NOAA

NOAA Fishery Regulations Relentless, Vindictive, Overzealous, Not Based on Science, Says Massachusetts Democrat

Regulation? Not in their backyard

|

not quite john kerry's yacht
scottmccracken/foter.com

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is facing backlash from new regulations lowering by 77 percent the allowable catch for New England groundfish, resulting in a federal lawsuit filed by the state's Attorney General Martha Coakley, who lost to Republican Scott Brown in the 2010 special election for Senate. At a press conference yesterday, Coakley and other Democrats articulated their opposition to the new regulations. Via South Coast Today:

Coakley and others repeatedly referred to NOAA in harsh terms such as "relentless," "vindictive" and "overzealous."

She said the new quota cutbacks are "essentially a death penalty for the fishing industry as we know it. NOAA totally ignored the impact."

The lawsuit contends that the new quotas, which took effect May 1, violate the Magnuson-Stevens Act which governs fisheries management.

First, the suit says NOAA fisheries failed to seek the maximum sustainable yield on various species of fish as required by law.

Second, the suit charges that NOAA failed to use adequate science in making its decisions.

Third, Coakley said that NOAA failed to consider the effects of the new rules on fishing communities and their economies.

Anti-growth regulations? Not in their back yard.

NEXT: Louisiana Senate Passes Bills Meant to Rein In New Orleans Firefighters Pension

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Coakley and others repeatedly referred to NOAA in harsh terms such as “relentless,” “vindictive” and “overzealous.”

    Also heavily armed.

    1. You mean like an octopus? Or the Kochtopus?

  2. You don’t understand! Lowering supply raises the price! This benefits producers! If production of everything across the board was cut, then prices would rise for everything! We’d all be rich! Scarcity creates wealth!

    1. So Hugo Chavez was actually a financial genius when he orchestrated the first post-Soviet toilet paper shortage?

    2. A scarcity of ! would be appreciated.

  3. Coakley and other Democrats articulated their opposition to the new regulations

    hahaha. That’s rich.

  4. Third, Coakley said that NOAA failed to consider the effects of the new rules on fishing communities and their economies.

    Tragedy of the commons. While NOAA may be overly restrictive, I imagine that most of the fishing communities would be happy to fish the stocks into oblivion. Is it NOAA’s mandate to consider the effects on local economies or are they only mandated to preserve the fish populations?

    1. I’d also expect some impact on the local economies once the stocks have been fished into oblivion.

  5. So I take it catch share programs are used in this fishery.

    1. Not used. Damn edit button.

  6. Privatizing the fishery and selling rights off should prove far trickier than iron fisted regulations, but is the only rational way to allocate those resources.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.