Fishing....Right or Privilage??

[Johnny Mac]

I've seen it mentioned on here more than once that fishing is a privilage....I'd like to know how some figure that. I'm not looking for an arguement by any means, just would like to hear somebody back that up rather than just say it casually. Sounds like an odd thing to say in America to me, but I'm willing to hear perspectives.

To me, I see it as a regulated right. Hard for me to see it any other way since the fish are not owned by anybody.

So go ahead, back it up. I'm listening.

[Joe Schwab]

Johnny Mac, I agree with you that fishing is a right. And as you so well put it, "a regulated right". It is regulated by the rules of laws established over the years through the efforts of individuals and organizations. However it is not, as far as I know a right that cannot be taken away. More than a few have lost their right to fish by abusing those laws.

In a sense too, it is a privilege that comes from nature and being fortunate enough to live in an area that offers us the opportunity. In some other countries, fishing and hunting are privileges granted only to the elite.

The way I see it, we are privileged to have the right to enjoy fishing at it's best.

[img]images/icons/smile.gif[/img] [img]images/icons/smile.gif[/img] [img]images/icons/smile.gif[/img]

[Johnny Mac]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Capt. Hook:
The way I see it, we are privileged to have the right to enjoy fishing at it's best.

[img]images/icons/smile.gif[/img] [img]images/icons/smile.gif[/img] [img]images/icons/smile.gif[/img]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That sums it pretty well for me too.

So who thinks its strictly a priviledge?

[DanS]

If you don't believe it, go fish where you've been told not to, open your wallet, and appeal your case all the way to the Supreme Court. They will confirm that fishing is indeed a priviledge.

It's like this. The states have laws governing fish and game. They could close it all tomorrow. Of course, if you chose to fish anyway, you'd get a ticket. Now, the burden of proof is on YOU that fishing is a right. Unless you can find some language in the law that says fishing is a right, and not a priviledge, then it's case closed.

Of course I didn't major in Constitutional Law, or any other law for that matter, so you can take it for what it's worth. But I wouldn't recommend trying to fight a "Fishing In Closed Waters" ticket with an argument based on your "right" to fish.

[Pete]

In this country it is a privilege only in some places...unlike Great Britain where all wild creatures are considered owned by the monarchy. In this country there are private waters, e.g. Armstrong and Depuys spring creeks in Montana, where access to the fishery is limited by private property rights. The same is true on Ted Turner and Tom Brokaw's enormous property holdings ... things so nearly like private kingdoms that it rankles my dander. In this country, except in those private kingdoms, there is a presumption that anyone can pursue fish. All it takes is a license and compliance with the laws. That right, however, is revokable, as Capt. J, points out.

[boater]

the tribes have a "treaty right" to 50 percent of the harvestable fish, if we dont have the right to the other 50 percent, who does?

Boater, I would like the Indian Tribal Commissions and NMFS to try answering your question!

[4Salt]

Boater,

I believe the answer lies in DanS' post.
The tribes have the "Right" to 50% of the harvest, regardless of state laws, because of federal treaties which supercede any state law. We, on the other hand, have NO federal treaty that guarantees our "Right" to the other 50%, which are left to the state to administer, through laws and mandates. So, as Dan pointed out, you can't just go out and fish wherever and whenever you want because of laws. This makes your ability to fish when open, a "Priviledge". On the other hand, you can say anything you want, criticizing these laws and unfair distributions of fish to the tribes. this is your "Right" to free speech, as gauranteed by the First Amendment. [img]images/icons/smile.gif[/img]

[ 10-09-2001: Message edited by: 4Salt ]

[CATCH AND EAT]

The only folks that have a "right" to fish are the native american folks. They have the right to **** the river time after time. We have the privilage of putting up with the rest of the baloney that is set before us. "Keep only 2 fish""release natives", "No snagging", "Don't park in the river", "don't pee in the bushes"....Just kidding about most of this stuff.

It is truley frustrating to know exactly where you stand unless you read the rules of fishing by the odfw. This only takes 2 or 3 days and 4 phone calls to clear everything up as to the definitions and policy.

Just my .03 cents worth. Inflation you know drives up the cost.

[Pilar]

Boy, these waters sure got muddy quick. We have several issues here guys ....

The state has decided to tax the sportsmen and use the money to support the hobby (obsession) by running hatcheries. This means we have to buy a license, follow rules and play one fish, two fish, black fish, blue fish at the boat ramp. Limits and seasons are set to allow fishing without decimating the resource. So it sounds like they want us to fish. Is it a right? No, because the government can close the fishing anywhere any time. Your 'priveledge' can be revoked by the state at any time. And it should be revoked for certain unscrupulous individuals, judging by the uproar over snagging.

You really have no 'right to fish' unless your ancestors were herded into reservations in exchange for land lost to manifest destiny.

The second issue is access. This is what gets most of us at one time or another. You are allowed to fish by the state, but some of the prime water is closed by landowners. This is their right since they bought the land and have a say in how and when it is used and by whom.

There are other issues as well, like commercial fishing and division of the allowable quota. To avoid another net free for all let's not go there.

We really have it made out West. In many other states the 'access' issue makes it very hard to fish. You have to belong to a 'Club' and pay rental on the land to hunt or fish. I just check the board, load my gear and head to the latest hot spot.

Life is good!

[img]images/icons/grin.gif[/img]

[boater]

WHY DID THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT SPLIT THE SALMON CATCH 50-50
BETWEEN INDIANS AND NON-INDIANS?

The division is not so much between Indian and non-Indians as it is
between tribal and state governments, treaty and non-treaty parties.
It must be remembered that at the time the treaties were signed,
Indians were catching almost all of the fish. But under the treaties,
Indians agreed to share the fishery "in common" with all citizens.
This, in the language of the time, made Indians and settlers, in
effect, equals when it came to sharing the resource. Each group was
entitled to one-half. Eventually, settlers were regulated by their
state governments, but tribes were not legally subject to state
regulations because they are separate political entities with special
contracts, or treaties, with the U.S. Government. The courts decided
that tribal governments and the state government, as co-equals, should
each be entitled to one-half of the available harvest.


i found that on the indian fisheries page, i realy believe if someone dug into this far enough they would find that it is our right to 50 percent of the fish, it is i believe a regulated right of a natural resource. regulations is what we get in the phamplet every year from the f & g dept, they are the regulators of our 50 percent of the fish, it`s not that they want us to fish, they have to let us get our share as they feel is fair. look the word "privilege" up in the dictionary, it is being used out of place in some comments here.

[Fish Hunter]

There is no doubt that KillerTraylor has given up on ifish when he's not making a post to this thread!

I believe it's a priviledge. Should be for the tribes also!