Your turn

When I was a lad, a wise old man read to me a fairy tale called "Though the Looking Glass," by Lewis Carol. He told me it was not only a magical story about a make-believe world but also a depiction of the real world.

In part of the tale, Alice talks to Humpty Dumpty, who serves his master the king. They discuss the meaning of words.

"I don't know what you mean by 'glory'," Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you.'"

"But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument,'" Alice objected.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty replied, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."

Like Humpty Dumpty, people and institutions do not necessarily give us reliable information. Often, their only interest is power and control. For a real-world example, consider a recent interchange on the subject of stream access legislation and a pending Montana Supreme Court decision on the right of the public to access Mitchell Slough, which flows alongside the Bitterroot River.

In a newspaper column, Rep. Kendall Van Dyk (D-Billings) asked the Montana Stockgrowers Association, which often opposes public stream access, whether the Association represents cattle ranchers, or "does their allegiance fall to wealthy out of state folks who do not share our values?"

Errol Rice, executive vice president speaking for the Stockgrowers Association, responded. He wrote that Senate Bill 78, introduced in the Montana Legislature to give the public access to streams at public bridge crossings, "involved no landowner participation in its development."

The truth is, the Stockgrowers Association knew of the process to prepare the legislation and were invited to participate. They chose not to.

As for the Bitterroot situation, the Stockgrowers use the term Mitchell "Ditch," not "Slough." This infers that the waterway is man-made rather than a natural stream, a Humpty Dumpty definition that would allow landowners to bar public access.

The truth is, "Mitchell Slough" has appeared on maps since the 1800s. On a 1917 USGS map, it's the "East Branch of the Bitterroot River."

As for the lawsuit, the Stockgrowers state that the litigation effort was largely funded by the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks and required private citizens, including the Stockgrowers Association and Montana Farm Bureau to spend thousands of dollars to defend private property from confiscation.

The truth is, the Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks was ordered by Gov. Judy Martz not to get involved when the lawsuit was filed. The lawsuit was filed by the Bitterroot River Protective Association and other local groups, the "little people," and only now, as the case winds its way through the Montana Supreme Court, is the department involved as an "involuntary plaintiff."

It is still the "little people," everyday working people like you and I, that are footing the bill.

Sadly, the Mitchell Slough case provides an example of members of the wealthy class attempting to prohibit use of a wonderful natural resource by the broader public that is willing to share it but not to give up their constitutionally protected rights. The Stockgrowers Association has contorted language and history defending this elite class. This is simply class conflict between an elite class and the "little people."

Rep. Van Dyk's question appears to be answered. Like Humpty Dumpty, the Montana Stockgrowers Association sits on a high perch, in this case a fence rail, serving a wealthy master.

In the fairy-tale version, the story ends with a fall.

HUGO TUREK is a Coffee Creek farmer and rancher.