#87130 - 03/03/00 12:31 PM
Equal Rights
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
What would happen if a Legislator sympathetic to sport fishing offered an "Equal Fishing/Hunting Rights" bill for legislative action?
The bill could simply state that any variations to game laws mandated by the courts in the past or in the future on behalf of any special interest group would immediately become the law for everyone.
I wonder if the obvious impact wouldn't make the easy PC route a little harder.
Whaling anyone?
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#87131 - 03/03/00 08:27 PM
Re: Equal Rights
|
Parr
Registered: 06/23/99
Posts: 57
Loc: Moscow, ID, USA
|
John..., so does that mean that we can all net wild steelhead? OH Joy, then we could eliminate all the fish in just a few in just a few days???
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#87132 - 03/06/00 04:15 PM
Re: Equal Rights
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
No. I think it would mean that judges and legislators who make decisions and laws based on their liberal biases would then see the impact of what they are doing and be a little more thoughtful when making those decisions/laws.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#87133 - 03/06/00 08:17 PM
Re: Equal Rights
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 13591
|
John,
Believe it or not, it isn't the liberal biases of judges that leads to the treaty fishing rights decisions we live with. For example, U.S. District Court Judge George Boldt, whose 1974 decision is pretty well known hereabouts, was known as a most conservative judge who thought the Indians fishing rights case would be a waste of the court's time. Until he heard the case and the findings of fact were made - followed of course, by the findings at law.
The states, of course, are entitled to manage the non-treaty share of the resource as they see fit. There is no legal reason why WDFW couldn't for example, permit recreational gill netting seasons for various species and stocks of fish. However, the non-treaty share would still be only 50% of the harvestable surplus. So the fishing season might only last, say, 30 minutes or so, in some cases.
The treaty share remains 50%, regardless of how the non-treaty sector chooses to take its share of the fish resource (with some certain exceptions). That is the law.
Happy sport gill netting, friends!
P.S. Did you know that Washington state used to issue a sport commercial troll license for ocean fishing? I had a co-worker in those old days who took a month vaction to Westport each summer, fished the allowed 6 rods from his boat, sold the catch - mostly coho, and paid for his vacation doing the fishing that he dearly loved. I doubt we'll ever see those days again.
Sincerely,
Salmo g.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#87134 - 03/06/00 11:28 PM
Re: Equal Rights
|
Dick Nipples
Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 27839
Loc: Seattle, Washington USA
|
jq
Washington has a law that states something to the effect that "no law shall be passed that discriminates against or grants special privileges to any group based on race or religion". This section of law is in the Fish and Game code, and was originally somebody's great idea to circumvent the Boldt decision.
The whole idea is so laughable that no one has ever tried to use it to do a damn thing, and is so laughable that the Tribes wouldn't even waste six or seven seconds having it thrown out of the law books.
Also, many inquiries have been made at both the state and federal level regarding the exchange of cash for the relinquishment of treaty fishing rights, and they have all been met with an absolute NO, with no equivocation and no discussion. I think the reason is that for the tribes, this right is a tool that can be used for lots and lots of environmental problems, not just a right to fish. That's pretty much the gist of the article that Salmo put up above. Take five minutes and read it, it'll be good for you.
Anyone catching any fish these days? I haven't even been out in weeks. Waaahhh.
Fish on...
Todd.
_________________________
 Team Flying Super Ditch Pickle
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#87135 - 03/07/00 12:34 AM
Re: Equal Rights
|
Fry
Registered: 11/14/99
Posts: 35
|
Just a little trivia on Salmo.G p.s. post. I bought a commercial troll licence in 1972, fresh out of high shcool, for $13. At the time many sportfishermen bought them. This allowed them no limit and they could sell their fish. Around 1976 regulations were introduced that required the poles to be attached to the boat. They use a pole with a swivel setup on the butt to attach it to the gunnel. A few years later limited entry was brought in along with prohibiting sport gear for use in commercial trolling. Another little known loophole in the sport regulations was the "hand jig "licence. This let you catch and sell unlimited bottomfish with sport fishing gear.I used to get this licence and "sportfish" a few days before the salmon season opened. I remember one day my deck hand and I caught over 1100lbs of rockfish and lingcod off Makah Bay. These licences were $13 and I know they were available up to the mid 80's when I got out of commercial trolling, but they could still be available still, I don't know.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#87136 - 03/07/00 12:13 PM
Re: Equal Rights
|
Juvenille at Sea
Registered: 12/13/99
Posts: 141
Loc: Olympia Wa.
|
I also remember those days in the early 70's my Dad bought the license and we would fish for weeks ata time in the summer out of Ilwaco and Lapush heck we had lines hanging off bungee cords tied to the railings with bells attached .....those were the days....
------------------ Tight Lines FISH ON ------<*)>>< Men are like fish we get into trouble when we open our mouths to much!!
_________________________
Tight Lines FISH ON ------<*)>>< Men are like fish we get into trouble when we open our mouths to much!!
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
0 registered (),
549
Guests and
1
Spider online. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
11505 Members
17 Forums
72990 Topics
825759 Posts
Max Online: 3937 @ 07/19/24 03:28 AM
|
|
|