PROPOSITION 132 : Too Big a Net

Proposition 132 would ban the use of nets designed to grab fish by the gills or trap them in folds of fine plastic line. The ban on gill nets and trammel nets would cover all waters off the California coast for a distance of three miles.

The goal of the proposition probably is impeccable, even though commercial fishermen who use both kinds of nets say the measure’s purpose is not to spare sea otters terrible deaths but to reduce the commercial catch so that sport fishermen can land more.

But reaching the goal by writing the ban into a state document already three times longer than the national Constitution is the wrong way to go about it.

Supporters of the ban say they need a constitutional amendment to make certain that the Legislature could not lift the ban under pressure from commercial fishing fleets. But an initiative statute would give virtually the same protection to porpoises, sea otters and other creatures who are caught and killed in gill nets by mistake.

Standard language in such ballot propositions forbids the Legislature to change the will of the people except with amendments that strengthen the purpose of the initiative. Even a change in the right direction requires a two-thirds vote in both chambers.

Gill nets are fiendish devices, never more than when they break free from boats and slide through waters killing everything in their path.

It would be different if amending the Constitution were the only hope for marine life. But it isn’t. A no vote on 132 is simply to suggest that the state Constitution shouldn’t be a laundry list.