NET BAN INITIATIVE STIRS UP RHETORIC ON BOTH SIDES October 1999
Talk is heating up over an initiative on Washington's November ballot that would outlaw most commercial fishing by nets in state waters. The measure, known as Initiative 696, was written by sports fishing advocate Tom Nelson, editor of The Reel News, a monthly fishing publication based in Renton, Washington. Backers obtained 234,750 signatures to get the measure on the ballot. Election officials determined that 194,000 were valid--14,000 more than the minimum required by law.
I-696 would ban all non-tribal nets, commercial trolling except for reef nets, crab and shrimp pots and herring dip-bag nets in the state, which includes areas within three miles of the Washington coast.
Commercial
Fall bumper crop of political slogans
fishing interests are slowly coming together to fight Initiative 696, with bumper stickers appearing around Seattle's waterfront that say "I'm a fisherman, not a felon." If I-696 passes, net fishing would become a Class C felony, clouding the future of the proposed buy-back system for state commercial fishermen. The program was spelled out in the recent US/Canada agreement over salmon harvests between the two countries.
Commercial groups have the support of Gov. Gary Locke, the League of Women Voters, most mainstream environmental groups--including Greenpeace, the Sierra Club and the Washington Environmental Council--along with some sports groups like the Northwest Sportsfishing Industry Association and the Westport Charterboat Association.
All take issue with the draconian nature of the initiative and its harsh tone. According to the pro-initiative website, "the purpose of Initiative 696 is straightforward and simple--to stop the killing of endangered and threatened salmon, seabirds and sealife by removing commercial fishing nets from Washington waters. Nets are so deadly efficient that many Washington fishery stocks have been netted to near collapse. This has led to Endangered Species listings of many fish stocks and seabirds. State and federal leadership have failed to protect our marine resources. The burden now falls on the voters of Washington State. ESA listings and salmon recovery efforts have already cost the taxpayers millions of dollars in 1999. The expenses and liabilities will only grow unless we remove destructive nets from Washington waters."
Commercial interests say it boils down to nothing more than a fish allocation issue. If nets are banned, they say sports fishermen will get more fish to catch--mainly chinook and coho. Data from the Pacific Fishery Management Council shows that sporties in Puget Sound already catch considerably more chinook and coho than the commercial sector.
The Puget Sound sports sector caught more than 58,000 chinook in 1997, the last year for which recreational catch figures are available, whereas non-treaty commercials caught only 21,600. As for coho, sporties boated 130,000 fish, while non-treaty commercials caught only 9,600. Treaty fishermen (the Indian fishery) caught 41,000 chinook and 142,000 coho.
These numbers point to the fact that members of the Puget Sound commercial fleet--most of whom spend the summer season in Alaska anyway--are allowed mainly to fish fall chum runs in Hood Canal, where hatchery fish are plentiful. In 1997, the commercial catch by non-treaty gillnetters and purse seiners amounted to nearly 682,000 chums. Treaty fishermen caught 660,000 chums.
A letter from Washington state officials of Trout Unlimited to their members has recognized these facts. In part, it says "opponents of the net ban will be able to paint the net ban supporters as greedy by pointing out to the public the imbalance in the harvest of these fish."
The TU letter--which admits the initiative will likely be defeated by a wide margin--doesn't take sides, but does point out that Trout Unlimited will be "lumped together with groups that believe that the only way to have more fish is to take them from other fishers. TU's hard-won reputation will be lost."
On the other hand, if I-696 passes, the fate of the state's commercial license buy-out program "isn't clear to us, either," said Bruce Crawford, license division manager for WDF&W. He said the US/Canada agreement calls for a $30 million federal buy-out program designed to reduce US harvest of Fraser River sockeye.
Crawford said the Senate has allocated $15 million for the buy-out in next year's budget, but the House has set aside no dollars for it. Crawford said it was likely a conference committee would agree to partial funding, and more for the buy-out the following year, but he was cautious about expressing an opinion on the legality of the situation.
"Can a state affect a law that nullifies part of a federal treaty?" Crawford asked.
When the
Seiners in Hood Canal
Columbia River Alliance came out in support of Initiative 696 on Sept. 24, the rhetorical exuberance in its newsletter seemed to borrow from Greenpeace's old campaign against high seas gillnetting. "The commercial net fishery has wiped out salmon stocks and created havoc with herring, pollock, lingcod, sablefish, rockfish and whiting populations. Species population levels are so low that a net ban is necessary to prevent extinction," said the Sept. 24 Alliance Alert.
But Seattle Greenpeace spokesman Paul Clarke said his group did not support the net ban initiative because "it casts its net too wide. There is room in our environment for a vibrant sustainable fishery."
CRA's Lovelin admitted the ban would have no effect on tribal gillnetting, but he hoped that Indian fishermen "will see this as a good opportunity to explore selective fishing techniques, too."
According to Tony Meyer of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, 1,300 to 1,500 tribal members are currently fishing commercially in the state--down from over 3,000 in the early 1980s. Commission chairman Billy Frank has gone on record opposing the proposed net ban as well. If the initiative passes, about 1,500 non-treaty fisherman would be affected by the ban. -B.R.
http://www.newsdata.com/enernet/fishletter/fishltr89.html
Previous Topic
Index
