CFM - As I see it, you may be confusing public rights and individual privledges. The court cases you cited indicate quite clearly that fish and wildlife resources are public resources, unlike in Europe where they are privately owned. Public ownership of natural resources that cross jurisdictional boundaries (e.g., air, water, fish, wildlife, etc) is one of our nation's founding principles. As a public resource, the public (e.g, State gov't) has the right to determine who can partake of that resource and under what conditions those resources may be taken. That right is vested with the State, not individuals like you or I. An individual does not have the right to hunt or fish outside the authority granted by the State. Likewise, the State may grant or deny citizens the privledge of partaking of those public resources, pursuant to applicable regulations (e.g., annual licenses, seasons, bag limits, etc).

Interestingly, the Tribes "right" to hunt and fish is not much different. Contrary to popular opinion, individual Tribal members DO NOT have the right to hunt or fish. The right to hunt and fish at their "usual and accustomed places" is a TRIBAL right, not an individual right. A tribal member cannot hunt and fish in their usual and accustomed places outside the authority of the Tribe (unless of course they buy a State fishing/hunting license and follow the regs like the rest of us). Nor can a tribal member sell, trade, or barter their "right" to hunt and fish because the right is held by the Tribe, not individual members.

So, my answer your question is as follows:

Fishing is a right for the State and for the Tribes. But for Tribal members and for recreational anglers, fishing is a privledge.

But perhaps this is what you are trying to say.....