We have fishing rights, not priveledges

[The Steelheader]

I posted earlier about the upper columbia closure, and was told by a certain person that I have not the right to fish but the priveledge.

He said he can back this up because that's what the drivers handbook says, that driving is a priveledge and fishing is the same??????? I think he was serious, no I'm sure of it.

I've looked up several sights that tell me that we have fishing rights, not priveledges. Here are a couple to browse. Anybody else who has some information on our right to fish please post.

Do a search on fishing rights and several will come up.

WWW.wlfa.org/

http://www.thesi.com/hunting-fishing-rights.html

[ 01-08-2004, 09:14 PM: Message edited by: The Steelheader ]

[The Steelheader]

Some more interesting facts here. An interesting article describing how the future of angling is resting on its popularity.

35 threats to fishing.

http://espn.go.com/outdoors/bassmast...6_threats.html

[blacktail519]

A priveledge? I am with you steelheader!
It is definately my right to fish, But the government will tell me otherwise. They can keep on tellin me, it will go in one ear and out the other!

[Corkie Monster]

I think if fishing was a right then we would'nt have to pay for it. This whole thing just kinda urks me as well.

CM

[TonTo]

I belive it is a God givin right, sure it helps to play by the rules,alot less hassles that way,but who sets the rules and who gave em that right,or is that a privledge too? If my suvival depends upon that fish swiming in that water which is owned by us all,I belive I have a right as being top of the food chain to trade it's life for mine....I know there are other considerations as to what is legal but I believe it all boils down to a RIGHT we were all blessed with.

When they pry that rod from my cold dead hand!!!

[ 01-08-2004, 11:17 PM: Message edited by: TonTo ]

[Jennie@ifish]

We were blessed with the God given right to fish.

....then, someone used their right to fish...

They went down to the river to fish, left all kinds of hooks, and leader, and wrappers on the ground. Left their beer can, and their waste, too.

They took all the fish, and left none for anyone else.

They killed the fish, and robbed their eggs, and left the carcass to rot on the water's edge.

They brought their family, too, and taught them that these ways were perfectly fine, and to please follow my tradition. Leave trash, rob the eggs, leave the carcass... it's OK!

So, the fish stocks were in ruins, and someone said....

"We are abusing our God given right to fish."

"Let's teach these people to respect our waters, and our fishes."

But the good people were outnumbered by the bad people.

So, the good people had to hire some more good people to teach, and to demonstrate, and by last chance, to arrest people for bad behavior... to save the fish.

So, we once again are able to enjoy our God given right to fish.


AMEN.

[ 01-09-2004, 05:58 AM: Message edited by: Jennie@ifish ]

[glassblower]

I would say you have the right to fish. And the priveledge to do so as long as you follow the rules and do not get the priveledge taken away.

The Legal Basis for Fish and Wildlife Management in the U.S.

[GutshotApe]

You have a right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.

[Pete]

Now that's a privilege!

[duckcall]

With "rights" comes "responsibility"

[freespool]

I think you have the privilege to fish. In order to do so one must possess a valid license and tag. Violate the rules and poof,the privilege is gone.


salmon hugger

[ 01-09-2004, 09:23 AM: Message edited by: freespool ]

[Spot]

There are no rights anymore. Everything from breathing clean air to fishing to driving an 8MPG 4x4 is a priveledge. They're all revocable.....

[Joe Schwab]

Some are confusing rights with privileges. We do have the "right" to fish or hunt in this country but have agreed to put limits and rules governing the harvest in effect.

In other countries only noblemen have the privilege of hunting or fishing. Here everyone has the right contingent upon following the rules laid down by "the people".

Probably no other facet of our society is so driven by the will of the people. Fishermen and hunters have banded together to form organizations and insist on rules to govern their own activity.

I can think of few laws involving Fish or Wildlife that did not come as a result of pressure from the populace.

Treasure you "right". It is indeed a privilege granted to all by all.

[ 01-09-2004, 09:26 AM: Message edited by: Capt. Hook ]

[Paddlefish]

Very nicely stated, Captain Hook! I hope everybody reads it. Twice. (Very slowly, in some cases.)

I felt a breath of fresh air and my knuckles stopped dragging for a few seconds there.

Rights = responsibilities.

We're not in Kansas anymore, Toto. There are too many of us, and with all sorts of origins and attitudes about "rights". (If I'm not supposed to kill and eat the ducks from the city park pond, then why are they there?) Greed creates damage to the resource. Damage creates laws. Laws create loopholes. Loopholes create more complicated laws, plus the fees required to enforce them.

How may times have I heard "old-timers" complain about the idiocy of current fish and wildlife policies, then, without pausing, tell how salmon used to be so plentiful that they pitchforked them out of a creek on their brother-in-law's property?

And I have new, three-month-old, twin grandchildren. I'd dearly love to teach them the beauties and the wonder of catching the miracle of a Columbia River salmon. If I want them to catch those salmon, I need to work to protect those same salmon until Ava and Alex are big enough to hold a salmon rod.

We fishermen absolutely need to be the leaders in protecting that resource, even if it means that we have to limit our kill and/or pay something to help protect it.

[Sadie-Lynne]

In the U.S which is a country of freedom we had many rights. But as time goes people are changing
the word rights to priviledge and we accept that. Fishing is a right. Just because we pay does not mean that it is a priviledge. If we use the resource we need to take care of it.
As said earlier other countries only have priviledges lets not let others take away our rights. Lets take care of what we have and not loss it due to negligence

[Quasimodo the fish killer]

we all as citizens of oregon or what ever state you are from have the right to fish and hunt as long as we have a licence and obey the laws.

I know we have the right to not be harrassed cause the stater told me that a he was citing a bunch of anti hunters that were spookin the ducks off the pond I was hunting most people do not know or dont push the issue but in the state of oregon we have the right to persue game with out being harrassed by people that dont approve and they can be arrested.

I have bever pushed it and called the cops usually the old I am a redneck with a loaded gun and yer botherin me remark makes the dope smokin hippies run like rats from a buring ship :grin:

anyway I am not sure what statute it is and exactly what it says but the officer assured me that we are protected in our persuit.

.

[Spot]

I agree with the heartfelt sentiment of all the previous posts! But, once something is regulated, it's a privelege. period. A right is something that is inaliable and irrevocable.
ie The guy who can't muster the fee for a fishing license has no rights to fish......

[corkyking]

The Legal Basis for Fish and Wildlife Management in the U.S.
Erik Fritzell, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Oregon.
“To understand ones personal responsibilities toward wildlife,. it is useful to know who is in charge ”

Capt. Hook
“Here everyone has the right contingent upon following the rules laid down by “the people “.”

hamishtmuirhead
“The ultimate morality of intellect in social affairs seems to me to be one of participation - or at least (organized) protest ............"

The intuitively obvious truth that disturbs me the most is that I, through you, have abnegated my claim to being “the people”. I don’t believe that I have ever convinced a single person to vote or to call their reps or wildlife people.

I vote every chance I get. I write to whoever I think needs writing to. If I cannot convince you to register to vote and then get off your dead butt and do it, or to spend a few minutes writing to people who can effect change instead of posting all of your complaints here, then I cannot expect change.

Maybe I haven’t tried hard enough. If I didn't have to depend on you then hunting, fishing, driving, and smoking the occasional cigar with a cocktail would be my right.

If I cannot convince you then maybe I don’t deserve my “rights” because, based on recent events, I’m surely going to lose them.

[ 01-09-2004, 03:15 PM: Message edited by: corkyking ]

[dla]

Take a gander at the Oregon Revised Statutes, section 496. It describes the charter of the ODFW. After reading that, consider whether that describes "rights" or "privileges" for the recreational enthusiast.

http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/496.html

[TonTo]

With Rights come Responsibilities I agree with this completely,there are resons for the rules....the resources do need to be protcted.I can understand the need for the many restrictions,too many people do and will continue to abuse these rights.And if it meens restricting me to certain waters at certain times so be it,I believe conservation practices to be the only reason for these restrictions ,though there are certain groops that dissagree with the need to fish in the first place,...(PETA and the likes)and I will not cave my rights to these types.I am in no way an outlaw type fisherman,I do play by the rules and will continue to if they are there to protect the resorce.But I still belive deeply that fishing is a right that will not be infringed upon. :smile:

And Yes I am a registered voter,and I do participate in the practice of that RIGHT too.

[ 01-09-2004, 01:46 PM: Message edited by: TonTo ]

[ORoutdoorsman]

While PETA, and other such groups are a hassle, and cancause us grief, they will not be the downfall of hunting and fishing. It will come to the point where outdoorsmen(or outdoor people if you will) will have to stand up and fight organizations like peta, and meet them head on in both the political and legal arena. The only reason PETA has been successful so far is they pick and pick and pick away at our rights until every so often they chip off a little piece. They get away with this because most people who are busy leading their own lives don't have time to devote their life to fighting tree huggers. But when it comes down to it, PETA has no real basis for anything that they say. Their only argument is its wrong to kill animals. I have written PETA several times both through mail and e-mail and gotten no response. When you confront them about what they say, they have nothing to say to back it up. I have never gotten a response from a PETA member, nor have I ever gotten a reason other than its "wrong" to kill animals from any animal activist. And once they start gaining any kind of real headway in taking away our hunting and fishing rights, I believe people who value hunting and fishing will respond, and will win.

[GutshotApe]

I must say I sympathize with the upper Columbia River fisherman who can't target fish that swam right past Astoria, Longview, Portland/Vancouver, etc., where we can fish for them year-round, essentially...but after getting all the way up to Wells dam the locals are shut out. Sort of like deer hunters from Burns or Lakeview...who can rarely hunt in their own backyard because of the limited entry system that is overwhelmed by applicants from Portland/Salem/Eugene.

I understand the desire of some to split off eastern WA and eastern OR to form a new state.

Wonder what they'd call it? :whazzup:

[dla]

GutshotApe : I'd call it home. :smile: I'd move there in a heartbeat.

[Lund]

Itis very simple.

Everyone has rights that can not be taken away.

Fishing is a PRIVELEDEGE,If you don't beleive so, press your limit in Tillamook County and see how long your rights last.

You will be without your Priveledges to fish and most likely hunt too.

nuff said huh?

[justdave]

Interesting topic. Forty years ago, it was a right for me. I was still a few months shy of getting to buy my first license and being a true fisherman. I think once I joined the fraternity, it became a priveledge. I felt pretty important, having that license and knowing I had the responsibility of carrying it with me whenever I fished. I have always tried to follow the rules so I could retain that right and priveledge. I keep very little, percentage wise of the fish I catch any more. There have been years of my life when it was necessary to keep anything I caught and I did. If I were to lose the priveledge of working, I again would keep all I was entitled to keep. There is so much more to fishing than filling the freezer to me. I am happy to be on the water when I choose. If I were to lose the priveledge of being able to fish, I would enjoy the rivers in other ways. I tink it is our right to enjoy the outdoors and to fish and hunt. But it is still a priveledge we must pay for and keep for generations to follow.

[timinthegorge]

Lots of good comments....

We each have a responsibility to protect our resources for the next generation! Laws, rules, regs are all designed to address the FACT that's there's folks out there that disregard OUR resources, and OUR best interest collectively....

Snaggers, poachers, BEWARE! If I'm anywhere around, I'll be makin' a phone call and waitin' to see you being punished for takin' what ain't yours to take.....

[Siwash]

It's easy to rag on PETA, but I honestly feel like my fishing opportunities (rights?) are under far greater threat from habitat destruction--real estate development, poor logging practices (I know that's been debated to death in other threads), dams, agricultural runoff, grazing, etc, etc--and from private property zealots (refer back to some threads on legislation trying to restrict legal stream access), than from people who are against harming fish. Keep in mind that a lot of the "dreaded tree huggers" are busy trying to restore/preserve healthy watersheds, which is ultimately good for the fish. That's our goal too, right? Then, we can go ahead debate whether it's kosher to kill/maim the fish or not, but it'll be a moot point if the runs are wiped out or all the public access is bought up and posted. I make a conscious effort to practice "low-impact" fishing, but I still see more restrictions based on some people's perception that angling is a threat/nuisance to profits and/or property than because it harms the fish. After all, I think it's fair to say that nobody cares more about the fish than we (ethical anglers) do. It's up to us to police ourselves in a sense, so others won't be compelled to do it for us. In that regard, fishing is a priviledge.

[Quasimodo the fish killer]

I look at it as a privelage it used to be a right that old timers have told me about having. they have also said they exercised their right by pitch forking a wagon load of them or dynamiting a huge pool of them. I guess after they had their rights there was only enugh fish left for me to have a privelage :grin:

I believe when they started making rules so we didnt extinct the critters we love to chase around it became more of a privelage then a right but either way its worth protecting.


.

GSA,
Freedonia

[corkyking]

Quasimodo the fish killer:
“I look at it as a privelage it used to be a right that old timers have told me about having. they have also said they exercised their right by pitch forking a wagon load of them or dynamiting a huge pool of them “

90 million people then, 350 million now, not a common practice and done for economic reasons. I heard of such things but never witnessed them. I probably would have if it had been common practice.

Or were you talking about the present day practice by “native americans” and fish hatcheries of taking what they want and leaving thousands of fish to rot on the beach or taking truckloads to the processors.

Anyway we’d be better off with a lower population. With human population doubling every few years no natural resource stands much of a chance.

"Many present efforts to guard and maintain human progress, to meet human needs, and to realize human ambitions are simply unsustainable - in both the rich and poor nations. They draw too heavily, too quickly, on already overdrawn environmental resource accounts…They may show profits on the balance sheets of our generation, but our children will inherit the losses." - World Commission on Environment and Development

"Neither a tiger nor fern (nor Salmon) can survive the encroachment of millions of people and the devastation they bring with them." - Mark Van Putten, NWF President :depressed:

[2slow]

There are alot of good comments here but wether we call fishing a right or a privlige or a sport, or a business, or a pastime, or a passion is not really the point. What is important is that we do not lose sight of the fact that we, man, have the ability to either destroy the fish that we all seem to value or be their stewards and maintain and protect them. What that probably means is that NONE of us are completely happy with the regulations that are imposed upon us by the people that are charged with being the stewards of the fish we all revere. What that means is that we all get SOME of what we want but not ALL of what we want. There is no room at the table for pigs. The only way we can have them is to take care of them and they will tell us what kind of job we are doing is by how many of them come back so that we can all have SOME. Exactly how many SOME is is certainly dictated by how many return.

[ORoutdoorsman]

The law is based on the fact that people have the general right to their own freedom. Every man woman and child is entitled to what is called their natural rights. You can "persue" happiness, among other natural rights, as long as it does not infring upon the natural rights of other people. This is what the constitution was molded from, and this in general is what all laws are based upon. For example, laws on ****, murder, and theft are in place because all three of those acts robs the victim of their natural rights. Fishing is a right you have, however, as jennie, stated, people abuse their rights by making a mess out of the environment, and by not knowing how to manage fish populations. Thus, destroying the rivers, and hindering the fish populations. This infringes on someone elses right to fish. And that is where the law comes into play. If we did not have fishing regulations, salmon and steelhead would have been eliminated long ago. The laws and fees that are in place are essential to the preservation of outdoor sports. While there are things done by fish and game I do not agree with, it is a necessary institution to preserve our right to hunt and fish.

[Paddlefish]

Siwash:

You're sounding entirely too calm, rational, and reasonable here. your future posts are going to be prone to deletion.

I'm fond of reminding folks that when there were only 100,000 people ("godless savages," "Indians," "Native Americans:" take your pick,) here, it didn't matter if everyone peed in the river!

Now, however, with several million of us lemmings occupying the same space, new rules must apply. Remember the standard Davy Crockett line about "too crowded when you can see the smoke from your nearest neighbor's fire?"

The world and the rules have changed, Jethro, and you'll need to change too.

We're at the equivalent of standing in a crowded elevator. Your "right" to step to the left will put your shoe directly on somebody else's foot.

My "home river" (because it's only a mile from my home,) is the Tualatin, a river which is likely the butt of more jokes than Osama Bin Laden on late night TV. But I've seen its tough, resilient coho and steelhead brave its warm, silted, and human-impacted waters to spawn in high Coast Range streams which look exactly like Trask or Wilson tributaries and which are, in fact, only a few miles away.

Years ago, I fished for them occasionally.

That's no longer a legal option.

It's not, however, that some bureaucratic ogre has decided that I had "rights" which needed to be infringed upon. It has more to do with upscale Bull Mountain housing developments which suddenly result in a new 36-inch-diameter, flood-contributing, storm water culvert, bringing last Saturday's motor oil change and yesterday's overspray of Roundup and Weed-and-Feed into my adopted fish nursery. Yuck.

I can certainly sympathize with Steelheader's lack of access to fishing his local upriver fish stocks, especially when I read of folks whose freezers are already full of salmon and can't find enough neighbors to give upriver fish to, or who buy licenses in two states in order to double their maximum allowable kill.

I'm somewhere on the other end of the spectrum. ("Hey! 2002! Wasn't that the year that Dad caught a salmon?")

Perhaps there is a "learn to share" lesson here. Certainly, if the folks in Richland were netting all the available smolts and exporting them to Tokyo in gift boxes of mini salmon sushi there would be "some level of protest" from the Portland area.

I've been to Redfish Lake, waaay up in the mountains of Idaho. Standing there, imagining salmon surging into the lake from the creek below, after swimming all the way from the North Pacific, past Astoria, Portland, Lewiston, and points east, is almost a religious experience (at least in the First Holy Church of the Oncorhynchus.)

We have the ability, intentionally or otherwise, to gillnet, hook, kill, dewater, poison, starve, shred, snag, market, flood, or silt over every last salmon in the Pacific Northwest.

Rather than debate over who gets the last one, we should be looking a little farther forward.

My gosh, I think I've just given a Rodney King "Can't we all just get along" speech. :shocked: :shocked: And, (can't you tell?) the cabin fever seems to be building up after this snowbound week.

[The Steelheader]

Do we have the right to bear arms or is this a privelege?

Do we have the right to a fair trial, or do we make this a privelege too as we are stepping on somebody's toes because they have to report for jury duty? Is this as dumb a statement as it's a privelege because the drivers handbook says so?

Our rights become priveleges because we let them become that way. Through decisions based on faulty numbers and poor management of a resource by fisherman and government alike, we are slowly losing our right to fish.

If a fishery is shut down in a seldom fished place, people get fed up and decide it's not worth my money to buy a license. People decide that fishing is not worth it because there are too many rules and regulations that I can't understand and don't want to break any rules. So I don't fish. Through people not fishing, these fisheries eventually turn into endangered habitat,( although we had the best run in 20 years), and are not allowed to be fished again. There is no fight put up when this happens, because everyone doesn't care anymore, no interest because it's too hard. Then the Government controls everything, we turn into a communist country and have to live off of our own fat and drink our own.... HOLY SMOKES, WHAT AM I SAYING.... nevermind.

I understand the need for rules and regs, and the monies it takes to run something like this. I agree with taking care of and protecting our wildlife and fish. We are all conservationists if we think about it, we love what we do and we all want to protect it, otherwise we wouldn't waste time typing while my butt goes to sleep here!

If we have people lose interest in our "way of life" because of too many hurdles we have to jump over, it has begun. We will not have rights, PETA will win, and Ted Turner will buy your river... What? I gotta stop.

[rob allen]

The Steelheader I was going to leave this alone because it's a totally stupid pointless debate. But ..

1. all three sites you posted are completely worthless. None of them even made a case for fishing being a legal right. They were just spouting their opinions.

2. fact is fishing can legally be taken away from you without due process of law.

3. compareing it to your right to bear arms is absolutely wrong. There is no provision in the constitution or the bill of rights ensureing our " right to fish"

[corkyking]

Boater- An excellent point. Perhaps like an unfunded mandate an unfunded privelege?

dla- thanks for URL to OR's rules. I did a search for "privelege" and there are several which state the dire loss of privelege if the citizen looks cross-eyed and then there is this one:

(PLS read carefully)
496.620 Nonliability of law enforcement officers . No person authorized to enforce the wildlife laws shall suffer any civil liability for the enforcement or attempted enforcement of any provisions of the wildlife laws or for the exercise or attempted exercise of any of the duties or privileges granted to or imposed by law upon the State Fish and Wildlife Commission or such persons. [Amended by 1971 c.658 §11; 1973 c.723 §20]

Remember scratching your head and saying "how in the heck do they get away with that or how do they not do their job or who told them that they could act that way?

Now you know. And we voted for the people who wrote the words.

[Quasimodo the fish killer]

wow its just a discussion no need to get mad on either side.

but hey if someone will throw a burnt turkey across the room and the other will cry it would remind me of thanks giving dinner at the ex's parents house :grin:


Quasi


.

[boater]

Originally posted by Quasimodo the fish killer:
wow its just a discussion no need to get mad on either side.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">priveledge on, uhh no, i mean right on [img]graemlins/dork.gif[/img]

[The Steelheader]

Robby,

I was wondering when you were going to pop yourself into the discussion.

Point one. Learn to spell.

Point two. I guess this post is over because you are in it and nobody wants to hear you talk about yourself and your superior ways of fishing. You are turning this into a war between you and me. You said in our last talk that we are just two idiots arguing. Correction, I'm not an idiot. I have the feeling you are, from what everyone else says to me in private messages.

Point three. I guess your opinion only matters and nobody elses. At least they are on a website published for everyone to read and have their valid points being read. This is what this discussion is about, our OPINIONS. Seriously man, you need to understand what you are saying. You don't.

Point four. Show me some proof of fishing being a privelege. I believe your "proof" would be to say that the drivers handbook says that driving is a privelege, so therefore fishing is a privelege. I think my saying that to bear arms being a right falls way closer to fishing rights than your right to drive a vehicle.

Obviously you carry grudges and vendettas against people and will not let our past discussion about your superior ethics and ways of fishing die.

The drivers handbook says so, so it's the way fishing has to be. Send me a PM, we can discuss this further.

[rob allen]

The Steelheader first of all thank you for the esxtremely rude and belitteling e-mail. You sure can guarentee a lot of things that are false..
In your points here thank you for completely ignoreing my three points.. I didn't add to this thread to say anything bad about anyone only to point out that you made no factual statments about fishing being a legal right.
but thanks for the blistering personal attack..

I was referring to US as idiots i thought you'd take it as it was meant not as an insult.. Good grief....

[The Steelheader]

Rob, you started things and I'm going to be the man and end them.

Obviously things can be taken out of context by both parties, I acknowledge this you haven't. If you want to call me, give me your number in a PM, we can discuss things. Prove to me I'm wrong in what I say in my email. Sorry if I belittled you. Maybe you should have sent me a "PRIVATE MESSAGE" instead of telling everyone how bad a person I am on this post, trying to get support for yourself. Obviously some of the things I told you are true.

You sure answered this post quickly, you are looking for a fight aren't you?

Here is one of those biased statement on a sight I gave.



Links For Your Rights

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organizations Fighting for Your Rights
There are many organizations working hard to provide you with information and legislation that protect your RIGHT to hunt, FISH, and own a firearm.

Firearms and fishing. Sounds better than fishing and driving.

EVERYONE, I AM SORRY. I WILL NOT GET INTO ANY MORE DISCUSSIONS WITH ROB ALLEN. MY CONVERSATIONS WILL BE CIVIL.

[ 01-11-2004, 12:51 PM: Message edited by: The Steelheader ]

[boater]

just a quick question, with the new law in oregon regarding shell fish licenses, was it a "right" to havest them before you had to buy a license and now since you do, it`s now a "priveledge" ?