Subject: Re: Washington's Sealife In Peril (I-640)

From: [email-masked] (STEVE KAIMMER)
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 95 14:47:51

Your opening quote cites the Audobon society.  In fact, my information 
says that this group opposes your bill.  In fact, the great majority of 
environmental groups oppose your bill.  About the only sponsers you have 
are self-centered sports fishermen who want it all.  I am an avid sport 
fisherman in Puget Sound, and would probably consider and possibly vote 
for a sport-fish priority bill.......but not when it is disquised as a 
conservation measure.  Sorry, but you just don't have what it takes to 
fool enough people.

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] says...
>
>Tens of thousands of seabirds -- murres, auklets, puffins, murrelets and 
>other diving seabirds -- are in grave danger and desperately  need your 
>help.  The issue is the prevention of the illegal take of seabirds 
through 
>net entanglement in Washington waters.  The proposed solution is 
>initiative I-640 that will appear on the ballot November 7th.  The 
>opponents: Washington’s sizable commercial fishing industry; whose 
members 
>have infiltrated and hold influential positions in our most powerful 
>environmental groups. The dilemma we face: due to the total lack of 
>interest -- almost to the extent of shutting out -- from the media, it 
is 
>nearly impossible to get the information to Washington voters and find 
>allies within politically active environmental organizations. 
>
>    The following information was gleaned from the National Audubon 
>Society “Seabird Entanglement...” fact sheet of June 20, 1994:
>
>--  There are over 2,500 drift nets licensed to fish in Washington’s 
>coastal and inland waters, laying out hundreds of miles of net in 
publicly 
>owned waters during each opener.  Fishermen set and retrieve their nets 
>hundreds of times each season, entangling seabirds in some areas at 
rates 
>averaging as high as one bird per retrieval.
>
>--  Last year’s monitoring documented that when fishermen pulled in 
their 
>nets they had to disentangle and discard from 0-28 drowned birds each 
>time.
>
>--  The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has estimated that between 170 
and 
>1150 marbled murrelets may be drowned each year in Northern Puget Sound 
>(San Juans north to Canada) alone.  Even if the entanglement rate was 
that 
>of 1 murrelet per 100 net hauls, approximately 200 murrelets would be 
>killed per season in Northern Puget Sound.
>
>--  Washington’s common murre breeding population has declined to only 
565 
>birds recorded on our coastal national wildlife refuges in 1993; down 
>from  
>30,000 in 1979.  Chronic yearly kills due to entanglement and drowning 
in 
>drift gill nets could decimate the remaining population in as little as 
>five seasons.
>
>--  The Fishery Observer Program Report dated October 3, 1994 conducted 
>research, funded by the National Marine Fisheries Service, on drift gill 
>net fisheries in the San Juan Islands area of Puget Sound. The goal was 
to 
>determine the nature and extent of endangered seabird interaction with 
>commercial salmon net fishing gear.  The research observed 269 of the 
>4,374 boat trips taken.  Observers counted 195 seabirds entangled in the 
>nets with 188 of the seabirds ending up dead.  If this sample is 
>representative of the total impact of the drift gill net fishery,  in 
just 
>13 days of August, 1994 drift gill nets in the San Juan Island area 
>entangled 5,971 birds.  Over an average 23 day season, with 2,500 
licensed 
>nets set and retrieved only 100 times state wide, a possible 175,000 
>federally protected birds are drowned in Washington waters each year.
>
>    Washington’s gill net fishery boasts one of the most powerful 
lobbies 
>in the state.  As a result, Federal laws protecting endangered seabird 
>populations are overlooked or not enforced.  I-640 addresses this 
>discrepancy by regulating the “by catch”, meaning the non-targeted or 
>unintended fish, shellfish and PROTECTED ANIMALS that are captured or 
>destroyed while fishing.  Simply put, in order for a specific fishing 
>method to be licensed,  it must be demonstrated that 85% of the by catch 
>must be able to be released ALIVE or the method doesn’t get licensed.  
The 
>current drift gill net method of fishing has a 96% seabird mortality 
rate. 
> Following are additional passages from I-640 that directly relate to 
the 
>protection of seabirds:
>
>--  Sec. 1. PURPOSE.  Declare a state policy that will promote 
restoration 
>of the state’s marine and anadromous fish stocks while promoting 
>economically viable fisheries that do not unnecessarily harm fish, 
BIRDS, 
>and other animals not intended for harvest.
>    (3)  Require coordination by the department with federal agencies to 
>minimize potential impacts of fishing on SEABIRDS and other protected 
>animals.
>
>
>--  Sec. 4.  GUIDLINES.  The people authorize and direct the department 
>and the governor of the state of Washington to take the following 
actions:
>    (6)  Consult and coordinate with federal officials to minimize 
>potential impacts of fishing on SEABIRDS and other federally protected 
>species.
>  
>    As you can see, Initiative 640 is not about salmon allocation as the 
>commercial fisheries would have you believe.  Neither is it a ruse for 
the 
>sport fishermen to hog all the fish.  In fact, the only mention of 
>allocation in the document states that the greater consideration about 
>allocation should go to the industry that generates the most money for 
the 
>state of Washington.  If the commercial fishing industry already does 
>that, as they claim to, why do they have a problem with the proposal?  
>They also gain opposition to I-640 by claiming that there aren’t 
>sufficient provisions to restore endangered salmon runs, that we should 
be 
>focusing on finding ways to boost salmon populations by focusing on 
rivers 
>and habitat, not by regulating the catch.  Salmon catch will not be 
>regulated with I-640;  the BY CATCH will.  
>
>    Opponents to I-640 argue that the small time fishermen are singled 
out 
>for destruction.  This claim is far from true.  The methods, not the 
men, 
>are being targeted.  There are alternative methods to drift gill net 
>fishing;  purse seines and reef nets being the most well known.  Drift 
>nets are merely the most convenient method because they demand less 
>attention and offer more free time for the same amount of fish caught 
with 
>the other methods in the same time period.  Simply put, drift gill net 
>fishing is easy money.  The average drift gill netter can make up to 
>$10,000 in a 28 day season (many make less than $5000); virtually all of 
>them have “real jobs” the rest of the year.  I-640 is by no means 
cutting 
>off their livelihood.
>
>    I-640 is not just about declining salmon populations,  it’s about 
>declining SEALIFE populations.  Drift gill nets and draggers often have 
up 
>to 70% of their catch be non-targeted species, over 90% of which are 
dead 
>when thrown overboard.  Thousand foot long drift nets are often lost and 
>become ghost nets, rising and falling from the buoyancy of the bloated 
>bodies of all the hapless creatures that had the misfortune of finding 
>them.  Such nets are long forgotten to the commercial boat that had to 
cut 
>them loose; yet they continue fishing, indiscriminately catching and 
>killing anything that touches them for decades to come.  Draggers can 
cut 
>30 to 60ft swaths 100’s of yards long, from the ecologically fragile sea 
>bottoms.  Divers in the area can always tell where a dragger’s been, 
>because of the  huge expanses of sea bottom, totally devoid of all 
>life-seaweed, algae, shellfish-everything.  Puget Sound’s fragile 
habitats 
>take decades to recover from such destruction; some of it never does.  
>Salmon isn’t the only species in our Washington waters as some would 
have 
>you believe; nor is it the most precious and deserving of protection.  
>Isn’t it about time some of our less glamorous life gets a chance to 
>survive?
>
>    For the past several years, it has been an active part of the 
>commercial fishermen association’s agenda to join and infiltrate the 
>higher ranks of our area’s most powerful environmental groups.  It seems 
>they’ve made considerable progress.  Imagine our amazement when eight of 
>Washington’s largest conservation groups including the Sierra Club and 
>American Rivers came out opposing I-640!  Our amazement gave way to 
>suspicion however, when their reasons for doing so were identical to the 
>commercial fishing industries’ point of view; often to the extent of 
their 
>official statements matching verbatim those of the Northwest Fisheries 
>Association.  Another big surprise was the total lack of response and, 
at 
>times, hostility from most of the major sources of media coverage.  
Could 
>it be because Washington’s commercial fisheries has one of the biggest 
>lobbies in the state?  We desperately need to get our message to 
>Washington’s voters.  Until now, the balance of power has been terribly 
>unfair.  Why is it that the only way for the commercial fisheries to 
>protect their interests is to keep the issues I-640 raises from being 
>heard?  
>
>    The media blockade must be broken down.  Letters to the editors of 
the 
>Seattle Times and P-I in favor of I-640 have been sent almost daily for 
>several months, yet none have been published.  Requests have been made 
>repeatedly to talk radio shows to cover the I-640 discussion, to no 
avail. 
> We have received little or no unbiased TV coverage.  How can this be 
when 
>there are two sides to every argument?  We need everyone to write to the 
>papers and the TV stations; call the radio talk shows.  Demand that the 
>issues be aired and the arguments be made.  The people have a right to 
>hear the facts that inspired the drafting of  I-640. If  this initiative 
>is indeed a solution to what plagues our Puget Sound,  let the voters 
>decide.  
>
>
>                        Signed, 
>                               Richard E. Anderson
>                              30 Year Audubon Member
>
>    For more information or, if you'd like to help our cause, 
>    the # for Save our Sealife is: 1(800)357-3474.  
>    E-mail me for the complete text of the initiative.
>

---

From: [email-masked] (Dale B. Bonar)
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 95 20:26:44 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>, Mike Middleton <[email-masked]> wrote:
>help.  The issue is the prevention of the illegal take of seabirds through 
>opponents: Washington’s sizable commercial fishing industry; whose members 
>interest -- almost to the extent of shutting out -- from the media, it is 

HOLD 'ER NEWT.  Lets have a little clarificaiton here.  EIGHT OF THE LARGEST 
CONSERVATION GROUPS IN WASHINGTON, INCLUDING THE SIERRA CLUB AND AMERICAN 
REIVES, OPPOSE I-640. In fact, they helped write the Statement Against this 
initiative in our voter's pamphlet.  This initiative is written by the 
Recreation fishermen and funded by the Columbia River aluminum companies and 
the Bonneville Power interests.  This bill shifts all "blame" to the 
commercial fishermen and does almost nothing about addressing the core 
problems of habitat degredation and loss of spawing environments.

Yes, there are a few birds that are caught in nets.  A FEW.  And there are 
research projects ongoing that are developing escapment mechanisms for 
bycatch.  The inflammatory rhetoric of this post has a lot of smoke an 
mirrors, folks.  As the poster said, PLEASE READ THE INIATIVE.  But then, 
please read the voter's pamplet!

For the record, I have an environmental sciences company and am VP of the 
working board of our local land trust.  I consider myself an activist, 
moderate environmentalist.  
Dale

---

From: [email-masked] (James Davis )
Date: 2 Nov 1995 02:02:31 GMT

In <[email-masked]> [email-masked]

>fool enough people.
[email-masked] responds:
The only people that have been fooled so far are you and a few really
stupid commercial fisherpeople.

If anything, I-640 backers have been too honest and open. The anti-640
TV spots are pure fabrication. They talk like rape of the environment
is a birthright! = family fishing.

Find a commercial gillnetter working the US side of the Great Lakes.
ZIP, NADA, NONE! Why? They raped the lakes. They could not be trusted
with the resource. The lakes have recovered somewhat. They support a
tourist industry many times larger than a commercial fishery. I was
named after one of those gillnetters. Where is my family fishing? They
pissed it away in a race to kill the last fish for a buck. The point of
a citizens initiative is that GOVERNMENT is NOT doing it's job. Yes,
640 is a very broad initiative that deals with many facets of the
problem. Including WASTE and resource abuse. Drowning endangered
seabirds is just part of the problem. Enforcement of the Migratory bird
act will scratch that itch...IF Goverment was doing the JOB!!!! If Adam
Smith had his way, the market would automatically allocate Coho and
Chinook to Sports catch - and tourists would pay (and do) big bucks to
catch them. And commercial fisherpeople would be falling all over
themselves to convert to sportfishing. Alas, the Government intervenes
to set allocations. (They should be in the business of setting
limits!!!!) and the Soviet Union (former!!!!!!!) is a great example of
just how efficient a government can be at setting allocation. Yes 640
addresses allocation. It is hardly hidden - just less than well
understood in the face of the 20,000 job/$250M LIE! What a joke. Your
point about Audubon being anti 640 is WRONG. The WA Audubon Society is
fence sitting. They will regret this. The Black Hills Audubon Society
is anti, The president there is a gillnetter - amazing! Many of the
anti-640 Environmental groups have made a poor deal. They have a wild
fish agenda and or they feel habitat is underaddressed by 640. Gillnets
make for very poor habitat. There are many laws concerning habitat that
are unenforced in WA - King Co. Hydraulic Code is a joke! Where should
we stop, heck lets just have I-640 fix the whole world....It will save
sealife and create more jobs than it eliminates. That is the bottom
line.
>>Posted many times!!!!
snip....JD

---

From: Mike Middleton <[email-masked]>
Date: 3 Nov 1995 04:46:54 GMT

[email-masked] (Dale B. Bonar) wrote:

>Yes, there are a few birds that are caught in nets.  A FEW. 

   When you say FEW what do you mean?  A few per net haul?  With 2,500 
licensed drift gill net fishers setting and retrieving their nets an 
average of 100 times in a season, that would add up to 750,000 entangled 
birds.  How about a few per day?  Let's see... in a 28 day season that 
would mean only 210,000 drowned birds.  Maybe you mean a few per season?  
Well then, only a paltry 7,500 federally protected seabirds are 
slaughtered yearly.  In all actuality, up to .698 birds are killed per net 
haul, roughly one every other haul or approximately 174,500. Any way you 
add it up the figures are unacceptable.

                             Jill Middleton

---

From: Roger <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 95 13:32:30 GMT

> add it up the figures are unacceptable.
Right, you've identified a problem. Let's look for some solutions.
Is there some way of diverting the birds away from the nets. Some
sort of scaring device incorporated into the dahns or floats, perhaps.

Has anyone done any research on this?

Roger

---

From: Mike Middleton <[email-masked]>
Date: 3 Nov 1995 19:25:45 GMT

>Has anyone done any research on this?

   The majority of birds that get entangled are the diving birds.  The 
most susceptible of these divers are the alcids, including common murres, 
rhinoceros auklets, tufted puffins and the threatened marbled murrelet.  
Some dive as deep as 600ft in pursuit of small fish.  How can you develop 
an aversion device that is effective from 600ft away and under water as 
well?  Excluder devices wouldn't work either because of the invisible 
nature of the drift net and the fact that it's often over a mile long. 
It's not just the birds, what about the unintended fish that are caught?
Drift nets kill EVERYTHING.
  During a test study off of the Kitsap Peninsula in recent years 70% of 
the drift gill netters catch was non-targeted species!  That's right, for 
every pound of salmon that went in the hold, 7 pounds of other fish and 
wildlife were thrown overboard dead (out of season species of salmon 
included).  How much longer can our ecosystem stand this?  Long enough to 
do research to save the birds?  What about everything else?  It's not like 
there aren't alternatives to drift net fishing.  Purse seines and reef 
nets already exist and are licensed in Washington.  When used properly, 
thay have almost no bycatch mortality rate.  The drift gill net fishers 
are fighting having to change their gear.  If modified gear is invented 
eventually they will have to change anyway.  Why not now, before millions 
of more lives are needlessly wasted? 

                              Jill Middleton

---

From: Roger <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 95 17:22:47 GMT

> Drift nets kill EVERYTHING.

Aren't there restrictions on mesh size?

Certain types of drift net fishing are already banned or soon will be. In 
Europe, there is at least the possibility of a selective subsidy or 
compensation. I don't know about the US.

> nets already exist and are licensed in Washington.

Everyone agrees that by catches are a waste of resources.

So get the Government to intervene by providing fishermen with assistance
to change their methods. If you simply propose that someone has to be 
unemployed because of what they see as a few seabirds, then you aren't
going to win many supporters. If you provide grants, retraining and
explanations, then you may find that people will respond. I suspect that
this isn't 'The American Way', though.

> When used properly, 

My boat is really best suited for pots.  I can use drift nets (but don't)
and trammel nets. Other than fish traps, which I know nothing about,
what alternatives have I?