Reply to Bye-bye Chevron

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Bye-bye Chevron "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]So...on the substance,  the fishermen had no recourse to fight a maritime agency’s interpretation of law, since Chevron required courts to give preference to the government,  and this lead the fishermen to have to bring government overfishing-regulators ON the boats with them AND pay them $700 a day?

Seems like overly budensome regulation to me.

I  work in a highly regulated financial services field where compliance is a constant and important daily consideration,  and even we are not forced to try to operate with regulators underfoot everyday, paying them for the disruption to boot.[/quote]

So I'm a lobbyist for these issues and I support what NMFS is doing. First off, observers are NOT required for every trip a fisherman takes. It is a random draw and the fishermen get a 24-48 HOUR notice. Observer coverage is only on 1% of all fishing trips.

[b]if Congress fully funded the observer coverage program, NMFS would not have to consider some of these "draconian" methods. [/b]folks are cutting off their livelihood long term. The point of the observer coverage program is to minimize fisheries bycatch. Many fish stocks are overfished and not sustainable at the current rate. When folks fish they often catch species that they do have a permit to catch. Fish don't know boundaries and if you catch a fish that's not within your permit, time is ticking to identify the species and get it back in the water. dead fish can't reproduce. several fisheries across the country are a seeing significant decrease in yield for certain species of fish that we LOVE to eat. It is BECAUSE of government regulation that we can still eat red snapper for example. Red snapper is THE PREMIERE fish in the south Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico region. nearly a billion industry and several jobs. Thanks to NMFS stepping in 10 years ago, this fishery survived and jobs were saved. [/quote]

Isn’t that precisely the problem here?  An agency shouldn’t be in the business of “if Congress won’t fund it then we’ll just have do something draconian”, no matter how noble the purpose.  What was meant to be a shield for the admin agencies instituted to protect them from judicial system bias has clearly morphed into a sword to go on the offensive.  This is why the admin agencies can’t have nice things. [/quote]

[b]Congress passed a law and if they want it enforced, they need to fund it.[/b]

The issue here is that if the agency doesn't respond in a draconian way, in 2-3 years, the industry won't be viable anymore because the region will be very fished and the species won't be available for capture and consumption. It is a classic 'cut off your nose to spite your face' scenario.  Way back when, Arthur Treachers used icelandic cod for their fish. The industry overfished and the arthur treacher product declined significantly because it was to expensive to continue to use icelandic cod, so they switched to an inferior species.

Have you hear of Icelandic Cod or Arthur Treachers anymore?

Me neither.[/quote]

You’ve lost the plot. Agencies are not the legislative branch. If Congress isn’t funding something it is not the role of the agencies to step in and create a funding mechanism—or, more accurately, the courts should NOT be giving deference to the agencies just because Congress didn’t fund something.

If Congress wants something funded the CONGRESS will fund it. It is not for the agencies to usurp that role for themselves. And the agencies should receive zero deference when they do. You are literally making the case for killing off Chevron, a doctrine that might have done some good had agencies been willing to check themselves.

It really doesn’t matter how noble your intent is. Every tyrant in history thought their cause was just. Your language alone proves what a mess the regulatory state has become. “We must do something draconian because Congress is refusing to act.”  [/quote]
And what shall we do when Republicans in Congress refuse to govern? What then? What shall we do when their worldview exists in opposition to reality and is also so shortsighted as to guarantee some kind of collapse later? Just whistle? [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics