On several other "threads" now, I have heard several members refer that "fishing is a privilege, not a right"! What is your position on this? Do you believe that fishing is a "god given right" or do you believe, like they do, that it's a "privilege"?

My personal belief is that it is a "god given right". Fishing was here long before "government" found ways to make "money" from it, i.e. buying "fishing licenses", tags, etc. Fishing has been a basic function of mankind since the very beginning, be it by spears, arrows, nets, hands or by hook and line!

Even those we now must pay fees for policing, enhancements (i.e. hatcheries) and management, its still a right, not a privilege to fish. What is your opinion? Is fishing a "right" or is fishing a "privilege" to you?

Cowlitzfisherman
Is the taste of the bait worth the sting of the hook????

An excellent question to pose…
My take on this is likely to be so much different than that of most because I believe strongly that "God given right" is an invalid statement. God doesn't grant rights, people do. In the United States it is a "right" to speak out freely against government, in our Constitution it states that that right was granted by God…Clearly however this right was given to us by the people who drafted the Constitution. This "God given right" applies only to a handful of Democratic countries and an extremely small percentage of the world's population. I suppose one could argue that God granted us this right by having us born as American citizens, but that is quite possibly the most insular and elitist position possible to adopt. If you apply the logic forward the result of that statement is "God grants the right of free speech to Americans and any one else who happens to be born in a country where my rights are allowed". No, people/government grant rights not God.

I have a friend who lives in Estonia. Did God grant him the right to fish the Hoh river? He doesn't even know it exists, but if he fishes it with me when he comes to visit I am sure he will feel priveleged to have been able to do so. If you live in Forks is it a "God given right" to fish the Hoh? If so then why can the state close the fishery on a whim? What happened to our "God given rights" to fish? Is the state more powerful than God?

Clearly (at least to me) fishing is a privelege granted those that have access to the resource.

Now, who wants to debate whether God exists in the first place...

I believe fishing is a privilege, not a right. Our population is expanding rapidly and at the cost of wild/native fish populations which I believe we have a right and responsibility to protect that supersedes our "right to fish". I don't believe we have the "right" to wipe out native fishes in the name of human progress, which is what it will eventually come to. There are already, as you all well know, populations of native fish that are extinct and others that have been closed to fishing for their protection. I think we're going to see more of this as we expand and human populations increase. Fishing in these areas is likely only to hasten the demise of these fish, so how can we declare it a right? Whereas I'd like to think the right to fish is fundamental, I think our responsibility to protect natural resources is more fundamental.

Before there was a "government" fishing was, and remains to this day, to be a privilege. We are borrowing from the land, and we return to it through farming and conservation.

The other misunderstanding is about who is privileging us to be able to fish from the waters. It is not a committee of "leaders". It isn't any of the people. It is our planet itself. If people would only accept this belief as fact (in one facet or another) then maybe we wouldn't treat the resource so shamefully.

This is probably not the type of answer that you were looking for, but it is the one I'm giving you.

*Ouch! Aye kanot spel privilege.

I personally believe that it is my god given right. Unfortunately too many people that grew up in another environment see it differently which in turn puts us as fishermen, on the defensive. I see mankind as just another element put here to live side by side in parallel with any food source we are lucky enough to have available. It is our requirement to make sure that all food sources continue to be available. I care not what the government or another group may see me as I am a Native in my own right and I have just as much need as any group to make sure that each species survives and rebound for future generations. We need to be open to all natural needs for this to happen; only then will we work the problems we see today.

Maybe I better clarify a few things about this thread! NO WHERE did I state that "fishing" was or is a "constitutional" right! It is also beyond my wildest imagination how some of you can possibly believe that the term "fishing" only refers to "wild steelhead", or to its protection and recovery.

Maybe some you self proclaimed "scholars" just need to read what the definition of fishing really is; (Webster, second college edition) "fishing; 1. The catching of fish for sport or for a living. Notice that nothing was said about ANY WILD FISH or recovery!

______________
Dave Jackson; quote "Before there was a "government" fishing was, and remains to this day, to be a privilege…"

Again, let's see what Webster says about "privilege";
(1. a right, advantage, favor, or immunity specially granted to one; a right held by a certain individual, group, or class and withheld from certain others or all others.
(2. a basic civil right, guaranteed by a government.

I would show you the definition of what "Right" is but its too darn long (look it up yourself).

Well Dave, you and Webster appear to have a difference of opinion. Man was "fishing" long before he had any type of "government".So then, who gave us that right, since goverment, nor anyone else, granted us that right, how could it then be a "privilege? People do have a right to put fish into their own lakes or ponds and go "fishing" without any state license, right? Is that also a "privilege"?

The "Native American Indian" who lives in Washington State doesn't need ANY fishing licenses to fish on waters that they historically fished in does he (aren't they also considered to be a member of mankind too)? So call it what you want, call it a god given, call it spiritual given, or call it whatever you want to, but it was a "right" that mankind has had, be it the white man, black man, brown man, yellow man, or red man, all enjoyed the "right" to fish long before any "government" or "privilege" came into play.
_________________

Cechopper, I like your logic!

So why is it that the same ones always bring back the "wild" thing issue when we talk about fishing?

Cowlitzfisherman
Is the taste of the bait worth the sting of the hook????

I will further clarify my position...

I was using the example of the Constitution to establish that there is no such thing as a "God given right" and then went on to apply that to your question.

Never meant to make fishing a question of Constitutionality...

Do we have the right to fish a species into extinction?

If it is true that, contrary to my position, God does grant rights, does he grant them only to Man? What a selective God we must have if so...What rights has God created for the rest of the animal kingdom?? If taken at face value your comments suggest that their "rights" end at being a resource for man to exploit.

This is only true because of the agreement made between the tribes and the Federal Gov't. We, as sport anglers, have no such agreement with the Feds.

About the "priveledge" definition. It fits perfectly, since the ability to fish is granted to those with licenses and witheld from those without licenses (unless you're under 16).

I think it's a lot like driving. Those with licenses are given the "priveledge" to drive on our roads. You can get from point A to point B without using the roads, but if you want the "priveledge" of using the roads you MUST have a license, and a licensed/registered vehicle.

I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that fishing is a right. Where is the legal precedence? Fish closed waters, get a ticket, and see how far you get by claiming your "rights" have been violated. If the courts don't agree with you, then you might as well resign yourself to accepting that fishing ISN'T a right unless the coutrs rule that it is.

My opinion is it is not a privilege but more of a right. However it is a right that can be taken away so that makes it more of a privilege. Yet I feel it is our right to be able to have this privilege. Making it a right again.
Oh no! I've gone cross eyed.
To be a little clearerI feel it is our right to be able to fish but it is not our right to be able to fish whenever and where ever we want.

In my opinion fishing has evolved into a form of recreation, like skiing or anyother pastime(believe it or not I have met people who are just as passionate about skiing as we are about fishing). Fishing is no longer an essential food gathering practice for humans, now it's all about the experience. If your in it for the food your spending way too much money. With that analogy I say it's a privilege not a right, rights are reserved for more important elements in life that allow us the freedom to enjoy our privileges.

How can you interpret (and practice) it in any way other than a privilege, unless you should choose to operate outside the guidelines of the law? Ohhhh, maybe that's your point.......

I personally consider it a natural resource that requires protection to some degree in order for the population to avoid destroying it, just like air, natural growth areas, water, deer, etc.

Granted, we've seen "protection" do more damage than good in some cases, but what do you think the state of the steelhead fisheries would be right now if there were no licenses required, no gear restriction, NO C&R regs. anywhere, etc.?

Bottom line is, if everyone considered it a right and treated it as such by fishing any time, place, and method they chose, how long do you think fishing would survive?

Holy carp! How can we debate the difference between a privilege and a right when Webster himself uses the word "right" in the definition of privilege? In some definitions they can even be synonyms.

Therefore the debate is now WHO gives us this privilege/right: the government or your own personal Creator. The government handles the licensing of the fishery, yet we're blessed with the ability to physically be able to fish.

One can certainly go fishing without a license, as their body allows them to do this. However, that person could get in trouble by those who wish to regulate the process.

The mind boggles.

I agree 100% with elguapo!!! provided that the times and places where fishing is not allowed are that way for a good and valid reason, and I think that is what he meant...
an example
should we have the right to fish at blue creek in December absolutely yes. Should we be allowed to fish the upper reaches of the Sol Duc in march april and may absoultely now. the reason being the spawning wild steelhead.

we should have thr right/privlege to fish anywhere that poses no danger to any esource. It's just common sence folks

The fact that we even have rights is a privelege...

"Rights" are a construct of man...consider yourself priveleged to be alive, to be able to experience the joys of our planet, to be able to hook a creature as magnificent as a steelhead...Once you say it your right you have abnegated the rights of the fish...

Do our 'rights' extend to fishing a species into extinction.

People have also been committing murder since they evolved, using the same argument you apply to fishing this would also make murder a 'right'. Sorry, man says we cannot murder fellow men, man says we can either fish or not fish. How can this be viewed seriously in any way other than privilege?

The ability to secure food for yourself without dependence on any other person is a right we all share. Therefore fishing, hunting and farming are all basic rights and we can choose to participate in them. We allow our government to regulate these activities to ensure that we preserve these rights for everyone but this in no way makes them any less a right. The minority provides food for the majority so that not all people are faced with the burden of exercising their right.

"The ability to secure food for yourself without dependence on any other person is a right we all share"

Aren't we all dependent upon our fellow men not to overexploit the resource?? If our fellow men kill all the fish what good does having the "right" to fish do for us?

We could all go to the river and look at each other, shrug our shoulders and say to ourselves "Well, if there were any fish in this river damn sure we'd have the right to catch them"!

A horrendous fallacy much akin to cowlitzfishermans doomsday scenario....

Cowlitzfisherman,

Your argument that fishing is your god given right because mankind has always had the right before governments came along completely begs the question. Where do you get the idea that it was a right before?

Some questions, perhaps rhetorical...

1. Do you have to be a Christian to have this "God-given right? Or, in His benevolence, do even non-believers get to fish?

2. What if your personal god/religion tells you that you have the privilege of the Earth and its resources? Are you screwed, because a guy like you has the right and the other guy only has a privilege? Perhaps you'd have the right to lowhole him, but not someone who believes the way you do? If so, you really scored being born with your right. We'll all have to put stickers on our boats spelling out if we carry the right or merely the privilege so we know who gets to hit the good holes first.

3. Mankind has not always had the right to fish. Being a fisherman in many cultures throughout time has been a position of honor, and people who weren't granted that position of honor did not fish. Did that honor come as a privilege granted by society, or a right granted by God? If it was a right, why didn't they all have it? Are some people just better than others?

4. If you have a GGR (God given right) to fish, is it better than the logger's GGR to harvest trees just as you harvest fish? Or the developer's GGR, perhaps order, to conquer the earth through growth and development? They feel just as strongly about their GGR's as you do. Who's takes precedence? Based on your various opinions, I get three guesses and the first two don't count.

The description of your GGR, your assertion that wild fish don't exist anymore, so let's fill the rivers with hatchery fish and bonk away, and your inability to recognize that Native Americans justify their fishing with the exact same argument that you do, i.e., the fish are there for the taking and it's legal to do so, and our right to do so, troubles me.

It troubles me for two reasons. The first is that I find it incredibly shortshighted and selfish. The second, even more troubling, is that lots of people feel the same way you do. I don't see much in the way of serious improvement in our rapidally degrading environment until people stop feeling entitled to do whatever it is they do to contribute to the problem.

CF, don't take this as a personal attack on you, but as a definite attack on that way of thinking. Perhaps I've vented a bit and been too sarcastic, but this way of thinking really sets me off. Sorry if I've pissed anyone off.

Fish on...

Todd.

"Aren't we all dependent upon our fellow men not to overexploit the resource?? If our fellow men kill all the fish what good does having the "right" to fish do for us?"

Yes we are dependent of fellow men to protect us from overexploitation, that is why we have government agencies because without fish the "right" to fish does not do anything for us. But that still makes it no less a "right".

If I am starving and the last fish available for me to catch and eat, I would eat that fish and then I will worry about the consiquences. Regardless of what the law says, I still have the basic human right to try to survive. Their may be a situation where all fishing could be halted for a time and our reliance would be dependent on other food types, but it still does not take away our right to fish if those other food sources were to also become scarce.

Mike,

Did you actually say that we have the right to fish, but that we allow state regulation so as to avoid the burden of exercising our right?

I guess that makes sense in the context of commercial fishing or wheat growing, but I think it doesn't make too much sense in the context of sportfishing.

Fish on...

Todd.

We no longer live in a subsistence society...unless you are strictly living off the land you are dependent on other men for your food...

"The ability to secure food for yourself without dependence on any other person is a right we all share..."

We, as a race gave up this right when we became dependent on others for food. Quite simply we (men) are a community and the community can administer priveleges/rights. We (the community) also bear the responsibility if we mismanage our resources.

The notion that god or providence is somehow involved is ludicrous.

What, that has been given to us by God, can mortal man take away??

The only thing given to me by God is life...

Todd,

In the view I am presenting, I am looking at breaking this down all the way to the basics.

Is fishing a basic right in some form, I think it is.

Is the method of fishing a basic right, I think not.

It just so happens that sportfishing is the best way to distribute the opportunity to exercize that right to all the people who want to participate.

While common sense dictates that the minority of the people supply food to the majority, nobody has the basic right to expect others to supply food for them.

The existence of community, of society, is not guaranteed. Therefore the means and skills that are required to survive in the absence of society must be preserved.

These words are about as factual as they come. God does not grant rights in our terms.

People living in a desert don't have a God given right to fish.

Too many people use the "God given right" clause too many times for their own benefits, especially short-term benefits. Last time I checked, many of you have children and should think long-term if you want them to have the same 'privilege' to fish as you.

how is this a race issue?

is there a particular race that you are referring to?

Mike Gilchrist; you are great, you the man today! You not only have knowledge, you got gonads! You are 100% right!

Todd; I thought that you said that you gave "legal advise"; makes me wonder on what! You are getting too carried away on the "god" thing!

In answer to question 1; No, every man can believe in whatever "god" he choose to. Tribes believe in Spirits, and nature, what do you believe in? Others, like me, believe in both evolution and god. Answer to question 2; Yes, just look at the Bolt decision! Answer to question 3; Mankind has always had the right to fish. Just because a few cultures "might" have done otherwise, doesn't dwarf the overpowering fact that "mankind" has always had the right to fish. Answer to question 4; That's a "loaded one" and you know it! I'll pass! Just for your information, I have been both called and labeled "an environmentalist" in numerous public meetings and also in the press.

You now say that "I" have assertion that "wild fish" don't exist anymore. What are you smoking? Now, I understand why you choose to always make a new post, instead of answering the really hard questions when you get yourself into a corner. I do notice little things like that! As a legal advisor, you know what I have stated; "My personal belief is that it is a "god given right". Do you really understand what "personal belief" means Todd? Why do you only come out on the "attack mode" when you fear that "wild steelhead" are being threaten by some ones post? Are we that great of a threat to you and your followers? I have been attacked by bees before, but not "killer bees"! Are you one of those "killer bees", or are you one us "colony bees", or are you just a "want-to-be"? Todd, don't take this as a personal attack on you, but as a definite attack on that way of thinking. Perhaps I've vented a bit and been too sarcastic, but this way of thinking really sets me off. Sorry if I've pissed anyone off.

stlhdh2o
Sorry, but you said; "People have also been committing murder since they evolved using the same argument you apply to fishing this would also make murder a 'right'. Sorry, man says we cannot murder fellow men, man says we can either fish or not fish."

Bad example stlhdh20 again, and not even close to what the meaning of "right", "fishing", or "privilege" means! Back to Webster again; (murder; 1. the unlawful and malicious or premeditated killing of one human being by another; any killing done while committing some other felony, as rape or robbery.

You better re-read what the definition and meaning of "right" really means when it was used in my threads phrase. If I recall, the word 'right" meant something i.e; that which a person has a just claim to; power, privilege, etc. that belongs to a person by law, natural, or tradition.

Dave Jackson; did you catch that "privilege" word again? So it appears that you can have a "natural right" without having to have it been a "privilege"! Wasn't that the title I used in this tread (" Is "Fishing" a "privilege" or it a "natural born right"??)?

Ambiguous words appear to have many different meanings i.e. "privilege" and "right" don't they Todd?

And Dan S, you asked me; I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that fishing is a right. Where is the legal precedence? Todd should have been able to answer that one!

Well just look at the legal precedence that our courts have already sent down and given to the tribes!!!!! We just aren't as smart has all those dumb Indians are, are we? So who really are the dumb ones, what more can I say!

Cowlitzfisherman
Is the taste of the bait worth the sting of the hook????

Give me those verses of the Koran where you are pulling this 'fact' from, or whatever spirit book, evolution science book this conclusion is based on.

Oh yeah, I do believe Cannabalism is an older "god-given right" than fishing. Actually, I think this practice still survives.....

You say you believe in God, yet I still do not see where you conclude that the 'privilege' God has blessed you with is a 'right' given to you by God. Last time I read the New Testament, the only promise made to man is Eternal Life.

Man can and never will be able to take away the only God-given right you have been given.

geeeez, da 'neck done flipped his lid speakin' in tongues.

Next question on the subject of this thread:

How many of you "God-given right to fish fishermen" are republicans? :rolleyes:

the human race...thought it was obvious.

Cowlitz -

What I did was lay out in certain terms the fallacy in your argument by applying the EXACT same argument you (or someone taking the same position as you) used to explain why fishing was a right to an example that was purposefully bad (murder).

I will lay it out there again for you one more time:

If it is a right to fish because mankind has been doing it since the dawn of time then it is a right to murder beacause mankind has been doing it since the dawn of time.

A perfect, elegant and clear exposure of the fallacy in your argument...

Mike -

"The existence of community, of society, is not guaranteed. Therefore the means and skills that are required to survive in the absence of society must be preserved."

Extremely well put, I could not agree with you more, for not doing so would certainly Doom us all in the end...Is that a quote from someone else? If so who?

However, you have yet to establish how this truth translates in to cowlitz having the right to fish, yes we bear the responsibility of teaching survival to our children, but does that have to include fishing? Not if we say it doesn't...

I'd just like to revisit something I said above because it was important and I don't think either Mike or Cowlitz addressed it:

As United States citizens we should all feel priveleged to have rights.

God certainly didn't give too many rights to the Chinese when he was passing them out, and I think he might have skimped a little when he was handing out rights to the Jews during WW II. I guess the reason the GGR position bothers me so much is because it epitomizes the arrogance of man. It is the sadness of Manifest Destiny, of the poison Idaho trout streams and the gouge mining of Montana. Its the Hoquiam river, the Kalama river basin and the clearcut in the Black Forest on the Upper Hoh road.

Sorry cowlitz, I appreciate why you feel the way do. Have you ever been to a country where people didn't have the same priveleges as you and I. Ask them if you have the right....

since the tribes have the "right" to 50 percent of the allowable catch, who has the "right" to the other 50 percent if we dont ?

stlhdh2o,

I believe I agree with many of your points.

I certainly do not support the idea of traditional rights, such as that we have been doing something forever so no we are going to keep doing it regardless of the consequences.

Also, god has nothing to do with my argument and I won't use the term "god given right" to support it.

"The existence of community, of society, is not guaranteed. Therefore the means and skills that are required to survive in the absence of society must be preserved."

I actually came up with that myself. If it has been written before I do not know who wrote it.

I believe that all living things have the right to attempt to survive and continue to propagate their species, sometimes at the expense of other species. While we could just refuse to teach our children how to fish, I believe it would be unwise to do so.

There are only two sources of food, food on land, and food in water. To ensure long term survival we need to retain the skills necessary to harvest both.

Ok, I had just about enough philosophy for today so I am going to spit out the real consequences of the "fishing privilege" opinion

I also feel privileged live in a country where we have many rights. But the way this country is set up, a government of the people, to publicly consider fishing a privilege really makes my stomach churn. A "right" can not be revoked of course. A privilege however, in this country, can be revoked, by a simple majority, and sometimes even a minority can pull it off. So I need to make this very clear. Pushing the ideals that sportfishing is a privilege is VERY VERY DANGEROUS to our sport long term. Probably not in our lifetime, but someday it might cost us dearly.

History doesn't read into the "if" theory stlhdh2o, but it does read into the "what has actually happened" theory!

stlhdh2o; what are you thinking about ? You just said again; "then it is a right to murder because mankind has been doing it since the dawn of time.

Hello, "Space to Earth"! Are you so wound up in debating, that your reasoning has left your mind?

Think about this one stlhdh2o, Todd and others. Remember this, and remember it well! The next time you piss and moan about our county, or it's belief's, or who we are, or my statement that "it's "a god given right", or if you even want to buy that new boat, car, house, rod, reel, hook, bait, lures, or even donate to your most favorite "wild fish restoration" organization, take that a unnoticed moment to "READ" what it says on the back of that $1.00, $2.00 $5.00, $10.00, $20.00, $50.00, $100.00 bill before you complain again about what I have said!

Am I wrong, or does it not say; "IN GOD WE TRUST" I rest my point!

Cowlitzfisherman
Is the taste of the bait worth the sting of the hook????

You are correct Mike, it seems our opinions are not too very far apart...

One last bit and I think I will be done on this thread:

Your rights can be revoked Mike. You have the right to bear arms and it can revoked, to vote etc...Some would argue that all America had the right to vote revoked in the last election (ducking)....If you disobey the fish cops they will revoke your right to fish...

Priveleged to have rights...humility. Man as one with nature, not above it.

Cheers Mike

Wow, other then adding to the hit count, these baiting the board and then going off the deep end topics are pretty useless. I spose the ignorant masses have been enlightened just a little bit more, wink, wink.

Top of the food chain mean anything to anybody? Man is at the top of the chain and has the "RIGHT" to harvest as he sees fit as a community/nation/culture both land and sea creatures.

We have the privlage within our respsective communities/nations/cultures to excersize that "RIGHT" to harvest.

Along with the privilage goes the respsonsibilities that will allow us the continued the "RIGHT" to harvet.....

Just my .02

I think this answer should go both ways, I believe we all have the right to fish. But unfortunately due to population and regulations that are needed to manage things proparly then it becomes a privelege.

Like I said in a previous thread, we gave up our right to fish when we damed all the rivers, polluted all the waters, cut down all the trees, overfished etc. etc. etc. etc.

We should consider ourselves very lucky that there are still fish to be caught and think that fishing is no more then a privelage we are luck to have.

BTW boater1-Would you be related to the boater that was banned!!!?!?!

Buck,

Very well stated. Have you considered politics?

Wishin',

So if a grizzly bear eats you on your dream fishin' trip to AK, he had the right to do it?

Can't get those damn graemlins to pop up again. Anyone else have that problem?

RPetzold

I don't understand how you can say that "we gave up our rights when we damed all the rivers, polluted all the waters, cut down all the trees, overfished etc. etc. etc. etc" Where do get off saying that "we" did all that stuff?

Was that not the actions of the big power companies that put in the dams? Was it not the big timber companies that did the massive logging? Wasn't all this done by just a few selected special nterest and user groups? What about all the other "smaller streams" that do not have dams located on them that are located in our National Parks and national forests; did we also give up our right to fish on them too? I believe not!

Yes, RPetzold, you have given up "your rights" but many of us still believe and maintain that we still do have our right to fish; even if we do have to follow the rules and laws to govern the taking of our fish.

Your argument about giving up your right to fish may fit you well, but it certainly doesn't fit everyone else, including me, or the tribes. I still have my right to fish, I just have to pay more now then my forefathers did. Just because we are a society of unbelievable amount of "rules", that surely does not mean that we have given up "our right to fish". People can maintain both their right to fish, and at the same time, adbide by rules that will assure, at the same time, that we continue to maintain perpetual sustainable runs of fish.

It appears that you are content to accept fishing as a "privilege". But many others, including me; will maintain that it is OUR NATURAL BORN RIGHT TO FISH.

Just because one has the "right" to fish; does not mean that one can over fish a specie to extinction, or break the "rules" that assures its species existence.

I'm done! (for now)

Cowlitzfisherman
Is the taste of the bait worth the sting of the hook????

RPetzold -

Another great point...cowlitz seems so wrapped up in defending his right to fish that he refuses to see the 'big picture' in your argument...

If you live in a house made of wood you support the timber companies. If you use electricity you have contributed to the damming of rivers by using the products resulting from those dams. By participating in society, even as a dissenter, you have contributed to the decline of the Steelhead. Period. Add on top of that you are harvesting the very resource you have contributed to harming and you are dually liable...

Cowlitz, if you are serious about your position of fishing birth-rite, try a little civil disobedience. Convert your words into action! Fish out of season, bonk the natives...when you get your license yanked you might reconsider what rights were given to you at birth....maybe.

Cowlitzfisherman

It is an accepted scientific fact that hatchery fish spawning in the wild is one of if not THE biggest limiting factors in the recovery of wild salmon and steelhead. Therefore anyone who wants increased numbers of hatchery fish by definition wants fewer wild fish. You cannot have your cake and eat it too on this issue. Therefore any sportfishing group lobbying for increased numbers of hatchery fish is a special interest working against wild fish just like the logging industry and just like the big power companies. We are as guilty as any other special interest it's time we start accepting responsibility for our actions.

Sure we have a right to fish we may not have the right to fish for salmon or steelhead but we do have the right to fish after all no one will complain about us decimating the smallmouth bass population in the Columbia..

Bob,

You can maintain any position you want, but in this country, if the courts don't see it that way, then your position is flawed. Other than the treaty tribes, I don't remeber the courts EVER establishing anyone's "right" to fish. You can argue semantics with the others here all you want, you have no legal basis for your claim.

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with your position. I'm saying that you've made a claim that you haven't built a foundation for.

Cowlitz Fisherman,

You have been a fairly regular poster here for some time now. I don't know if it is a matter of tone or substance, but it seems like you always have an ulterior motive in your posting. I refuse to believe it is the obvious (more hatchery fish, more control of the rivers, less Indian netting, etc.) but I guess I'm just too dumb to figure out what your real motive is. Can you enlighten me?

Having said all this, fishing is a privelege, and I feel priveleged to be able to do it.

Cowlitzfisherman,

Sorry about the confusion in my comments above, I was under the impression that the legalities of right vs. privilege was pretty much common knowledge and that you were citing to a "higher authority" that gave you rights that you ordinarily don't have.

Here's the legal scoop. Remember, this issue is not about opinions, or belief systems, or wild fish, or natural born GGR's, or anything else. This is about the specific legal status of sportfishing in the state of Washington. If you don't like it, so be it.

"...fishing by other citizens and residents of the state [non-Indians] is not a right but merely a privelege which may be granted, limited or withdrawn by the state as the interests of the state or the exercise of treaty fishing rights may require." U.S. v. Washington, 384 F. Supp. 312, 332 (W.D. Wash, 1974).

That's it period. Federal law that cannot be usurped or abridged by state laws to the contrary, or by the opinions of those who hold the privilege.

Now, as for your other comments...

My question one above was requesting that you tell me where your "right" came from, how God passed it on to you...if that's not what you were saying when you said "god-given right", then please ignore the question. If you were saying that, then I'm still waiting for your answer.

Question two...

My question: 2. What if your personal god/religion tells you that you have the privilege of the Earth and its resources? Are you screwed, because a guy like you has the right and the other guy only has a privilege? Perhaps you'd have the right to lowhole him, but not someone who believes the way you do? If so, you really scored being born with your right. We'll all have to put stickers on our boats spelling out if we carry the right or merely the privilege so we know who gets to hit the good holes first.

Your answer: 2; Yes, just look at the Bolt decision!

Frankly, I'm wondering if you read the same question as I wrote. Yes to what? What does the Boldt decision have to do with your GGR?

My number 3...

3. Mankind has not always had the right to fish. Being a fisherman in many cultures throughout time has been a position of honor, and people who weren't granted that position of honor did not fish. Did that honor come as a privilege granted by society, or a right granted by God? If it was a right, why didn't they all have it? Are some people just better than others?

Your answer 3; Mankind has always had the right to fish. Just because a few cultures "might" have done otherwise, doesn't dwarf the overpowering fact that "mankind" has always had the right to fish.

I'm still waiting from #1 where your "fact" that man has always had the right to fish comes from. You're still begging the question. Your argument can still be boiled down to "Do we have a god-given right to fish?", and your answer is still "Yes, because we have a god-given right to fish".

My fourth question...

4. If you have a GGR (God given right) to fish, is it better than the logger's GGR to harvest trees just as you harvest fish? Or the developer's GGR, perhaps order, to conquer the earth through growth and development? They feel just as strongly about their GGR's as you do. Who's takes precedence? Based on your various opinions, I get three guesses and the first two don't count.

Your answer: 4; That's a "loaded one" and you know it! I'll pass! Just for your information, I have been both called and labeled "an environmentalist" in numerous public meetings and also in the press.

Agreed, it is most certainly a "loaded one", point being that your only answer if you believe that you have a god-given right to fish makes your GGR better than someone else's. Your refusal to answer doesn't change that...

Being labeled as an environmentalist, or anything else for that matter, has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with this question, except that I'd guess you were labeled that by folks whose GGR's impacted yours, i.e., loggers, hydropower folks, which is exactly the point I was making in the question...

Do me a favor and link me to a few of the times where I start a new post after getting stuck in a corner, here or on other boards. I think you'll find that I rarely start posts at all, perhaps once every three weeks, much less bail out of an argument...These I really want to see.

Gotta run right now, but I'll hit the rest of it in a while...

Quick summary...

1. What is the "fact" that established your GGR, other than the "fact" that you have one?

2. Is there something unclear from the cited federal court case?

3. Where are those links that I bailed on and started a new one to avoid an argument?

Fish on...

Todd.

"Just because one has the "right" to fish; does not mean that one can over fish a specie to extinction, or break the "rules" that assures its species existence."

What are you saying???

Having the right (as opposed to having been granted a privilege) to do something implies that no one can stop you. Now you say you can't break rules, yadda, yadda.....

You gotta make up your mind, Cfm. To make a conscious decision not to decimate a species that you have an alledged "right" to target is one thing, but now you're suggesting that having rules that might forbid you from fishing doesn't preclude your so called right to fish???

I think the two are mutually exclusive, by your own definition (or Websters, F&W, whatever).

Let's try another controversial topic that can't be so easily muddied by symantics, like, perhaps, should we outlaw contro