User talk:Aino Nymuos

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
BallotMeasureFinal badge.png

Thanks for making a contribution to a Ballot measure project related article. Here is a page that should help provide some background about our project and useful tools and links:

If you have any questions about the projects or a specific article, please let me know.

We look forward to your future contributions!!

--
Brittany Clingen
Project director, Ballot Measures


First, welcome to Ballotpedia and thank you for your comment and suggestions regarding the Oregon Gillnet Fishing Ban (2010).

1. A section on the initiative process requirements for the proposed measure is listed under the Path to the ballot. Additionally, a link is provided to more in-depth requirements and rules.
2 & 4. The ballot title that is cited is the one offered by the Secretary of State as the certified title. You can read it here: http://www.sos.state.or.us/elections/irr/2010/074cbt.pdf The draft ballot title is linked under the "external links" section. The main reason that the draft title is not offered in the text of the article is because should the measure had been approved for the ballot, the text on the ballot would have been the "certified" version and not the "draft" version.
3 & 5. Had this measure gone on to be certified for the ballot or been proposed for future ballots, this article could have been expanded. If it does continue on to future ballots, then such information will be added. If you feel inclined to do so, feel free to add the info with the proper citations.

If you have any other questions or suggestions, please feel free to leave a comment on my talk page. Thanks! BaileyL 10:11, 25 October 2010 (CDT)

Thank you for responding, BaileyL.

1. The part of the initiative process to which I refer is the timeline for the Attorney General to file a draft ballot title; the timeline of the public comment period that follows; and the timeline for the Attorney General to certify a ballot title in response to the comments received. These are crucial issues in a case such as this, in which all comments submitted to the Secretary of State challenged the draft ballot title, even the letter representing the chief petitioners. The process is essentially a conversation between citizens and the Attorney General's office. It doesn't take place concerning all ballot petitions, but it definitely did for this one. That conversation was crucial to understanding what happened with reference to this issue.

2. I know how to find the draft and certified ballot titles on the Secretary of State's website. The issue is that under the heading "Ballot Summary," the article still states: "The draft ballot title read:" but then quotes the certified ballot title. That is incorrect. Besides, the typo should be corrected. (We all make them.) --Aino Nymuos 17:09, 26 October 2010 (CDT)

I see what you are saying now. I fixed the typo on the ballot title section. On the initiative's timelines, that's something that I'll have to dig into and to be honest, I probably won't get around to it until after the elections but its on my to-do list. However, if you have that info or you have some spare time, please feel free to add it to the article. BaileyL 13:44, 27 October 2010 (CDT)
I've already prepared a draft.
Everything from here to the end is essentially a work in progress. But, it should give you a good indication of where I would go with this.
--Aino Nymuos 17:47, 4 November 2010 (CDT)


Not on Ballot
Proposed allot measures that were not on a ballot
This measure did not or
will not appear on a ballot
Oregon Gillnet Fishing Ban, also known as Initiative 74 (IP #74), did not appear on the November 2, 2010 statewide ballot as an initiated state statute. The sponsors of the ballot petition were members of the Pacific Northwest chapters of the Coastal Conservation Association (CCA), an anti-commercial fishing organization with roots on the Gulf Coast.[1] According to press reports at the time, the CCA’s efforts to ban gillnetting were renewed in March 2010 following the announcement by measure supporters that they had abandoned their original initiative petition in response to the Oregon Attorney General's certified ballot title, which they believed did not accurately reflect their intent.[2][3] Despite the announcement concerning renewed efforts, as of the state's petition drive deadline, neither a revised initiative petition nor signatures were filed, thus disqualifying the measure for the 2010 ballot.

According to supporters, the proposed measure, which they titled the "Protect Our Salmon Act," called for using commercial fishing methods which would allow selective harvest of hatchery fish. Additionally, supporters claimed the measure called for establishing a fund to compensate commercial fishermen for the transition to the new methods. At the time the measure was filed, gillnets made of mesh were used to harvest salmon and sturgeon for sale to the general public. Opponents of fishing commercially with gillnets, primarily sport fishermen, contend that gillnets and tangle nets do not allow selective, live release of naturally spawning fish.[4] Commercial fishermen counter that the mark-selective commercial fishery for Columbia River spring Chinook using the tangle net and live-recovery box has a lower mortality rate than several of Oregon's most popular sport fisheries.[5][6] If the measure had been approved by voters, the effective date would have been January 1, 2011.[7][8]

The Initiative Process

Under Oregon law, when an initiative petition is filed with the Secretary of State, the state Elections Division has 5 working days to verify that the petition has the 1,000 valid signatures of registered Oregon voters required for consideration to be placed on the ballot. If it does, the text of the petition is published. (Posting the text of the petition on the Secretary of State's website constitutes legal publication.)

Following publication, the Attorney General's office has 5 working days to submit a draft ballot title to the Secretary of State, consisting of: a) a caption of not more than 15 words which reasonably identifies the subject of the state measure; b) a statement of not more than 25 words that identifies the results of a "Yes" Vote; c) a statement of not more than 25 words that identifies the results of a "No" Vote; and a concise and impartial statement of not more than 125 words summarizing the state measure and its major effect.

Following submission of the draft ballot title by the Attorney General to the Secretary of State, the draft ballot title is published. The public then has 10 working days to comment on the draft ballot title.

At the end of the comment period, the Attorney General's office has 10 working days to consider all comments submitted within comment period, to make any changes that should be made to the draft ballot title, and to submit a certified ballot title to the Secretary of State. --Aino Nymuos 15:37, 27 October 2010 (CDT)

Ballot summary

The draft ballot title read:[9]

Bans Oregon salmon fishing with gillnets; redirects license surcharges to fund changing to alternative methods

Result of "Yes" Vote: "Yes" vote bans commercial salmon/sturgeon fishing with gillnets in Oregon; creates commission, redirects fishing license surcharges to fund gillnet users' transition to alternative methods.

Result of "No" Vote: "No" vote retains laws allowing commercial salmon/sturgeon fishing with gillnets in Oregon; continues using fishing license surcharges to fund fish restoration and enhancement projects.

Summary: Current laws allow commercial gillnet fishing for salmon and sturgeon in Oregon waters; provide that Oregon and Washington gillnet licenses are valid in Columbia River waters in both states; allow limited transfer of gillnet licenses; dedicate surcharge on fishing licenses to fund fish restoration and enhancement projects. Measure bans fishing for salmon, steelhead, or sturgeon with gillnets or tanglenets; abolishes license transfer; creates commission and fund redirecting license surcharges to gillnet users to cover costs of changing to alternative fishing methods; defines/limits compensation eligibility. Measure does not affect tribal fishing rights. Measure’s effect on Columbia River Compact and fishing management agreements between federal government, Native American tribes, and states is unclear. Other provisions.


Wow, you're on top of things. After reading this, I think you might enjoy this article - Laws governing the initiative process in Oregon. A wiki-link to that article can be added to the Gillnet measure with maybe even a summarized version. What do you think? BaileyL 21:24, 27 October 2010 (CDT)

Public comments on the draft ballot title

A total of ten written comments were submitted during the 10-day public comment period following the publication of the draft ballot title on the Secretary of State's website. Comments were submitted by restaurateur Peter Roscoe; Jack Marincovich, executive secretary of the Columbia River Fishermen's Protective Union; John Raichl; Hobart Kytr; attorney James Brown on behalf of commercial fisherman Brian Tarabochia (two letters submitted); Rod Moore, executive director of the West Coast Seafood Processors Association; Steve Fick, proprietor of Fishhawk Fisheries, Inc.; attorney Kevin Mannix on behalf of the chief petitioners; and Paul Lumley, executive director of the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission.[10]

All 119 pages of public comments submitted challenged the draft ballot title, including the letter written by attorney Kevin Mannix, representing the chief petitioners, Fred Girod, Rod Monroe, and David Schamp. The Mannix letter was the only commentary submitted representing sport fishing interests. Three of the remaining letters were written by interested private citizens with direct or indirect connections to the commercial fishing community; another three either from or representing non-Indian commercial fishing interests; two representing seafood processing interests; and the last representing Treaty Tribal fishing interests.

The letter from the Attorney General's office to Stephen N. Trout, director of the Elections Division, accompanying the certified ballot title,[11] summarized major points submitted during the public comment period. Some of the principle themes were as follows:

The Attorney General dismissed commenter Brown's argument that IP #74 violated both the single subject rule and the state constitutional provision against taking private property without just compensation, because "[t]hose issues are beyond the scope of the ballot title drafting process."
The Attorney General agreed with commenters who noted:
Under Oregon law applicable at the time, it was unlawful to fish commercially for salmon and sturgeon in the Columbia River with any gear other than a gillnet.[12]
IP #74 would have the effect of banning commercial fishing for salmon and steelhead in the Columbia River.
IP #74 would not have the effect of funding the transition to alternative legal commercial fishing gears, because no other gear forms currently were legal.
Even though IP #74 described alternative gears as legal, it did not actually make them legal.
The Attorney General disagreed with commenters who stated:
The draft ballot title did not make it sufficiently clear that the ban on gillnets and tangle nets did not apply to treaty Indian fisheries, because the text of IP #74 Section 1(1) made it illegal for "an individual" to fish for salmon and sturgeon with a gillnet or tangle net. The exemption for tribal fisheries In IP # 74 Section 1(3) only applied to Section 1(2). Since tribal fishers are individuals, the ban would apply to them as well as to non-Indian commercial fishermen.
The Attorney General rejected:
Mr. Mannix's arguments that the draft ballot title failed to make plain that the major effect of IP #74 would be to require the use of "alternative selective fishing methods."
Mannix's argument that the word "abolishes" is "inflammatory and charged[.]"

Certified ballot title

The certified ballot title read:[13]

Bans Columbia River commericial salmon/sturgeon fishing; redirects habitat restoration funds to new commission's control

Result of "Yes" Vote: "Yes" vote bans commercial salmon/sturgeon fishing in Columbia River; creates commission redirecting fish restoration/enhancement funds to alternative selective fishing methods not currently legal.

Result of "No" Vote: "No" vote retains laws allowing Columbia River commercial salmon/sturgeon fishing with gillnets; continues using recreational fishing license surcharges to fund fish restoration/enhancement projects.

Summary: Current laws allow commercial gillnet fishing for salmon/sturgeon in Columbia River; provides that Oregon and Washington gillnet licenses are valid in Columbia River in both states; allows limited transfer of gillnet licenses; dedicates surcharge on fishing licenses to fund fish restoration/enhancement projects. Measure bans gillnet fishing for salmon/sturgeon in Columbia River waters; ban applies to some nets used in other fisheries. Repeals law allowing for Oregon/Washington gillnet license reciprocity; abolishes license transfer; creates commission redirecting license surcharges from fish restoration/enhancement programs to fund compensating fishers' transition to alternative fishing methods, although none are currently authorized. Measure does not intend to affect Indian fishing rights; effect on fishing management agreements between federal government, Indian tribes, and states is unclear. Other provisions.

Support

Measure proponents argued that replacing the nets with fish traps and fish wheels would reduce the mortality of released native fish. The measure was proposed by the Coastal Conservation Association (CCA). Bryan Irwin, the president of CCA said, "We feel it's important to not be eliminating this industry, but to be helping them to reform it...We feel that even though it's likely that the current gillnet fishermen will oppose this, this is better for them in the long run."[14]

Opposition

Speaking about battles over nets on the Columbia, Gary Soderstrom of Clatskanie, the vice president of the Columbia River [Fishermen's] Protective [Union] (CRFPU) said, "We've lived through this before."

And commercial netters are more selective than sport anglers, Soderstrom contended.

"We use the most selective gear right now. We use time, area and gear size, mesh size," Soderstrom said about seasons, open areas and restrictions on the gillnets. "You can't get any more selective than that."

No small commercial operation could afford to fish the way the act would require.

"Traps and stuff, and seines, you're talking million- dollar operations and big crews. Their idea of selectivity is trying to get us to where we can't afford to go fishing."[14]

"Although the proposed initiative promises change, it assures nothing," [restaurateur Peter] Roscoe said. "Therefore, if enacted, a majority of the population of the state of Oregon could and would be restricted from utilization of one of their resources, i.e. salmon and sturgeon caught by commercial fishermen and delivered to either a restaurant or other retail outlet. This net effect i[s] not clearly outlined in the proposed initiative."[15]

Oregon Fish Fights

The Northwest CCA’s attempt to place IP #74, the "Protect Our Salmon Act" on the ballot for the 2010 general election can best be understood within the context of what Courtland Smith of the Oregon State University Department of Anthropology termed "Oregon Fish Fights" in an Oregon Sea Grant pamphlet-sized publication of the same name in 1974.[16]

The state of Oregon has a long history of battles between different fishery user groups over access to salmon runs, beginning in the 1880s with physical conflicts on the Columbia River. Other struggles have been waged legislatively. Since 1908, Oregon fish fights have also been waged by vote of the public in the form of initiative petitions. Oregon, which pioneered the system of initiative and referendum in 1902 during the Progressive Era,[17]has long been famous for its "bed-sheet ballots," with many initiatives and referenda put to a vote of the people in nearly every election year. Since 1908, over 20 initiatives to restrict or ban fisheries have been on the Oregon ballot, with several others ruled off the ballot by the courts, or withdrawn by the chief petitioners due to unfavorable ballot titles. The "Protect Our Salmon Act" fell into the last category.

Courtland Smith's analysis of these "Fish Fights" is that, even though proponents of the ballot measures often couch their arguments for restricting or banning fisheries in terms of "conservation," they actually are battles over allocation of the resource waged between competing user groups. Fishery restrictions put in place by successful ballot measures seldom conserve the resource. Instead, they transfer access to the resource from one user group to another.

Path to the ballot

See also: Oregon signature requirements

Initiative petitions for statutes required six percent of 1,379,475, or 82,769 signatures. The deadline for filing signatures for the November 2, 2010 ballot was July 2, 2010. No signatures were filed.

See also

Articles

External links

Additional reading

References

  1. Fritchey, Robert. Wetland Riders (Golden Meadow, LA, 1993 & 1998). New Moon Press, ISBN 0-9636215-0-5
  2. The Columbian,"Group will try to land gillnet ban on Oregon ballot," March 18, 2010
  3. The Oregonian, "Initiative to ban Columbia River gill net fishing dead for now," February 12, 2010
  4. The Columbian, "CCA files initiative in Oregon to ban gillnets, tangle nets," December 30, 2009
  5. US v. Oregon Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). " Recommendations for Tangle Net release mortality assumptions for Spring Chinook," March 26, 2008
  6. 2010 Joint Columbia River Management Staff. "Joint Staff Report: Stock Status and Fisheries for Spring Chinook, Summer Chinook, Sockeye, Steelhead, and Other Species, and Miscellaneous Regulations"
  7. The Oregonian,"Bill Monroe: Does CCA's bet in gill-net gamble indicate its hand was forced?," January 23, 2010
  8. Columbia Basin Bulletin, Issue No. 519, 02/12/2010, "Oregon Gillnet Ban Sponsors Won't Be Collecting Signatures On State's Revised Ballot Title"
  9. [ http://www.sos.state.or.us/elections/irr/2010/074cbt.pdf Oregon Secretary of State,"Draft ballot title," January 8, 2010]
  10. Oregon Secretary of State "Written comments submitted regarding the draft Ballot title for Initiative 74," February 10, 2010
  11. Oregon Secretary of State,"Certified ballot title," February 10, 2010
  12. ORS 508.775 and OAR 635-042-0010(2)(a) in the 2009 edition.
  13. Oregon Secretary of State, "Initiative 74," February 10, 2010
  14. 14.0 14.1 Statesman Journal,"Group to collect signatures on gillnetting ban," January 1, 2010
  15. Columbia Basin Bulletin, Issue No. 517, 01/29/2010, "Oregon Weighs Legality Of Ballot Title Proposing Gillnet Ban; Effects On Compact Unclear"
  16. Smith, Courtland L. "Oregon Fish Fights," (Corvallis, 1974), 17 pp. Oregon State University Sea Grant College Program, Publication No. ORESU-T-74-004, accessible online at: http://nsgl.gso.uri.edu/oresu/oresut74004.pdf. (Accessed October 19, 2010.)
  17. Johansen, Dorothy O., and Gates, Charles M. Empire of the Columbia, 2nd edition (New York, 1967) pp. 447-456.

--Aino Nymuos 18:41, 2 November 2010 (CDT) and --Aino Nymuos 17:47, 4 November 2010 (CDT)

Category:Did not make ballot, treatment of animals

This discussion page has been protected from further postings.