What gives Guv? Is it a law or what?
Commentary BOB MOTTRAM
The Tacoma News Tribune
May 28, 2003
The sorry history of Washington's anti-trapping law, which the Humane
Society of the United States rammed through the initiative process
2 1/2 years ago, got even sorrier last week with the performance of
Gov. Gary Locke.
The law, approved overwhelmingly by Washington voters in 2000, created
a blanket prohibition on nearly all use of body-gripping traps, and
provided for exceptions so burdened by bureaucratic requirements as
to be nearly useless.
The law prohibited not only all trapping for fur, but also nearly
all trapping of predators to protect livestock, of gnawing rodents
to protect orchards and timber, and of burrowing rodents to protect
dikes and earthen dams.
It also prohibited - to the chagrin of the animal-rightists who sponsored
and supported the initiative - the trapping of moles to protect urban
lawns. That hit the animal-rights people where they live, in the urban
electorate that they count on to support their numerous wildlife-management
initiatives.
So the rightists were back within months after the initiative, trying
to make up for their sloppy bill-drafting by inducing the Legislature
to exempt gophers and moles from the trapping ban. But the lawmakers,
offended by the tactics the animal-rights people had employed to impose
the law, and concerned about the negative effects of the law on rural
constituencies, refused to bail the rightists out to save their urban
skins.
Finally, after more than two years of living with bad legislation,
the lawmakers stepped up to fix it by repealing most of the law's
provisions. And that's when the governor decided to use his veto to
kill the repeal.
If Locke had demonstrated the courage of his convictions, it would
be hard to point a finger at him. One might disagree with his decision
but, after all, decisions are what we hire governors to make.
In this case, however, the governor couldn't find the courage to confront
the issue the way the Legislature did. Instead, he vetoed the bill
to repeal the trapping law and then all but directed the Department
of Fish and Wildlife not to enforce the portion of the law that constrains
his urban constituents.
Lock transmitted the message in a letter to Will Roehl, chairman of
the state Fish and Wildlife Commission. He suggested that Fish and
Wildlife officials ignore homeowners, businesses and - of course -
the powerful timber industry if those groups choose to trap gophers,
moles and mountain beavers in violation of the law.
It's amazing what you learn by reading the papers. I've been kicking
around Washington for a long time, but must admit I never realized
that enforcement of laws was optional. I never realized the state
enforces only those parts of the Revised Code of Washington that the
governor likes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our Views: Veto continues trapping chaos
By The Olympian Editorial Board
May 28, 2003
Gov. Gary Locke's solution to this state's animal-trapping woes is
to instruct enforcement officers to turn a blind eye to trapping violations.
What kind of solution is that? Are young people to understand that
we live in a state where we can obey those laws we support and ignore
those we disagree with? That's a terrible message to send to citizens!
This problem started in 2000 with a poorly drafted initiative to ban
animal trapping. The measure was pushed by the Humane Society of Washington.
Initiative proponents played on people's emotions.
A photo of a kitten with its paw caught in a trap topped each petition
that was circulated for signatures. In their voter pamphlet statement,
supporters of Initiative 713 said, "For every 'target' animal
killed by a trapper, studies indicate there are up to 10 'non-target'
victims."
The math didn't add up. In the two years prior to adoption of the
initiative, trappers took 20,000 beaver, fox, otter, raccoon, muskrat,
mink, coyote and other fur-bearing animals in Washington state. Using
the math of initiative proponents, that meant up to 200,000 cats,
dogs, sheep and other "non-target" animals had been snared
in traps. Yet the Humane Society could document only 60 cases of pets
caught in traps in the last 20 years.
The initiative itself was poorly drafted. From the outset, there was
confusion over its language. Proponents said the ban did not extend
to mole and gopher traps. Opponents disagreed. Fish and Wildlife officials
have consistently said mole and gopher traps are body-gripping and
thus banned.
The measure went before voters in November 2000, where it passed with
a 54.6 favorable vote at the polls. The initiative asked, "Shall
it be a gross misdemeanor to capture an animal with certain body-gripping
traps, or to poison an animal with sodium fluoroacetate or sodium
cyanide?" The measure did give property owners an out by applying
for a permit to trap animals -- but who wants to get a state permit
to rid a landscaped yard of moles?
Voters in 13 counties -- primarily the populous counties along the
Interstate 5 corridor -- supported the trapping ban. Voters in the
remaining 26 counties rejected it. The populous counties carried the
day, and the trapping ban went into effect on Jan. 1, 2001.
Under the initiative, homeowners who use a mole trap to rid their
yards of the unsightly mounds of dirt are guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
Deluged with complaints by timber managers about mountain beaver damage,
ranchers trying to protect their herds from coyotes and homeowners
struggling with moles or gophers, the 2003 Legislature did the right
thing and passed a bill that would have essentially repealed Initiative
713. It passed the Senate 35-13 and the House on a narrower margin
of 52-46.
The repeal would have allowed the Humane Society and others to draft
a more competent initiative that addressed the concerns of ranchers,
homeowners and timber officials. But Gov. Locke vetoed the bill, leaving
the initiative in full effect.
The governor's solution to the ongoing predicament was to write a
letter to the Fish and Wildlife Commission encouraging agency enforcement
officers to pay attention to other fish and game violations and give
a low enforcement priority to individuals who trap moles, gophers
and mountain beavers.
Why have laws on the books we are not going to enforce?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------