Stewardship of the Ocean, Our Coasts, and the Great Lakes

[Rik]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-off ... reat-lakes" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I am going out on a limb here and hoping that y'all can keep this in context. I know I heavy hand the 'no politics' rule sometimes but this is directly affects fishing and other recreational pursuits on the water. There will be no posts allowed that slam the originator of this executive order or the party in which that person resides (or, for that matter, the other party). Please, please, please deal with the topic only.

I urge all of you to read this and further search out information. While the intent is laudable, I have big concerns about the actual practice. Rules are rules, it is how they are enforced that becomes a problem and this one has, IMO, some serious potential problems. As you read it, consider what could be done under this order. There's no telling what will or will not be done as the only thing made public is the intent.

Again, please make this a topical and narrow discussion.

[Greygator]

Thank you very much for bringing this to our attentiion. With my first read through of this document, I found it very broad and all incompossing in content, context, and implementation. It seems to me that it puts a tremendous amount of power and leverage to the Federal government and at the same time creates another tier of bureacracy.

[justabucup]

Sec 2 policy (v) support sustainable, safe, secure, and productive access to, and uses of the ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes;

Very broad when a council deems that going out fishing has been seen to be dangerous. Alaskan crab fishing comes to mind let alone someone going out in a peice of plastic.

Sec 3 Definitions a) "Final Recommendations" means the Final Recommendations of the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force that shall be made publicly available and for which a notice of public availability shall be published in the Federal Register.

Another group of unelected buearacrats.

Sec. 4. Establishment of National Ocean Council. (a) There is hereby established the National Ocean Council (Council).

(b) The Council shall consist of the following:

(i) the Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality and the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, who shall be the Co-Chairs of the Council;
(ii) the Secretaries of State, Defense, the Interior, Agriculture, Health and Human Services, Commerce, Labor, Transportation, Energy, and Homeland Security, the Attorney General, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere (Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Director of National Intelligence, the Director of the National Science Foundation, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff;
(iii) the National Security Advisor and the Assistants to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, Domestic Policy, Energy and Climate Change, and Economic Policy;
(iv) an employee of the Federal Government designated by the Vice President; and
(v) such other officers or employees of the Federal Government as the Co-Chairs of the Council may from time to time designate.

So where is the bi-partismanship?

Sec 1 Purpose social justice

As per the rules established in the beginning of this thread I will not comment

[DaveR]

More bureaucracy. Another Czar. Another nursery for regulation.

[Evan]

Here is a great link that summarizes this Executive Order in plain English, and provides further links to all the involved parties: http://www.whitehouse.gov/administratio ... es/oceans/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Conceptually speaking, I think this sounds like a great plan that is well overdue. As the world continues to "shrink" and resources become more used and less abundant, we need to start planning on a larger scale. It is no longer enough for each locality to have it's own (unconnected) laws, since the potential effects are so far-reaching these days, especially when it comes to environmental issues. I know it's trite, but look at the Deepwater Horizon fiasco - suddenly the laws and resource use patterns in Louisiana affected ALL of us. The same is true for fishing quotas and ocean dumping and water quality standards and all the rest. As the world continues to globalize, so must our strategies to maintain it.

Will this actually be implemented in an expeditious and fair manner? I doubt it, but time will tell.

[Rik]

Will this actually be implemented in an expeditious and fair manner? I doubt it, but time will tell.

That is the big concern. The order sounds good conceptually (except for the new level of bureaucracy) but it is how it will be implemented. As is often said, "the devil is in the details"

[Evan]

On the upside, I think we are getting far more adept at calculating the real economic benefit of healthy ecosystems and the recreational activities they support. As an example, here is an excerpt from the latest Mote Marine newsletter: "Each year, anglers spend an estimated $4.4 billion targeting saltwater fish in Florida, according to the National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation done every five years by the U.S. Census Bureau."

My point is, when you start attaching billion dollar price tags to recreational angling, chances are far better that our interests will be preserved at the national level.

[Chief1600]

The wetland restoration work done by Ducks Unlimited is a good example. They have been able to show an economic benifit to protection and restoration of wetlands which is in excess of developing the resource into something else, or simply allowing it to deteriorate. Some of their work is coordinated across state and national boundaries.