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.