Cowlitz - You're making people think again..... That's not likely to make you popular with some BB members. But, hey it never hurts to challenge contemporary thinking about the issues and expend a few brain cells doing it.

I have not read all 90+ posts on this thread but here's my view on your question:

Like it or not, our rights are defined by the limits of the law as passed by Congress and interpreted by the judiciary. For details, see The Constitution (e.g., Bill of Rights). Unfortunately, our founding fathers failed to include fishing among our inalienable rights (what were they thinking!!??). So, it doesn't quite rank up there with freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly, redress of grievances, etc. So we are stuck with what we have.

But that doesn’t mean our personal views should reflect contemporary legal interpretation (or reality for that matter). For example, surely the right to gather sustenance is within our rights as a people to survive. As a matter of survival, fishing should be considered a necessity. It is in rural Alaska - up there subsistence fishing is a right for everyone living in rural areas. So if it’s good in some places, why not everywhere? Well, perhaps it is. The right to fish is not limited. Anyone can get a fishing license at any time. That’s all you need (legally) to go fishing. But here’s where reality sets in. Fish are public resources. They are not private. If you want to retain public resources (your fish) for personal consumption, that’s a privilege, not a right. The public must always retain the authority to limit how, when, where, and how much of it’s resources can be used for private gain (e.g., your dinner). This is no different than logging on public land, irrigation water withdrawals, mining, cattle grazing, etc. So, in other words, fishing should be a God-given right that cannot be taken away. But the authority to retain any fish is, and must remain, a privilege that is subject to appropriate regulation.

With some trepidation I will add the following: The right of the Indian Tribes to hunt and fish in their usual and accustomed places is outlined in Federal law (treaties) and is no less binding than the Constitution. The treaties between the Federal government and the various Indian nations that were written and signed before the States were in existence have clearly stated rights, not privileges. But there is also another critical distinction. These hunting and fishing rights pre-date the treaties. That is, the treaties do not provide these hunting and fishing rights to the Tribes. These hunting/fishing rights have existed since time immemorial and the treaties state that by signing these treaties, the Tribes are not giving up these rights. That remains the case to this day.

But for the rest of us, both fishing and the retention of fish is a privilege (as a matter of law). I’m not sure I would want it any other way. We all need to share both the act of fishing (Blue Creek notwithstanding) and the retention of the catch. I understand and respect the Tribal treaties and how they are interpreted, but I’m not sure that would lead to a better system of fishery regulation if they were applied to everyone. In fact, it would likely be worse. Can you imagine if anyone and everyone could use a gillnet to retain their seasonal punch card limit of salmon/steelhead? Scary indeed.