Informed Voters Will Spurn I-713

Animal rights people are using the initiative process throughout the United States to substitute scientific game management for emotionally conceived regulations that, in many cases, create big problems for taxpayers and game managers.

Their effort to get enough signatures to get their Initiative 713 on Washington’s November ballot is just one of more than 20 initiatives they’ve promoted in numerous states. By misrepresenting facts, they’ve won a few battles. And they’ve lost a few.

They’ve succeeded in banning cougar hunting and trapping in California, banning trapping and restricting bear hunting in Colorado, banning hunting on public land in Arizona but they failed to ban hunting and fishing in that state, restricting the hunting of cougars and bears in Oregon and, of course, restricting the hunting of cougars and bears in Washington.

Whenever they have been challenged, their spokespersons have attacked the challengers. When I wrote a column about their efforts to get enough signatures on the Washington ballot for I-713, animal rightists from throughout the state attacked me, one of them claiming that I am “so afraid of losing my hunting right” that I resorted to misinformation and scare tactics.

Although, I cherish my right to hunt, I’m more interested in preserving hunting for the young people who may be deprived of the right by the Friends of Animals and other such groups. If they get their way, hunting eventually will be banned in Washington.

But animal rightists know they can’t get the majority of voters to ban hunting. They’re picking vulnerable targets like trappers and hound hunters. Eventually, they hope they’ll convince voters to ban hunting of all birds and animals. They even think they can ban fishing.

Meanwhile, they realize that they have serious problems in Washington. More than 40 sportsmen’s organizations, including the Inland Northwest Wildlife Council, have joined the Citizens for Responsible Wildlife Management to oppose I-713. The group also is supported by such diverse organizations as the Washington Cattlemen’s Association, Washington Contract Loggers Association, Washington State Farm Bureau and the Washington Forest Protective Association.

Opponents of I-713 know sportsmen and others won’t be caught napping like they were when the animal rightists succeeded in restricting cougar and bear hunting. It should be no surprise that numerous anglers’ groups belong to Citizens for Responsible Wildlife Management and are opposing I-713. They’re next on the animal rightists’ target.

The people who want to end hunting and fishing depend primarily on misinformation and emotional rhetoric to persuade voters to sign their petitions and vote for their initiatives. For example, they contend that I-713 doesn’t end trapping, but permits trapping under some circumstances. They’re fully aware they’d put trappers out of business if they are successful this year.

Washington now allows four types of trapping devices. They are body-grip traps that kill animals instantly, foot-hold traps, cage traps and snares. Initiative 713 would prohibit all traps except cage traps and common mouse and rat traps. Even traps often used to control ling moles, gophers and other small mammals would be banned.

Few trappers would use cage or box traps because they are so bulky. To catch muskrats and mink, for example, a trapper would have to invest in numerous expensive and difficult-to-transport cage traps. Most trappers would likely give up trapping - exactly what the animal rightists want to happen.

When I was a boy, I trapped muskrats, mink and coyotes. I set out as many as three dozen leg-hold traps along my “trap line.” Thousands of youngsters like me trapped fur bearing animals to to help with family income, put away money for college and other things. , If there had been a law prohibiting leg-hold traps, we never would have earned money for good purposes. We couldn’t have afforded a large number of cage traps. Not even full-time adult trappers earn enough money trapping to afford the kind of traps that would be required by I-713.

I-713 would make it extremely difficult for officials of the Fish and Wildlife Department to assess and manage fur-bearing populations.

The department, by law, can’t support or oppose initiatives or referenda. However, it can provide factual and scientific information to the people. It has published a “Fact Sheet” on the proposed initiative.

The five-page document should be read by every citizen interested in sound, scientific management of fur-bearing animals. It’s available by request from the agency. Read it and, if you’re open minded, you’ll reject management by an initiative cleverly written by people whose agenda is to end hunting, trapping and fishing.