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.