Foes Contend the Ban Would Only Shift the Catch

Backers of the initiative to ban most commercial net fishing in Washington waters say the issue is simple: Get the nets out of the water and save a growing list of threatened and endangered salmon runs.

But foes say that’s simply not true. Instead, they say, a ban would only remove commercial fishers’ chance to take nonthreatened salmon and other fish, and shift that catch to tribal and sport fishers, neither of whom are subject to Initiative 696.

The measure would ban commercial troll fishing along with use of the most productive net types, ranging from gill nets to purse and drag seines and shrimp trawls.

“The commercial fishing industry would have us believe that their nets have no impact on our salmon,” said Tom Nelson, a spokesman for I-696, which will be on Tuesday’s ballot. “But certainly the [commercial] harvest does have an impact.”

Nelson and other backers assert that commercial fishermen, while regulated by the state as to when and what they can catch, nevertheless take more than their share and too often catch fish species they’re not supposed to catch. “Those fish go over the side uncounted,” Nelson said.

But the state Department of Fish and Wildlife, in a recent explanatory memorandum on the potential impact of the initiative, flatly disagrees.

“Non-Indian commercial fishing is highly regulated so that it does not have a significant effect on the health of wild salmon stocks,” the memo said.

The memo also noted that, in recent years, the state has significantly reduced the amount of salmon that can be harvested by commercial or sportfishermen, and that the biggest challenge for endangered or threatened runs is degraded habitat, from power dams to stream-side development.

John Keizer, an initiative supporter and sportfishing guide from Tacoma, said that wherever commercial nets go in the water, “you might as well forget about catching any fish there for months afterward.”

Added Bill Hoffman, owner of Neptune Charters in Westport, “I don’t care what they tell you. They kill salmon by the hundreds of tons.”

Not so, said commercial fishing industry consultant Ed Owens, a spokesman for the campaign against the initiative. Commercial fishermen are allowed to put their nets in the water only when the salmon runs largely are hatchery or nonthreatened wild species. “It is a very regulated enterprise,” he said.

Supporters of the initiative, which is backed mostly by sportfishing interests, also dispute the contention that all the measure would do is make more fish available to tribal and sport fishers.

“The tribes, as we know, own 50% of the salmon,” Nelson said. “But we, the public, own the other 50%.” Tribes that wanted to take more fish would have to go to court and make their case, he said. “There is nothing automatic about it.”

As for sport fishers, the state has been cutting back their fishing opportunities for years and can continue to do so. “It’s up to the state,” he said.

Tony Meyer, spokesman for the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, said a net ban would benefit sport fishers and possibly tribal fishers too.

“What it does, it just shifts allocation of the resource from one non-Indian group to another non-Indian group, commercial to sport,” he said.

Environmental groups are split on whether a net ban would save endangered salmon.

The Kitsap Chapter of the National Audubon Society, for example, supports the initiative, contending it is needed to protect endangered fish caught when commercial fishers cast their nets for other species.

Other groups, including People for Puget Sound, oppose the measure on the grounds that it does nothing for salmon yet divides groups who need to work together to restore healthy runs.

“What an unfortunate waste of energy, money and time to pit one fishing group against another,” said Kathy Fletcher, the group’s executive director.