Someone Please Explain This

[george]

I recently got a message from NOAA discussing the potential for reevaluating certain regulations within the Magnuson Stevens Act. The communication specifically mentioned "climate-ready fisheries" and "equity and environmental justice".

I'm trying to understand the concept of "climate-ready fisheries" and how "equity and environmental justice" relates to managing fisheries.

The connection isn't quite clear to me yet.

Here's the release:

NOAA Fisheries Releases Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to Potentially Revise Guidelines for National Standards 4, 8, and 9​

Comments accepted through September 12​

NOAA Fisheries is releasing advance notice of a proposed rule and seeking public comment on the need for potential revisions to the Guidelines for National Standards 4, 8, and 9 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.

Since the National Standards 4, 8, and 9 Guidelines were last revised, a number of fishery management issues—including those related to climate-ready fisheries and equity and environmental justice—suggest a need to revisit the guidelines to ensure they remain appropriate for current U.S. fisheries management.

The intent of the proposed rule is to provide background on some of the specific issues under consideration, seek specific input, and provide a general opportunity for public comment.

Please visit our website for more information or to provide comments.

 

[Roccus7]

Haven't got a clue, but as far as the equity part, something like "If English isn't their native tongue or indigent, relaxed bag limits" immediately popped into my warped brain...

 

[george]

Haven't got a clue, but as far as the equity part, something like "If English isn't their native tongue or indigent, relaxed bag limits" immediately popped into my warped brain...

Warped or not, it may very well be. Let's throw another variable in there.

Can anyone else chime in here? I was counting on Roccus helping me out here.

 

[WhatKnot]

Sorry there is no logical explanation except for WOKE culture, it’s pervasive. All the buzz words are in there.

 

[Roccus7]

Sorry there is no logical explanation except for WOKE culture, it’s pervasive. All the buzz words are in there.

Perfectly, and eloquently stated...

 

[Chinacat]

I don't know what the answer is but is but I don’t think referring to everything not understood as WOKE is the answer

 

[Chinacat]

I don't know what the answer is but I don’t think referring to everything not understood as WOKE is the answer

Hmmm
Major typo by me ?‍
Too late to edit so I corrected in above quote of myself ?

 

[OVERBORED]

Quite simply.......Science and politics have merged to create a scenario where current and future regulations will be based on computer models tainted by special interests.

 

[Roccus7]

I recently got a message from NOAA discussing the potential for reevaluating certain regulations within the Magnuson Stevens Act. The communication specifically mentioned "climate-ready fisheries" and "equity and environmental justice".

I'm trying to understand the concept of "climate-ready fisheries" and how "equity and environmental justice" relates to managing fisheries.

The connection isn't quite clear to me yet.

Here's the release:

NOAA Fisheries Releases Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to Potentially Revise Guidelines for National Standards 4, 8, and 9​

Comments accepted through September 12​

NOAA Fisheries is releasing advance notice of a proposed rule and seeking public comment on the need for potential revisions to the Guidelines for National Standards 4, 8, and 9 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.

Since the National Standards 4, 8, and 9 Guidelines were last revised, a number of fishery management issues—including those related to climate-ready fisheries and equity and environmental justice—suggest a need to revisit the guidelines to ensure they remain appropriate for current U.S. fisheries management.

The intent of the proposed rule is to provide background on some of the specific issues under consideration, seek specific input, and provide a general opportunity for public comment.

Please visit our website for more information or to provide comments.

Well George, I found an explanation on this PC Mumbo Jumbo's primary points from C Witek's blog...

• The public should be afforded meaningful opportunities to participate in the formulation, design and execution of Department programs, policies and activities.
  
• Tribes should, on a government to government basis, be afforded regular and meaningful consultation and collaboration opportunities in the development of policies that have tribal implications.
  
• All populations should share in (and are not excluded from) benefits of Departmental programs, policies or activities affecting human health or the environment.
  
• No population should be affected in a disproportionately high and adverse manner by agency programs, policies or activities affecting human health or the environment.
  
• The department will engage in environmental justice activities in a transparent and accountable manner.

Three of those principles are primarily process issues, but the other two—which provide that all populations should share in, and none should be disproportionately disadvantaged by NOAA Fisheries policy—are relevant to conservation and management.

Having said that, it should be noted that NOAA Fisheries’ jurisdiction is focused almost entirely on federal waters, three or more miles offshore. Outside of managing stocks for long-term abundance, it has little ability to aid those folks forced to fish, if they wish to fish at all, from their neighboring shoreline. Still, the same principles ought to apply on the inshore grounds.

The highlighted last paragraph validates my initial sarcastic comment in that this is just window dressing, NOAA has no authority to do anything to increase inshore fishing access.

Move along folks, there's nothing to see here...