Revisited: fishing; a "right" or a privilege?

In March of last year, I wrote a pretty hot thread called "Is "Fishing" a "privilege" or it a "natural born right"?"

I got something like 93 replies to that thread. Surprisingly, a lot of the board members though that "fishing" was not a "right" but was in their minds, a "Privilege". A lot of opinions were voiced for both sides, but almost no one could support their opinions with any real legal facts or case laws that supported their position.

Well most of you know by now that I almost never give up!

Since that time, I have continued doing my research, and now feel even more competent that what I had said was right when I stated that fishing is truly a "right" and not a privilege! The guys that had opposing views will still hate it, but the guys who agreed with me will absolutely love what comes next. This is really good stuff if you like to see someone eat a "little" crow!!

Make sure that you take special note; nowhere in any of this wording is the word "privilege" used. It's 100% "rights"! Some of you may recognize where this information came from and some may not.

"In America, public fishing rights were codified shortly after the colonies were founded. In the 1640s, the city of Boston established laws to protect public rights to fishing waters, and the Massachusetts Bay Colony declared public rights to fish in the "great ponds," and to cross private property, if not cultivated, to get to the water. People tend to assume that fishing at that time was just for sustenance, but the sport of fly fishing was already popular in Europe before America was colonized, and in Philadelphia there were at least five different fishing clubs before the Revolution. The Treatyse of ysshynge wyth an Angle, Juliana Berners, 1496. The Little Treatise on Fishing, Fernando Basurto, 1539 (Spain.) The Art of Angling, William Samuel, 1577. Massachusetts Declaration of Fundamental Liberties, 1641-1648. The Compleat Angler, Izaak Walton, 1676. The Art of Angling, Richard Brookes, 1740.

After the American Revolution, state and federal courts upheld public fishing "rights," as well as state authority to "regulate" fishing to conserve fisheries. In Arnold v. Mundy, the owner of land next to a river claimed private ownership of the fishing rights, but the court said this amounted to claiming that "Magna Charta was a farce." The court relied on "the law of nature, which is the only true foundation of all the social rights," and said Magna Charta was "nothing but a restoration of common rights," then held that the state "cannot make a direct and absolute grant of the waters of the state, divesting all the citizens of their common right," adding that such a grant "never could be long borne by a free people." In Martin v. Waddell, the U.S. Supreme Court held that in America, as in England, the public has a "liberty of fishing in the sea, or creeks, or arms thereof, as a public common of piscary." (Fishing place.) In subsequent cases, the U.S. Supreme Court held that states hold surface waters "in trust" for the people, so that the people will have "liberty of fishing therein freed from the obstruction or interferences of private parties." It held that a state cannot "abdicate its trust over property in which the whole people are interested," and that rivers "shall not be disposed of piecemeal to individuals as private property." These principles are now known as the Public Trust Doctrine. Arnold v. Mundy, 6 N.J.L. 1 (1821). Martin v. Waddell, 41 U.S. (16 Pet.) 367, 10 L.ed 997 (1842). Illinois Central Railroad Co. v. Illinois, 146 U.S. 387, 36 L.ed 1018 (1892). Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U.S. 1, 38 L.ed 331 (1894)."

Now for you guys that are still are not convinced that fishing is NOT a "right" ... we have a little crow pie for you!

Ok, lets hear from the expert "privilege" spin doctors on this one!

Cowlitzfisherman

It is your right to fish. Just like it is your right to remain SILENT!

Next time you poach an ESA- listed fish and find law enforcement taking away your license, try giving them the colonial history talk and see if they agree that fishing is your right, and not a privilege.

Please try to say focus on this issue only!

There will be plenty of time for you later to ask all of those "other" questions

Cowlitzfisherman

Wait a minute guys!

The right to fish does not give anybody the right to "brake our laws" on "how" we fish!


Cowlitzfisherman

I always thought my "right" was covered under the "pursuit of happiness" phrase :p

In all fairness, whether it is a right or not, we all have a responsibility associated with that right. Further, since some government bureaucrats codified our "responsibilites" into laws, we now get to pay big $$ and live with the restrictions we all endure.

If we dont like the current situation, wait for the next election, better yet act now with your lobbying, your $$, and your time to make it better. I still believe we all have the ability to make positive change.

Until that time I will continue to live with the "law" and try to figure out that book of regulations that seems to get larger and more confusing every year.

I think the thing that bothers me most right now is the fact that our sports related $$ is going into govt general funds and we are losing the benefit of having it directed towards fishing. With the huge deficits now facing the politicos, Im afraid it's only going to get worse.

My $0.02.

You may be correct that fishing is a right.

You also realize that restrictions can be and are placed upon all the rights granted to us. i.e. Yelling "fire" in a theater isn't protected speech.

So, fishing is a right. Is there a point you're making?

Cowlitzfisherman,

Here's what I wrote last March...it's just as much the law now as it was then.

In spite of your comment above...

"Surprisingly, a lot of the board members though that "fishing" was not a "right" but was in their minds, a "Privilege". A lot of opinions were voiced for both sides, but almost no one could support their opinions with any real legal facts or case laws that supported their position. "

...here are real legal facts, with real case law. Case law that went through the Supreme Court several times...and is indisputably the law of the United States of America. It's not about feelings, or opinions, or what you or I want...it is what it is, and here it is...again.

...

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.

...

As I said last March, that is absolutely the final word on the subject. In the state of Washington sportfishing is a privilege.

The Public Trust Doctrine is an incredibly complex and wonderfully useful doctrine. It keeps the states from selling away public lands and waterways if there is not some corresponding benefit to the public that it owns those properties in trust for.

However, it does not give you any rights other than access to public lands and waters...and prohibits the government from giving a private entity the right to exclude you from those public lands and waterways. It does not give you a right to fish any river whenever you want...it gives you access to exercise your privilege when a river is open and you are using legal gear to target legal fish and retain them up to your daily or yearly limit.

Your logic is faulty in using it to make your privilege a right. It's exactly the same as saying that since the federal government owns Olympic National Park that you should be able to hunt elk there.

You can't. It's been closed for decades. In spite of the doctrine.

In some states, the state constitution provides that fishing and hunting is a right held by that state's citizens.

Ours does not...and even if it did, it wouldn't matter. Just as I wrote in March, states cannot pass laws that are contrary to federal laws, unless they have specifically been granted the right to do so from the federal government.

Fish on...

Todd.

CFM,

I like your spirit, but that does not make you "right." As Todd pointed out last year and again in this thread, the federal court, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and the U.S. Supreme Court have held that non-treaty fishing in the State of Washington is a privilege, not a right. Opinions are like belly buttons on this subject; everyone has one. However, our opinions are irrelevant under the law. I'm not sure that a re-run discussion of this topic even makes the grade of entertainment any longer.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Todd, Salmo

Am I surprised at your replies?

Not at all!

In fact, I pretty much expected that you both would be one of the first ones to jump on me about this post! I am still not clear about your background Todd. So let's establish that now. 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? Have you ever represented anyone legally in the state of Washington? Or do you just interpolate your own opinions on state and federal law? This is not a pesonal attack, 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.

Salmo, I know who you are, and I also know your "back ground", so I also know where you are at on this issue. (nothing personal salmo) and know how all of this could affect you in the future if things changed. It would totally blow both of you guys away if the tribes were not the "only ones" to hold "fishing rights!

I am certainly not an attorney, nor am I a legal aid, or advisor, but I do have pretty good common sense! After all, isn't that what out laws is based on . . . two persons" with common sense?

I understand why both of you (Todd, and Salmo G) continually try to attempt to "Cloud" this issue with the rights of the Indians. The simple fact remains that they ( the indians) have their rights, and we have our "rights". So why do you guys always attempt to cloud this issue with that? Are you guys just scared that maybe "we all" may someday join together and change the things that both of you preach that are so dearly to your hearts? Times are indeed a changing, and it sounds like it isn't changing in the way that either of you guys want it to!

It could just happen; if you guys keep knocking other peoples views who oppose your own views or positions!

Both of you guys are missing the point!

Round 2?

PS; I have a roten cold and I am not going to stay up much longer tonight!


Cowlitzfisherman

Uggghh, Not again! Has a single person's opinion changed? I think I hear my wife calling................

Probably not!

But you know there are a whole lot of new members out there now that still have open minds and can still think for themselves!


Cowlitzfisherman

CFM, I try to stay out of these, but in this case not sure if Todd will tell you but he is in fact an attouney. Afraid you lost this one.

CFM,

I'm surprised that you'd misunderstand me. I don't have any personal stake in the interpretation of the law. It doesn't matter to me personally that some tribes have treaty fishing rights, and I only have a privilege. If it did, I'd lean more toward your opinion, prefering that I posessed a right, rather than privilege, to fish. And I'm not arguing or debating you on this either. Just reminding you of what you've already heard. Your opinion is just that, your opinion. Same with mine, but the difference is that I'm not going to devote my energy debating that which the U.S. Supreme Court has already decided. Their decision is the law of the land. Doesn't matter if your or my opinions or everyone else's opinion is different. It's the law, and will remain so until and unless the Supreme Court reverses itself. That's not impossible, just improbable. If you have time for this issue, you've got a lot of free time on your hands. I'm done with it.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Very, very well said. Can't argue with your reasoning or conclusion! I agree 100%!

Do you need to be an attorney to understand the law?

CFM

Are you one of those guys who likes to hang the bait in front of a fish even if it has already been played out, just to piss it off some more?

You have some great posts but your argument on this one is played out, spawned out and at this point deserves to be bonked. (you could release it but that doesn't seem to be your style)

Your obviously a smart guy, if you are going to bait people at least treat them with respect.

Go fishing, relax a little, quit drinking coffee whatever it takes.

Rights, privilages......don't abuse either one.....lots of user groups the only situation is to find some balance

since this is bobs board he gives us the privilege to come here and post, isnt that true ? but if this site was owned by the wdfg would it be a right or privilege to post here since the tax payers would be paying for it ?

also, since the citizens pay for hatchery fish for us to catch, how can anyone say its a privilige to catch them since we paid for them ?

there are millions upon millions of government programs that I pay for yet never get the privelage to use...or have the right to use for that matter!

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!

"When will people finally get enough "common sense" to understand that bureaucrats will always use the word "privilege" instead of "right"! They can charge you for it being a "privilege" but they can not charge you if it's a "right'! Now you know why they want to keep calling your right to fish, a "privilege". It's all about money baby! "

They do not have enough money as it is to run the program properly. Are you proposing we now take what little we do give back through our liscense fees away?

You can also lead a dead horse to water but it too will not drink...

The Other Thread Was Better...

I need to go fishin'

CF 'Oh, God of common sense" ,In the Utopian world you seem to be stuck in --- each person would not abuse the "right" to fish. It seems the folks that abuse the resource [now and in the past] made it such that laws and rules were made [fishing became a 'priviledge'] so that we could all share the resource. With the laws and rules came the money grubbing government. A right became a priviledge. Seems simple to me but then again I'm not the God of common sence like you.

CF, your posts are by far the most one sided in this tread.

When the exersising of your rights infringe on my rights, then there is a problem. That is why there needs to be some management of these rights. So while it may be your "right" to fish, the execution of these rights must be treated as a privelege.

CFM ..... I'm kinda sorry you posted this topic. As an infrequent visitor to this site I've always enjoyed your posts on events impacting the Cowlitz, and I had assumed you were a reasonable and logical guy. Now I'll read them with a different view.

You asked a legal question, and you got a legal answer from an expert. The horse is dead.

Just like 4 salt you seem to be trying to turn this thread into something its not!

freedom of movement is a right and of course that right is regulated. Rights and what your talking about (anarchy)are two different things!

I am not a hippie and I dont live In a fantasy world.

All that I want is to have fishing officially called a right for every american and for that right to be undivided. I never said unregulated though really that would be nice but we would not have anything to fish for in a few years now would we!

Why is it so hard to get people to go along with whats best for us sheesh! Just pretend for crying out loud. Rights are not that bad are they?

Lets stick to fishing!!!!!! This isn't a #%!^*@% editorial/political chat room, Dig!

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by stlhdh2o:
<strong> You can also lead a dead horse to water but it too will not drink...

The Other Thread Was Better...

I need to go fishin'

CFM, is there a simple way to say you are talking about your beliefs? Not engaging a battle of semantics, Expressing your outrage to the Boldt case, or, saying you believe it is your "right" to fish any time, any place your heart desires.

All CFM is saying is that we have a right to be on this earth to fish, hunt, breath and enjoy all of the basic "rights" of living.

We all have the right to fish. It becomes the privalage of those who buy the license. The governments way of turning your rights into privlages. Just (2) cents.

RK43

[QUOTE]Originally posted by RK43:
=======================
All CFM is saying is that we have a right to be on this earth to fish, hunt, breath and enjoy all of the basic "rights" of living.
=======================

You're "getting it" but you're just not quite all the way there yet!

Please don't think that I am getting all upset about the "Boltd decision". It really has nothing to do at all with my belief that we do have a "right" to fish. The "Boltd decision was not brought up by me, it was brought up by someone else who was trying to prove that my opinion was wrong. I am not a native of Washington State, so it really didn't affect me like the people who have spent all of their life here.


Cowlitzfisherman

My contention is that the difference between a right and a privelege is so negligible as to be moot.

Suppose for a minute that you are correct. What does having the 'right' to fish gain you that merely having the privilege does not allow?

Last note...

CFM, of course I'm a licensed attorney, as all Assitant Attorney Generals are...

Now what?

Fish on...

Todd.

CFM --- As I said, the horse is dead. Give it a rest.

Seems kinda funny how some people around here think they need to do their best to end a thread.Why,Maybe its not going their way.I don't know.
Thats your privelege,but not your right.Know what I mean.
I may not agree with peoples ideas but I do try to respect them.
Because this thread hasnt ended yet I have learned a thing or 2.
I have always tried to appreciate everybodies right to express their thoughts.
Please don't try to put an end to a thread just because you dont like it.
An alternative is to stay away from it.
That is your right,and you know how to use it.

I am priveleged to have the rights I have. Others sometimes don't feel so privelged about my rights, and when they suspect my rights, I go with a left. Though no damage is usually inflicted, it affords me the priveldge of using my rights.

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

well, , 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?

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!

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!

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.

CFM-

"you keep using that word... I do not think it means what you think it means.."

I love that show, and viccinni, like you, is one of my favorite characters!

I preferred Indigo over wesley (the man in black).... I like his persistance!