I'm not asking for new laws, just that the existing laws on red snapper quota be applied to oil companies when they kill red snapper in explosive well removals. The Constitution requires "equal treatment under the law" and the fishing regs do not allow game species to be killed by use of explosives. Why are the oil companies getting a pass for explosive well removals when those explosive removals kill thousands of fish whose harvest is tightly regulated because they are in danger at the population level?
If you can crack that nut MG, you will have saved Mary Landrieu and Vitter a lot of phone calls and emails about the subject
This is not a legislative issue, it is an enforcement issue that can and should be handled within the executive branch.
I don't have any Supreme Court Justices on my speed dial, this is involving federal fisheries in most cases. I agree with you though
I'm not proposing changing it, but with 20+ years of hindsight, we can prevent repeating some of the mistakes by limiting restrictions of new laws to those demonstrated to be necessary by sound
science. My point is not that lead should not have been banned in some areas, my point was that the lead ban went far beyond the need that was demonstrated by sound science.
The sound science in the 1980s did not support banning lead in all areas where migratory waterfowl are hunted, but only in areas where it was likely to be ingested by waterfowl: wetlands.
Yes, and now science has shown that even in non-wetlands that birds will in fact pick up lead and die from that. Think about dove fields hunted year in and year out, lead doesn't dissolve its their forever in its same elemental form. All birds are susceptible to that
Banning lead shot in midwestern cornfields was an overreach not supported by the science. Banning the possession of lead shot was also an overreach.
I disagree, midwestern cornfields are an extremely important waterfowl resource, and if lead is there they can and will pick it up. Its more of a common sense thing, and doesn't really need an extensive study to prove that
Thinking the earth was flat was the result of pseudoscience. There should be sound science in place before criminalizing previously enjoyed liberties.
It was the best 'science' they had at the time and we now can look at that and think it was silly because we can prove its not flat. Back then they didn't have the science we have now, because our knowledge is always increasing. Darwin theorized about evolution for many years and actually held out for many years before he came forward for fear of death.
Science needs to demonstrate the necessity of new laws before adding to the list of actions that carry criminal penalties, especially if the regulations are put into place by the executive branch (thus bypassing legislative due process and separation of powers). The call for tighter limits on tripletail, as well as the limit reduction on specks down to 15 in big lake in 2005, are based on unsubstantiated fears and not on sound science. Your approach seems to be:
"Tighten the regs before there is sound science, just in case. If it is a wrong move, it can be fixed later, once the science shows it was an unneeded regulation."
'err on the side of caution'
I actually read this response in a report from the US Fish and Wildlife Service
The Constitutional approach is closer to:
"The legislative branch has empowered the executive branch to implement regulations when shown to be necessary by sound science. Bypassing separation of powers and criminalizing activities without legislative approval requires a scientific burden of proof to be met."I agree.
and I think you should run for Senate and make an amendment regarding our laws governing fish and game regs
The requirement for non-toxic shot should depend on the location (wetlands or not), not on the target species. This is supported by the science. Banning lead shot for shooting blackbirds in the same farm fields where clay pigeons can be shot with lead is silly.
I totall agree, and I commented on this earlier on how silly it is that we can shoot snipe with lead shot in the fields we just finished shooting ducks with steel. Its another 'elephant in the room', and no one wants to address it because it will be a sihtstorm. The day that lead is banned for dove or any upland game hunting or is even proposed for ban is going to be a firestorm (even though science can support it which is what you want right?)
There are two issues here: state vs. fed and science vs. fear. Regardless of whether the state or feds are imposing the regulations, tighter restrictions should not be imposed until they are demonstrated to be necessary by sound science showing likely damage at the population level.
The fear part about our federal government is sad but its true. We shouldn't fear them, they should fear us (Thomas Jefferson?) and that's cool to quote stuff like that but in essence, one can look at the fear of our gov't just this year with the gun and ammo craze. FEAR drove that, FEAR that the gov't was going to take our guns, sad but true (Metallica)
If (and only if) the science shows current harvest levels are unsustainable, then tighter limits should be imposed. Suggesting that the state needs to impose unsupported and draconian limits so the feds don't jump in and do that is silly.