I-640 Hooks Fishermen In Bitter Feud Initiative Would Ban Gillnets, Other Practices

An initiative banning gillnets and other fishing practices has sparked a bitter fight between sport and commercial fishermen.

I-640, pushed by sport fishing interests and industrial river users such as aluminum companies will be on ballots statewide Nov. 7. The initiative requires that all fishing gear used in Washington waters enable fishermen to release at least 85 percent of their non-targeted catch alive.

That effectively would ban gillnetting, trolling, and other commercial fishing methods.

But while it is billed as a conservation measure, the initiative has been panned by most environmental groups. They argue the measure doesn’t go after the root causes of salmon destruction, including dams and habitat loss.

A divided fishing community also conquers the most outspoken lobby for salmon recovery, initiative opponents argue.

“If we don’t have a commercial fishery, we don’t have a viable lobby on this issue,” said Katherine Ransel of American Rivers, an environmental group. “We are trying to keep these folks together, because if we are not together it throws us into the jaws of the people we are doing battle with.”

Peter Knutson of Seattle, a gillnetter for 17 years, called the initiative “ugly and divisive.”

“If you knock off the economic interest in the preservation of wild salmon that commercial fishermen represent, that just leaves a few urban environmentalists standing up for the fish.

“The industrial users of the river like the aluminum companies and irrigators are laughing all the way to the bank over this thing.”

Opponents say the measure will cost 20,000 jobs and take a $250 million bite out of the Washington state economy by killing the commercial fishing industry, including fish packing and processing, transport, cold storage, marketing, and marine supply.

They argue the initiative shuts down gillnet, troll and trawl fishing, as well as shrimping not only within Washington state waters but to the limits of the 200-mile coastal zone.

They cite a state law they say prohibits landing any fish in Washington state caught within the 200-mile zone with gear that’s illegal in Washington waters.

“They may wish this initiative didn’t go that far, but it does,” said Ed Owens, executive director of the Coalition of Washington Ocean Fisherman.

Jim McKillip, co-chair of the Save Our Sealife campaign, contended the impact on jobs and the economy of the initiative is greatly exaggerated.

He said the initiative would not affect fishing outside Washington waters and cited a letter from a state Department of Fish and Wildlife lawyer stating as much.

The author, Evan S. Jacoby, stressed “This is my analysis and does not represent the opinion of anyone else in the department or of the Office of the Attorney General.”

The two sides are battling the question in a complaint filed with the state Public Disclosure Commission, which is not expected to rule on the matter until after the election.

McKillip said the initiative is needed because the powerful commercial fishing industry lobby has blocked reform of fishing practices in Olympia.

“We did this out of frustration. We have very sensitive salmon stocks in Washington that are being destroyed by wasteful fishing practices.

“It’s true that this initiative isn’t the answer to everything. It doesn’t deal with habitat, which is bad, or hydropower, which is also bad. But we have to do something.”

McKillip said salmon runs are so fragile they can’t absorb the additional damage of harvest.

Endangered salmon are caught by accident in gillnets. So are seabirds.

“We’ve cleaned up our logging practices, our shoreline practices, and we are spending huge fortunes to get salmon up and down the river. It seems like a very small effort to ask them to change their fishing practices. Why can’t they change like everyone else has had to?”

Most fishermen don’t make their entire living in Washington waters, they just supplement their income here, said Frank Haw, a proponent of I-640.

He doubted fishing families would be devastated by the initiative.

Besides, gillnetting is indefensible, said Bruce Lovelin of the Columbia River Alliance, a trade association of aluminum companies, irrigators, barge transport firms, and other industrial river users.

“Quite honestly our support for this initiative is an effort to protect our investment. (Ratepayers) are spending hundreds of millions to protect these fish only to let them be caught. It doesn’t make much sense and certainly isn’t a good business decision.” , DataTimes MEMO: This sidebar appeared with the story: INITIATIVE 640 WOULD: Require that fishing gear be able to release 85 percent of the non-targeted catch alive. This requirement is expected to effectively ban gillnetting, trolling, and other types of commercial fishing. Direct the Department of Fish and Wildlife to prioritize fisheries on the basis of their economic value. The department also would be instructed to reduce the Canadian harvest of fish originating in Washington. Require hatcheries to operate in a way that contributes to fisheries while protecting natural stocks.