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