CF -

No need for name calling is there?

You've had your 'argument' exposed as not only a fallacy but flat wrong in the eyes of the law. Its in the RCW for cryin' out loud.

After which you try to discredit the member who posted the law and resort to namecalling when someone asks you a tough question....

The simple truth sir is that you can have both your rights AND your priveleges taken away at any time for any number of reasons. Arguing about whether or not fishing is a right or privelege is like arguing about whether the rainforest is wet or moist. In the end it doesn't matter because the result is the same.

If the sign says 'Closed to Fishing' you can't legally fish there.

Suffrage is a Federal right. The only time individual states can revoke voting rights is when allowed by federal law(14th amendment to our Constitution-criminals).

I am sticking with my responses from the previous thread...

followed by...



CFM-
Eventhough you are wrong...we still love 'ya!!!

stlhdh2o;

It's becoming pretty obvious to me, that no matter what I say, or how I say it to you, I still would not be able to reach your state of logic (common sense). As a last resort, I even tried to talk turkey with you, and that didn't work either!

It's not name calling; just ask anyone who knows me. I call of my friends "turkey" Just ask Salmo G! He's one of the best turkeys I know!

Obviously you have chosen not to be one of them. So I will not call you "turkey" again!
I may call you something else, but it sure won't be "Turkey"

Maybe you can convince Bob that the word "turkey" is a no-no and he will band that name from use on his board.

Speaking about "Turkeys", on this thread; it doe's seem that birds with feathers tend to flock to together doesn't it?

It just seems like the more a person uses logic, the more you guys get all shook up.

It must be somthing in those darn feathers!

Cowlitzfisherman

AntyM

My mother taught me well!

She taught me to never argue with a woman…even when you know that she wrong and you are right!

You just can't win!

Cowlitzfisherman

OK, OK, OK

This was my yearly issue about the "Right" to fish. Now I am done with it again until next year! I will not give up on those of you that still believe fishing is a privilege. You all just need a little more work. I will keep trying until you agree… "trust me"

I have no hard feeling towards any of you for believing in the way that you do, and I hope that you feel the same about me. That's what's so great about this board. Most of time everyone can agree "not to agree", I can't help but to show my passion for fishing and the right that I believe that I have to pursue it. I know that you guys can't either. But I truly believe what I told stlhdh2o. Someday in the near further, we will see a special interest group like PETA attempting to get some wacko judge to take away our right to fish and hunt.

Mark my word, the group will use this "privilege" thing to do it with too. Because they can never take a way the "right" of the people to fish; they will target the sport fishermen privileges to hunt and fish.

Well will see!

Like old Arnold used to say….I'll be back!


Cowlitzfisherman

well, :rolleyes: , lets say a member of one of the boldt case tribes that has the right to 50 percent of the fish decides that he wants to do some sport fishing before he nets, i guess that means that he can buy a license like the rest of us and do alittle sportfishing and when the time comes he can exercise his treaty right and net some fish, but if you went to court and said that the tribes already get half the fish and we feel that they shouldnt get any of our share they would say he or she had the same "rights ?, privilege? as the rest of the people of washington state.

I would say he is double dipping. Because he or she is a treaty Indian, he or she can par-take in the 50% harvest for treaty indians, and if they want to buy a license they can par-take in the sports fishermens 25% harvest. there is nothing wrong with that beside it being slightly discriminatory since non treaty people can never par-take in there 50%harvest. Thats a whole nother can o worms.

Well, here we go......first post. I visited this site over a year ago on a tip from a local fella. I liked the site and visited it often for a couple of months, then my 'puter went South, and I never got back here.

I'll catch up on the personalizing at some other time, but for now, just let me say that I have lived in Western Washington since 1955 and over here on the Olympic Peninsula since 1971, and have fished since I was big enough to carry a rod. My knowledge of fish and fishing is from my own field experience and zest for knowing and understanding streams, lakes and salt, and the critters therein.

Bottom line.....I like to catch fish. Looking at them, understanding their life cycle and all that affects it, is fun and informative, but......catching is where it's at for me. I have no trophy's on the wall and I don't own a GLoomis rod, my vest is worn out and I'm a hip boot kind of guy. Was known for years as "Slab Happy" when I salt chucked a lot, but mostly fish the rivers now, and frankly, all this pop culture hoopla about the sanctity of wild fish is, in my estimation, a lot of hooey. And what's more, my state wants ME to pay for their inability to maintain even minimal fish runs!

The answer to the problem is simple....If you don't kill Mom and Dad, there will be plenty of kids! (But then we wouldn't have that Federal Funding coming in, would we? There's a delicate balance to be maintained between extinction and controlled endangerment.)

Has anyone ever thought about the dangers of altering their children's ability to survive by leaving them with a babysitter (kid hatchery) until they are big enough to take care of themselves? Might possibly even alter their DNA. (A little tongue-in-cheek for those who can handle it.)

Right?/Priviledge?......who cares......let the lawyer-types busy themselves with that political football......just keep the fish coming. And if the State can't handle it (considering they now employ some 800 biologists, I doubt it), then turn the fishing future over to those who can and would make it happen.....the fisherman and land owners!!

Heh! Almost a rant....

Todd and Salmo,

I, for one (and I do not think that I am alone on this), appreciate and look forward to your (usually) well thought out, knowledgeable, well informed, (sometimes wise!), well written posts. Thanx and keep em comin.

In my book, you two have always been straight shooters on this board.

I think that this topic qualified fer "Dead Horse" status quite some time ago.

Sincerely,
Roger

ps OOPS!!

I thought I wuz answerin the last post in the thread.

Musta been at the bottom of first page, so this is kinda outta sequence and late etc

I just read a thread on IFish where my old buddy Rob Allen said fishing is our privelage and not a right....I think it was in the vein of fishing "privelages" can be taken away if we don't do it a certain way that is acceptable to the "privelage givers".....I'd say fishing is a right with rules and not a privelage for a small few to hold over our heads. What do you thinK? Is Rob right?

If you read the thread grandpa, then you already know what I think!

Wasn't I also the same guy that said;
Cowlitzfisherman

i found this on the nwifc website,

How are tribal fisheries enforced?

A responsible treaty fishery is important to good salmon management and to the spirit of tribal fishing. Law enforcement is a part of that. If a tribal enforcement officer finds a tribal fisherman fishing in violation of tribal regulations, he is obligated to issue a citation or warning. If a citation is issued, the case is referred to tribal court. Fishermen found in violation of tribal regulations are subject to fines and/or loss of fishing privileges. Uniformed tribal fisheries officers on Washington rivers provide a much-needed enforcement presence, particularly with a decrease in state enforcement due to budget shortfalls. On many rivers, tribal enforcement officers outnumber state officers.

Has anyone ever seen the movie "the princess bride?"

CFM reminds me of Viccini .... "you have a truly dizzying intellect"

If you havn't seen it, it wont make sense!

Elkhorn

You may think that you are the "Mann in black" but you are not! Even though you put the iocane powder in my cup….what do you suppose that I put into yours? Not all poisons work fast you know!

So who really won? Was it the guy that dies quickly ….or is the one that suffers for a long time and dies very, very slowly and just doesn't know what is happening to him?

I'll take "Vizzini's" faith any day!

You can be the "man in Black" if you really want to suffer that long

Cowlitzfisherman

here`s an interesting LINK, maybe we should do this in washington

Fun5Acres.....well said!!!

CFM, what is the point of this? Having come from outside of this state it is easy to tell just how f*cked up some of the laws are regarding natural resources. Without making this a left/right argument, its pretty easy to see what the majority voting voice is. Bottom line if you dont like it, lobby for change, and vote to enact a change. Easier said than done I know but how many phone calls could you have made to solicit a response from people to bring attention to your "cause" instead of answering the threads associated with this topic.

I am not disagreeing with you but it seems to be such a waste of several levels.

My .02
Paul

If you don't beleive that fishing is your priviledge and not your right, just break the law and loose your priviledge.


YOUR RIGHTS CAN NEVER BE TAKEN AWAY!

BUT YOU CAN LOOSE YOUR PRIVILEDGE TO FISH!

Talljeeper

Like I said at the begging of this thread……………

"OK, OK, OK

This was my yearly issue about the "Right" to fish. Now I am done with it again until next year! I will not give up on those of you that still believe fishing is a privilege. You all just need a little more work. I will keep trying until you agree… "trust me"

I didn't bring this thread out of the closet….It was grandpa …he did it …he did it

kevin lund

You got to remember what you are saying!

Now that sounds just like our freedom of speech law doesn't it?


Cowlitzfisherman

CFM..the reason I dug this out again was that I read Rob Allen's postings on IFish where he bantied around the "P" word (privelage)...In his context it sounded like a parent scolding a child..."You better tow the line young man !!! Driving a car is a privelage and if you abuse your privelages they will be taken away." If you don't fish the way I think you should your fishing privelages will be taken away...so on...

Legal definitions of rights and privelages are similar. I like the RFA's "Freedom To Fish Act"...I think it will pass here and make it difficult for radicals to take away our right to fish or our privelage to fish or our freedom to fish....whatever you want to call it.