New England fishermen unite at SCOTUS to protect industry from environmental bureaucrats

Fishermen Fight to⁤ Save America’s Oldest Industry from Environmental Bureaucrats

New England fishermen are taking⁤ their battle to ​the Supreme Court, hoping for a victory that will determine‍ the fate of ‌America’s oldest industry. In two cases before the ⁢court, fishermen argue that it is unconstitutional to be forced to pay government officials to join their fishing expeditions. The Commerce Department’s​ National ⁣Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) mandates the ⁣presence of a human monitor on all fishing trips, costing fishermen⁢ a hefty $780 a day.

Jerry Leeman, a seasoned Maine fisherman, expressed ​his frustration, stating, “I can’t even afford sometimes to pay my crew $780 a day, but we’re paying monitors.” Leeman also ​criticized the lack of training for these monitors, who are often fresh out ⁣of college with only a few weeks ​of online training. He recounted a ‌harrowing experience during a ‍storm⁣ when he feared having to rescue a panicked crew member ⁤from a sinking vessel.

Concerns Over Inexperienced​ Monitors

Leeman’s concerns are shared‌ by other fishermen, such as Rob Odlin from Skyborough, Maine. Odlin recalled a disturbing incident when a monitor stored a dead bird ⁢in the same freezer as their personal food during ⁣the bird flu outbreak. ⁣He exclaimed, “I was like, what are you doing? Get that away from my steak. That’s not the proper place to store that.”

The monitoring program, initiated​ under ⁤President Donald ⁣Trump in 2020, aimed to ensure environmental ⁣regulations ‍were followed by placing monitors on 50% of herring fishing trips. However, due to a lack​ of funding, the program was halted in April 2023. Fishermen fear that if they lose the case, their industry will suffer, leading to⁤ increased reliance ⁣on imported seafood.

Over 70 to 85 percent of seafood consumed in the⁢ United ‌States is imported, according ​to NOAA. Leeman emphasized the irony of ‍strict regulations imposed on New England fishermen while consumers unknowingly support nations with lax regulations. He stated, “We’re getting killed for the sake of going green, but⁣ nobody else is.”

Frustration with⁢ Overregulation

John Borden,​ a fisherman​ from Rye, New Hampshire, expressed his frustration with the current state of the fishing industry. He lamented the need for permission to work and the burdensome process‍ of logging onto a computer and paying for services. Borden, who has been fishing since he was 14, criticized the ⁢regulators’ ​lack of firsthand experience, saying, ‍”You can’t​ learn ‍that out of a book.”

The fishermen argue that they are‍ the best ‌stewards of their industry and have a vested interest in its⁢ sustainability. They want ‌to ensure that future generations can enjoy the same ⁤abundance of fish. Leeman passionately stated, “No one wants to kill the last fish… what was given to⁣ us should be given to the next generation.”

While critics worry about the potential consequences of the fishermen’s case on federal agencies’ control over‍ industries, the ‌Supreme Court justices appear divided. Some express skepticism over the current doctrine, while others hesitate to overturn it, according to‌ Reuters.

⁢How does the ​presence⁣ of inexperienced monitors⁢ in the fishing industry pose a threat to the sustainability of the industry?

U outbreak. “It was unsanitary and put our‍ health at risk,” he said. “These monitors are supposed to ensure that ‍we are following regulations, but if they can’t even take care of their own food storage, how can ‍we trust them to ensure ‍the safety of our catch?”

The issue ⁣of inexperienced‍ monitors is not isolated ‍to Maine. Fishermen across New England have reported instances of ⁤monitors lacking basic knowledge‌ of fishing practices and regulations.⁣ This not only creates frustration but also poses a threat to the‍ sustainability of the​ industry. Inaccurate enforcement of ⁤regulations can lead to overfishing or the unintentional‌ capture​ of endangered species, both of which have ⁢severe consequences for the environment and the livelihoods ‍of fishermen.

Unconstitutional Mandate​?

The fishermen’s argument that the presence of monitors is unconstitutional centers around​ the Fifth Amendment, which states that no person ​shall “be deprived of life, liberty,⁢ or property without due process of law.”‍ They argue that being forced to pay for the presence of a monitor, ​who acts as a ‍government official, is a violation of their ⁣rights.

Additionally, the fishermen contend that⁤ the cost of these monitors is burdensome and‌ disproportionate to the alleged benefits. Many fishermen already struggle to make a⁤ living‍ due to declining fish stocks and⁤ tight regulations. The additional financial burden of paying for a monitor further hampers their ability to sustain themselves and their ⁤businesses.

The ⁤Supreme⁣ Court’s ruling on these cases will ‍have ⁢far-reaching implications for the​ fishing industry and ⁢the broader debate surrounding the role of ‌government agencies in regulating natural resources. If the fishermen are successful, ⁣it ⁤could set a precedent for other industries⁣ facing‌ similar regulatory challenges.

Environmental ⁢groups and government officials argue that ⁤the presence of monitors is​ necessary to ensure compliance ‍with fishing regulations and protect marine ecosystems. They maintain that the high cost of ⁢monitors reflects the importance of their⁣ role and ⁣the need‌ for thorough monitoring ⁣to safeguard the environment.

Both‍ sides of the argument recognize the need for balance. While fishermen acknowledge the importance of responsible fishing practices, they believe that there must be a more reasonable and efficient way to enforce regulations without burdening an already struggling industry. They ⁤propose alternative solutions, such​ as‌ utilizing technology and remote monitoring⁤ systems,⁣ which would ‍be more ⁤cost-effective and less intrusive.

For now, fishermen across New ‍England await the Supreme Court’s decision, hoping for a victory‌ that ‌will preserve their ‍way ⁣of life ‍and protect the future​ of ‍America’s oldest industry. The ⁢outcome of these cases will undoubtedly shape the relationship between fishermen,​ environmental ​bureaucrats, ​and the regulations that govern our ‌natural resources⁣ for ⁢years‌ to⁣ come.

*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases