• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

House Republicans Vote To Gut Lauded Law That Saved America’s Fisheries

JacksinPA

JacksinPA

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 3, 2017
Messages
26,290
Reaction score
16,771
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/magnuson-stevens-fishing-don-young_us_5b4628d9e4b07aea754696d7

Meanwhile, the Trump administration is eyeing whether to open marine national monuments to commercial fishing.

House Republicans on Wednesday voted to weaken a much-praised 1976 law that helped revive the commercial fishing industry in the United States and bring its fisheries back from the brink of collapse.

The bill, introduced by Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska), would remove annual catch limits on numerous fish species and roll back requirements for recovering overfished stocks. Many scientists, fishers and ocean advocacy groups say that will likely result in overfishing.
=========================================================
There goes the environment which was never one of Trump's priorities.
 
JacksinPA said:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/magnuson-stevens-fishing-don-young_us_5b4628d9e4b07aea754696d7

Meanwhile, the Trump administration is eyeing whether to open marine national monuments to commercial fishing.

House Republicans on Wednesday voted to weaken a much-praised 1976 law that helped revive the commercial fishing industry in the United States and bring its fisheries back from the brink of collapse.

The bill, introduced by Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska), would remove annual catch limits on numerous fish species and roll back requirements for recovering overfished stocks. Many scientists, fishers and ocean advocacy groups say that will likely result in overfishing.
=========================================================
There goes the environment which was never one of Trump's priorities.
Click to expand...

If you look at fish as a crop, when the crop matures you harvest it. After a few years if it shows signs of over fishing you cut back again. Everything does not have to be “all or nothing”.
 
Look at it this way. Prices should drop... then suddenly go way the hell up when the reason for the 1976 legislation is realized.
 
JacksinPA said:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/magnuson-stevens-fishing-don-young_us_5b4628d9e4b07aea754696d7

Meanwhile, the Trump administration is eyeing whether to open marine national monuments to commercial fishing.

House Republicans on Wednesday voted to weaken a much-praised 1976 law that helped revive the commercial fishing industry in the United States and bring its fisheries back from the brink of collapse.

The bill, introduced by Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska), would remove annual catch limits on numerous fish species and roll back requirements for recovering overfished stocks. Many scientists, fishers and ocean advocacy groups say that will likely result in overfishing.
=========================================================
There goes the environment which was never one of Trump's priorities.
Click to expand...

Wonderful.
Hope to hell the western states have a longer view than the federal government has and will regulate the fishery properly. The commercial fishing industry in the west is carefully managed, and seems to be sustaining, barely. This bill can have only one purpose, to allow over-fishing.
Might be a bad time to live in one of the dozens of small towns and villages on the BC coast that rely on fishing. How can Canada maintain catch limits and species closures while Americans scoop more and more out of the ocean?
 
chuckiechan said:
If you look at fish as a crop, when the crop matures you harvest it. After a few years if it shows signs of over fishing you cut back again. Everything does not have to be “all or nothing”.
Click to expand...

chuckiechan, marine biologist.

Right. Ok.

:roll:






It's something Trump did. So it must be defended.
 
JacksinPA said:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/magnuson-stevens-fishing-don-young_us_5b4628d9e4b07aea754696d7

Meanwhile, the Trump administration is eyeing whether to open marine national monuments to commercial fishing.

House Republicans on Wednesday voted to weaken a much-praised 1976 law that helped revive the commercial fishing industry in the United States and bring its fisheries back from the brink of collapse.

The bill, introduced by Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska), would remove annual catch limits on numerous fish species and roll back requirements for recovering overfished stocks. Many scientists, fishers and ocean advocacy groups say that will likely result in overfishing.
=========================================================
There goes the environment which was never one of Trump's priorities.
Click to expand...

well, we ALL Know how 'conservatives' work; squeeze every ****ing penny of profit out of everything you can squeeze a profit out of, as fast as you can do it.

yep, that's being 'conservative' .............
 
chuckiechan said:
If you look at fish as a crop, when the crop matures you harvest it. After a few years if it shows signs of over fishing you cut back again. Everything does not have to be “all or nothing”.
Click to expand...

So instead of just scaling the quotas under the current law to responsible match the fish population, we should just create a law, delete a law, create a law, delete a law as their numbers go up and down?

Just admit you don't give two flying ****s if our oceans are over fished and species die out, Republican politicians don't seem to.
 
chuckiechan said:
If you look at fish as a crop, when the crop matures you harvest it. After a few years if it shows signs of over fishing you cut back again. Everything does not have to be “all or nothing”.
Click to expand...

While I agree it's possible to sustainably manage populations, it's not that simple. We don't take a cross-section of the food chain (more accurately, a trophic considerate cross section, which would look like a pyramid). Let's say the food chain (web, but for illustration linear) is numbers 1 - 5. 1-phyto, 2-zoo 3-small fish 4-tuna 5-sharks

We target 4. 5 loses food and struggles. It adapts/changes, moves or dies. Those impacts are unfathomable. 3 population explodes. 2 is decimated and 3 follows. 1 explodes in the lack of 2, a canopy could create a dead zone.

So we need to monitor all those populations and we can't be sure when an adapt/change or move will do who knows what. It's playing with fire.

When orca were endangered on the west coast, we couldn't figure out why for a long time. It was kelp. Kelp was needed for sea urchins eaten by sea otters eaten by orca.

Unexpected, even unpredictable, changes in the ecosystem could wipe something out effectively without warning. Then it could crash.
 
JacksinPA said:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/magnuson-stevens-fishing-don-young_us_5b4628d9e4b07aea754696d7

Meanwhile, the Trump administration is eyeing whether to open marine national monuments to commercial fishing.

House Republicans on Wednesday voted to weaken a much-praised 1976 law that helped revive the commercial fishing industry in the United States and bring its fisheries back from the brink of collapse.

The bill, introduced by Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska), would remove annual catch limits on numerous fish species and roll back requirements for recovering overfished stocks. Many scientists, fishers and ocean advocacy groups say that will likely result in overfishing.
=========================================================
There goes the environment which was never one of Trump's priorities.
Click to expand...

This is all part of an effort to bring sanity to environmental policy, which had tilted way too far against human interests.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
So instead of just scaling the quotas under the current law to responsible match the fish population, we should just create a law, delete a law, create a law, delete a law as their numbers go up and down?

Just admit you don't give two flying ****s if our oceans are over fished and species die out, Republican politicians don't seem to.
Click to expand...

At some point over the last few decades, large chunk of the right seems to have adopted the position that having an "environment" is only something sissy liberals care about because, for them, having more regulation is an end in of itself.

(I know. It dosn't make sense).



Any time there has been a thread about Trump's EPA moving to trash regulations against genuinely dangerous pollution, the same crowd shows up to start blathering about "over-regulation" or somesuch.




LowDown said:
This is all part of an effort to bring sanity to environmental policy, which had tilted way too far against human interests.
Click to expand...


Yeah, because LowDown here spends his days reading through the C.M.R. and discussing with marine biologists the best way to avoid permanently destroying various species of fish; after intense study, he's come to the conclusion that the existing law was 'insane'.

Right. Ok.

:lamo




Not one of you has the slightest clue about how to even begin going about the kind of cost/benefit analysis that precedes any such regulation, let alone to judge whether the EPA got it wrong in any particular instance. You don't even know what the cost/benefit says, where it is, or how it functions in agency rule-making.
 
Last edited:
JacksinPA said:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/magnuson-stevens-fishing-don-young_us_5b4628d9e4b07aea754696d7

Meanwhile, the Trump administration is eyeing whether to open marine national monuments to commercial fishing.

House Republicans on Wednesday voted to weaken a much-praised 1976 law that helped revive the commercial fishing industry in the United States and bring its fisheries back from the brink of collapse.

The bill, introduced by Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska), would remove annual catch limits on numerous fish species and roll back requirements for recovering overfished stocks. Many scientists, fishers and ocean advocacy groups say that will likely result in overfishing.
=========================================================
There goes the environment which was never one of Trump's priorities.
Click to expand...

I wonder if Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska) can see Russian from his house?


https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnmc...est-to-be-americas-king-of-crab/#42bcadd31971
 
I think I saw this story in another thread, and core point that the huffington post article left out,
was that the idea in not to remove the regulations, but to return the regulatory authority
to the local governments.
 
longview said:
I think I saw this story in another thread, and core point that the huffington post article left out,
was that the idea in not to remove the regulations, but to return the regulatory authority
to the local governments.
Click to expand...

The local governments are the ones that ****ed it up to begin with and you want to return it to them?

Look here is the thing, fisherman want to fish with max quotas for obvious reasons, to get paid. If they feel they are not able to do that and the control is at the local level, they will elect people that will let them even if it means over fishing and killing off wildlife. The effect of that doesn't just affect the local area, but way more than that. It should be at a federal level to regulate that.
 
JacksinPA said:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/magnuson-stevens-fishing-don-young_us_5b4628d9e4b07aea754696d7

Meanwhile, the Trump administration is eyeing whether to open marine national monuments to commercial fishing.

House Republicans on Wednesday voted to weaken a much-praised 1976 law that helped revive the commercial fishing industry in the United States and bring its fisheries back from the brink of collapse.

The bill, introduced by Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska), would remove annual catch limits on numerous fish species and roll back requirements for recovering overfished stocks. Many scientists, fishers and ocean advocacy groups say that will likely result in overfishing.
=========================================================
There goes the environment which was never one of Trump's priorities.
Click to expand...

Republicans hate fish.
 
cuban smokes said:
well, we ALL Know how 'conservatives' work; squeeze every ****ing penny of profit out of everything you can squeeze a profit out of, as fast as you can do it.

yep, that's being 'conservative' .............
Click to expand...
and pizzz on the little people below you
 
Praxas said:
The local governments are the ones that ****ed it up to begin with and you want to return it to them?

Look here is the thing, fisherman want to fish with max quotas for obvious reasons, to get paid. If they feel they are not able to do that and the control is at the local level, they will elect people that will let them even if it means over fishing and killing off wildlife. The effect of that doesn't just affect the local area, but way more than that. It should be at a federal level to regulate that.
Click to expand...
I take it you have not had much experience with how states regulate fishing.
The reason local control works better, is because national rules are too broad to cover the various fisheries.
A rule for spotted trout may work well Virginia, but actually harm the fishery in Texas.
State authorities understand their own fisheries better than the national authorities do.
 
Mr Person said:
At some point over the last few decades, large chunk of the right seems to have adopted the position that having an "environment" is only something sissy liberals care about because, for them, having more regulation is an end in of itself.

(I know. It dosn't make sense).



Any time there has been a thread about Trump's EPA moving to trash regulations against genuinely dangerous pollution, the same crowd shows up to start blathering about "over-regulation" or somesuch.







Yeah, because LowDown here spends his days reading through the C.M.R. and discussing with marine biologists the best way to avoid permanently destroying various species of fish; after intense study, he's come to the conclusion that the existing law was 'insane'.

Right. Ok.

:lamo




Not one of you has the slightest clue about how to even begin going about the kind of cost/benefit analysis that precedes any such regulation, let alone to judge whether the EPA got it wrong in any particular instance. You don't even know what the cost/benefit says, where it is, or how it functions in agency rule-making.
Click to expand...

How many marine biologists voted for Trump? Nuff said.
 
longview said:
I take it you have not had much experience with how states regulate fishing.
The reason local control works better, is because national rules are too broad to cover the various fisheries.
A rule for spotted trout may work well Virginia, but actually harm the fishery in Texas.
State authorities understand their own fisheries better than the national authorities do.
Click to expand...

Sure I have. Yes, they SHOULD know better, now do they actually do the right thing? No. They bow to corporate interests and it's easier to do at the state level because the locals can vote in those that believe like they do that don't care about killing off species and overfishing.
 
American said:
How many marine biologists voted for Trump? Nuff said.
Click to expand...

How many scientists (i.e. people with both smarts + a graduate-level education) voted for Trump? Very few I'll wager.
 
JacksinPA said:
How many scientists (i.e. people with both smarts + a graduate-level education) voted for Trump? Very few I'll wager.
Click to expand...
People with graduate level education and higher know tons about their particular field; that doesn't necessarily mean they know or understand what's right for the country. And I say that as a holder of two graduate level degrees.
 
JacksinPA said:
How many scientists (i.e. people with both smarts + a graduate-level education + paid for bias) voted for Trump? Very few I'll wager.
Click to expand...

Fixed it for you.
 
longview said:
I take it you have not had much experience with how states regulate fishing.
The reason local control works better, is because national rules are too broad to cover the various fisheries.
A rule for spotted trout may work well Virginia, but actually harm the fishery in Texas.
State authorities understand their own fisheries better than the national authorities do.
Click to expand...

That works well when the specific fisheries do not overlap into other states territory. Having New York regulate a fishery could cause them to allow over fishing that devastates the fisheries for New Jersey
 
Praxas said:
Sure I have. Yes, they SHOULD know better, now do they actually do the right thing? No. They bow to corporate interests and it's easier to do at the state level because the locals can vote in those that believe like they do that don't care about killing off species and overfishing.
Click to expand...
That has not been my experience, I am a big flounder fisherman, and when it became clear over the years that catches were getting smaller.
Texas Parks and wildlife held scooping meetings with the sample numbers, and a plan of how to stabilize the populations.
The size of the new limits and block out periods, went back and forth. The one time the commercial
catch limits were brought up, it was shot down, because the sports fishing market had more value to the state.
We ended up with no commercial flounder fishing, and per person catch limits of two flounder per person during November.
My point is that plenty of consideration goes into local regulations, and the federal regulations tend to lack the resolution
needed for local fishery issues.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom