Drizzt
May 30, 2003, 01:26 AM
The News Tribune (Tacoma, Washington)
May 28, 2003, Wednesday
SECTION: South Sound; Pg. C07
LENGTH: 1008 words
HEADLINE: Outdoors: What gives Guv? Is it a law or what?
BYLINE: BOB MOTTRAM, The News Tribune
BODY:
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.
May 28, 2003, Wednesday
SECTION: South Sound; Pg. C07
LENGTH: 1008 words
HEADLINE: Outdoors: What gives Guv? Is it a law or what?
BYLINE: BOB MOTTRAM, The News Tribune
BODY:
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.