HomeMy WebLinkAboutres1995-068WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
NO. 95 -405
CLEARANCES
Initial
Date
Date Received in Council Office:
Agenda date
Assigned to:
ryginator. Dawson /Brenner
.✓ivision Head:
10/3/95
County Council
Dept. Head:
Prosecutor.
Purchasing /Budget:
Executive:
SUBJECT Resolution Encouraging Cooperation Between Recreational and Commercial Fishing Groups and
Opposing Initiative 640
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution
SUMMARY STATEMENT Please complete sections of box as appropriate & explain the item below.
Related County contract #:
Should Clerk schedule a hearing? NO YES Requested date:
Amount budgeted for this item /project:
Is it or will it be within budget? YES NO Please explain below
Budget line item number(s);
ORIGINATOR'S RECOMMENDED ACTION.•
COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN:
10/3/95: Substitute Approved 5 -2
Related File Numbers. Ordinance or Resolution Number (this item only):
Res. 95 -068
fishing.res 10/3/95
SPONSORED BY: Consent
PROPOSED BY: Imhof
INTRODUCTION DATE: 1013195
1 RESOLUTION NO. 99 —o6f3
2 IN OPPOSITION TO INITIATIVE 640, AN INITIATIVE DEVELOPED BY THE
3 GROUP "SAVE OUR SEA LIFE (SOS) ", THAT CLAIMS TO ESTABLISH NEW
4 COMMERCIAL FISHING STANDARDS FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
5 WHEREAS, this initiative alleges that for environmental reasons it is necessary to
6 establish new commercial fishing standards to protect non - targeted species from harvest;
7 and,
8 WHEREAS, conservation groups including the Sierra Club, American Rivers,
9 Wilderness Society, People for Puget Sound, and others in the Northwest oppose the
10 initiative; and
11 WHEREAS. it is determined that not a single fish will be saved by passage of this.
12 initiative, and
13 WHEREAS, it is estimated that the state of Washington would lose a minimum of
14 20,000 fishing, processing, transportation, retail and food service jobs and $250 million in
15 lost wages and other economic activity were the initiative to pass; and,
16 WHEREAS, up to as many as 40,000 fishing, processing, transportation, retail and
17 food service jobs and $1.56 billion in economic activity could ultimately be at risk were the
18 initiative to pass; and,
19 WHEREAS, initiative 640 unnecessarily pits otherwise' good and fair people against
20 each other when solving natural resource problems calls for all to work together for the
21 common good; and,
22 WHEREAS, a rich Washington state family and cultural heritage spanning many
23 generations would be destroyed if initiative 640 were to pass; and,
24 WHEREAS, according to "SOS" internal documents dated August 26, 1994 laying out
25 the initiative strategy,
Page 1
1 "A direct approach would be to eliminate commercial utilization
of Chinook and Coho salmon in state waters ... a more subtle and
3 perhaps saleable[sic] approach would be to simply rely upon the
4 'gear criteria standards' and 'most beneficial and wise use
5 principle' to allocate these species to the recreational fisheries
6 ONLY. "; and
7 WHEREAS, proposals similar to Initiative 640 have consistently been denied passage
8 by the Washington state legislature over the last decade as bad public policy; and,
9 WHEREAS, voters in Oregon defeated a similar initiative in 1992 by a 60% to 40%
10 margin.
11 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Whatcom County Council that the
12 Whatcom County Council OPPOSE the passage of Initiative 640, encourages the voters of
13 the state of Washington to also oppose Initiative 640, will encourage others to oppose
14 Initiative 640, and will send this resolution to the "No On 640" campaign for their use as
15 needed.
16
17
18
19
20
21
APPROVED this 3 day of October , 1995.
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, lerk of the Council
APPROVED.AS TO FORM:
22
23 Civil Deputy Prosecutor
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Robert A. Imhof, Council hair
jx Approved () Denied
Page 2