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

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(28 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{tnr}}'''Oregon Gillnet Fishing Initiative''', also known as '''Initiative 21''', may appear on the [[Oregon 2012 ballot measures|November 2012]] statewide ballot as an {{issfull}}.
+
{{Ballot measure information |
 +
name        =  Gillnet Fishing Initiative |
 +
image  = [[File:Flag of Oregon.png|link=List of Oregon ballot measures|120px]] |
 +
type  = [[Initiated state statute]] |
 +
constitution  =  |
 +
referred  = Citizens |
 +
statute = |
 +
topic = [[Treatment of animals on the ballot|Animal rights]]|
 +
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}}, 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>
  
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.
+
At least three initiative petitions 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 was supported by the [http://www.joincca.org/ Coastal Conservation Association].<ref name="AstorianAug3"/>
 +
==Election results==
 +
:: ''See also: [[2012 ballot measure election results]]''
 +
 
 +
{{Short outcome
 +
| title = Oregon Measure 81
 +
| yes =  567,996
 +
| yespct = 34.50
 +
| no = 1,072,614
 +
| nopct = 65.50
 +
| image = {{Defeated}}
 +
| unresolved =
 +
}}
 +
[[Category:Defeated, general, 2012]]
 +
 
 +
:''Official results from the [http://oregonvotes.org/results/2012G/index.html Oregon Secretary of State].''
  
 
==Text of measure==
 
==Text of measure==
The draft ballot title is:<ref>[http://www.sos.state.or.us/elections/irr/2012/021dbt.pdf ''Oregon Secretary of State'',"Draft Initiative 21 ballot title," July 27, 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>''Bans Columbia River commercial salmon fishing with gillnets by non-tribal persons, allows seine nets instead''</center>
+
<center>''Restricts Oregon's non-tribal commercial salmon fishers to designated off-channel areas in lower Columbia River''</center>
  
'''Result of "Yes" Vote:''' "Yes" vote bans non-tribal commercial salmon fishing with "gillnets" (defined) in Columbia River; allows salmon fishers who previously used gillnets to use "seine" (defined) nets.  
+
'''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 for salmon with gillnets in Columbia River; retains laws prohibiting salmon fishing with seine nets in 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:''' Current law allows Columbia River commercial salmon fishing with gillnets but not with seine nets or fixed fishing gear; allows issuing of new gillnet permits; allows appeal to Commercial Fishery Permit Board (board) if gillnet permit is denied; recognizes Oregon and Washington gillnet licenses as valid in Columbia River in both states. Measure bans Columbia River non-tribal salmon fishing with gillnets; allows non-tribal fishers who previously used gillnets to use seine nets; no new permits would be issued; Fish and Wildlife Commission may allow fixed fishing gear; disallows appeal to board if seine permit is denied; repeals Oregon/Washington gillnet license reciprocity. Measure does not affect tribal fishing rights; effect on fishing management agreements between federal government, Indiana tribes, and states is unclear. Other provisions.  
+
'''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 [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"/>
 +
 
 +
==Opposition==
 +
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>
  
 
==Path to the ballot==
 
==Path to the ballot==
 
:: ''See also: [[Oregon signature requirements]]''
 
:: ''See also: [[Oregon signature requirements]]''
  
In order to qualify for the ballot, supporters are required to collect a minimum of 87,213 valid signatures by [[BC2012#July|July 6, 2012]].
+
In order to qualify for the ballot, supporters were required to collect a minimum of 87,213 valid signatures by [[BC2012#July|July 6, 2012]].  
 +
 
 +
On Monday, [[BC2012#July|July 2]], supporters reportedly submitted 45,000 names to the [[Oregon Secretary of State]], bringing the total submitted at the time to 134,000.<ref>[http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/07/ban_on_gillnetting_appears_hea.html ''Oregonian'' "Ban on gillnetting appears headed to November ballot," July 2, 2012]</ref>
 +
 
 +
On [[BC2012#July|July 17, 2012]], the Secretary of State reported that the measure had been qualified for the ballot with 94,304 valid signatures.<ref>[http://egov.sos.state.or.us/elec/web_irr_search.record_detail?p_reference=20120021..LSCYYY. Initiative 21 (status)]</ref>
  
 
==See also==
 
==See also==
Line 28: Line 70:
 
===Related measure===
 
===Related measure===
 
{{nob}} [[Oregon Gillnet Fishing Ban (2010)]]<br>
 
{{nob}} [[Oregon Gillnet Fishing Ban (2010)]]<br>
 +
 +
===Articles===
 +
* [[Oregon gillnet fishing initiative returns to the state attorney general for ballot language changes]]
 +
* [[Gillnet fishing ban effort resurfaces for Oregon's 2012 ballot]]
 +
 +
==External links==
 +
* [http://www.sos.state.or.us/elections/irr/2012/021cbt.pdf Initiative 21]
 +
 +
==Additional reading==
 +
* [http://www.dailyastorian.com/free/gillnet-ban-hits-ballot-snag/article_257c557e-2a73-11e1-b061-0019bb2963f4.html ''The Daily Astorian'',"Gillnet ban hits ballot snag," December 19, 2011]
  
 
==References==
 
==References==
Line 34: Line 86:
 
{{2012 ballot measures}}
 
{{2012 ballot measures}}
 
{{Oregon}}
 
{{Oregon}}
[[Category:Oregon 2012 ballot measures]]
+
[[Category:Oregon 2012 ballot measures, certified]]
[[Category:Animal rights, Oregon]]
+
[[Category:Treatment of animals, Oregon]]
[[Category:Animal rights, 2012]]
+
[[Category:Certified, treatment of animals, 2012]]
{{Oregon stub}}
+
{{Certinitstat2012}}

Revision as of 15:22, 2 January 2013


Gillnet Fishing Initiative
Flag of Oregon.png
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