Difference between revisions of "Oregon Gillnet Fishing Initiative, Measure 81 (2012)"

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Election results)
(5 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 7: Line 7:
 
  statute = |
 
  statute = |
 
  topic = [[Treatment of animals on the ballot|Animal rights]]|
 
  topic = [[Treatment of animals on the ballot|Animal rights]]|
  status = On the ballot|
+
  status = {{defeated}}|
}}{{tnr}}The '''Oregon Gillnet Fishing Initiative, Measure 81''', was on the [[Oregon 2012 ballot measures|November 6, 2012]] statewide ballot as an {{issfull}}.
+
}}{{tnr}}The '''Oregon Gillnet Fishing Initiative, Measure 81''', was on the [[Oregon 2012 ballot measures|November 6, 2012]] statewide ballot as an {{issfull}}, where it was '''defeated'''.
  
The filed initiative, also known as "Protect Our Salmon Act," would ban Columbia River commercial salmon fishing with gillnets by non-tribal persons and allow the use of seine nets instead.<ref>[http://egov.sos.state.or.us/elec/web_irr_search.record_detail?p_reference=20120021..ASCYY.. ''Oregon Secretary of State'',"Initiative 21 summary," retrieved August 9, 2011]</ref>
+
The filed initiative, also known as "Protect Our Salmon Act," would have banned Columbia River commercial salmon fishing with gillnets by non-tribal persons and allowed the use of seine nets instead.<ref>[http://egov.sos.state.or.us/elec/web_irr_search.record_detail?p_reference=20120021..ASCYY.. ''Oregon Secretary of State'',"Initiative 21 summary," retrieved August 9, 2011]</ref>
  
At least three initiative petitions have been filed.
+
At least three initiative petitions were filed.
  
A similar initiative, [[Oregon_Gillnet_Fishing_Ban_(2010)|Initiative 74]], was filed for the 2010 ballot. However, as of July 2, 2010, the petition drive deadline, no signatures were filed.
+
A similar initiative, [[Oregon_Gillnet_Fishing_Ban_(2010)|Initiative 74]], was filed for the 2010 ballot. However, no signatures were filed.
  
The 2012 proposal is supported by the [http://www.joincca.org/ Coastal Conservation Association].<ref name="AstorianAug3"/>  
+
The 2012 proposal was supported by the [http://www.joincca.org/ Coastal Conservation Association].<ref name="AstorianAug3"/>  
 
==Election results==
 
==Election results==
 
:: ''See also: [[2012 ballot measure election results]]''
 
:: ''See also: [[2012 ballot measure election results]]''
''Election results will be posted here throughout the day on November 7 and in the days to come as additional votes are counted.''
 
  
 
{{Short outcome
 
{{Short outcome
 
| title = Oregon Measure 81
 
| title = Oregon Measure 81
| yes =  453,567  
+
| yes =  567,996
| yespct = 33.89
+
| yespct = 34.50
| no = 884,913
+
| no = 1,072,614
| nopct = 66.11
+
| nopct = 65.50
 
| image = {{Defeated}}
 
| image = {{Defeated}}
 
| unresolved =  
 
| unresolved =  
Line 32: Line 31:
 
[[Category:Defeated, general, 2012]]
 
[[Category:Defeated, general, 2012]]
  
:''These results are from the [http://oregonvotes.org/results/2012G/index.html Oregon Secretary of State].''
+
:''Official results from the [http://oregonvotes.org/results/2012G/index.html Oregon Secretary of State].''
  
 
==Text of measure==
 
==Text of measure==
The certified ballot title is:<ref>[http://www.sos.state.or.us/elections/irr/2012/027cbt.pdf ''Oregon Secretary of State'',"Initiative 27 ballot title," December 9, 2011]</ref>
+
The certified ballot title was:<ref>[http://www.sos.state.or.us/elections/irr/2012/027cbt.pdf ''Oregon Secretary of State'',"Initiative 27 ballot title," December 9, 2011]</ref>
  
 
<center>''Restricts Oregon's non-tribal commercial salmon fishers to designated off-channel areas in lower Columbia River''</center>
 
<center>''Restricts Oregon's non-tribal commercial salmon fishers to designated off-channel areas in lower Columbia River''</center>
Line 46: Line 45:
  
 
==Support==
 
==Support==
Chief petitioners include Senators [[Fred Girod]] and [[Rod Monroe]], as well as David Schamp, chairman of the [http://www.ccapnw.org/home Oregon Coastal Conservation Association] chapter's board of directors.<ref name="AstorianAug3">[http://www.dailyastorian.com/free/gillnet-fleet-braces-to-battle-latest-attack/article_64fd0286-be01-11e0-8982-001cc4c03286.html ''The Daily Astorian'',"Gillnet fleet braces to battle latest attack," August 3, 2011]</ref>
+
Chief petitioners included Senators [[Fred Girod]] and [[Rod Monroe]], as well as David Schamp, chairman of the [http://www.ccapnw.org/home Oregon Coastal Conservation Association] chapter's board of directors.<ref name="AstorianAug3">[http://www.dailyastorian.com/free/gillnet-fleet-braces-to-battle-latest-attack/article_64fd0286-be01-11e0-8982-001cc4c03286.html ''The Daily Astorian'',"Gillnet fleet braces to battle latest attack," August 3, 2011]</ref>
  
 
Schamp said, "Oregon's failure to protect and enhance our wild salmon runs threatens the state's credibility as a leader in sustainability. Each year, taxpayers, electric utility rate payers and others collectively contribute about $1 billion to recovery efforts, yet wild salmon, an important natural and economic resource for our state, remain on the brink of extinction."<ref name="AstorianAug3"/>
 
Schamp said, "Oregon's failure to protect and enhance our wild salmon runs threatens the state's credibility as a leader in sustainability. Each year, taxpayers, electric utility rate payers and others collectively contribute about $1 billion to recovery efforts, yet wild salmon, an important natural and economic resource for our state, remain on the brink of extinction."<ref name="AstorianAug3"/>
  
 
==Opposition==
 
==Opposition==
Spokesperson for [http://www.salmonforall.org/ Salmon For All] Cary Johnson argues that if the Oregon law is changed, it would only apply to Oregon waters. "It would put Oregon fishermen out of business and allow Washington fishermen to continue business as usual," said Johnson.<ref name="AstorianAug3"/>
+
Spokesperson for [http://www.salmonforall.org/ Salmon For All] Cary Johnson argued that if the Oregon law changed, it would only apply to Oregon waters. "It would put Oregon fishermen out of business and allow Washington fishermen to continue business as usual," said Johnson.<ref name="AstorianAug3"/>
  
 
Clatsop County Commissioners announced their opposition to the proposed measure on [[BC2011#August|August 10, 2011]].<ref>[http://www.crbizjournal.com/news/article_76e4380c-c3ab-11e0-ac4e-001cc4c002e0.html ''Coast River Business Journal'',"Clatsop County commissioners oppose gillnet ban ballot measure," August 10, 2011]</ref>
 
Clatsop County Commissioners announced their opposition to the proposed measure on [[BC2011#August|August 10, 2011]].<ref>[http://www.crbizjournal.com/news/article_76e4380c-c3ab-11e0-ac4e-001cc4c002e0.html ''Coast River Business Journal'',"Clatsop County commissioners oppose gillnet ban ballot measure," August 10, 2011]</ref>
Line 91: Line 90:
 
[[Category:Certified, treatment of animals, 2012]]
 
[[Category:Certified, treatment of animals, 2012]]
 
{{Certinitstat2012}}
 
{{Certinitstat2012}}
{{Oregon stub}}
 

Revision as of 15:22, 2 January 2013


Gillnet Fishing Initiative
Flag of Oregon.png
Click here for the latest news on U.S. ballot measures
Quick stats
Type:Initiated state statute
Referred by:Citizens
Topic:Animal rights
Status:Defeatedd
The Oregon Gillnet Fishing Initiative, Measure 81, was on the November 6, 2012 statewide ballot as an initiated state statute, where it was defeated.

The filed initiative, also known as "Protect Our Salmon Act," would have banned Columbia River commercial salmon fishing with gillnets by non-tribal persons and allowed the use of seine nets instead.[1]

At least three initiative petitions were filed.

A similar initiative, Initiative 74, was filed for the 2010 ballot. However, no signatures were filed.

The 2012 proposal was supported by the Coastal Conservation Association.[2]

Election results

See also: 2012 ballot measure election results
Oregon Measure 81
ResultVotesPercentage
Defeatedd No1,072,61465.50%
Yes 567,996 34.50%
Official results from the Oregon Secretary of State.

Text of measure

The certified ballot title was:[3]

Restricts Oregon's non-tribal commercial salmon fishers to designated off-channel areas in lower Columbia River

Result of "Yes" Vote: "Yes" vote prohibits commercial salmon fishing with gillnets by non-tribal Oregon fishers, except in specifically designated off-channel areas located in the lower Columbia River.

Result of "No" Vote: "No" vote retains laws allowing commercial fishing under limited number of permits by Oregon/Washington non-tribal fishers in Columbia River mainstream, up to Bonneville Dam.

Summary: Currently, non-tribal Oregon commercial fishers may catch salmon in Columbia River only with gillnets, only in areas below Bonneville Dam. Current law recognizes Washington gillnet licenses as valid in both Oregon/Washington waters of Columbia River. Measure prohibits commercial gillnet salmon fishing by Oregon non-tribal fishers except in specifically designated areas outside mainstream of lower Columbia River: Youngs Bay, Tongue Point/South Channel, Blind Slough/Knappa Slough; Fish and Wildlife Commission may designate additional areas meeting specified criteria. Measure would not prohibit Washington-permitted gillnet fishers from continuing to commercially fish in Washington waters of Columbia River; allows commission to permit Washington gillnet fishers to "land" fish in designated Oregon areas. Measure does not affect tribal fishing rights or rights to use gillnets. Other provisions.

Support

Chief petitioners included Senators Fred Girod and Rod Monroe, as well as David Schamp, chairman of the Oregon Coastal Conservation Association chapter's board of directors.[2]

Schamp said, "Oregon's failure to protect and enhance our wild salmon runs threatens the state's credibility as a leader in sustainability. Each year, taxpayers, electric utility rate payers and others collectively contribute about $1 billion to recovery efforts, yet wild salmon, an important natural and economic resource for our state, remain on the brink of extinction."[2]

Opposition

Spokesperson for Salmon For All Cary Johnson argued that if the Oregon law changed, it would only apply to Oregon waters. "It would put Oregon fishermen out of business and allow Washington fishermen to continue business as usual," said Johnson.[2]

Clatsop County Commissioners announced their opposition to the proposed measure on August 10, 2011.[4]

Path to the ballot

See also: Oregon signature requirements

In order to qualify for the ballot, supporters were required to collect a minimum of 87,213 valid signatures by July 6, 2012.

On Monday, July 2, supporters reportedly submitted 45,000 names to the Oregon Secretary of State, bringing the total submitted at the time to 134,000.[5]

On July 17, 2012, the Secretary of State reported that the measure had been qualified for the ballot with 94,304 valid signatures.[6]

See also

BallotpediaAvatar bigger.png
Suggest a link

Related measure

Proposed ballot measures that were not on a ballot Oregon Gillnet Fishing Ban (2010)

Articles

External links

Additional reading

References