Case Name: BUGAS ET AL v. APPLING, SAVE OUR SALMON AND STEELHEAD, INC.
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1964-09-01
Citations: 238 Or. 206
Docket Number: 
Parties: BUGAS ET AL v. APPLING, SAVE OUR SALMON AND STEELHEAD, INC.
Judges: Before McAllister, Chief Justice, and Rossman, Perry, O’Connell, Goodwin, Denecke and Lusk, Justices.
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 238
Pages: 206–207

Head Matter:
Argued August 31,
affirmed September 1, 1964
BUGAS ET AL v. APPLING, SAVE OUR SALMON AND STEELHEAD, INC.
394 P. 2d 1023
Wendell Wyatt, Astoria, argued the cause for appellants. With him on the brief were Wyatt, Macdonald & Dean, Astoria.
John J. Tyner, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Robert Y. Thornton, Attorney General, Salem.
George R. Waldum, Portland, argued the cause and filed a brief for intervenor-respondent.
Before McAllister, Chief Justice, and Rossman, Perry, O’Connell, Goodwin, Denecke and Lusk, Justices.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from an order in the circuit court which dismissed a proceeding to enjoin the Secretary of State from certifying a proposed initiative measure for the ballot to be used in the general elections scheduled for November 3, 1964.
The proposed initiative measure would prohibit commercial fishing for certain species in the inland waters of the state of Oregon. Legislation already on the books has, for many years, prohibited commercial fishing for salmon and steelhead in all such waters except those of the lower Columbia River and Tillamook Bay. The proposed measure would repeal the existing statute (ORS 511.055) and substitute therefor a statute proscribing all commercial fishing for salmon and steelhead in all inland waters of the state.
The plaintiffs in this ease urge virtually the same objections to the proposed initiative measure as were urged in Schnell et al v. Appling, 238 Or 202, 395 P2d 113 (1964), decided this day. Despite certain formal differences in the question presented, there is no distinction in substance between the two cases. It is not necessary to print as a part of an initiative petition the text of a statute to be repealed by the proposed measure.
Affirmed.