HOW WASHINGTONIANS FEEL ABOUT CLEAN WATER AND
POLLUTION FROM LIVESTOCK AND AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES
In October, 1996, Evans/McDonough Co. Inc, conducted an independent survey of 500
registered Washington voters. The following is a sample of the questions asked and
responses received. All responses are +/- 4.4%.
Natural vegetation buffers adjacent to streams, that reduce water pollution and damage
to fish habitat, should be required on all agricultural lands.
The ballot measure would require ranchers to construct fences on their property to keep
livestock out of streams. It costs up to $2,000 per mile to build a fence and, in some
cases, ranchers may not be able to pay for fencing which wold possibly force some ranchers
out of business. Do you think taxpayers should share the cost of constructing fences, or
should it be the ranchers responsibility alone?
||Ranchers alone 37%
The state and federal government should impose more regulations along streams to
protect water quality.
Livestock should be allowed in streams.
Livestock grazing along streams causes water pollution.
Agricultural practices that remove natural vegetation on lands adjacent to streams
cause water pollution and damage to fish habitat.
Do you feel its more important to protect streams on private land or public land,
or should they be equally protected?
- Women and men support the initiative equally.
- Older voters are more likely to be undecided on initial vote.
- Northern and Eastern Washington voters are the least supportive.
- Younger women are the most supportive and least undecided. Older women are the least
supportive and most undecided.
- With majorities ranging from 57% to 62 percent, voters agree with the stream protection
positions that form the foundation of the initiative.
- A strong majority of voters feel that it is important to protect streams on both public
and private land.