Dollars Appear To Make Difference In Initiative Results

There’s an old truism that money talks. It apparently did when voters in seven states, including Washington, voted on anti-hunting initiatives.

Anti-hunting organizations outspent supporters of hunting in five of seven issues. In each case, they got the most votes. Hunters and others in Idaho and Michigan outspent such anti-hunting groups as the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and the People for Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and voters gave sportsmen victories.

Altogether, according to the Wildlife Legislative Fund of America, pro- and anti-hunter groups spent more than $7 million to influence voters.

The anti-hunters spent more than $600,000 to persuade Washington voters to ban the use of bait to hunt bears and restrict the use of hounds to hunt bears, cougars and other wild cats. Sportsmen and their supporters spent only $200,000 in attempting to defeat Initiative 655.

By distorting facts in TV and newspaper ads, the anti-hunters got their way in Washington. As a result, sportsmen and other taxpayers will have to pay a lot more for cougar and bear management for a law that never should have been passed.

In Idaho, on the other hand, pro-hunters spent more than $400,000 to defeat Proposition 21, a measure similar to the one approved by Washington voters. The anti-hunting crowd spent about $172,000.

Although a majority of Idahoans voted against Proposition 21, it’s significant that the proposal got more “yes” votes in the state’s largest cities, such as Coeur d’Alene, than negative votes. City folk apparently are more susceptible to believing the propaganda of the anti-hunters than rural or smalltown residents.

In addition to Washington, the anti-hunting groups got their way in Oregon, Alaska, Colorado and Massachusetts. The measures on ballots in those states ranged from banning trapping to wolf management.

Maybe money wasn’t the secret of success during last year’s election, but the fact is, those who spent the most got the results they wanted.

Typically, most hunters didn’t defend themselves. Many sat on the sidelines, not realizing that the anti-hunters were targeting practices that non-hunters are troubled about and intend to sponsor more initiatives in the future that would further restrict hunting.

Surveys have shown that most Americans approve of hunting, that people have a right to eat wild birds and animals, are against harassment of hunters and believe that some animal rights groups are far out in left field.

So why are the anti-hunters winning at the ballot?

They know that voters won’t approve measures banning hunting outright. They carefully choose issues like bear baiting and hound hunting and then appeal to emotions. As a result, voters often reject sound wildlife management for management by the ballot.

The anti-hunters already are planning campaigns to put initiatives on ballots in other states. For example, they’re getting ready to sponsor an initiative in Utah to ban trapping, bear baiting and hound hunting.

Some legislatures are considering bills to ban bear baiting and hound hunting. The anti-hunters almost certainly are lobbying in favor of those bills, but they likely will sponsor anti-hunting initiatives if lawmakers fail by narrow margins to enact the bills.

Hunters and their friends are beginning to realize that the anti-hunters are not just a bunch of kooks who are vegetarians who want Americans to stop eating meat. They know the anti-hunters are formidable foes.

Fishermen, too, now realize they must join in the fight to get across to Americans what the animal rights groups intend to do. They’ve become one of the targets of PETA and other such organizations.

Both hunters and fishermen realize that the Humane Society of the United States, once a respected organization, is no longer their friend, that it spends a lot of money to end hunting.

By the same token, leaders of the animal rights groups know that outdoors writers are their enemies. Carla Bennett, a writer for PETA, recently wrote in a letter to the editor of the Washington Times, that the newspapers should “banish these barbaric columnists to the Stone Age scrap heap.”

Officials of the Outdoor Writers Association of America, over the objections of many of its members, invited PETA officials to speak at their annual convention in Portland in 1993. The delighted anti-hunters railed against hunting.

Naturally, PETA never invited an outdoors writer to present the case for hunters at any of their meetings.

, DataTimes MEMO: You can contact Fenton Roskelley by voice mail at 459-5577, extension 3814.

The following fields overflowed: CREDIT = Fenton Roskelley The Spokesman-Review