Sorry to take up the space but this needs to read by all.
September 1999

Initiative 696

Initiative 696, entitled "Shall commercial net, troll and trawl fishing be prohibited in Washington state fresh and marine waters, except tribal fisheries conducted under a valid treaty right", will be on the November state-wide ballot.

By law, the Department of Fish and Wildlife does not support or oppose proposed legislation moving through the state's law-making processes, including initiatives, referenda and the Legislature.

WDFW may provide factual and scientific information if contacted by citizens or the press even though it may not publicly support or oppose this or other initiatives. The following questions and answers provide factual information about the probable impact of the initiative if it passes:

Q: Would passage of I-696 stop commercial fishing in Washington?


A: No. The initiative reduces non-Indian commercial net fishing in state waters, which include Puget Sound and three miles out into the Pacific Ocean. Treaty Indian commercial fishing would not be affected. The initiative also specifically allows non-Indian net fishing with reef nets, herring lampara nets and herring dip bag nets. Traditional shellfish pot gear also would be permitted. Five commercial gear types are not addressed by the initiative. They are: bottom fish pot, smelt gill net, crab ring net, squid jig and net gear and carp beach seine nets.
Q: How would the initiative affect the following types of non-Indian commercial fishers:


A: Salmon: Purse seine and gillnet salmon fishing would be prohibited, as well as salmon troll fishing in state waters. Salmon trolling in federal waters of the Pacific Ocean beyond three miles from the Washington coast would be allowed. Reef nets would be legal.
Bottom fish (such as Pacific cod and pollock): Trawl, beach seine, gill net and trolling for bottom fish in state waters would be illegal. Commercial fishers could not hold Washington licenses but could land fish caught in federal waters with state "delivery" permits, which are not affected by the initiative
Crab, shrimp and other shellfish:Shrimp trawling would be prohibited in state waters. The status of squid fishing, which is done with jigs and nets, is unclear. Offshore trawling in the ocean for pink shrimp would be legal, but the status of offshore ocean trawling for other species of shrimp is unclear. Under current law, commercial fishers have to hold a state shrimp trawl license, which would be banned by the initiative
Herring, anchovy and sardine: The following commercial fisheries would be banned in state waters: herring and baitfish purse seine; beach seining for herring and other species; baitfish trawling, smelt dip bag net, Columbia River smelt fishing; herring spawn-on-kelp. Herring lampara and dip bag net fisheries would be permitted. The status of ocean offshore sardine and anchovy fisheries, which require a state baitfish purse seine license that would be banned by the initiative, is unclear
Gill netters: Gillnet fishing for salmon, forage fish (such as herring) and bottom fish, including dogfish set nets would be prohibited in state waters. Gillnets could be used for sharks in offshore ocean waters as landings could be made with a state delivery permit. The status of gillnet fishing in the Columbia River, where an interstate agreement permits Washington and Oregon fishers to fish both sides of the river, is unclear
Purse seiners: Purse seine fishing in state waters would be prohibited. The status of purse seine fishing for forage fish in offshore ocean waters is unclear
Ocean trollers: Salmon and bottomfish trolling would be prohibited within three miles of shore. Offshore ocean troll fishing would be legal
Reef netters: Allowed by the initiative
Beach seiners: Beach seining for salmon, bottomfish and forage fish would be prohibited
Lampara net fishers: Baitfish lampara licenses would be prohibited but herring lampara fishing would be allowed
Dip netters: Smelt dip net and Columbia River smelt licenses would be prohibited but herring dip net fishing would be allowed

Q: How would passage of I-696 affect non-Indian commercial fishers in Puget Sound? In the ocean within three miles of shore? In the ocean beyond three miles?


A: The initiative would prohibit "commercial net fishing in Washington state fresh or marine waters." It also states certain licenses are "prohibited." While the use of these state licenses is prohibited in state waters, such as Puget Sound and the ocean within three miles of shore, it is unclear if the prohibition applies in federally managed waters from three to 200 miles offshore. Offshore shrimp trawling for species other than ocean pink shrimp and baitfish purse seining in federal waters are examples of licenses whose status is unclear.
Q: What commercial fishing and what gear types would be unaffected if the initiative passes?


A: All treaty Indian fishing is unaffected and non-Indian salmon reef net, shellfish pot and herring lampara and herring dip net licenses would be allowed. The initiative specifically prohibits 18 specific state licenses. It says the list of prohibited licences "include, but are not limited to" those specified licenses. Because of this vague language, the status of other state licenses is unclear.
Q: How would passage of the initiative affect Indian fishers?


A: The initiative "does not extend to those tribal fisheries conducted under a valid treaty right."
Q: Would non-Indian commercial fishers be allowed to fish for Fraser River sockeye and pinks in U.S. waters?


A: Commercial fishers use purse seine, gillnet and reef net gear to catch Fraser River sockeye and pink salmon. The initiative prohibits purse seine and gillnet gear, but allows reef nets.
Q: How would new, emerging fisheries be affected by the initiative?


A: Emerging commercial fisheries are those that use unconventional gear or target unexploited stocks of fish or shellfish. There are two examples in Washington. Beach seines are used to catch salmon in the Quilcene area and ocean spot prawns are being harvested. The Quilcene beach seine fishery would be prohibited but the status of the ocean spot prawn fishery is unclear.
Q: How many non-Indian commercial fishing licenses are there and how many would be affected if the initiative passes?


A: WDFW issued 3,214 commercial fishing licenses in 1998, of which 1,477 would be prohibited by the initiative. Those commercial licenses do not include charter boats, salmon guides or alternate operators.
Q: Will the state see a net increase or decrease in revenues if the initiative passes?


A: WDFW cannot predict the net effect. Dept. of Revenue is compiling statistics on excise tax losses.
Q: What would passage do to WDFW's commercial license revenues?


A: The lose of 1,477 commercial license sales would reduce revenue to the state General Fund by $438,750 annually. The license surcharge that funds the volunteer Regional Fisheries Enhancement Groups would be reduced by $140,900 annually.
Q: What would passage of the initiative do to WDFW's budget?


A: Nothing, because commercial license fees go to the state General Fund.
Q: Will there be more salmon available to sport fishers if the initiative passes?


A: WDFW cannot predict if passage of I-696 would create new fishing opportunities for sport fishers. Non-Indian commercial salmon fisheries are directed at chum, sockeye and pink salmon. Sport fishers chiefly harvest chinook and coho. Chinook and coho sport fishing opportunities are determined by management efforts to return adequate numbers of wild salmon to their native rivers to spawn, protection requirements of the federal Endangered Species Act and federal court decisions that allocate salmon between Indian and non-Indian fishers.
Q: How would passage of I-696 affect the supply of salmon to retail markets in Washington?


A: WDFW has no statistics on the percentage of salmon landings in Washington ports that are supplied to local grocery stores and fish markets.
Q: Will passage of I-696 assist the state's wild salmon recovery efforts?


A: Non-Indian commercial fishing is highly regulated so that it does not have a significant effect on the health of wild stocks. Fishing opportunities for non-Indian commercial and sport fishers in Washington and Canada have been significantly reduced in recent years in an effort to return more wild adult salmon to the spawning gravel. Other key factors that determine the health of wild stocks, in addition to harvest levels, include hatchery operations, the construction and operation of dams and the health of habitat that supplies fish cold, clean water, food, cover and other life needs.
Q: What penalty could be imposed for using illegal fishing gear if the initiative passes?


A: A class C felony, punishable by imprisonment up to five years, a fine of up to $10,000 or both

I read it this morning on the WFGD home page. Wonder who's interest the game department is looking out for? Check out Dennis editorial on www.flyfishsteelhead.com its some good reading. Go BAN. Tight lines and happy fishing

After reading the Questions & Answers from WDFW regarding Initiative 696, I feel they are trying to persuade the general public to vote against the initiative. Speaking with several "educated people" of their views on the subject, they told me it was "too vague, didn't include the Native Americans, won't stop Oregon commercials on the Columbia" and other really weak responses. This is one of the best (and possibly last) things that the people of Washington can do to begin the restoration of wild and hatchery salmon and steelhead to our state. It is NOT the only solution but a definte step in the right direction. BAN ALL NETS VOTE YES ON I-696!!!

Kevin, An I-696 spokesman is in Wenatchee today to debate the netters at the State Realtors Convention. He has a copy of the editorial you mentioned in your post. These reports are helpful in showing the commercial bias of "our" WDFW Commission and their continued reliance on politics to mismanage the state's marine resources. Commonsense says it's time to cut the Commission's workload in half... Vote yes on I-696.