Pages

Five Under Fifteen - October







In tough times, we continue the search for good, inexpensive wines.

Red Diamond
is a Ste. Michelle Wine Estates holding. Laura Sorge serves as the winery’s winemaker. Red Diamond focuses on value wines. As with the previous vintage, the 2008 Merlot offers a lot of enjoyment for the price.

It is an extreme rarity to find a Washington State Malbec for under $20, let alone for $15. Powers Winery made its first varietal Malbec in 2007. The winery’s tasting room is located next to Badger Mountain in Kennewick. Greg Powers serves as winemaker.

McKinley Springs
is located in the Horse Heaven Hills AVA. Doug Rowell serves as winemaker; Rob Andrews is the grower. In addition to their own wines, fruit from McKinley Springs vineyards make in to numerous other wineries in the state, including vineyard-designated bottles. McKinley Springs has over 2,000 acres planted to more than twenty different varietals. The Bombing Range Red is a tribute to World War II troops who used the Horse Heaven Hills area for a fighter pilot training ground.

Whitestone Winery
is located in Wilbur, Washington along Route 2. The winery was founded by Walter and Judy Haig in 1992. Nearby Lake Roosevelt was created in the early 1940s by the Grand Coulee Dam. Whitestone’s estate vineyard, Lake Roosevelt Shores Vineyard, was planted by the lake in 1994. Michael Haig serves as winemaker. The winery opened a Spokane tasting room in 2009.

14 Hands
is also under the umbrella of Ste. Michelle Wine Estates and is made in Patterson, Washington. Keith Kenison serves as winemaker. 14 Hands wines have long been standard fare as glass pours at restaurants but have recently made it on to consumer shelves with the ‘Hot to Trot Red Wine.’ The back label reads, “Born from the starkly beautiful hills of Washington State, 14 Hands Hot to Trot red blend is named for the unbridled spirit of the wild horses that once frolicked there. Right out of the gate, this smooth and easy drinking red wine immediately peaks your interest with its enticing ruby color.” Apparently it didn’t pique attention of the proofreaders.

If you have a favorite under $15, leave a comment and I’ll check it out.

Red Diamond Merlot Washington State 2008 $10

Rating: + (Good) A moderately aromatic nose marked by milk chocolate, coffee, cherries, and red fruit. Dry and fruit filled on the palate with silky chocolate flavors. A straightforward, easy drinking wine. 91.6% Merlot, blended with 7% Cabernet Sauvignon and 1.4% Cabernet Franc. Aged in French and American oak for 12 months. 13.5% alcohol. Recommended

McKinley Springs Bombing Range Red Horse Heaven Hills 2007 $14

Rating: + (Good) Burnt coffee aromas on the nose along with light game notes. The palate is round and plush offering up a lot of cherry fruit flavors. Brings a lot more fruit than typically seen in wines at this price point. Finishes quite hot. 55% Cabernet, 32% Syrah, 8% Mourvedre, 3% Petit Verdot, and 1% Malbec. Aged in neutral oak barrels for 18 months. 14.8% alcohol.

Powers Malbec Columbia Valley 2008 $15

Rating: . (Decent) Abundant plum and grape aromas on the nose along with a slight biscuit note. Brings a lot of grapey fruit on the palate but has a perceptible level of sweetness toward the finish. 13.5% alcohol.

Whitestone Winery Pieces of Red Red Wine Columbia Valley v24601 NV $15

Rating: . (Decent) Light in color. Shows lots of wood aromas on the nose, particularly pine, along with red currant, cinnamon, and some alcohol. Palate is a bit thin and lacking on concentration and displays lots of wood flavors. Trails off on the finish. 14.2% alcohol.

14 Hands Hot to Trot Red Blend Washington State 2008 $12
Rating: . (Decent) Raspberry compote on the nose along with abundant sweet fruit aromas. Palate is filled with fruit but has marked sweetness. 13.5% alcohol.

Washington Wine Round-up October 15th to 21st

A round-up of stories on Washington wine from October 15th to 21st. See previous week's round-ups here.

From around the country…


NPR talks about the liquor initiatives.

From the blogosphere…


Drink Nectar announces the wineries for Spokane’s Nectar Tasting Room. Josh also writes about Leavenworth and the 2010 vintage.

The Oregon Wine Blog writes about Tranche Cellars and Seattle’s Black Pearl Restaurant.

Vinotology writes about the liquor initiatives. He also writes about L’Ecole No. 41.

Final Answer - Vote No on Initiatives 1100 & 1105

As I wrote several weeks ago, I am against both Initiative 1100 and 1105. This is due in part to my distaste for the subversion of the initiative process in Washington State. However, after spending countless hours over the past several weeks studying the issues, my position against these initiatives has only been reinforced. Here is what I have learned.

No one supports Washington State having a monopoly on the sale of spirits. Like everyone else, I support privatizing liquor sales but not in this manner and not with all of the add-ons in Initiative 1100.


Support for privatizing liquor sales in Washington State appears to be universal. I have not spoken with a single person believes the state should have a stranglehold on the sale of spirits. This is an indictment on the state legislature for not taking up this matter. The question is whether these initiatives are the method to privatize liquor and whether they are making the right changes. In my opinion, the answer to both of these questions is no (see below for additional thoughts on why). These initiatives are not just about privatizing liquor. They are about a whole lot more.

By and large, no one supports Initiative 1105. Neither do I.


Initiative 1105 was written by out-of-state interest groups in an attempt to preserve their position in the marketplace. As most voters seem to realize this and given that the financial impacts of 1105 could be large, no one I have spoken with supports this initiative. While I do not believe that the initiative being written by an out of state interest is enough reason to vote against it, I do believe that the requirement that spirits be sold through a distributor and the lack of ability to make up lost tax revenue if other initiatives on the ballot pass make Initiative 1105 unsupportable. Vote no.

Wineries, distributors, retailers, and consumers are confused about these initiatives. I cannot support making these types of sweeping, complicated changes through the initiative process when it is so hard for the very people being affected by the changes to understand them and understand the consequences.


There is widespread confusion and misinformation about the content of these initiatives within the industry and beyond. This is because the changes proposed are complicated and are largely hidden from site from voters. One longtime winemaker summed up the thoughts of many, saying, "It is very confusing even to someone who is in the wine business. The problem is there is so much wrapped into each initiative." If people within the industry whose livelihoods will be positively or negatively affected by these changes are struggling to understand the proposed changes, how can consumers be expected to? This confusion makes it impossible for me to support making sweeping changes such as this through an initiative. It needs to go through the legislature.

Many believe that the passage of Initiative 1100 may harm Washington’s numerous small wineries. I agree that it may.


Many people I have spoken with firmly believe that many of the current regulations in Washington have allowed the Washington wine industry to prosper. Additionally, these people believe that the changes in Initiative 1100 would hurt small wineries. While this cannot be stated with complete certainty, it is clear that many of the current rules have allowed the industry to prosper to where it is at present. It is also clear that small wineries (less than 3,000 cases) are the backbone of the Washington wine industry and are part of what has made the industry special. I simply cannot support the types of changes proposed in Initiative 1100 unless there is adequate protections for these wineries (see below). Is this because I am looking to protect the wineries themselves? Partly but also as a consumer these are the places I frequent and buy my wine from. It would be like something happening that might close your favorite restaurant. Doing something to prevent that is not looking out for the restaurant, it's looking out for yourself because you go there.

Many believe the elimination of Cash on Delivery (COD) would be harmful to their businesses. I agree that it would be for some.


Initiative 1100 removes the requirement to pay on delivery, allowing businesses to extend terms. This is not necessarily a bad thing. However, Initiative 1100 provides no protections for wineries or other businesses to make sure that this practice doesn’t harm their business. For example, if a retailer is unable to pay one account, they are still able to buy liquor from other accounts. They could presumably do this until they fail, owing everybody a whole lot of money that they will never get. The consequences of not getting paid in a timely fashion or not ever getting paid could be devastating for small wineries. Put in necessary protections, such as 1) not allowing a company to purchase from one business if they have a delinquent account on another and 2) penalizing late payments and I believe removing COD would be acceptable. How might this affect me as a consumer? I believe removing COD would increase the cost of small production wines, meaning I would either have to pay more for my bottle of wine or look at less expensive, higher production wines as an alternative. Both are bad alternatives for me personally.

Initiative 1100 is revenue negative. The state cannot afford it.


At a time when Washington is already in the midst of a fiscal crisis, Initiative 1100 removes a significant source of revenue. The state would be unable to make any alterations to the initiative for two years to make up lost revenue. Additionally, if other initiatives on the ballot pass, passing any legislation regarding taxation may be difficult. I also expect that there would be a patchwork of taxes at the local level to make up for lost revenue, which I think is confusing for consumers. To those who say, "It's only one day of the state's operating expenses," and the like I say, "That's like shutting down the whole state for a day."

The main purported benefit for consumers is that Initiative 1100 will increase choices and decrease prices. For me, I don't believe that is the case.


Will Initiative 1100 increase choices and decrease prices for me as a consumer? I believe that there will be more spirits choices, which will make no difference to me personally as I don't generally drink spirits. I also believe that it will decrease prices for high volume wines, which are not typically the wines that I buy. I believe however that it may well increase the costs of small production wines, which is the majority of wine that I purchase. I believe that this will occur to make up for the cost of collecting on late bills, eating costs from failed businesses that didn’t pay, paying for promotional expenses, etc. So personally, for the types of liquor products I buy, I expect to be paying a bit more. That’s not very interesting to me. If your drinking habits differ, it might affect you differently.

Other Thoughts

As a citizen, I have no interest in seeing spirits for sale in convenience stores across the state until 2am every day. As a consumer, I don’t purchase or consume much hard liquor and never visit state liquor stores as their selection of wine is abysmal so having more access to spirits doesn’t affect me directly. Both inform my thinking about these initiatives.

I do have concerns that if Initiative 1100 fails that the state will never privatize liquor sales and make other necessary changes to the liquor laws. But here’s the catch. They might be more inclined to if we put sufficient pressure on them. Outside of people in the industry, how many citizens out there have contacted the legislature about this issue? Personally, I’ll be voting no on Initiatives 1100 and 1105 and contacting my legislators to encourage them to privatize liquor sales. Will it work? Who knows but it's better than holding your nose and voting yes on these initiatives in my opinion.

This is my last post on this subject. Thanks for following these posts over the last several weeks. I respect that there are many diverging viewpoints and appreciate all who have shared their thoughts and opinions. No matter which way you go, please remember to vote!

Back to our regularly scheduled program (a collective sigh of relief).

Looking across the three tiers on Initiative 1100 - Part II: Distributors & Retailers

This is the second of two posts detailing the thoughts of individuals in each of the three tiers on Initiative 1100 and how they believe it might affect their businesses and consumers. Here, I look at how the changes might affect distributors, retailers, and restaurants giving representative quotes from each group. Read part I here.

The Distributors


The quotes below represent thoughts from small to mid-sized distributors. While I attempted to solicit opinions from some of the state’s larger distributors, I did not receive a response. Note that I also did not receive any 'for' responses for Initiative 1100, which is not to say that they don’t exist within this sector.

Small to mid-sized distributors are likely to feel the squeeze if Initiative 1100 passes, as large retailers like Costco would be able to go around them to distribute liquor. Some people I spoke with saw Initiative 1100 as a direct threat to their business. Others felt that it would simply change their business. All thought that the distribution system overall would survive because it is necessary. Many felt that there would be significant consolidation of small to mid-sized players. There were varying thoughts about what the effect might be on consumers.

One small distributor I spoke with, who preferred to remain anonymous, is against Initiative 1100. He expressed particular concern about eliminating Cash on Delivery (COD) and allowing volume discounting. He says, “I cannot offer either and can’t compete on that level with those that do.” He said that he has had several retailers tell him that if he cannot offer volume discounts if 1100 passes, they will go directly to the winery to try to receive these discounts. He expects that this would effectively put him and his employees out of business.

Lisa Wareham, CEO Ledbetter Distributing which focuses on craft beer (she is also co-owner of Waterville Wine Company), is against Initiative 1100. She says, “It is hard enough to fight for shelf space that is ‘owned’ by the larger distributors already. They choose what products go in those coolers just as much as the storeowner does. It’s not legal but it happens. My products are constantly moved to lower shelves and such my fear is it will only get worse.”

Peter Dow, President of Cavatappi, is also against Initiative 1100. He believes issuing credit to retailers will increase the cost of business and that this cost will subsequently be passed on to consumers.

Michael de Maar, President of Vinum, is also against 1100. He believes that there should be reform of the industry but that the changes should be driven through the legislature. De Maar believes that several of the provisions in Initiative 1100 will limit the variety of wines consumers see. De Maar says, “It (1100) will probably make the wine environment much more generic. You’re going to see the same wines everywhere. We’re already seeing situations where the buyers at some places have limited or no personal discretion. The local buyer has increasingly limited ability to do anything other than that which is mandated corporately.”

De Maar also has concerns about the effects of removing COD. He says, “Talking to a distributor in the California market, their biggest account has one hundred fifty day terms. He doesn’t have a choice. If he doesn’t do it he’ll lose them. Small to mid sized players in the game can’t do that.” De Maar noted that other states that do not require COD have protections written into the laws if retailers don’t pay distributors promptly, such as not allowing the retailer to continue to purchase from other distributors. No such language exists in Initiative 1100.

The Retailers


The landscape for retailers would change dramatically. They would be able to sell spirits (assuming they obtained the proper licenses) and they would be able to ask for promotional material, volume discounts, and credit.

Here, I quote at length two Washington retailers who sent their customers position pieces on these initiatives (both quoted by permission). One is against Initiative 1100; one is for.

West Seattle Wine Cellars
is against Initiatives 1100. In a message to their customers, proprietors Tom DiStefano and Jan Martindale write, “We believe that the passage of (Initiatives 1100 or 1105) would severely and negatively impact small wineries and wine retailers in the state.” They continue, “Our concern is not about whether or not to allow liquor to be sold in grocery stores and we have no way of knowing what the broader implications might be on state revenue. What worries us, and many small winemakers throughout the state, is the radical deregulation that is included in these two initiatives. Both are geared towards the success of massive companies whose business model is based on deep discounts, designed to drive small competitors out of business. The consumer might benefit if it means lower costs, but favoring mass-market production and sales would eliminate choice in the marketplace.” They finish by saying, “small wine shops like ours foresee being unable to survive if we are no longer able to buy wine at the same price as places like Costco and Wal-Mart (sponsors of I-1100). The concentration of distribution would greatly reduce the number of wines available to us.”

Doug Charles of Compass Wines in Anacortes supports Initiative 1100. In a message to his customers he writes, “By offering bulk discounts to larger retail concerns with centralized warehousing, large brands with the ability to provide steep volume discounts will be the primary focus as ‘discount’ brands, removing them from the ‘premium’ brand category. Those consumers who specifically target inexpensive wine at these large box stores will find fewer selections there at cheaper prices, but they will not find as great a selection of premium brands as before. Those looking for premium brands will be forced to shop elsewhere to find the wines that they are accustomed to purchasing. Other retailers are less apt to carry the discount brands as they will no longer be competitive on these labels, and will broaden their selection of other wines to remain competitive as a whole. This will provide greater selection to the consumer in these outlets.”

Charles continues, “Perhaps the most compelling argument is that quality products will always be in demand. Wine is a product that is not driven specifically by price. As bulk pricing, centralized warehousing, and joint advertising were implemented in California years ago, we have yet to see any negative impact on small, boutique wineries. As long as the product is of high enough quality to demand respect by consumers, there will be a market for it. As the laws are now written, we are under no obligation to buy small wineries products, but choose to do so due to quality, diversification and to separate us from other retailers regardless of price. I-1100 will not change this practice at all.”

The Restaurants

Restaurants stand to be significantly affected in Initiative 1100 passes. At present, they must purchase spirits from the state. This would no longer be the case. Additionally, they would be able to negotiate volume discounts, promotional items, and credit terms. Those I spoke with supported Initiative 1100. This is not to say that there are not those who are opposed.

Jake Kosseff, Company Wine Director of Wild Ginger and The Triple Door, is for Initiative 1100. Kosseff says, “The state does a horrible job of selling liquor. We (restaurants buying wholesale) pay some of the highest prices in the country, the state doesn't deliver (we have to hire another company to deliver the liquor for us), and the selection and supply are beyond poor. The state has no motivation to improve because they have no competitors. Letting suppliers sell us liquor would improve prices, service, and selection. The same would be true of letting independent stores sell liquor to consumers.”

Kosseff also believes that restrictions in the way alcohol is sold should be removed. “It is absolutely a given in any other business that a customer can negotiate with a supplier, and there is no reason why this shouldn't be the case in wine, beer and spirits. This would be good for suppliers at all levels including small producers,” he says.

Kosseff does have one concern however. “The one legitimate concern with 1100 is that it allows retailers to purchase wine, beer and spirits on credit. This could harm some small wineries and brewers who count on the cash flow of COD purchases. However, 1100 doesn't require anyone to sell on credit, and good wineries and breweries will still be able to sell wine and beer however they like. This is no different from selling to a distributor, which has always been done with credit. Credit will also allow restaurants and retailers to buy more, which will be good for the small guys in the long run.”

Chad Mackay, President and COO of Mackay Restaurants (El Gaucho, Waterfront Seafood Grill, Inn at El Gaucho) is also for 1100. Mackay says, “The current rules are setup for the benefit of the incumbents. Competition in a diverse market place has room for many more startups and choices than we have now.” Mackay says it's time to "get rid on the monopolies imposed by the three tier system."

Tomorrow, my final thoughts on Initiatives 1100 and 1105. Read previous posts on both initiatives here.

Looking across the three tiers at Initiative 1100 Part I: The Wineries

Reminder: October's Virtual Tasting takes place tonight at 7pm Pacific Time. Read about how to participate here.

Initiatives 1100 and 1105 propose broad changes to how wineries, distributors, and retailers would do business. This is the first of two posts detailing the thoughts of individuals in each of the three tiers on what those changes might look like for their businesses and how they think consumers would be affected. In each case, I have tried to give representative opinions from those I received.

Let me start by saying that no one I have spoken with - from wineries to distributors to retailers to consumers - believes that the state should continue to have a monopoly on the sale of spirits. The question is whether these initiatives are the way to make the necessary changes to privatize liquor sales given the numerous other changes included in these initiatives. I should also add that no one I have spoken with supports Initiative 1105. I will therefore focus exclusively on Initiative 1100.

The Wineries


The Washington wine industry has flourished over the past ten years, increasing from about 150 wineries in 2000 to almost 700 in 2010. Will the changes proposed in Initiative 1100 accelerate this growth, retard it, or have no effect? This question is not just important to winery owners and their employees. Wine is big business in Washington State with a 4.7 billion dollar economic impact. I have listed below some of the issues raised by winery owners who are for and against Initiative 1100.

Regulation vs. Deregulation


Much of the debate around Initiatives 1100 and 1105 centers around whether many of the current liquor regulations (price setting, prohibiting volume discounting, Charge on Delivery, etc) should be maintained or the system should be widely deregulated. Some feel the current regulations help small wineries compete; others feel these regulations are a hindrance to wineries large and small.

For 1100 Against 1100
John Caudill of Overbluff Cellars says, “I support a free market regardless of any perceived protections I may be afforded by an ‘imaginary level playing field.’ There is no such thing. May the strongest survive.”
Martin Clubb, President of the Washington Wine Institute and co-owner of L’Ecole No. 41, says, “To have laws that help little guys get started, get positioned, and get the opportunity to place their products on the shelves without having to pay their way, take credit terms, and give quantity discounts, is a good thing for our wine businesses. It’s obviously worked because those are the rules we have played under. It’s helped create a level playing field for small wineries.”

Cash on Delivery (COD)

Initiative 1100 would eliminate the provision that retailers and restaurants pay on delivery for alcohol. This would allow – and some wineries feel would require – them to extend credit. This and the lack of written protections for non-payment is a particular concern for many small wineries due to the effect on cash flow. Others feel this change would provide greater flexibility that would help them increase sales.

For 1100 Against 1100
John Bell of Willis Hall Wines thinks eliminating COD and other changes proposed in Initiative 1100 will be beneficial for his winery. He says, “I will be able to extend credit on sales to retailers if I want to. I will be able to offer volume discounts if I want to. I will be able to share advertising expenses for functions if I want to. None of these things will be mandatory, and coercion by retailers already is unlawful under existing consumer laws and anti-competition laws.” Lloyd and Anne Anderson of Walter Dacon Wines write, “Cash flow is king for a small business and having to wait thirty, sixty, or ninety days to get paid could be devastating. Not to mention the fact that some retail licensees could go out of business in this interim period and not pay us at all.”

Paying for Placements & Promotions

Initiative 1100 would remove restrictions that prevent retailers from charging for shelf placement and from receiving promotional items. Some feel that these changes would put small wineries that are not able to ‘pay to play’ at a competitive disadvantage; others feel that it would allow them to innovate and compete.

For 1100 Against 1100
John Morgan of Lost River Winery believes that the changes regarding promotion would help his winery. He says, “Passage of I-1100 would dramatically increase my ability to innovate particularly as regards co-promotions with my customers and particularly low cost or no cost co-promotions.”

Javier Alfonso of Pomum Cellars says, “Grocery stores will be allowed to bargain for shelf placements. Large grocery corporations will now have an incentive to cater to the highest bidder. The result will be that only the larger, better financed producers will be represented on premium shelves.”

Consumer Choice & Cost

The biggest argument for 1100 from a consumer perspective is that it will increase consumer choices and lower costs. Some wineries think this will happen; some think that 1100 may actually decrease wine choices in larger stores and increase prices for small production wines due to the costs associated with extending credit.


For 1100

Against 1100

One winery owner, who wished to remain anonymous, believes that 1100 will lead to increased selection that will ultimately benefit his winery. He says, “I already buy my alcohol at specialty stores because usually the grocery stores don’t carry what I want. Now I expect I will be able to choose from twenty different Armagnacs rather than the two cheap Armagnacs I usually find at a state store. So where do I buy my Armagnac? On-line from California. I think that will change and now I can give my Armagnac patronage to a local store. I predict that this will occur for beer and wine as well.” Javier Alfonso of Pomum Cellars says that current liquor laws allow retailers to support small producers. He says, “Everyday grocery shops such as QFC, Top Foods or even Fred Meyer have a great local small producer selection… This is so because the grocery upper management can’t legally benefit from the selections made by the local stewards. That would change under 1100 where deals will be made at the corporate level between large companies.”

Final Thoughts

Wineries for Initiative 1100 believe that it will either be positive for their business or that at least won’t have a negative effect. Wineries against 1100 believe that the effect will be negative and also that the initiative process is the wrong way to make the necessary changes.


For 1100

Against 1100

One anonymous winery owner says, “I’ve heard a lot of predictions around this, some of them very disaster-specific. As far as I am concerned, that’s all speculation. We won’t truly know what happened until it has occurred. In general, as a small winery, I think business will proceed as usual for me. I like to think that if 1100 passes I will have more flexibility, hence more opportunities as a winery owner. I do know that it certainly won’t put me out of business.” Denise Slattery and Steve Michener of Trio Vintners write, “We both took more time to examine this initiative than any other we've ever voted on. At first, as consumers, we were in favor of it. Getting the state out of the price gouging, I mean liquor, business is a great idea. But as we dug deeper and saw the repercussions on our business we became opposed to it. Mostly it is a classic case of a flawed initiative, written by lobbyists for the benefit of their clients. When we lived in California we saw pseudo-populist initiatives like this one ruin the state.”


Next up, Part II - the positions of distributors and retailers. See my position on these initiatives here. See other informational posts on these initiatives here.

And, yes, I want to be done with these initiatives as much if not more than you do but...

Washington wineries and their positions on Initiatives 1100 & 1105

Reminder: October's Virtual Tasting takes place on Wednesday the 27th at 7pm Pacific Time. Read about how to participate here.

As promised, below is a list of wineries and their positions on Initiatives 1100 and 1105. Several readers indicated that they felt this information might be helpful in thinking about their own position.

First, let me say a word about how this information was collected. The list below represents both wineries that contacted me based on my blog, Twitter, and Facebook solicitations and wineries that responded to an email asking their positions.

In terms of wineries that were contacted via email, while I had originally hoped to contact all 700 or so wineries in the state, I quickly found collating the contact information to be impractical. Instead, I focused on wineries in the following locations: Chelan, Seattle, Spokane, Walla Walla Valley, Woodinville, and Yakima Valley. This was done for the sole reason that it provided the easiest way to contact the largest number of wineries as quickly as possible. In all cases, I used the regional association listings (which some wineries are not part of) to obtain the contact information. In total, I contacted approximately 150 wineries; Washington has approximately 700 wineries total.

Please note that
the information below does not represent in any fashion a statistical sampling of Washington wineries and their positions. The positions of other wineries cannot be extrapolated from this list. Rather, this is just a list of wineries that responded to my solicitations and their stated positions - nothing more and nothing less.

Many winery representatives responded that they were not willing to share their positions publicly. Reasons most frequently cited were concern about alienating customers and divisions within the winery about the initiatives. Many also expressed frustration with Washington’s initiative process.

I would like to thank the wineries below for sharing their positions. If you represent a winery and wish to share your position, feel free to leave a comment below. The table is arranged from Yes (For) to No (Against) in alphabetical order.

Next up on this subject, thoughts from people across the three tiers. See previous posts on these initiatives here.

No.

Winery

1100

1105

1

Fielding Hills

Yes

No

2

Gramercy Cellars

Yes

No

3

Lodmell

Yes

No

4

Lost River

Yes

No

5

Overbluff Cellars

Yes

No

6

Red Sky

Yes

No

7

Tero Estates

Yes

No

8

Tsillan Cellars

Yes

No

9

Willis Hall

Yes

No

10

Wilridge

Yes

No

11

Barrage

Undecided

No

12

428 Wines

No

No

13

Adams Bench

No

No

14

Airfield Estates

No

No

15

Barrister

No

No

16

Buty

No

No

17

Cadence

No

No

18

Cougar Crest

No

No

19

Darby

No

No

20

DesVoigne

No

No

21

Eleven

No

No

22

Hestia

No

No

23

Hinzerling

No

No

24

Hollywood Hill Vineyards

No

No

25

J. Bookwalter Winery

No

No

26

Kyra

No

No

27

Latah Creek

No

No

28

Laurelhurst Cellars

No

No

29

L’Ecole No. 41

No

No

30

McCrea

No

No

31

Nefarious

No

No

32

Nodland

No

No

33

Pomum

No

Neutral

34

Robison Ranch

No

No

35

Salida

No

No

36

Sleeping Dog Wines

No

No

37

Stomani Cellars

No

No

38

Syncline Wine Cellars

No

No

39

Thurston Wolfe Winery

No

No

40

Trio Vintners

No

No

41

Trust Cellars

No

No

42

Upland

No

No

43

Walter Dacon

No

Neutral

44

Waterville

No

No

45

William Church

No

No


Totals

Yes = 10

No = 34

Undecided = 1

Yes = 0

No = 43

Neutral = 2