Just a little something to contemplate on your way to the polls.


Initiative process a poor way to manage

Bob Mottram; News Tribune outdoors writer

It's a tough call, what to do about Initiative 696, the measure to ban most non-Indian commercial netting
in Washington waters.

The measure, the second of its kind in the past five years, was born of decades of anger and frustration
over abuses by the commercial fishing industry. The initiative was written and gathered enough support to
win a place on the general election ballot because, as long as anyone can remember, Washington's
commercial fishing industry has controlled the agency that was supposed to manage it.

For decades, for example, commercial netters demanded - and received - the opportunity to overharvest
wild stocks of Washington salmon in order to net intermingled stocks of hatchery fish to the maximum.
Bottom draggers left underwater clearcuts in Puget Sound. The industry resisted even effective
monitoring, as evidenced by its reaction when the Department of Fish and Wildlife moved a couple of
years ago to put independent observers aboard some of its boats.

When former state Fish and Wildlife director Bern Shanks tried to bring the industry under control, he lost
his job on what many believe were trumped-up charges of misfeasance.

Now the department has a new director, Jeff Koenings, and people are hoping for the best. Koenings
hasn't been in his position long enough for anyone to fairly judge his ability - or his desire - to gain control
of the commercial fishery, so it would not be fair to criticize him. The simple fact is, however, that there is
no evidence that the department is any more in control now of commercial fishing than it ever was.

All that notwithstanding, it's bad policy to try to manage fish and wildlife through the initiative process.
Washington sportsmen no doubt still remember Initiative 655, which passed overwhelmingly in 1996 and
which prohibited the use of dogs in hunting cougars and bears. That initiative was sponsored by
animal-rightists, and it put Washington in the bizarre position of seeing its wildlife policy set by people
whose total wildlife experience probably had been gained at Green Lake.

It very likely won't be the last time that animal-rightists show up with an initiative for Washington voters.

In the current case, whether 696 wins or loses - but especially if it wins - how surprising would it be to
see an initiative coming at you that proposes to eliminate all hook-and-line fishing for salmon? To protect
threatened stocks, of course. Could you imagine it being sponsored by Eastern Washington agricultural
interests? By commercial fishermen? Would sportsmen want to trust a decision like that to the Green
Lake crowd?

After the hound-hunting experience, it's surprising that sportsmen, especially, would turn to the initiative
process for management of fish and wildlife issues.

It's a decision that may come back to bite them.

I read this article today and sent Bob Mottram an e-mail asking him if he was planning on allowing the supporters of I-696 to share their beliefs just the same as these other groups have had the chance to give their opinions. I have not heard back from him yet, I hope he is planning on letting the pro I-696 supporters speak soon. I agree it is unfortunate that we have to try and govern Washington's fisheries through the Initiative process, but when the people in charge of the process do not have the backbone to keep the commercials in check, it falls to the people, its called democracy, will of the people. Hopefully, come next Tuesday, the members of the Fish and Wildlife Commission will realize they are out of touch.

Its funny that every thing I read about against B.A.N. talks of no more commercial fishing in Washington, Like were trying to shut it down, when in fact its not written or meant to shut it down, its meant to stop a very non-descimitive way of fishing. I read that only 1% of the Commercial fisherman in Washington rely on it for there sole source of income. Thats not because he or she is the only one out there who knows how to catch fish with a net, anyone can and some are truley more succesful. Its because there isnt enough fish, period...(in my opinion). The Commercials lobby that its habitat, that may and to alot of degree it is true but is our state doing anything about it? I dont think so. Are we going to rip down Seattle, Tacoma, Portland, all the dams? I think not. So lets start somewere...Hmmmm, lets see! I know lets remove from our waters the most indescrimitive means of catching fish known to man. And it may be the end of Commercial fishing but not because of the BAN issue its because our state has let this indescrimitive style of fishing go on for too long and theres just no more opportunity for a sizable money making fishery especilly without nets and the sale of By-catch. If there not going to do anything then its up to the people. So by even bringing up the fact that it could come back and bite us because they could pass an inititive to BAN hook and line fishing because of the threatend runs is totally obsered because its one of the most descrimtive fishing styles known to man (in my opionion), and if our fish are at the point were even this method needs to be banned because the mortality rate of catch and release is enough to put them near extinction, then by god I'll vote for it too. I love the sport and own 3 boats and a new truck to pull with,I have alot of money invested in this sport, But in my book nothing can bring back the fish once there gone...And I'm fully ready and know it could happen to keep my boats on the trailer and hope things will recover to were We all can Fish again. And I mean all of us including the Commercial fleets, Lets just try to keep everyone in check from now on.
The Fish are first, Meat in the freezer, write offs, A pleasureable sport, ect take a far behind second...

This is my own opinion and beliefs, take it for what its worth...

Thanks, and vote YES on 696, I did.

Bob D.

MMOUSE,

I hope it DOES come back to bite us.........I prefer my bites on eggs, but I will settle for plugs and spinners, too.

PS: If you ask me, I-695 wasn't a failure either. Just a better chance for guys without hounds to bag a bear or cat.

Fish on..........

MMOUSE,
So the commercial netters have scr*wed the sportmen and the fish(I like that part). We use the democratic process to do the will of the people. It is the one control the people have over corrupt government.I'll take my chances of being attacked by a hen steelhead protecting her young.

[This message has been edited by Bruce (edited 10-27-1999).]

That is a SCARY thought. some of those salmon get really big and the last thing I need to wory about is falling out of my boat and woundering if they will eat me before I can be rescued. that's a problem I would like to wory about but really don't think will happen. I've ben leaning on everybody I know to vote YES on 696 I really hope it passes.

dcrzfitter

I agree with MMouse - he has a legitimate point, but I also believe that the danger of starting an Initiative War is overshadowed by the desperate need for some legislation to start regulating an indescriminate method of fishing. The multiple endangered listing should be a Heads Up to us all that we need to take action NOW to protect the future of our native runs of salmon and steelhead.

This may not be the best step, but it's a first step . . .

Bob M from the Tribune has had a bone in his teeth ever since 655 passed. He never hesitates to bring up this initiative every time there is either an incident or rumor of a cougar/kid encounter. I refuse to allow the "possibility" of an anti sports fishing initiative in the future govern my actions today. Bob points out a number of the positive reasons to vote for I-696. I would suggest he live in the present rather than regretting the past or fearing the future.

I hate to see this turned into a salmon issue. It is not just about salmon, although the commercials have tried to make it out to be. The most important and deadly practice this initiative will eliminate is bottom trolling. A method that turns our salt water into a vast waste land.

I agree with you stlhead. A little discused and important fact is that the pinapeds [seals/sealions] that call Puget Sound
home, primary food source "was" the Pacific cod. Unfortunatly the "bottom draggers" have almost completely annihilated the population of this once amazingly abundant and noble fish, well guess what the pinnapeds secondary food source is ?....yep, you guessed it. The salmonids. I think I speak for most of us when I bring up the increasing frequency of seal marked salmon and steelhead that are landed, and the increased interactions between the pinapeds and fisherman with hooked fish. This is the dominoe theory in action, and you can thank the heinous, no, criminal overharvest of the Pacific cod by the "bottom draggers".
VOTE YES ON I-696