Gerard, to your last point.

Not sure if your a hunter but you probably are still aware the state and the feds set aside land as a refuge to allow game, be it birds or whatever, a place to rest and exist in safety. Theres a reason for that, just like theres a reason they shut down parts of rivers to cut fishing pressure on the resource. Private access does the same thing in many areas. Having fishermen 'concentrated' in areas is not a bad thing. The resource may be more tapped there but you are assured there are areas where it is prospering as well. If we let anyone who wanted to (which is how it would have to be to be fair to all in your world) fish anywhere they want, you would lose these safe havens that privatization has created.

Since so many people in the state exercise their 'right' to harvest fish, you would now have an entire river pressured versus just pockets where access is allowed.

Besides, your arguement is based off of some tough-to-swallow basis. If you owned a piece of land that had a rather spectacular view of something, I could use your premise that that view was there for ALL to enjoy, therefor, I should be able to trespass so I can enjoy as well.

You have to draw the line somewhere and in todays world, the only people on my land are ones I know. Riverbanks above the high water mark are land. Our Constitution allows us to hold that privately. Don't take this as a mean statement but for those that don't agree, there are other countries out there that don't allow for the same privileges and may better suit what your looking for.