Document text
Anti-trap measure reached too far, both sides agree By Mark Freeman The state initiative seeking to ban many forms of animal trapping died convincingly in Oregon, in part because of a notion among voters that it was a poorly written measure that tried to tackle too many issues, according to players on both sides of Oregon�s wildlife issues. Measure 97, which sought to ban steel-jawed and snare traps for commercial and recreational fur-trapping, garnered just 41 percent of the vote in Oregon�s vote-by-mail general election that ended Tuesday. The measure, which specifically exempted mousetraps and made provisions for some predator trapping, fared similarly in Jackson County, losing 55 percent to 41 percent in unofficial, final returns. In lobbying against the measure, a coalition of agriculture, ranching, trapping, and hunting groups harped on what they saw as Measure 97�s murky wording and unmanageable guidelines that could reach far beyond the work of Oregon�s 857 licensed commercial fur-trappers. Its potential impacts on cattle ranching, backyard mole and gopher control and even rodeos gave opponents a soft underbelly to attack in media campaigns, according to Al Elkins, an Oregon Hunters Association lobbyist who helped defeat the measure. "All that played into the case we were able to make against it," Elkins said. "It was very poorly written and very inclusive of a lot of issues (backers) thought would not be involved," Elkins said. "The message was not as simple as they hoped it would be." Wayne Pacelle, of the Humane Society of the United States, which was one of the measure�s key petitioners, said opponents like Elkins were unable to defend the main thrust of the measure � a ban on commercial or recreational trapping of animals for their fur. While mole and gopher trapping likely "won�t ever be restricted in Oregon," a "streamlined" measure banning commercial fur-trapping likely would have passed handily, Pacelle said. But the measure�s language allowed opponents to stretch the debate from the backwoods trap line to the backyard gopher problem, a tactic that surprised pro-97 leaders who did not intend to make gophers and moles an issue. "They were able to make that argument resonate, and create doubt in Oregon voters," Pacelle said Friday. "We were hung up in those wording questions." Those same issues about the measure�s wording were raised with the measure�s backers as early as 16 months ago by some wildlife advocates who feared Measure 97 had the potential to cause more harm than good for protecting Oregon�s natural predators. Director Brooks Fahy of the Predator Defense Institute, a Eugene-based wildlife advocacy group, wrote a letter to Pacelle in July 1999 detailing what Fahy saw as the measure�s flaws and unintended consequences. While all wildlife advocates want to see trapping banned, Fahy argued the measure should have focused strictly on the use of traps on public lands or trapping for predator control. Instead, the measure would be an unenforceable trapping version of Measure 18, the successful 1994 initiative banning hound-hunting for bears and cougars that Fahy sees as a failure. Measure 18 still allows hounds in the woods year-round. Also, more cougars are killed annually in sport hunting seasons and damage control now than before Measure 18�s ban on hounding. "Measure 18 has been a complete nightmare and continues to be a complete nightmare," Fahy said Friday. "In Oregon, we have more of an anti-predator sentiment, and more of an anti-cougar sentiment, than ever before. "Passing (Measure 97) would create a whole new set of problems we�d have to deal with," Fahy said. Pacelle believes Fahy is over-stating the backlash from Measure 18, which Pacelle claims is still an issue only with a "small segment of the hunting lobby" and not most Oregonians. "I think it�s the wording," Pacelle said of this week�s ballot failure. "It�s not Measure 18." A measure nearly identical to the Oregon one passed comfortably Tuesday in Washington state. Following Fahy�s advice to attack predator-trapping alone, Pacelle said, would not have reversed the outcome in Oregon. "I think his way would have resulted in a more lopsided loss," Pacelle said. "I don�t think he had a prescription for success." Fahy said many of the individual and local groups that worked on the signature-gathering and the campaign for Measure 97 are good-hearted people who were caught up in a fight over predator protection that will require more grass-roots education before Oregonians will accept it. "This whole thing kind of struck me as a fund-raiser for some of these national organizations," Fahy said. "I hope I�m wrong." Pacelle said Fahy is wrong, and that the $800,000 raised around the campaign went strictly for the campaign. Opponents also spent about $800,000 to fight it. Pacelle said wildlife advocates may soon ask voters to pass a more streamlined anti-trapping measure, or seek its adoption through the Legislature or the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission. "It was an important vote and their side won this battle," Pacelle said. "But it�s not the end of the fight against trapping, for sure." Phil Donovan, an Oregon Guides and Packers Association lobbyist who chaired the No on 97 campaign, said Oregon voters showed Tuesday they may not be ready to ban the activities of small groups like trappers. "The message of this and other measures is that singling out groups of people doesn�t work," Donovan said. "Oregon pretty resoundingly said no to measures that tried that." Mail Tribune Home | Ottaway Newspapers, Inc. | Dow Jones & Co., Inc. | Privacy | Contact Us Copyright � 2000 Mail Tribune, Inc.