(I copied my post from a diff. thread so as to make sure I got some input on this from the board. Sorry for the double post.)

Since the closures of the Skykomish, Stillaguamish, Sauk and Skagit catch and release seasons seems to be a done deal. I wanted to find a way to turn some of the anger, shock and dismay into something positive. The damage is already done to the rivers listed above but it is not too late to unite to save to O.P. rivers.

I may be off base on this one but Skookum asked me earlier today about experience in political activism. Well I don't have any but driving home I got to thinking about the political process. It occurs to me that we may be going about this all wrong. If I understand the petition currently being circulated correctly, we are signing up to tell WDFG that we want a statewide C & R of native fish. Unless I'm wrong, they can look at ourlist of 150,000+ signatures and say, f*** you. So what other avenue can we use?

Since Tim Eyman can get the proper number of signatures on an initiative to limit mass transportation or lower car tabs, why couldn't we get enough to put c & r of natives before the voters. Seems that taking this to the public might be the best answer. We could make C & R of natives the LAW and outside the "management" of the WDFG. I know we have tried this route before with BAN but that was a horse of a diff. color. This would potentially get the sportsmen, the environmentalists and buisness behind it. Heck, if those more informed than I think this worthy, I'm willing to donate my time helping pull it together and stumping for signatures. Besides, I suddenly have a lot of free time this spring.

Tell me what you think. So far the one vote I have heard (my wife's) mentioned the term grandiose. If we pulled it off though we would have really accomplished something.

Sinktip

This may be the best idea I have heard in the entire recorded history of the human planet. Especially when we recall that in the 1996 regulations cycle there were 170 public proposals received by WDF&W on all subjects. of these, 43 concerned some form of saving wild steelhead. Zero proposals endorsed killing wild steelhead. Then we hired Bern Shanks, and when he tried to save wild fish, he was fired.
Clearly the non-angling public is in favor of saving wild fish so that future ESA restrictions don't raise their utility rates etc. and I bet if a well-done initiative was on the ballot that it would easily pass.
What do other seasoned fish activists out there think?

Well, my initial reaction was no way. The general public doesn't care, and as far as I can tell, only a tiny portion of the sportfishing community cares. But then I started thinking and while this may not hit the hot-buttons or affect Joe Average like Eyman's stuff did, it's gotta be at least as interesting to the public as banning mole traps. Especially if it was worded in an environmentally sound way, such as "It shall be illegal to use sportfishing methods to kill or posess any wild steelhead in the state of Washington..." In other words, instead of promoting catch and release for what may be considered "elitist" sports fishermen, it now becomes a save the wild salmonid deal. And in the public's eyes, it's just like the cruel animal traps deal or the using dogs to hunt cougars deal. We can get the support of everyone who thinks "yeah, we should save wild salmon..." Anyway, it's a thought, and like you say, it would bypass the WDFW policy process. Just how many signatures do you need to get it on a ballot? I see Eyman's got himself a lawyer to help write his new intiatives so they'll be immune to all the legal challenges. Anybody know a good lawyer who knows his way around the democratic process? I know shamefully little about how this works and what's possible, but I think it's worth finding out about. Anyone?

According to an article in the Seattle Times, the State constitution allows for a referendum to be put on the ballot if 4% of the state's registered voters sign a petition. An article on Eyman quotes a figure of 179,248 valid signatures to get an issue forwarded on to the legislature. I'm not sure if this equaltes to the 4% above.

You are right that we need some legal advice on this one. My gut reaction is Skookum is write that this would have to be worded not as a catch and release measure but rather a no kill on wild fish measure. I really think that if the organization and funding logistics could be solved then the public would support it. We could count on support from various city's chambers of commerce, a good number of guides, and the environmental movement. Getting people interested east of the mountains (where it has been C & R for many years) might be tougher but we are lucky in that most voters reside in the few counties it would be easiest for us to canvas. I'm thinking signature drives at the summer fairs, the sportsman's expo, the Bite of (Seattle, Edmonds, etc.) plus pulling in support from TU and other sportsman's groups might yield the number needed.

It would not be easy though and would require time committments from a number of people plus some funding to cover printing, advertising, and possibly legal costs.

We as a group need decide if 1) this is possible and if it is, 2) is it worth the effort?

Sinktip

I like the sound of this. At the very least it would put the spot light on the Fish & Game fools who have mismaneged our fisheries for too long! I think one way to word it would be to say,"All wild or naturally produced Salmon, Steelhead, Searun Cutthroat and Dolly Varden Trout shall be illegal for retention in the State of Washington" . That way nobody gets to keep them (might have to exclude the tribes though). Got my vote! thanks

Hey, guys. Please read my post about "possible legal scenarios".

Thanks.

Todd.

Sinktip .. the initiative process is one that several of us have been looking at if the court option doesn't look favorable, If you like, you can give me a call out here in Forks ... I've got the paperwork for an initiative and a bunch of things we need to know about it