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...