I just read a letter to the editor of my local paper that states the initiative will ban all gill nets.

There is also an article in the recent issue of "The Reel News" about this.

Where can I find "The Reel News" in the Thurston County area?
Where can I find the verbage of I-713?

Any input would be great.

------------------
"Just Say No To Sovereign Nations!"

Riverswild:

What paper???? Maybe its "on-line", would love to read the article.

Would be nice but "don't think so"!!! Voted yes on the past 2 tries at "getting rid of them". Sure need to cut back on the "parttime non-indian" gill netters, that is at least a step in the right direction...

"Worse day sport fishing, still better than the best day working"

unfortunately I dont think that the initiative will include nets. My wife worked on the initiative and has some copies of the writeup of 713. It is to include body gripping and leg hold traps. If they tried to include nets after the fact , it would most likely be considered unconstitutional and not allowed being that nets weren't specifically mentioned in the writeup. If anyone is interested I could forward a copy of the initiative. Email me with your address

DrifterWA -
The letter was printed in the Daily Olympian Sat.Dec 23, page A9.

Steelhead Addict -
The letter pointed to, "Section three, paragraph three". According to the writer under this wording, "Gill nets are in fact body gripping traps".

Maybe this is only this persons opinion, but if the wording is strong enough maybe we can use it as leverage to remove the gill nets.

Or maybe we can use this to have the I-713 travesty overturned.

------------------
"Just Say No To Sovereign Nations!"

your right. I just looked up sec 3 para 4. Hmmm... I guess there is a reason why the initiatives are written so ambiguously.
A little confused on the second part of your response. I-713 travesty? Are you not in support of the initiative?

I believe the ban on trapping was a blow to all outdoorsmen.

We Washingtonians let outside interests dictate what we will allow each other to do. The funding came from the very same people who put the restrictions on bear and cougar hunting, that are working on anti-archery proposals, and the same people that will eventually take away our fishing rights.

There agenda is "Green". No killing, harming, or eating of anything born or hatched. And they are constantly chipping away at us.

We need to respect the rights of our fellow outdoorsmen, even if we don't partake in that certain activity.

To answer your question, I voted against it, but the people have spoken. There is nothing I can do about it now, but if there is a silver lining to every dark cloud, this may be it. Hopefully some one with the power/money can look into this verbage.

Anyways, I am getting off topic.

I am still looking for "The Reel News" so I can read the indepth article...

Merry Christmas!


------------------
"Just Say No To Sovereign Nations!"

This is a difficult topic.The intended goalof 713 is humane treatment of wildlife. That includes hunting, but in a humane manner. I am not an anti-hunting advocate and neither is my wife ( whom also worked on the bear and cougar init). We both understand that management is something that has to be done for the benefit of a species. She and others are concerned about how humanely these animals are being killed. Your statement that these people are chipping away at the rights of hunters, and that these people do not want any animal killed is not completely accurate. While some have that idea that is the minority.
Traps and poisons are indiscriminent. You have to admit that these devices prolong the agony of whatever animal is caught in them (wether or not you think that is ok). We dont allow people to fish with dynamite, and we argue that nets are indiscriminate to native fish species as well as birds and mammals, well so are traps.
I will leave this post and get back to its intent, fishing.

Give me break.... The Anti bear/Cougar legislation was most definitely part of a larger movement started by rich anti-everything groups. Hound hunting wasn't indiscriminate... why get rid of it?? These people need to be stopped... they will chip away at everything until hooking that fish becomes inhumane treatment that must be outlawed. Just imagine the commercials... a tits up steelie laying bloodied on the beach... stop the slaughter will be their battle cry! Give me a break. If you dont like doing it, DONT. But dont stop others from doing something you know nothing about. And no I have never hunted bear or cougar. Just sick of politics.

Steelheadaddict, I can't believe you have the nerve to admit that you believe in "management" of certain species and help pass these types of iniative's. If you know so much about "selective" harvest tools why did you support the hound ban on bears and cougars?? I think I know the answer; you're an anti-hunter at heart who is helping disect our abilities to manage wildlife in an appropiate manner.. I certaintly hope you live by a creek and a beaver decides to dam up your creek right before a big flood! Then we'll see who has a Happy New Year!!!! Its people like you that make me sick!! Why should you tell me and "eduacated game managers" how to run the great outdoors. GO back to your greenhouse and sniff some more flowers!! Merry Xmas!!!

The whole state didn't vote against banning bear,couger and traps just King and Pierce, (the I-5 corridor). The antis (peta) want ALL hunting STOPPED.!!!! The next step will be bow hunting, mark my words!!! Thank the Lord we have Bush in, he will make sure we have hunting and fishing for our future generations. (National Law to protect our hunting and fishing rights) I hope peta likes that.

------------------
Tight Lines!!

Minus King and Pierce County => Yes 588,369 No 583,890
Minus King, Pierce, and Thurston County => Yes 547,991 No 544,978

Take out the three largest counties and the initiative still passes, I believe the largest yes percentage came from Island county.
Also Spokane county was for the initiative. Point being: there are peta types everywhere. Go to Forks or PA or where ever in this state and you are bound to find tree huggin bohemians. C

I understand the cocerns people have about animal cruelty, to some extent. I may not like how some people behave, but the ban on hound hunting (which I voted for, would take it back if I could) and 713 are misguided attempts to correct a percieved wrong with law. Management of wildlife resources by the "People" is a $hitty idea. Most people simply don't know enough to make informed descisions. To boot, management has nothing to do with these bills. If you think PETA would spend a dime on a non-animal rights bill you are sorely mistaken.

PETA openly pronounces it's goal to end recreational harvest of all current game species. Fish, foul and four-legged. If you think that an anti-archery bill, Anti-firearm bill or Anti-fishing bill are that far off, you are in for a nasty suprise.

First, PETA and some other animal rights groups have already begun drafting the measures for several states (including Washington).

Second, though the difference between using traps/poison and fishing for steelhead are night and day to somone who knows anything about either, they might just as well be the same thing in the mind of "indoorsmen" of Washington (who outnumber us by a large margin). PETA has an ongoing campaing to end fishing because of the pain inflicted on fish. They call C&R fishing "Ritual Torture". The worst part is that what they say about the pain a fish feels when hooked in the soft tissue of the mouth is "true". Being hooked does generate a significant brain response that is almost guaranteed to be a "pain" sensation, how the fish interprits this is anyones guess (considering they have a brain the size of a JuJuBe). The point is when PETA says "Fishing Hurts" they will have evidence to sustain it. Most of the people who voted for I-713 probably did so because traps hurt animals. It can happen again.

Take away from my ranting only one thing if you can. BE A VOICE FOR REASON. You non-angling/hunting friends family and coworkers have only you and other outdoors people to look to for advice when this kind of animal rights garbage gets on the ballot. I spent weeks telling everyone I knew that 713 was a damn mistake. You want real suprise? Some people told me that they knew nothing about it and were going to vote "yes" becasue it would stop some kind of cruelty (they voted when I told them it was a bad prescedent).

Your voice matters!

P.S. I do hope 713 gets unrveled because of it's ambiguity. If we had all talked to everyone we knew about BAN, this would probably be a moot point.

Dino, thanks for being a man an admitting you made a mistake on the hound ban afew years ago..That was a huge mistake just as the trapping ban is now.. I think we'd be shocked if everybody on this board was honest an told us how they voted.. I'll bet the majority voted for it. Why do people even vote on something if they don't know $hit about the REEL impact it may have in the end?! You're right about the peta's ultimate goal. THey do not believe in anything I do as far as recreation is concerned. These people are a menace to the outdoors. THey contribute nothing to the upkeep of the resource yet they want to tell us how to manage it.. I think Idaho just passed an initiative that states something about wildlife issues will not be put on the ballot. I wish we could have had something like this 10yrs ago,but it probably wouldn't have passed then either. Washington's entire political process is decided in less than a half-dozen counties!! Sad but true!!

You could break down the county thing as far as you want, in King and Snohomish counties, the "urban" areas are going to rule over the non urban areas. Just as Vancouver is going to be making the decisions for Clark county. It is simply because majority rules in a democracy and most people in this country live in urban areas.
We should be voting against these types of intiatives because the sponsors have a well laid plan of attack, they are going to pick away, pick away untill they acheive their ultimate goal.
When discussing these with people I know who are pro, I allways assert the ultimate goal (attempting to be won one step at a time). These people are vegetarians, their goal is to make the world vegetarians. Hell, think fishing hurts? Been to a chicken farm lately? There is some quality of life. That'll be next, we can eat eggplant. Usually get good results with this type of banter. C

chuck , vegetarians dont eat chicken!

RW,
In Olympia you can pick up a copy of the Reel News at Tom's Outboards.
Good luck and tight lines, Jeff

PETA... People Eating Tasty Animals! I'm not sure what all the fuss is about.

Steelhead Addict....Your really dissapointing me. I had developed a relativly good impression of you by reading your previous posts and responses until I read your above reply's demonstrating your politics and ignorance.

There is nothing ambiguous about PETA's ultimate objectives. You should visit PETA's site http://www.peta.com/, refresh your memory and then tell the rest of the board that our right to fish, the source of YOUR addiction, is not ultimately jeopordized by the recent trend in the voting public's opinion approving referendums containing "ambiguous" (your words)language.

You state that you, your wife and others like you are concerned only about the "humane treatment of wildlife". If this is so, and you believe that hound hunting and animal trapping is inhumane, explain to me then, the humanity of piercing fish flesh and bone with hooks, fighting them to near exhaustion, dragging them on the beach and bonking them on the head. Even if you argue that you would release the fish, from a fishes perspective, I could construe this treatment with either outcome as being inhumane.

We all have our own opinions on what constitutes humane treatment to animals. We have plenty of current laws, rules and regulations that I believe, adequatly address the issue. I,and I believe the majority of sportspersons do not need the general, uninformed voting populice to make this determination for us, and ultimately our sons and daughters. We are in a tenuous situation at best.

Hey Folks!

I think I detect a paradox evolving in this thread. Did any of you notice it? As regards the hunting and trapping of animals, BB members don't want the public making the management decisions via initiatives and the ballot box. I'm inferring that these people would defer the wildlife management decisions to the professionals like the biologists at WDFW.

Yet, roughly this same BB membership howls at WDFW's fisheries management performance, often referring to it as the Department of Fisheries Mis-management. This same group praises fisheries management via the initiative process, such as the failed BAN initiative.

It seems to me that such inconsistency does not speak highly of us. Do our core values shift between terrestrial and aquatic forms of wildlife?

I wasn't looking to stir up even more trouble, but I couldn't help but comment on such an obvious inconsistentcy.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

I think the problem is people that are not interested is a hobby or sport tend to not understand it and are therefore against it. Those are the people these initatives target. In fact with out them initatives like this would have no chance. I work with some people that live out by Orting, and they are afraid to let their kids play in the back yard because cougers have been seen in the area. Nice going, hope all you that helped pass that thing are proud.

I'd just as soon see the initiative process end. It takes away from the representative democracy we operate under, and it allows laws which are based on emotion rather than fact or science. We get unconstitutional laws, game-management laws, laws that deal with complex issues in too simple of terms, and we get out of state interests "buying" laws that they feel will benefit THEM, not us. But we have it, and you can't really whine about the hound-hunting ban being passed, if you found yourself voting for I-695. You're going to get the good with the bad under the initiative process.

As for being afraid of cougars, come on. There's been a couple deaths and a handful of maulings by cougars in Washington since the early 1900's. By contrast, there have been numerous deaths and maulings from domestic dogs. Are we going to outlaw dogs? Face it, Orting is the country, it's not a damn city. Got a cat problem or bear problem? I say get a tag and solve it. I voted against the hound-hunting ban, but only because I feel it whittles away at our hunting rights, not because I think that hound hunting has any redeeming value. I wouldn't call anybody that shot a treed animal a hunter, but that's just my own opinion. I don't want the general population making game-management decisions, but I am a big, fat hypocrite because I voted for both net-ban initiatives. OK, I'm done now.

Fish on.........

Salmo, I read your post and I here what you say in regards to us howling at the WFDW on fishing issues but at the fishing level it is much much more politcial!!In the fishing industry we are competing with commercials, natives, sportfishers and several states and acouple of countries. We are all after the same thing;fish.. On the Game level it is a localized problem. We are not competing against commercial hunters nor do we worry about other countries sneaking in and "harvesting" to many elk. The majority of our elk herds are in good shape. Our biggest disapointment right now is the mule deer.. DanS, I wouldn't consider yourself a big fat hypocrite at all.. If I was a commercial hunter with an investment less than a $1000(excluding nets and boat) and was able to indiscrimantly shoot 100 elk and sell them on the open market you would be real pissed that for a few less dollars you only get to shoot one a year and have a short time to do it!!The two issues cannot be compared. Anyhow, those of you who realize what the Peta's and Human Societies ultimate goal is please try an educate a few friends!!

I agree with steelyhorn.. Apples and Oranges Salmo G. I would rather a person with a knowledge base in the area is making decisions affecting the resources. But these people need to be independent of the state/federal government. I wonder if it would be better for the director (WDF) was an elected position? How would this change things? I will start a new thread on this and see what turns up...

BW01, How would an elected WDFW director be independent of state government? That's an oxymoron. For that matter, how could an appointed director be politically independent, assuming he/she was appointed by an elected official?