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...

Todd,

In the view I am presenting, I am looking at breaking this down all the way to the basics.

Is fishing a basic right in some form, I think it is.

Is the method of fishing a basic right, I think not.

It just so happens that sportfishing is the best way to distribute the opportunity to exercize that right to all the people who want to participate.

While common sense dictates that the minority of the people supply food to the majority, nobody has the basic right to expect others to supply food for them.

The existence of community, of society, is not guaranteed. Therefore the means and skills that are required to survive in the absence of society must be preserved.

These words are about as factual as they come. God does not grant rights in our terms.

People living in a desert don't have a God given right to fish.

Too many people use the "God given right" clause too many times for their own benefits, especially short-term benefits. Last time I checked, many of you have children and should think long-term if you want them to have the same 'privilege' to fish as you.

how is this a race issue?

is there a particular race that you are referring to?

Mike Gilchrist; you are great, you the man today! You not only have knowledge, you got gonads! You are 100% right!

Todd; I thought that you said that you gave "legal advise"; makes me wonder on what! You are getting too carried away on the "god" thing!

In answer to question 1; No, every man can believe in whatever "god" he choose to. Tribes believe in Spirits, and nature, what do you believe in? Others, like me, believe in both evolution and god. Answer to question 2; Yes, just look at the Bolt decision! Answer to question 3; Mankind has always had the right to fish. Just because a few cultures "might" have done otherwise, doesn't dwarf the overpowering fact that "mankind" has always had the right to fish. Answer to question 4; That's a "loaded one" and you know it! I'll pass! Just for your information, I have been both called and labeled "an environmentalist" in numerous public meetings and also in the press.

You now say that "I" have assertion that "wild fish" don't exist anymore. What are you smoking? Now, I understand why you choose to always make a new post, instead of answering the really hard questions when you get yourself into a corner. I do notice little things like that! As a legal advisor, you know what I have stated; "My personal belief is that it is a "god given right". Do you really understand what "personal belief" means Todd? Why do you only come out on the "attack mode" when you fear that "wild steelhead" are being threaten by some ones post? Are we that great of a threat to you and your followers? I have been attacked by bees before, but not "killer bees"! Are you one of those "killer bees", or are you one us "colony bees", or are you just a "want-to-be"? Todd, 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.

stlhdh2o
Sorry, but you said; "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."

Bad example stlhdh20 again, and not even close to what the meaning of "right", "fishing", or "privilege" means! Back to Webster again; (murder; 1. the unlawful and malicious or premeditated killing of one human being by another; any killing done while committing some other felony, as rape or robbery.

You better re-read what the definition and meaning of "right" really means when it was used in my threads phrase. If I recall, the word 'right" meant something i.e; that which a person has a just claim to; power, privilege, etc. that belongs to a person by law, natural, or tradition.

Dave Jackson; did you catch that "privilege" word again? So it appears that you can have a "natural right" without having to have it been a "privilege"! Wasn't that the title I used in this tread (" Is "Fishing" a "privilege" or it a "natural born right"??)?

Ambiguous words appear to have many different meanings i.e. "privilege" and "right" don't they Todd?

And Dan S, you asked me; I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that fishing is a right. Where is the legal precedence? Todd should have been able to answer that one!

Well just look at the legal precedence that our courts have already sent down and given to the tribes!!!!! We just aren't as smart has all those dumb Indians are, are we? So who really are the dumb ones, what more can I say!

Cowlitzfisherman
Is the taste of the bait worth the sting of the hook????

Give me those verses of the Koran where you are pulling this 'fact' from, or whatever spirit book, evolution science book this conclusion is based on.

Oh yeah, I do believe Cannabalism is an older "god-given right" than fishing. Actually, I think this practice still survives.....

You say you believe in God, yet I still do not see where you conclude that the 'privilege' God has blessed you with is a 'right' given to you by God. Last time I read the New Testament, the only promise made to man is Eternal Life.

Man can and never will be able to take away the only God-given right you have been given.

geeeez, da 'neck done flipped his lid speakin' in tongues.

Next question on the subject of this thread:

How many of you "God-given right to fish fishermen" are republicans?

the human race...thought it was obvious.

Cowlitz -

What I did was lay out in certain terms the fallacy in your argument by applying the EXACT same argument you (or someone taking the same position as you) used to explain why fishing was a right to an example that was purposefully bad (murder).

I will lay it out there again for you one more time:

If it is a right to fish because mankind has been doing it since the dawn of time then it is a right to murder beacause mankind has been doing it since the dawn of time.

A perfect, elegant and clear exposure of the fallacy in your argument...

Mike -

"The existence of community, of society, is not guaranteed. Therefore the means and skills that are required to survive in the absence of society must be preserved."

Extremely well put, I could not agree with you more, for not doing so would certainly Doom us all in the end...Is that a quote from someone else? If so who?

However, you have yet to establish how this truth translates in to cowlitz having the right to fish, yes we bear the responsibility of teaching survival to our children, but does that have to include fishing? Not if we say it doesn't...

I'd just like to revisit something I said above because it was important and I don't think either Mike or Cowlitz addressed it:

As United States citizens we should all feel priveleged to have rights.

God certainly didn't give too many rights to the Chinese when he was passing them out, and I think he might have skimped a little when he was handing out rights to the Jews during WW II. I guess the reason the GGR position bothers me so much is because it epitomizes the arrogance of man. It is the sadness of Manifest Destiny, of the poison Idaho trout streams and the gouge mining of Montana. Its the Hoquiam river, the Kalama river basin and the clearcut in the Black Forest on the Upper Hoh road.

Sorry cowlitz, I appreciate why you feel the way do. Have you ever been to a country where people didn't have the same priveleges as you and I. Ask them if you have the right....

since the tribes have the "right" to 50 percent of the allowable catch, who has the "right" to the other 50 percent if we dont ?

stlhdh2o,

I believe I agree with many of your points.

I certainly do not support the idea of traditional rights, such as that we have been doing something forever so no we are going to keep doing it regardless of the consequences.

Also, god has nothing to do with my argument and I won't use the term "god given right" to support it.

"The existence of community, of society, is not guaranteed. Therefore the means and skills that are required to survive in the absence of society must be preserved."

I actually came up with that myself. If it has been written before I do not know who wrote it.

I believe that all living things have the right to attempt to survive and continue to propagate their species, sometimes at the expense of other species. While we could just refuse to teach our children how to fish, I believe it would be unwise to do so.

There are only two sources of food, food on land, and food in water. To ensure long term survival we need to retain the skills necessary to harvest both.

Ok, I had just about enough philosophy for today so I am going to spit out the real consequences of the "fishing privilege" opinion

I also feel privileged live in a country where we have many rights. But the way this country is set up, a government of the people, to publicly consider fishing a privilege really makes my stomach churn. A "right" can not be revoked of course. A privilege however, in this country, can be revoked, by a simple majority, and sometimes even a minority can pull it off. So I need to make this very clear. Pushing the ideals that sportfishing is a privilege is VERY VERY DANGEROUS to our sport long term. Probably not in our lifetime, but someday it might cost us dearly.

History doesn't read into the "if" theory stlhdh2o, but it does read into the "what has actually happened" theory!

stlhdh2o; what are you thinking about ? You just said again; "then it is a right to murder because mankind has been doing it since the dawn of time.

Hello, "Space to Earth"! Are you so wound up in debating, that your reasoning has left your mind?

Think about this one stlhdh2o, Todd and others. Remember this, and remember it well! The next time you piss and moan about our county, or it's belief's, or who we are, or my statement that "it's "a god given right", or if you even want to buy that new boat, car, house, rod, reel, hook, bait, lures, or even donate to your most favorite "wild fish restoration" organization, take that a unnoticed moment to "READ" what it says on the back of that $1.00, $2.00 $5.00, $10.00, $20.00, $50.00, $100.00 bill before you complain again about what I have said!

Am I wrong, or does it not say; "IN GOD WE TRUST" I rest my point!

Cowlitzfisherman
Is the taste of the bait worth the sting of the hook????

You are correct Mike, it seems our opinions are not too very far apart...

One last bit and I think I will be done on this thread:

Your rights can be revoked Mike. You have the right to bear arms and it can revoked, to vote etc...Some would argue that all America had the right to vote revoked in the last election (ducking)....If you disobey the fish cops they will revoke your right to fish...

Priveleged to have rights...humility. Man as one with nature, not above it.

Cheers Mike

Wow, other then adding to the hit count, these baiting the board and then going off the deep end topics are pretty useless. I spose the ignorant masses have been enlightened just a little bit more, wink, wink.

Top of the food chain mean anything to anybody? Man is at the top of the chain and has the "RIGHT" to harvest as he sees fit as a community/nation/culture both land and sea creatures.

We have the privlage within our respsective communities/nations/cultures to excersize that "RIGHT" to harvest.

Along with the privilage goes the respsonsibilities that will allow us the continued the "RIGHT" to harvet.....

Just my .02

I think this answer should go both ways, I believe we all have the right to fish. But unfortunately due to population and regulations that are needed to manage things proparly then it becomes a privelege.

Like I said in a previous thread, we gave up our right to fish when we damed all the rivers, polluted all the waters, cut down all the trees, overfished etc. etc. etc. etc.

We should consider ourselves very lucky that there are still fish to be caught and think that fishing is no more then a privelage we are luck to have.

BTW boater1-Would you be related to the boater that was banned!!!?!?!

Buck,

Very well stated. Have you considered politics?

Wishin',

So if a grizzly bear eats you on your dream fishin' trip to AK, he had the right to do it?

Can't get those damn graemlins to pop up again. Anyone else have that problem?

RPetzold

I don't understand how you can say that "we gave up our rights when we damed all the rivers, polluted all the waters, cut down all the trees, overfished etc. etc. etc. etc" Where do get off saying that "we" did all that stuff?

Was that not the actions of the big power companies that put in the dams? Was it not the big timber companies that did the massive logging? Wasn't all this done by just a few selected special nterest and user groups? What about all the other "smaller streams" that do not have dams located on them that are located in our National Parks and national forests; did we also give up our right to fish on them too? I believe not!

Yes, RPetzold, you have given up "your rights" but many of us still believe and maintain that we still do have our right to fish; even if we do have to follow the rules and laws to govern the taking of our fish.

Your argument about giving up your right to fish may fit you well, but it certainly doesn't fit everyone else, including me, or the tribes. I still have my right to fish, I just have to pay more now then my forefathers did. Just because we are a society of unbelievable amount of "rules", that surely does not mean that we have given up "our right to fish". People can maintain both their right to fish, and at the same time, adbide by rules that will assure, at the same time, that we continue to maintain perpetual sustainable runs of fish.

It appears that you are content to accept fishing as a "privilege". But many others, including me; will maintain that it is OUR NATURAL BORN RIGHT TO FISH.

Just because one has the "right" to fish; does not mean that one can over fish a specie to extinction, or break the "rules" that assures its species existence.

I'm done! (for now)

Cowlitzfisherman
Is the taste of the bait worth the sting of the hook????

RPetzold -

Another great point...cowlitz seems so wrapped up in defending his right to fish that he refuses to see the 'big picture' in your argument...

If you live in a house made of wood you support the timber companies. If you use electricity you have contributed to the damming of rivers by using the products resulting from those dams. By participating in society, even as a dissenter, you have contributed to the decline of the Steelhead. Period. Add on top of that you are harvesting the very resource you have contributed to harming and you are dually liable...

Cowlitz, if you are serious about your position of fishing birth-rite, try a little civil disobedience. Convert your words into action! Fish out of season, bonk the natives...when you get your license yanked you might reconsider what rights were given to you at birth....maybe.

Cowlitzfisherman

It is an accepted scientific fact that hatchery fish spawning in the wild is one of if not THE biggest limiting factors in the recovery of wild salmon and steelhead. Therefore anyone who wants increased numbers of hatchery fish by definition wants fewer wild fish. You cannot have your cake and eat it too on this issue. Therefore any sportfishing group lobbying for increased numbers of hatchery fish is a special interest working against wild fish just like the logging industry and just like the big power companies. We are as guilty as any other special interest it's time we start accepting responsibility for our actions.

Sure we have a right to fish we may not have the right to fish for salmon or steelhead but we do have the right to fish after all no one will complain about us decimating the smallmouth bass population in the Columbia..

Bob,

You can maintain any position you want, but in this country, if the courts don't see it that way, then your position is flawed. Other than the treaty tribes, I don't remeber the courts EVER establishing anyone's "right" to fish. You can argue semantics with the others here all you want, you have no legal basis for your claim.

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with your position. I'm saying that you've made a claim that you haven't built a foundation for.

Cowlitz Fisherman,

You have been a fairly regular poster here for some time now. I don't know if it is a matter of tone or substance, but it seems like you always have an ulterior motive in your posting. I refuse to believe it is the obvious (more hatchery fish, more control of the rivers, less Indian netting, etc.) but I guess I'm just too dumb to figure out what your real motive is. Can you enlighten me?

Having said all this, fishing is a privelege, and I feel priveleged to be able to do it.

Cowlitzfisherman,

Sorry about the confusion in my comments above, I was under the impression that the legalities of right vs. privilege was pretty much common knowledge and that you were citing to a "higher authority" that gave you rights that you ordinarily don't have.

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.

Now, as for your other comments...

My question one above was requesting that you tell me where your "right" came from, how God passed it on to you...if that's not what you were saying when you said "god-given right", then please ignore the question. If you were saying that, then I'm still waiting for your answer.

Question two...

My question: 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.

Your answer: 2; Yes, just look at the Bolt decision!

Frankly, I'm wondering if you read the same question as I wrote. Yes to what? What does the Boldt decision have to do with your GGR?

My number 3...

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?

Your answer 3; Mankind has always had the right to fish. Just because a few cultures "might" have done otherwise, doesn't dwarf the overpowering fact that "mankind" has always had the right to fish.

I'm still waiting from #1 where your "fact" that man has always had the right to fish comes from. You're still begging the question. Your argument can still be boiled down to "Do we have a god-given right to fish?", and your answer is still "Yes, because we have a god-given right to fish".

My fourth question...

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.

Your answer: 4; That's a "loaded one" and you know it! I'll pass! Just for your information, I have been both called and labeled "an environmentalist" in numerous public meetings and also in the press.

Agreed, it is most certainly a "loaded one", point being that your only answer if you believe that you have a god-given right to fish makes your GGR better than someone else's. Your refusal to answer doesn't change that...

Being labeled as an environmentalist, or anything else for that matter, has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with this question, except that I'd guess you were labeled that by folks whose GGR's impacted yours, i.e., loggers, hydropower folks, which is exactly the point I was making in the question...

Do me a favor and link me to a few of the times where I start a new post after getting stuck in a corner, here or on other boards. I think you'll find that I rarely start posts at all, perhaps once every three weeks, much less bail out of an argument...These I really want to see.

Gotta run right now, but I'll hit the rest of it in a while...

Quick summary...

1. What is the "fact" that established your GGR, other than the "fact" that you have one?

2. Is there something unclear from the cited federal court case?

3. Where are those links that I bailed on and started a new one to avoid an argument?

Fish on...

Todd.

"Just because one has the "right" to fish; does not mean that one can over fish a specie to extinction, or break the "rules" that assures its species existence."

What are you saying???

Having the right (as opposed to having been granted a privilege) to do something implies that no one can stop you. Now you say you can't break rules, yadda, yadda.....

You gotta make up your mind, Cfm. To make a conscious decision not to decimate a species that you have an alledged "right" to target is one thing, but now you're suggesting that having rules that might forbid you from fishing doesn't preclude your so called right to fish???

I think the two are mutually exclusive, by your own definition (or Websters, F&W, whatever).

Let's try another controversial topic that can't be so easily muddied by symantics, like, perhaps, should we outlaw controversial topics on this board once a week so we all have time to cool off!

Cowlitz -

Thanks again for this post. No matter how many people try to discourage you, have an opinion. Express that opinion, but do not become intractable. Listen to the counter-arguments and acknowledge their validity...

On this point we agree: Currently we have the right to fish.

Where our opinions diverge is that you believe this right to be sacrosanct, an inviolable birth rite.

I believe it can be (and is)taken away at any time.

Our differences of opinion are not semantic, they are the nexus of the entire preservation conversation.

The semantics I believe people are questioning is the right/privelege question. Would you agree that the difference between the two is so negligible as to make them synonymous??

The real argument isn't right or privelege it is right/privelege: Inviolable or revokable?

Good work cowlitz, don't let let all of these opinion wimps (fence sitters, hem-hawers, wafflers) who are tired of opinions, or even people like me who may (shock) come across as superior slow you down...

You'd think they would have learned by now to skip the posts started by you...

To All:

Did I make you THINK...again?

If so, that's GREAT!

Did some of you aerate your minds just a little bit more this time? Did some of you have to THINK just a little harder, this time, to put me down? How many of each of you has put that much time and effort into preserving your fishery? If you guys did, we would not be writing this thread now, would we?

Are some of you still a little pissssssssss? Probably so! (Todd I will send you an email on your request a little later), but in the mean time, mellow out just a little! It's good that you have come out of your closet, to defend our fishery!

Why haven't you started this board to start thinking earlier, with questions like my own? You are now part of this "arena" and you shouldn't be afraid to make all of us THINK, should you? I can't be the "fall guy" forever!

We (and that means all of us) are just starting to see what is ahead of us, if we don't prepare ourselves NOW for such debates, how do you ever expect us to win the battle?

To ALL, I always use simple words, because, I am a simple person trying to reach ALL the people!

Todd; If someone is going to qoute case law on this board to support their opinion, then please post the entire case, be it by email or on your posting! Then an only then, can this board read what has really been decided and quoted.

One last point and issue that I would like to make, and it goes back to what one of our members had said; "You'd think they would have learned by now to skip the posts started by you..."

There are well over 3200 other members out there that can't, or won't post or put their necks onto this board's chopping block! So I will continue, has usual, to put my neck out for them!

Please, LET US ALL KEEP THINKING!

P.S. Also remember that I STILL have real thick skin! To me it's a lot better then "talking" about a hook in my butt!

Cowlitzfisherman
Is the taste of the bait worth the sting of the hook????

Thank You Oh Great One!!!

Hey Petzold,

Yer steppin' a little over the line now. Don't make me drive up there and slap you about the head and neck. Pocahontas may have had to bring help along..........but I won't!

Hey Bob........I. for one, am glad you're here. You keep us on our toes, without being an outright goon like Plunker or boater. You can call yourself simple if you want to.....but that's not how I see it. I see you beimg described as simple ONLY in it's most honorable meaning.

As for you Ryan.......... You need to come to realize that yours ISN'T the only opinion that matters. Bob isn't here attacking YOU. He's here with an opinion that may not be the same as yours but at least he isn't here attacking you personally as some have been know to do . LEARN to appreciate the difference, and people might take you more seriously.

My comment was not made in regards to his opinion as I understand that we disagree and I respect his opnion regarding many issues (eventhough we disagree on alot of them). I believed his comment was very righteous in that believes he has done a great thing by making us think, given that we have not done that before.

Lttle does he know, he is one of us...

Anyways, this board may have its share of bsing and b*tching but do realize that this board was the catalyst for the Wild Steelhead Coalition, a group that in little over a year has made some serious political waves.

I seriously do not think something like that would be capable of a board that does not think, that is full of mindless drones.

Gimme a break...

OK,

No slap necessary..........

Cowlitzfisherman, if your motivation is to make people think in order to strengthen our debate skills and perhaps make sportfishermen a more formidable foe to deal with, I commend you. I've written and deleted more on this one thread than in my last 10 posts to this site.

I disagree with your opinion, though, and question whether or not this whole debate is even worth the time it's been given. Sorry, not a slam, just my opinion.

It seems to me that any time you have laws governing an activity and you have to pay and follow rules to perform that activity, you're executing a privilege. Someone can stop you, and that in and of itself classifies it as a privilege, not a right. You may think and/or say you have a right to fish, but unless you're executing that activity as if it's a right (in other words, you fish whenever, wherever, and however you d@mn well please) you're already acknowledging it as a privilege.

Personally, I don't give a rip what classification it falls under. I also hope that you take time to consider all the well made points that came out of this. There are some sharp cookies in this bunch. \

Peace.

Dan s., grow up

Skywalker

You make a few good points!

But take that moment, and THINK about it again; when was the last time that YOU took the time, or made the effort, to even read, or do any discovery work, on what your rights to fish really were?

Have you done your same homework on why our fish runs have taken such a rapid decline in the last 5 years? Have you attended all those "public" meetings that decisions are being made i.e. harvest, growth management, relicensing, etc, etc, etc? I hope you have, because I am getting burned out! Keep up your enthusiasm!

I have spent years working with many different environmental attorneys, state attorneys, and federal attorneys, and I have came to the conclusion; they don?t really know $hit until you put your finger in their nose and led them to the "water". I personally know of only one attorney that really gives a $hit about our fish, and believe me, we at times have debated the "law" like you would not believe!

He is "the best attorney" that I have ever dealt with, bar none!

Disagreement is healthy. It has made America what it is today. Remember this; even "rights" can be "stopped" for a short period, but we have a court system that can correct that problem too!

Cowlitzfisherman
Is the taste of the bait worth the sting of the hook????

It's a privilege plain and simple. If you break the law your privilege can be taken away. If you continue to break it your freedom can be taken away (jail). Tell the judge next time you run a stop sign that "it's my god given right to drive anyways and anywhere that I see damn fit, so kiss off". Who knows maybe he would let you off?

I'm gonna 'fess up here, just to make a point... I've not done squat as far as activism (except sending an email that Bob made quite easy from this site).

My problem is, I rarely get to fish. Between my work load, coaching kids sports, and my wife's business (she's in real estate and basically works 7x24, as far as I'm concerned), and keeping kids out of trouble with school, horse, sports, and music, I don't have time to enjoy my favorite passion, let alone be active in protecting my *privilege* (joke) to pursue it. So, no, I haven't spent time the way you've suggested.

Be that as it may, I don't think my opinion on the matter would be any different, and I don't think my opinion on the subject is any less valid.

As far as attorneys are concerned, I do everything I can to avoid needing to contact one!

Still, I sure like what Todd had to say. Right on the money from my perspective. On this topic, anyway.

boater,

Bring an intelligent response to a thread......ANY thread, and then I'll have something to say to you.

Hey Dan-
Just ignore him, he was banned once and I am sure it will not be long before it happens again.

Cf,

The last thing I've done is come out of my closet. For better or worse, depending on the perspective, I'm characterized as everything from and Indian-loving liberal to a quasi-militant catch and release fanatic. Look outside your own posts to see that I do participate very actively in discussions about fishing in generally, but very actively in the aspects involving the law or politics.

Run a search on my angler number (#43, indicative of being here from day #1) here, and run a search of my angler number on steelheader.net, my other favorite board to be active on (sorry, don't have my angler number handy for that one, so run a search of my login name there, Todd R ).

You'll find that besides my activity on these boards, if you look hard enough, you'll find that I've been active in these environments long before either of those BB's existed. It may not have involved the Cowlitz River, but it's involved many other watersheds and steelhead in general for years.

I further request that you post the answers to my questions here, rather than via e-mail, because you made a few fairly heavy accusations publicly, and I'd like you to respond to my questions regarding them publicly. The folks here that know me personally and professionally won't feel that they are accurate, but with over 3,000 folks here, my credibility is at stake. I'd rather discuss it civilly here so I can state my case in front of those who don't know either of us and don't know the truth about me...or you. We can both establish our experience and credibility.

I eagerly await your response.

That being said, in spite of my education and experience, I am always open to new ideas/opinions. I have my own, but they are constantly molded by my education/experience, and those are constantly growing entities. If others have something that I don't know, I'll be the first one in line to get a bite of it.

Keep sharing your experiences, and I'll incorporate them into my own education. The kicker is that if they aren't backed by facts or logical arguments, but by emotional pleas or beliefs, I don't have enough time in my day to give them much credence.

I appreciate very much your enthusiasm and committment to the cause. As in almost any other contentious disciplines (religion, politics, fisheries, etc., not necessarily in that order!) the small differences are magnified much more than the large scale differences are.

I believe from your posts that I have read that you truly care about the resource and want to do something to help, both for the fishes' sake and for the sake of us fishermen. We may have disagreements about how to balance those two, sometimes incompatible, goals, we both are doing the best we can. Conversations like these are the best way we can find some sort of solidarity that the commercials, tribes, and everyone else except us has.

OK...it's late. Time for bed. See you all tomorrow.

Fish on...

Todd.

Todd,

You asked me in your question #3 "Where are those links that I bailed on and started a new one to avoid an argument?"

After checking through all your posts, I have come to the conclusion that I was wrong in making that statement. I apparently had your posts confused with another member posts.

Please except my apology. Sometimes we just plain make mistakes! I usually have all my apples lined up when I make such a statement like that one. Again, please accept my apology for making that mistake. I know how defensive I would feel if someone made the same mistake to me (remember what hedgehog said about me?). When I am wrong, I will admit it! I just got caught up in the heat of the debate! Sorry for the error.

Cowlitzfisherman
Is the taste of the bait worth the sting of the hook????

In case you all didn't hear, Tilamook area fishermen had their privilege to fish for hatchery salmon and steelhead taken away yesterday. Guess it wasn't a right after all.

god given right my ass, all that money coming from the revenues of those taxes,licenses,tags ect... goes to try and make a minor dent in all the damage we have done to our waters, those before us had the god given right to fish, we lost that right when we decided that dumping polution, building dams, netting river, were all acpetable practices

CF,

Thanks for your apology above, I appreciate it. Not a big deal, at least once it's cleared up!

Fish on...

Todd.

P.S. Still waiting for the rest of the answers, too!!

Todd

I have already answered all 3 of your question earlier. Obviously, you did not like my answers, but that the way it is!

But just to make you feel better, I will give you another set of answers.

Question 1)
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?

Answer; No, to first part, and yes to second part.

Question 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

Answer; first part, I stand on what I said, "Yes, just look at the Bolt decision". That legal decision gave the Tribes certain religious "rights" that you or I do not have (i.e. ceremonial fishery rights, no fishing license requirement, self policing, etc, etc. right? Second part, if you only believe that fishing is only a "privilege" to YOU, the answer is yes. If you believe like many do, the answer would be no. Feel free to make your own choice. The Tribes did! Third part of question; yes, you do have the right to lowhole him if you choose to do so. It happens every day on every river. No WAC or RCW, which I know of, says different. It appears to be a "choice" issue. Fussy answer, to a fussy question!

Question 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?

Answer; ("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.") That is not a question to me; it is just your own point of view! So the real answer to your "first question" is; first, I would have to know what "society" you are referring to before I could answer that question. Secondly, not all societies had such an "honor" system as you have referred too. Depending on the "society", that "you" are talking about, god may, or may not, have been the one who make the decision. You also asked; If it was a right, why didn't they all have it? Answer; They did all "have it" at one time, but people just like you, conceded in giving up their rights. Bad mistake! The world has a history of people giving up their "rights"; we call it "communalism" now! And finally, your last answer is Yes, some people are better then others. It may be a real hart burner, and pill for you to swallow, but look around, that too is a FACT!

Question 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.

Answer; "that's a "loaded one" and you know it! I'll pass!" Your reply to me was; Agreed, it is most certainly a "loaded one" So Todd, you did get your answer, just not one that you tried to set me up to give!

Todd, you still did not meet my earlier request; If someone is going to quote case law on this board to support their opinion, then please post the entire case, be it by email or on your posting!

Finall question for you Todd;

If the act of fishing isn't "your right", then please explain to me how YOU can fish all YOU want on YOUR OWN property in YOUR OWN private lake or pond without needing to have a "fishing license". Is that act not "fishing"? Will you or anybody please post the WAC or RCW that says that the "act of fishing" on your own property, on your own fish, is govern by law? Think hard before you answer this one!

"The mind that does not challenge itself, is a mind that does not exist"

Cowlitzfisherman
Is the taste of the bait worth the sting of the hook????

CF, and others,

Here's a link to that case...

http://ccrh.org/comm/river/legal/boldt.html

(sorry if you can't link from here, but I'm on a Mac at work and the UBB codes are anything but reliable on this computer)

(EDIT: The quote regarding rights and privileges is near the beginning of the case, look under Sec. 7 of the "Finding of Facts and Conclusions of Law")

As you may have guessed, the law regarding right vs. privilege is in the Boldt decision. While I know that many fishermen don't like that case, here's a little background on it.

1. This was not a case written by one biased judge that controls a good majority of sportfishing in Washington. This case spent four years going from J. Boldt's courtroom, to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, to the U.S. Supreme Court, and back and forth, until it was reviewed by perhaps as many as twenty-two other federal judges and affirmed almost in its entirety.

2. Because it controls more than just fishing rights, it is also viewed nationwide as a seminal part of our country's civil rights case law, reviewed in law books right next to cases that shot down "separate but equal" cases, public school education cases, and many other cases controlling race related issues in our country.

3. It's not really about how much we like it or agree with it. It is what it is, and must be dealt with.

4. For some reason many (most?) fishermen who don't like tribal fishing argue that the State, or conservation/fishing organizations, are shirking the real issues by not attacking tribal fishing, or doing away with it. Ten times per month on the various BB's someone says that WDFW is slacking because they haven't outlawed tribal fishing.

Here is a legal reality: THEY CANNOT DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT AT ALL. Period.

Tribal fishing rights are federally protected. The only group that can do anything about it at all is the U.S. Legislature, who has the power to create or overturn federal law. Of course, then it must be signed by the President. No one else can do anything to modify it or stop it.

These were the questions that I was referring to last night about having answers to, not the initial ones because either they were not necessarily on point or they just weren't going to get answered. Here they are:

1. What is the "fact" that established your GGR, other than the "fact" that you have one? (Still haven't heard anything other than "I have it because I have it).

2. Is there something unclear from the cited federal court case? (I'm sure you've already read the case, but now you have it again).

3. Where are those links that I bailed on and started a new one to avoid an argument? (Already got this one, thanks, again.)

Your question about fishing in your own pond is good, but not controlling in this debate.

The reason you can fish whenever, however, and why ever you want in a pond on your property as in your example is that they're your fish. You own them. The state owns the fish and wildlife in our state. Therein lies the rub.

It's the same as why you can't fish whenever and however you want on the Cowlitz River because you have riverfront property. It's not your river, and they're not your fish. State regulations don't apply if they are your fish in your pond.

Fish on...

Todd

Great debate here and one that is discussed amongst fishermen over the last year more than a lot of folks would think. I know Tod and I have discussed it a few times over a beer or two.
Rights vs privledge can be discussed three ways from the posts so far. One as theology, two as philosophy and three politicaly. Too bad we can't get Fawell vs Joseph Cambell in on the debate on the theology side, Homer vs Jung on the philosophical side and Slade Gordon vs B Clinton on the political side. Now that would really up the debate. But so far everyone has brought up points to think about and they are points that go beyond just fishing but a lot of things in our daily lives. Being somewhat of a leftist and not a politicaly correct liberal I'm not about to voice my thought on the subject but I sure enjoy and respect the more conservative view point as long as they think beyond the Rush Linbaugh retoric.
And Todd don't be affraid to say your an envriomentalist be proud of the fact and if the movement has flaws which it does say so. Cowlitzfisherman keep up the good work, this thread has hopefully got folks around here thinking about how we have got to where we are at.
Land Tuna

Hey, Steve, welcome to the show!

So, whattaythink Joe Campbell would have to say? I've got pretty good opinions on the rest, but I think that he'd find some way to tie them all together, thereby answering the question without ending the debate.

Not that I think that's a bad thing, and I think Joseph Campbell is one of the superstars of the modern world. Gave me a little more to think about, that's all.

Fish on...

Todd.

Yes Tod he is a modern hero and you would be right to say he would answer all the questions and by doing so the debate would go on and on. Bill Moyers took two years of intensive study just to interview Cambell before he died. Some have said that Cambell loved to fish.

please read this below, it is part of the medicine creek treaty

ARTICLE 3.

The right of taking fish, at all usual and accustomed grounds and stations, is further secured to said Indians in common with all citizens of the Territory, and of erecting temporary houses for the purpose of curing, together with the privilege of hunting, gathering roots and berries, and pasturing their horses on open and unclaimed lands: Provided, however, That they shall not take shellfish from any beds staked or cultivated by citizens, and that they shall alter all stallions not intended for breeding-horses, and shall keep up and confine the latter

the part where it says "in common" with the rest of the citizens is the part that tells me its my right.

boater,

The phrase "in common with" confers nothing to the benefit of non-Indians.

I'll show you how it works in the case law when I'm back in my office on Monday, but here's the gist of it:

"In common with" means that during the exercise of Indian treaty rights, Indians are able to fish off their reservations in "usual and accustomed" grounds and stations, alongside non-Indians who are exercising their privilege to fish there. It also means that the harvestable portions of runs within those U and A areas are split 50/50.

Without that, they would be limited to their exclusive right to fish on their reservations, which is what the state was trying to make them do prior to 1974.

The 50/50 split does not give you any right to fish, either. It gives the state half the harvestable portion, which can be divvied up as the state sees fit, between hatcheries, sportfishermen, commercial fishermen, or to be used for conservation purposes.

Fish on...

Todd.

ok todd, i`l wait for your "legal" post on this from your office. i do have another question though, do you consider it a right or a privilege to be able to walk into a spoting goods store and buy a fishing license ?

Boater,

Here is the relevant portion of the Boldt decision that defines what "in common with" means:

First, the court goes on to clearly state that off-reservation treaty fishing is a right and that non-tribal fishing is a privilege:

"...off reservation fishing by other citizens and residents of the state is not a right but merely a privilege 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).

Second, citing to the Puyallup-I case, the court finds a statement there that is contrary to established treaty law...

"Moreover, the right to fish as those respective [usual and accustomed] places is not an exclusive one. Rather it is one 'in common with all citizens of the territory.' Certainly the right of the latter may be regulated [non-Indian fishing]. And we see no reason why the right of the Indians may not also be regulated by an appropriate exercise of the police power of the State." 384 F.Supp at 337, citing Puyallup-I, 391 U.S. 398.

The court goes on to say "This statement seems to say that because a state has police power to regulate fishing privileges [non-Indian fishing] which the state has granted and may limit or entirely withdraw, that it is somehow a legal reason for state regulation of federal fishing rights which are expressly reserved in a treaty which only Congress has authority to limit or modify." Id. at 337.

The court further goes on to outline the obvious fallacy in such an argument and entirely discredit it, citing several cases that support the legal basis for allowing state regulation of state granted privileges while generally prohibiting state regulation of federally granted rights.

I encourage everyone who has any interest whatsoever, much less an opinion, about tribal fishing and state/federal regulation, and the distinction between Indian fishing rights and non-Indian fishing privileges to read the entire case, if they wish. However, the majority of the case is dedicated to delineating which tribes hold the rights and the geographical extent of such rights. The law setting out the nature of the rights is all in the first quarter or so of the case.

Fish on...

Todd.

todd, read this link , this guy has a difrent opinion than you do, interesting....

Rights may be "regulated" but they are still rights, and not privileges, correct Todd?

Just look at our rights to bare arms!

I have spent several hours rereading the bolt decision, RCW, WAC's and I have seen where you have pulled out your information from. But, and it's a big "But" there is just as much that one can pull out to support the "right" issue for us. The Bolt discussion clearly spells out the Tribes rights, but there is a ton of stuff that is in "conflict" with you analogy of what is or is not "our rights" to also fish.

I can now see why you didn't want this tread to get too much "out of control". The Bolt decision has tons of issues that could be brought back to the courts to decide (and they are not issues that would affect the tribes fishing rights either). This thread is already getting to long for the average reader to follow.

Suggestion, either you or I will make another post on "how does the bolt decision effect our right to fish". Is the taste of the bait worth the sting of the hook?

The only bad thing about this debate is that you will probably be getting paid to do it, and I am not!

Cowlitzfisherman
Is the taste of the bait worth the sting of the hook????

Boater,

I can't for the life of me figure out what that article has anything to do with this conversation.

CF, you absolutely have not seen why I "don't want this t[h]read out of control", because it's not, and I haven't said or felt anything along those lines.

I'm also certainly not being paid for my time as I write here. What ever gave you that idea?

Lastly, if you feel there are issues in the Boldt (with a "d") decision that should be brought back to the courts and argued, I'd encourage you to go for it. This debate isn't about what anyone's opinion is, or what could be, or should be, or might be.

It's about what it is. Right now, the Boldt decsion and everything in it is "what it is". If you go to court and change some aspects of the Boldt decision so that it doesn't say what it says now, then that new case is the one I would quote if it controlled the issue. I'm not here pushing my "opinion" of rights vs. privilege. I'm simply stating what the state of the law is.

If you'd like to start a new thread, then make some rules right up front, like opinions aren't welcome unless they are backed up by laws or facts, and that those laws and facts are quoted in the thread, then I'd be up for it. I don't want to hear anymore "I feel" or "that's not fair" or "it could be this or that".

If the thread will be titled "How does the Boldt decision affect our right to fish", which already begs the question by calling it a right, then let's make sure it's limited to "how it does", not what we wish, or hope, or don't know.

Fish on...

Todd

P.S. Cf, there're still some questions back there a few posts that I'm waiting on...

Todd, Todd, Todd,

That's a good one Todd! "P.S. Cf, there're still some questions back there a few posts that I'm waiting on..". Todd, don't hold your breath any longer! Correct me if I am wrong, (and I'm sure that you will) didn't you not make these statements to us during this thread;

"I'm also certainly not being paid for my time as I write here. What ever gave you that idea?"

Well Todd, this is what gave me, and several other readers, that idea!

Fact; "(sorry if you can't link from here, but I'm on a Mac at work and the UBB codes are anything but reliable on this computer)

Fact; "I'll show you how it works in the case law when I'm back in my office on Monday, but here's the gist of it:" We are not all dumb Todd!

Now if I was in the jury, I would have to say your "guilty"!

I rest my case on that issue!(that's funny)

I am a early raiser (up at 4:00 am each day) and I am getting pretty tired right now, so I am going to take a shower and then head to BED, but I will get back with you tomorrow...when you at work again...right?

Cowlitzfisherman
Is the taste of the bait worth the sting of the hook????

Cf,

The fact that I have an office shouldn't lead you to the conclusion that I get paid to write on bulliten boards. I don't.

I'm not sure what your pushing at with this thread. I'm not sure why whether or not I was getting paid to do this would matter in any way to what I'm writing. I'm not sure why you think I'm hiding the ball, or using facts or laws out of context.

1. What is your interest and how would you describe your style of arguing, in this thread in particular?

2. What do you think mine is?

I ask the second question because you seem to keep making little backhanded comments about me or what I say, rather than just come out and say something, if you have something to say. I'm speaking particularly now about your "jury" and "guilty" comments about me "getting paid". And who the hell are the "other readers" that are wondering, too, and why the hell are they wondering? I'm wondering what your point is, and also what the heck you're talking about when you make those stupid comments.

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.

6. My interest in these types of issues are manifold. I enjoy these issues because they affect steelhead fishing, one of my greatest joys. I think that I have a unique background that gives me some insight and education about these topics that a lot of fishermen don't have, and I think information and education are the greatest tools we can use to help sportfishermen and sport fish get the attention they deserve. I give my own information freely. I find that many of the folks that participate in these debates have different facts or perspectives that broaden my own base of knowledge.

Can we get back to the topic at hand, now?

Fish on...

Todd.

Todd,

I do respect your opinions, I just do not agree with them all the time. That's one reason why we got so darn many of "them there attorneys" running around out there! As you know, many times people have very different opinions on what is right and what is wrong or what is legal and what is not. Just because a person has a law degree doesn't mean that they are right with their opinion. In fact, 50% of the time one of two arguing attorneys is almost always wrong. You don't get too many split decisions in a court room do you? Usually one party is proven to be right and the other party is proven to be wrong, correct?

When we debate issues on this board, we are giving our own personal opinions unless we state otherwise, like saying that something is "a fact" but it can't be proven. And as we all know, facts are forever changing, are they not?

Attorneys are trained to debate the opinion of their client's position, even if it is not the legally correct position. Our opinions that are posted on this board are much more diversified than that of what an attorneys view may be.

I guess the best example that I can give you goes right back to the Boldt decision again. Here, you had the "State of Washington" being represented by the Attorneys Generals Office. The best minds of our states legal branch asserted that their legal opinion would prevail over that of the Tribes. Well we all know what the result of that opinion was, don't we!

So my point is this; legal opinions can, and do change, but they only change when they have been challenged. Just because there is a law or rule in place now, doesn't mean that it must always be interpreted the same way as it is interpreted now.

I am ready to move on to other debates, how about you?

There are lots of other issues out there that can help better everyone knowledge and understanding of what ill's our fishery. I look forward to reading your opinions when those issues appear.

The other crap that you mentioned in your last reply, well, I will let it go, if you will let it go. We shouldn't be focusing on each other; we should be focusing on turning our declining fish runs around… right?

I guest we now know more about each other then we needed too!

Cowlitzfisherman
Is the taste of the bait worth the sting of the hook????

Not neccassarily a CNR fan, but I got to give this one to Todd, he smoked you guys. CF, your "provoke then make excuses" debating style is getting real obvious. Oh well, hopefully it will get old for you too!

todd, who owned the fish before the boldt case gave 1/2 to the state and 1/2 to the indians ? and wouldnt you say that we as citizens of washington had the right to fish in places where the indians didnt and now they have quarented rights and we have the same regulated rights as we did before the case ?

Boater,

I guess there are a couple of ways to look at that.

One is that the Boldt decision was a recognition of what had always been there, but that wouldn't really reflect the practical difference between fishing pre- and post-Boldt.

The other is that the state had ownership of 100% of the fish, minus those that the tribes harvested in their exclusive on-reservation fisheries.

Fish on...

Todd.

P.S. I think this topic has had its fill...

Didn't know anyone owned the fish before or after bolt. We humans sure are Bolt, I mean bold.
Rights or priveledge? Me thinks the with the way the world is today the debate should be are we quickly loosing the RIGHT to have PRIVLEDGES?

Chuck,

I was going to answer your childish reply with a detailed explanation, just like Todd has done, but instead, I opted to just read all your "other comments" that you have posted and I decided that all your other 129 postings profoundly speak for themselves!

Cowlitzfisherman
Is the taste of the bait worth the sting of the hook????

Did I make you THINK, though?

Not really!

Cowlitzfisherman
Is the taste of the bait worth the sting of the hook????

no doubt in my mind that it's a priveledge and not a right. Nobody can take away your rights, but the state CAN take away your priveledge to fish!

the state can take away your "rights/privilages to fish that is true, but cant they also take away your right to carry a gun ?

Now boater1, I'm not the smartest guy in the world (I don't apply myself to my fullest potential :p ), but the last time I checked, convicted felons aren't allowed to be in possession of a firearm, nor are they allowed to purchase a firearm....so basically the answer to your question is "yes" they can take away your right to pack heat altogether.

Sorry I haven't been around to see you get banned, then come back. What did you do to get banned?

Chuck, I have to say though, your statement/quote was hilarious.

Great debate guys. Funny thing is though, Bob, about lawyers and their winning/losing streak....both lawyers always get paid either way, unless it's pro bono or a different arrangement in a civil case.

Todd, thanks for backing your argument/opinions up with corresponding cases/links. Bob, thanks for making me think, but come on, at least tell people before they read what appears to be a serious thread, that it is a joke, especially when the punchline is "made ya think though."

And what was up with the appeared jealousy by we 'readers' that you have towards Todd's ability to do things from work? Those remarks seemed unlike you. Thanks guys for not turning this into a pillow fight. lol

Hey Yall Watch This,

I am sorry that I didn't get to finish what I wanted to say in this thread. I will be coming back soon to answer a few "unresolved" issues. I am a terrible speller, and a worse typist! It takes me a lot of time to answer these professional people who are being paid to do this kind of work. I have al lot of things on my plate right now with our up coming hearing with the Pollution Control hearing Board (PCHB) early next month. Where are these people, like todd, when we need them?

With my home office (living room), and no other office or staff to assist or suport me, I do the best that I can. And I do that pretty Damn good, I think!

So I will continue those "other debates" as my time will allow!

You also stated that; "Todd, thanks for backing your argument/opinions up with corresponding cases/links", hell, that's a no brainer, this guy has a degree, I just have the "plan old common sense degree"!

What do you expect me to do? When I see these other guys who are either getting paid to, or they have the facilities to bring up, and do searchs for case laws to reinforce their own opinions, what else can a laymen guy like me do?

I will be back, and back like a swarm of bees!

One major issue at a time and my time is now being spent on the upcoming PCHB hearing, and the appeal of the FERC issuing a new operating license to Tacoma for the Cowlitz River.

I'll be "Back"!
Cowlitzfisherman
Is the taste of the bait worth the sting of the hook????

Cowlitzfisherman,
Ever think about asking Tod or a group like the WSC for help or some advice? Instead of putting people or a certain group down here on this site it might be in your beloved rivers interest to be a little more tolerant to other ideas. That's where it's happening now in the world of saving anything we outdoors people want saved. Groups of different ideas but with the same end goal working together. You might just want to write Tod a formal letter asking for some advice maybe he can help you maybe not but sounds like you need some good advise to help you and all the hours you are putting in for your river.

"Only the people with power have rights, you have privalidges". If you don't believe that then you better step outside yourself and take a good honest look around you.
Tuna.

Hey Bob, no probs at all. I just can't take someone's 'word' for it over the internet if I don't know them and having cases to quote from just adds that extra sting to a post...especially in a law debate.

I still applaud ya for the work you do and how you try to keep we people informed.

I'm a normal guy just like you without a law degree, but I'm humble enough to ask for help or advice when I need it; and even more humble enough to accept it.

Land Tuna

You made a very good point!

My answer to you is YES! Both the Friends of the Cowlitz (FOC) and my organization (CPR-Fish) have asked numerous other groups and organizations for their help during the relicensing process. Some become interveners and have given good supportive comments, but that's about it. Two of the largest groups in the Northwest (American Rivers and Trout Unlimited) worked with both FOC and CPR-fish during the early stages of settlement. Way too much "back-dooring" went on between them and Tacoma!

That experience has left a pretty bad taste in both the FOC's and CPR-Fish's mouths. Both of those groups (American Rivers and Trout Unlimited) also had sold out to Tacoma at the very last minute, and signed onto and agreement that effectually freezes out any other sport fishing groups such as ours in the decision making process. The biggest difference, and problem, with that is you now have 2 "outside groups" that have never did a darn thing for the Cowlitz sport fishery, or it's recovery program in the upper Cowlitz, now calling the shots, and making recommendations instead of making just "comments". There is a huge difference between the power of making "recommendations" compared to just making "comments". They will now be the ones who will be forming and representing the sport fishing needs and developing the new "adaptive management plan" for a river system that they know almost nothing about. That is simply not fair nor right!

I have learn one thing through this relicensing process; be careful of who you sleep with, because when you wake up, you may be in the wrong bed!

Thanks for your impute Tuna, but for now, it appears that I will continue to stand alone with the FOC.

Cowlitzfisherman
Is the taste of the bait worth the sting of the hook????

Once did a lot of the stuff you are doing for the Cowlitz in Montana. It delt with a timber cut that was totally useless and the National Forrest Service. I understand your frustration when outsiders with more resourcses that you asked for help took over. But ya just got to remember that dealing with such a strong enemy like Tacoma power is not easy. The two groups you mentioned may not do what you wanted done but maybe the end point will be better than what has been going on for a long time on your river. If you believe in what you are doing then fight on but remember that having only one big enemy is better than having 3 big enemies you may now have. The way I read our American Constitution as in your fight, is that Tacoma Power was given the right to do as they have done to your river. Lucky for us Thomas Pain came along at the right time with "Rights of Man". At least we the people through his work gained the compromise of privilege to question those rights and sometimes we make enough noise that those in power will backdown some.
Fight on!
Tuna.

Cowlitz - You're making people think again..... That's not likely to make you popular with some BB members. But, hey it never hurts to challenge contemporary thinking about the issues and expend a few brain cells doing it.

I have not read all 90+ posts on this thread but here's my view on your question:

Like it or not, our rights are defined by the limits of the law as passed by Congress and interpreted by the judiciary. For details, see The Constitution (e.g., Bill of Rights). Unfortunately, our founding fathers failed to include fishing among our inalienable rights (what were they thinking!!??). So, it doesn't quite rank up there with freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly, redress of grievances, etc. So we are stuck with what we have.

But that doesn’t mean our personal views should reflect contemporary legal interpretation (or reality for that matter). For example, surely the right to gather sustenance is within our rights as a people to survive. As a matter of survival, fishing should be considered a necessity. It is in rural Alaska - up there subsistence fishing is a right for everyone living in rural areas. So if it’s good in some places, why not everywhere? Well, perhaps it is. The right to fish is not limited. Anyone can get a fishing license at any time. That’s all you need (legally) to go fishing. But here’s where reality sets in. Fish are public resources. They are not private. If you want to retain public resources (your fish) for personal consumption, that’s a privilege, not a right. The public must always retain the authority to limit how, when, where, and how much of it’s resources can be used for private gain (e.g., your dinner). This is no different than logging on public land, irrigation water withdrawals, mining, cattle grazing, etc. So, in other words, fishing should be a God-given right that cannot be taken away. But the authority to retain any fish is, and must remain, a privilege that is subject to appropriate regulation.

With some trepidation I will add the following: The right of the Indian Tribes to hunt and fish in their usual and accustomed places is outlined in Federal law (treaties) and is no less binding than the Constitution. The treaties between the Federal government and the various Indian nations that were written and signed before the States were in existence have clearly stated rights, not privileges. But there is also another critical distinction. These hunting and fishing rights pre-date the treaties. That is, the treaties do not provide these hunting and fishing rights to the Tribes. These hunting/fishing rights have existed since time immemorial and the treaties state that by signing these treaties, the Tribes are not giving up these rights. That remains the case to this day.

But for the rest of us, both fishing and the retention of fish is a privilege (as a matter of law). I’m not sure I would want it any other way. We all need to share both the act of fishing (Blue Creek notwithstanding) and the retention of the catch. I understand and respect the Tribal treaties and how they are interpreted, but I’m not sure that would lead to a better system of fishery regulation if they were applied to everyone. In fact, it would likely be worse. Can you imagine if anyone and everyone could use a gillnet to retain their seasonal punch card limit of salmon/steelhead? Scary indeed.