consideration I certainly wouldn't want to go around a building or if 

 there was a field full of cattle I wouldn't do it anyway. I wouldn't do 

 it with BLM or forest land. So I don't think I should have to, no. 



QUESTION : Mr. Guth, you mentioned protection of rivers by wild and 

 scenic classification. In Montana that tool seems to be fairly unpopular 

 among agriculture landowners, or many of them at least. What is your 

 response to agricultural landowners who feel that wild and scenic 

 classification will restrict their own freedom to make use of their water? 



GUTH : I don't think this is true. The Wild and Scenic Act states 



that "nothing in this act shall abrogate any exisitng rights or 

 privileges," which I believe would deal fairly plainly with grazing and 

 other activities that might take place within a river corridor. It 

 doesn't take the right of condemnation away from the managing agency. 

 Of course, it has that right anyway, so there really is no change 

 there. I really don't know why people would be opposed to wild and 

 scenic river classification. 



QUESTION : What I have in mind is when they're wondering about the 

 possibility of their changing their own use of the land in the future or 

 their dividing it or subdividing it... that they will be restricted and 

 that sort of thing. 



101 



