Document text
Mark Freeman 's Commentary Broman set to tackle bait ban When he sits behind a microphone Nov. 17 in Portland and looks the six people across from him in the eyes, Jim Broman will be carrying the bait-fishing dreams of hundreds of Rogue River anglers with him. Not that there�s any pressure. In his allotted 20 minutes, Broman, representing 2,100 other Southern Oregonians, will try to passionately, methodically, logically and reverently persuade the members of the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission to repeal bait-fishing bans for the Rogue before they begin next year. And when he opens his mouth to begin the most-watched 20 minutes of his life, Broman hopes actual words come out. "I�ll be nervous, for sure," Broman says. "It�s like testifying before the Supreme Court. They have the red light and the green light to tell you when to start and stop. "This is all definitely more than I bargained for," he says, "but I have to do what I have to do." What Broman is doing is the next step in some anglers� quest to reverse the banning of all bait in the upper Rogue during August, November and December, as well as in the lower Rogue Canyon Sept. 1 through Oct. 31. As point man for the repeal effort, Broman is tapped by the commission to lay out arguments Nov. 17 in Portland. Broman will argue why the six-member commission should set aside their September vote, hold a new public hearing on the issues to gather evidence and gauge public sentiment before re-voting on the two controversial changes to angling regulations for 2001 and beyond. That is a tall order for this 42-year-old Grants Pass man whose oratory background is telling jokes and dispensing fishing tips over the counter of his tiny tackle shop on Highway 199. If the commissioners agree with Broman, they can vote to officially revisit the proposals. They would then hold a new public hearing as early as December and likely in Portland, where the commission normally meets. But if Broman fails to persuade the six commissioners to break from the normal fishing-regulations process and rehear these two proposals, then the issue all but dries up and blows away. Which makes Broman�s seat on Nov. 17 that much hotter, and that much lonelier. "They aren�t going to allow a bunch of people to testify, but we�re going to drag a bunch of people up there for moral support," Broman says. "There wouldn�t be anything worse," he says, "than being up there without any moral support." Unless those six sets of eyes staring back at him don�t pay attention. And that won�t be the case, says Don Denman, a Medford attorney and commissioner who helped shepherd through the proposals. Denman says he has not discussed the issue with his fellow commissioners and has no idea how they will vote on Broman�s request. "I�m really, honestly, feeling that I could go either way on this, depending upon how the meeting goes and what is said," Denman says. "From my standpoint, I�ll reserve judgment until I hear what (Broman) has to say." It�s the judgment of Denman and his fellow commissioners that is at the heart of the debate. The measures were presented and pushed by some fly-fishermen as a way to protect wild summer steelhead from dying from catch-and-release fishing because fish are more apt to be harmed by swallowing baited hooks than hooks on artificial flies or lures. A state fish biologist argued against the ban, saying studies show that bait fishing is not harming the wild summer steelhead runs, and that enacting the bans would needlessly legislate some anglers off the water in favor of fly-fishermen. In adopting the rules, the commission surprised both fly-fishermen and bait-fishermen alike. The bait-fishermen responded in anger, saying the commission ignored its own biologist�s opinion and settled a social dispute between fly-fishers and bait-fishers under the guise of wild fish protection. It�s like two kids asking their mother whom she loves most. Normally, the mother would say she loves them both equally. But this time, the mother played favorites and chose the fly-fishermen. But Broman has 20 minutes to persuade the mother to take it all back. For the past month, Broman has been talking to biologists, gathering steelhead data, reading studies on the effects of bait fishing on steelhead, anything he can find to bolster his side of the argument. But he still doesn�t know what he plans to say. Broman will try to spin a passionate argument for why bait fishing shouldn�t be banned. He may methodically point out why he believes the commission erred by ignoring the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife biologist�s opinions. Broman might appeal to commission logic, saying that deciding a weighty issue based on something as light as counting a few more letters for one side than the other is "not a smart way to manage a fishery." Or he can reverently ask the commissioners to consider that they made a decision based on too little input and information, he says. "It�s all been said before, so I don�t know how much rehashing I should do," Broman says. "That�s kind of my dilemma. "I�m not exactly sure what I�m going to do, what I�m going to say," he says. "But now," he says, "it feels like it�s me against the world." (Staff writer Mark Freeman covers the outdoors for the Mail Tribune. Call him at 776-4470, or e-mail him at: [email protected] ) Mail Tribune Home | Ottaway Newspapers, Inc. | Dow Jones & Co., Inc. | Privacy | Contact Us Copyright � 2000 Mail Tribune, Inc.