Split Decision

By: Sarah Scott and Talitha Smith
The case is Donald Dewey versus State of Montana. Donald Dewey, a former country western singer, invested his fortune in a Montana dude ranch on the Lincoln River. He dug out a pond on his property, at which time he hit an underground spring. The spring then began to flow freely into Polliwog Creek year-round. Aspen Varden, a young girl, decided as a science fair project to see if the ozone depletion and the creation of the pond had affected the frog population. Aspen convinced her mother that, as long as she stayed in the streambed, she would not be trespassing on Dewey’s property. During her investigation, Aspen was stopped and ordered to leave by Dewey. Dewey then filed a petition to prohibit all research and recreational use of the creek.
The main argument of the Appellants, Seth Hogan and William Cook of Butte Central, was that Aspen’s use of Polliwog creek was not “recreational,” which is defined as fishing, hunting, swimming, floating, boating, or other water related pleasure activities. Since it was a scientific experiment, and Aspen was genuinely worried about the frogs, the research cannot be viewed as “pleasurable.” The other argument they presented was that frog catching is more akin to trapping than fishing. If Aspen had been fishing, a recreational activity, that would be legal. Aspen was using her hands to trap the frogs, which is not a legal activity.
On the other side of the case were respondents Ben Zieske, of Great Falls, and Clara Dawn Piazzola, of Butte. They argued that Aspen’s frog catching was recreational, and therefore legal. No harm was done to the biotic community. Aspen’s research can be deemed recreational, because, to her, it was a pleasurable experience. Aspen enjoys conducting these experiments, and she was not forced to do this research. Their second argument was that the frog catching was more akin to fishing than to trapping. Trapping was defined by Attorney General Mike Greely to involve fur-bearing animals, which a fish is not. Also, Aspen was not technically trapping, because she was releasing the frogs after she was done studying them. Their final point was that Aspen never left the public stream bed, so she never trespassed on Dewey’s private property.
In the end, the court could not decide who put up a better case and it was a split decision.