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and residents of the state [non-Indians] is not a right but merely a privelege which may be granted, limited or withdrawn by the state as the interests of the state or the exercise of treaty fishing rights may require."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