Who owns the trout?

[SpottedCharr]

I always enjoy reading the posts here, but I rarely contribute to the conversations. I'm just not much for communicating by way of the ether. Lately, though, I've been nagged by questions to which some of you must surely know the answer and about which all of you certainly have an opinion.

Namely, who owns the wild trout in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania? If the answer is the state, when did the state gain title? Did the governed ever consent to this? If so when? Did William Penn once own all of the trout? Charles the Second? If the answer is: “We all own the trout.” then, well I just hope that's not the answer because to me it's a hopelessly vague and ambiguous one. If the answer is: “No one owns them.” then by what legal logic does the state regulate the possession of wild trout?

Simply by asking these questions, my own opinion must be quite plain. But please don't assume that my motives are only selfish or that I wish to exploit what I know is a limited and precious resource. That is not the case. Rather, I practice conservation. But I am also a “reluctant anarchist” (as my late friend, Joe Sobran, would put it). For me, these are not contradictory ideas; indeed I believe that blame for both destruction of natural resources and the destruction of liberty can be laid squarely on the centralization of power in the hands of a few regardless of their good intentions.

But, hey, that's just me. What do you think?

 

[lv2nymph]

I think it's no one, and if the state didn't regulate the possession of said trout there wouldn't be any.

 

[bikerfish]

try keeping too many and you'll find out soon enough!

 

[RCFetter]

God owns the trout. No one holds legal title to the trout or the eagle just as no one owns me or anyone else.

I believe the state of Pennsylvania is obligated to issue regulations designed to protect trout and other wildlife in the same sense there are laws to protect people.

I think the concept of ownership can be applied to someone stocking a pond on private property in the same sense that a farmer or rancher owns his livestock.

 

[Phish_On]

RCFetter wrote:
God owns the trout.

Yup. If not god a higher force.

 

[Chaz]

Firstof all, PA is not a State sothe "State" doesn't own the trout. PA is a Commonwealth, and by definition we all own the trout, therefore we are responsible for their welfare and conservation. Maybe we should petition the court to put a question on the ballot to protect the trout from PFBC, by lowering the limit on wild fish. Someone has to step forward.

 

[SpottedCharr]

Good answers!

But I suspect bikerfish is closest. Doesn't the one who possesses power over a thing own it?

If God owns them, didn't he instruct us to take dominion over them? Or was He addressing the PFBC?

If the state is obligated to protect them, are there any limits to this protection? Do they have the right to outlaw fishing altogether? Wouldn't this be the best protection?

Something tells me there were trout long before the invention of the state...

Remarkable! There is no hesitation to endorse the power to regulate human behavior yet none of us seem to agree on where that right comes from. Am I the only one who finds this alarming?

 

[wgmiller]

Who "owns" the deer? What about the bears? We all do!

 

[troutbert]

Re: the original post.

What are you proposing?

State your specific proposal of how trout in PA should be managed, and give your reasons why we should support that.

Then we'd have something to discuss.

 

[Maurice]

I think Owns is the wrong way to approach this question.

The Commonwealth (the people) own the water rights where access is available. Oversight of this asset is handled through the F&BC, this includes the fish and game within. We all as citizens have the right to fish for them where legal.

This may not sit well with an anarchist. But consider if owned by the citizens with no oversight they would be extirpated as happened in the past prior to the formation of the F&BC.

Now, once you catch and harvest a wild trout legally, you own it.

They are a resource unowned until owned via harvest or by proxy via property rights.

 

[blueheron]

Yes, you are the only one who finds this alarming.

 

[wildtrout2]

The only thing that I truely consider alarming is climate change (because it affects EVERYBODY), and there's nothing I can do about it. But, I believe it's the people of the Commonwealth who "own" the trout.

 

[afishinado]

:roll:

 

[The_Sasquatch]

I think Mo is right. "Owns" is not the right word to use. Our government, for example, does not OWN the individual citizen (despite how perverted things may have become in this country, we still are not owned by our government), and yet the government has a RESPONSIBILITY to protect and guard the general welfare of its citizens. Thinking about this in the same light, I believe the state has a responsibility to protect and guard the general welfare of its resources, including its wildlife.

I'm sure this can be picked apart and torn to shreds somehow, but I think this is the general idea anyway.

 

[troutbert]

Who "owned" the passenger pigeons?

 

[pcray1231]

ALL flowing water and the fish within are owned by the people, i.e. the public. The people have assigned the task of management to the Commonwealth.

 

[JeffK]

I thought fish and game were wards of the state - not really ownership per se. Some states have exceptions for private clubs that stock.

I also think that the state manages for the benefit of the citizens - not the fish. Therefore, there will be harvest and recreation.

 

[RLeeP]

I think the short answer to your question can be found in Social Contract theory and how we have chosen to apply it in our form of government In this sense, we the people own the wild trout of Pennsylvania, which we consent to be managed by an agency we established and empowered to do so, the PAF&BC. When harm is done to the wild trout of this state, we have empowered the Commission to act on our behalf through fines, etc. to remedy or redress these insults.

So, if it is necessary that we establish who “owns” these fish, I think this is the operative answer. We do. You and I.

Admittedly though, it is a bit murky…

I found this interesting:

>I believe that blame for both destruction of natural resources and the destruction of liberty can be laid squarely on the centralization of power in the hands of a few regardless of their good intentions.>

When you speak of the “centralization of power”, do you draw a distinction between the “power” of government and the power of centralized or amalgamated economic interests, such as an entire industry like coal or real estate development? This would be the only way I could agree with what you say in the quote I pulled and pasted above. My belief is that one of the roles of government is to act as a counter to the potential tyranny of centralized private interests.

 

[chromid]

There is a vast difference between "ownership" and "stewardship". When we are born we come into this world owning nothing and we exit the same way, however we do become stewards of everything around us. How actively we pursue this stewardship and the amount of effort we put towards it is directly proportionate to the well being of the object/s in our care. By assigning that stewardship responsibility to others, we must therefore be willing to accept the direction that it takes (which I think RLeeP has stated).

Since we are ultimately responsible for assigning stewardship responsibilities, we must also share the responsibility of the stewardship results.

"Help us build a better Planet" - IBM
"What's wrong with the one I gave you" - GOD

 

[Stagger_Lee]

Trout on private property = ownership by property owner

Trout on public property = ownership by the commonwealth

That is how I would look @ it but do agree to some extent w/ RC re: God