Interesting Topic...

I know that this isn't really on topic but… in light of some recent events involving a Senior Judge of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and not being able to understand the law and legal documents maybe we should ask do they Judges and Lawyers really know the Law … and I read that the “native” tribe are fighting between them selves over the reopening of the Judge Boldt Decision… because one tribe not recognized wants to use that Judge Boldt had Alzheimer's at the time of the final statement… maybe that would change things the wrong way for the tribes this time…

Shoot Straight & Tight Lines

I am not up on all the legal mumbo jumbo nor do I care when it comes to rights verses privlages. If the government geneticaly engineered a new fish species with money donated by south America and stocked it in a private man made lake I would say you would be privilaged to fish for them. Other than that I feel that it is a right to be able to fish for fish that have always been here since before man. Responsibility and who pays for it(if they want to pay for it thats their perogative) does not determine whether its a right or a privilage. I paid for my computer that doesnt mean its a privilage to use computers. Though it would be nice if people par took in there rights responsibly and helped to restore damage done to the resource. rights are unconditional and should be equal for everybody. I really dont think that we should have to pay to fish, though I would not mind paying to fish in hatchery fisheries.Does that sound whacked to you? well guess what there doing just that in some other states and there fishing is getting better! It seems like the the more money we give this state for managing are fisheries, and the more rules we have to fish by the less fish we have available to catch! fishing is a right and we should not have to pay the baron to hunt in the woods. This is America not 14th century england.

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.....

Judge bolt had no business! dividing up our right to fish, be you indian,white, black,brown, or purple! But because there have always been too many liberals out there his presidence has stood.

Just because a group be it state government or any other organization , states something is a privilage does not mean there in the right!

If someone tells you your privilaged to piss in the woods would you believe them? no? Then why believe that fishing is a privilage!


Right to fish is just that, a right unconditional! just like walking ,breathing ,smoking ,hunting ,working ,not working, etc............................................

Is that not what were all doing now!

Rules or no rules the crap will always fly.
Were not talking about anarchy here. many things are in need of regulation otherwise there would be total chaos!

But its just flat out wrong to charge people for there rights and divide there rights up!

Micropterus101

Judge Boldt didn't "divide the fish between, Indian, white, black, brown" etc...

He rendered a decision in a case where the Treaty Tribes of Washington sued the state over UNFAIR distribution of harvestable fish. (sound familiar?) Before U.S. v Washington, the tribes took about 7%. The "Conservative" commercial fishing industry thought that this was too much and pushed the tribes to the point where they felt that they had no other recourse that to sue. So you see, if the "Conservatives" weren't so goddamn greedy, we probably wouldn't even be b!tching about this on the internet today.

Funny how life works sometimes huh???

p.s. Go fish the Skagit river this summer, kill an ESA listed chinook salmon, take it to the local Warden and explain to him how it was your right to take the fish, just like it's your right to smoke.

CFM - I hope your three hours on the river were productive. My winter steelhead season started out great with several landed on the Kalama around Thanksgiving but has since been a complete bust. I'm hoping the fish will be there after the water levels drop.

We may be working from a different definition of "right" and "privledge". As I see it, a "right" cannot be revoked. In this case, the authority to fish for public resources is a right that is held by either the State or the Tribe. Nobody can revoke these "rights". They are inalienable.

Conversely, a privledge can be granted or denied depending on the circumstances. An individual's authority to hunt or fish is conveyed when they buy a license and agree to follow the rules. This authority can be revoked by the State (or by the Tribe if it's a tribal member), if they do not buy a license, follow the regs, or otherwise fail to abide by the rules. But I would not suggest anyone try this. It's called poaching. Losing your fishing privledges for poaching is common.

Since the authority to fish can be granted or denied to individuals, it is a privledge, not a right. If you still disagree, ask yourself this question: If a poacher loses his/her authoriity to fish (i.e., lose their license), are they losing their "right" or their "privledge"? I will strongly disagree with anyone who believes the State can take away rights. They can only take away privledges.

I'm outta here until next week. Good fishing!

AuntyM

I have to agree with you IF. . . and that's a BIG "IF"!

Only "IF" and when the majority of the people say that you have lost your rights because you have broken the laws of our land. . . then and only then!

At that point . . . you are then SCREWED!

But until one breaks the "laws" of our land (the people's law) you can keep on fishing because you still do have that right! The people of the land have also said. . . break ours laws, or our rules, and you will go pay for doing so. . . right?

Can "rights" be taken away. . . sure they can! When you go to jail, all of your common "rights" are put on hold!

How's that AuntyM?


Cowlitzfisherman

It seems that we are indeed "priveledged" to have the "right" to fish.

Thank you Lord.

We all have the right to fish, just as we have the right to ski, bike, hike, hunt, root for the Seahawks, voice opinions, worship if where and how we wish, live where we want or climb Mr. Ranier. The problem we Washingtonians face, however, is that the right we have to fish is regulated by the state and we are granted the "priviledge" to participate in that activity through the sale of licenses that allows us to exercise our right. Not often a basic human right is regulated and reduced to a priviledge controlled by the government, eh? Tribal rights to "take" supercede a state citizen's right to fish by virtue of treaty wording - in fact, there is no reference anywhere that I can find that bestows the right to fish on citizens of the territory. Doesn't seem very equitable, but if the phrase "...in common with..." could be clearly defined perhaps change would come. Until then, maybe we should at least support the Freedom To Fish Act which is still to be decided in the U.S. Congress in D.C. (http://www.freedomtofish.org/f2f/)

OK...I'll bite one more time...

CFM, we did this dance last year, too, when you asked me who I was and where I was coming from...but here goes again for all the new folks that you are the self-appointed savior and benefactor for...

Todd Ripley
Sammamish, Washington
Birthday is April 6
6'3", 195 lbs.
Brown hair/eyes
Single, but very attached
85% Gear fisherman, usually bait
Bachelor of Science, Marine Biology
Minor, Chemistry
Juris Doctor, Emphasis in Environmental Law
(that's a law degree )
Former Washington State Assistant Attorney General, primary client WDFW
Vice President, Political and Legal Affairs, Wild Steelhead Coalition

I can't imagine that there's any more that you need to know...and all the important parts above we went over last year when you wanted to know who I was and what my "agenda" was. There it is, again.

Now a few notes...

Note 1:

CFM wrote: "Its only fair to kown who I am up against in this debate! Your profile does not reveal that, an you have never made it clear to me."

Last year you asked the same thing...and here's a quote, from me, from last year's thread...

"I'll post some stuff here that's none of your business, but perhaps will stop this nonsense.

1. I have my bachelor of science in marine biology, from Western Washington University.

2. I have my JD from Gonzaga University, with an emphasis in environmental law.

3. I used to be a Washington State Assistant Attorney General. The client that I represented was the WDFW. I worked with the enforcement folks at the department, the commercial licensing division, and tribal fishing.

4. I'm a vice president and the legal advisor for the Wild Steelhead Coalition, which is a volunteer position. If they were paying me, I doubt they'd pay me to spend time arguing on BB's.

5. I'm a co-owner of a business that represents an up and coming local artist. (That I do get paid for). I work in a home office, and make my own hours. Sometimes I access my e-mail accounts and all the fishing BB's from other people's computers."

That's twice...I think it's also quite enough.

Note 2:

CFM wrote: I understand why both of you (Todd, and Salmo G) continually try to attempt to "Cloud" this issue...

My writing above, just like last year, is very clear, very to the point, and exacltly answers the question you asked.

Note 3:

StlhdH2O wrote: Do you need to be an attorney to understand the law?

Of course not, Eric, and I think the stuff I wrote above is pretty clear, clear enough that almost anyone should be able to understand it.

Note 4:

Micropterus101, I understand your feelings...but when you ask a legal question, you get a legal answer. If you want to disregard that answer, that's OK. It doesn't change the law or its interpretation. By the way, cool name. I've been known to catch a few bass now and again...I just don't talk about it much...all my steelhead buddies give me too much crap for it!

Note 5:

CFM, not having a "right" to fish does not mean that you can't ever fish. It means just what it says in my initial quote from the federal court...you can fish, but it's a privilege that can be granted, limited, or revoked at the behest of the State.

The state does have a "right" to half of the harvestable fish...but you don't. If you did then there wouldn't be non-tribal commercial fisheries that catch the entire non-tribal portion of a run. The state (actually, a state compact) divvies those fish up as they see fit, and they're not violating anyone's rights if they don't let you catch any of them. They may piss you off, but they don't violate your rights.

Cohoangler hit it on the head on this one...

Note 6: Maguana, federal law has many instances where it leaves regulation up to the state...and if the state doesn't enact any laws or regulations, then the federal law applies. In a state that has medical marijuana laws, the general federal prohibition does not apply to that particular use of marijuana. If a state does not have those laws, then the federal law applies.

We have med. maryjane laws in Washington, but, alas, the federally required programs to implement the laws have never been funded by our state legislature.

Note 7: Micro101, your post about Judge Boldt, and smoking, etc., is understandable...however, you're talking about what you feel, or what you'd like. I would prefer fishing to be a "right", too, but the fact of the matter is that it's not. If you want to work to change the state of the law, then I'd support you. Until you do and are successful, it's not about what you feel or what you want. It's about what it is.

Note 8: CFM, after arguing through four or five pages of this BB now and last year that fishing is a right and not a privilege, now you're saying a right and privilege are the same thing? In the law, they are not. The status of recreational fishing in Washington is defined by the law. The law clearly says it is a privilege.

Note 9: Aunty, you're right, of course, that rights can be taken away. Commit a capital murder and you can lose your most basic rights, starting with your rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and lastly your very right to life. Felons can lose their right to vote. We all have rights to access a lot of public places...unless we've had a restraining order slapped on us that takes away our right to be somewhere if certain specific people are there.

The difference is that you can't fish until the state grants you the privilege...while you have those other rights by virtue of living in America until you do something to lose them.

I think I'll join Salmo on opting out of the rest of this discussion...at least for now. Here's the link for the three page "debate" about this exact topic, with a lot of the same players, saying the same things, from nearly a year ago.

http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=008335#000016

If I see anything that wasn't covered either above or in those three pages, I may opt back in. Otherwise...it's all been said before. Either you understand the law, or you don't. Every single person has their own opinion of how they feel about the law, but they don't change what the law is.

As it always has been, my e-mail address is in my profile... c_n_r_nates@hotmail.com .

Until a new federal law or a federal appeals court overrules existing case law, the law is that it's a privilege to sport fish in the state of Washington.

Fish on...

Todd.


P.S. Bob, I think it's pretty well accepted on this and other BB's that Salmo and I are straight shooters who share our knowledge and experiences freely, free from unnecessary emotion, unfounded opinions, and groundless accusations. You should expect our responses, as your assertions are full of unnecessary emotion, unfounded opinion, and groundless accusation. You asked for a legal opinion...I'm a lawyer who works in exactly the field that your question involves...and I gave you the straight up answer you asked for.

I'm sorry if you don't like it.

Reminds me of Jack Nicholson and Danny DeVito in CooKoo's Nest:

"We're Not Crazy!...We're Fishermen!"

Todd,

Nothing much has changed from the last time has it? You have your one sided opinion and others have theirs. I am surprised though, that this time you took so long coming back with your usual attorney "Jumbo Mumbo" attack and conquer them crap. Isn't that what attorneys do best?

It looks like it took you even longer this time around to do your usual "down playing" of everyone opposing opinions. Good try, but you have failed again. I guess I need to learn a few more fancy legal terms and then maybe I can play your game even better. One thing that I didn't know before about you, and you didn't tell us about either, now makes us understand why you're so defensive about the Bolt decision, and why you always are attempting to put people in their places when it comes to our "fishing rights". You said; "I worked with the enforcement folks at the department, the commercial licensing division, "and tribal fishing." Tribal fishing. . . hmmmm now I understand why you defend the bolt decision so vigorously! Were you part of that problem, or do you claim to be part of the answer?

Todd, you say: "I'm a lawyer who works in exactly the field that your question involves. . . and I gave you the straight up answer you asked for" Well maybe you think that you did. . . But . . . my question to you was; "Are you a licensed attorney in Washington State?" "If not, are you a Par legal in this state?" Or are you just a legal adviser with some kind of degree in law? Which one are you?" I am still curious Todd, are you currently licensed to practice law in Washington State. It's a pretty simple question that deserves a pretty simple answer. It's always been my understanding that lots of "assistant attorneys" are not state licensed. Is that the case with you? Don't get all made and huffy at my questions, I just wanted to know if you are licensed as an practicing attorney in Washington State.

It's pretty hard for most members on this board, or for that matter, the public, to believe that they can ever expect to get a "straight up' answer from any attorney. Ask ten different attorneys the same question, and you will most likely get ten totally different answers. So "straight up" answers kind of fall into that "trust me" category don't they?

One more point, you said; "The law clearly says it is a privilege." If you are correct then please explain to us simple people why the word "privilege" means that it's a "right"?

Finally, you never even attempted to answer my questions about why the tribes are not entitled to 50% of all those none game species that I mention. Did that one leave you a little short on your legal Jumbo Mambo or what?

You always make your closing argument and expect that no one will challenge them. Well you're wrong again!

If you got the answers, go for it Todd. Oh, by the way, salmo and I go way back, and we know that each others opinions are not always the same.


P.S. Todd, you should expect that our responses would be full of unnecessary emotion, unfounded opinions, and groundless accusations. Unlike most attorneys, we are just human beings!

No hard feeling on my side Todd, jus a lot of disagreement between opinions!

Cowlitzfisherman

CF -

Perhaps because the questions weren't on topic in your own thread?

Its a good question though, worthy of its own thread...

CFM,

Right, privilege, um, well, what does it matter? Todd's and others' points are on point - if the courts allow it, you get to do it, if they don't, you don't. Whether that is just and equitable in our society is a fun topic while you're waiting for the rod to go down. What word you use to describe it is of semantic interest - little else.

The fact of the matter is, our society is one of contract, and contracts get decided in courts when parties disagree. In the case of the Boldt decision, in my opinion, the various forces of the white man had reneged on the previously negotiated contract, and the judge said, wait an f'ing minute, and put a harsher agreement in place than what we could have had, if we hadn't been greedy jerks. Kind of a life lesson there, don't you think?

Seems to me that this discussion is on the ordere of asking how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Fun to think about, little real meaning.

Ok Todd,

I guess its only fair that you know my background.

My name is: Jason Boddy
I have lived in Washington State all my life
Birthday is sept-22-72
6'6" 240 pounds brown hair/eyes
I gradimatated frum hiy scool

My #1 interest Is marine biology fresh and salt

I studied just as hard if not harder as any college student from age 5 through now. I read book after book, but the best knowledge I found was in the field

I was offered a job at the N.O.A.H LAB on sandpoint during a 11th grade field trip because I noticed some mis-identified bones on reference boards that had been used for years so they could identify what fish were eating what in the disection lab one of the lab techs even argued it with me! I won. Dr. Elizebeth Sinclair the director at that time pulled me aside to the specimen lab where I rattled off the names everything.

I needed a college degree to get in but never made it to college thank god.

I fish Hardcore 100% always studying always watching I will never Know everything but I do my damnest to try.

I have volunteered with the fish and game depo. I have worked mainly with Biologist Scott Bonar and Bruce Bolding on warmwater fish species

I spend more time trompin through the woods and fishing than anything else.

In note 4 you state when you ask a legal Question you get a legal anwser.
I dont recall asking any legal questions?
I dont know much about legalitys and in this instance dont really care

In regards to note 7 let me say this, fishing is a right. If the law says different so what! that doesnt change a thing besides the size of my wallet if I was a radical.

Was it a privilage to fish when the pilgrims landed no it was a right, If thats true and if the fact that rights cant be taken away is true then whoever started this stupid fishing is a privilage thing must have done so illegaly.

oops, I guess that can be called a legal question.

4salt who aloted the indians 7 percent of the catch before the boldt decision or was it just not in there means to catch above that because they could not net the rivers because of steelhead?


posted by 4salt

"p.s. Go fish the Skagit river this summer, kill an ESA listed chinook salmon, take it to the local Warden and explain to him how it was your right to take the fish, just like it's your right to smoke."

I regards to your post script I havent read anybody arguing for poaching rights and the last I heard cigarettes are not endangered!

Geez CF--- if you need for me to run to the pharmacy for you let me know, I think maybe your prescription ran out. There are some people who believe it is there "right" not to pay taxes. Others believe it is there "right" to form there own county and tax you. I'm still unclear where your headed with this? If you want to fish whenever and where ever you want unencumbered by state law,just do it!! There are alot of folks doing it already!