Obama Administration Won't Explain Specifics of National Ocean Policy

The House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans, and Insular Affairs is trying to find what’s really going on with the administration’s National Ocean Policy (NOP).

And --- big surprise! --- the administration is being less than transparent.

In case you haven’t been paying attention, the NOP is a plan created by Executive Order to “zone” uses of the oceans, coastal waters, and Great Lakes. Intentionally vague language allows for the zoning to extend inland as well. In other words, the feds will tell us where we can and cannot fish.

Earlier this week, the administration released its final plan for implementation of the NOP, prompting the subcommittee to convene an oversight hearing.

At that hearing, our elected representatives learned little from the Obama-appointed bureaucrats, including Nancy Sutley, chair of the Council on Environmental Quality. For example, after being pressed to name who from CEQ or other agencies was involved in the development and implementation of the plan, she refused to specify one person or staff member who has contributed to this effort.

I can’t name specific people who developed the plan, but I can tell you unequivocally they belong to preservationist environmental groups that are not allies of recreational fishing.  They are the same crowd that pushes for “marine protected areas,” where no sport fishing is allowed, and they will use the NOP to create them wherever they can.

Following the hearing, Rep. Doc Hastings of Washington, chair of the Natural Resources Committee, sent a letter to Sutley and John Holdren, co-chair of Sutley of the National Ocean Council.

“Over the past two years, the Obama Administration has repeatedly limited public transparency and frustrated attempts to obtain information about the cost, legal authority, activities, and staffing involved with developing and implementing regional ocean zoning plans and other parts of the National Ocean Policy,” Hastings said.

 “Ms. Sutley’s testimony before the Subcommittee did little to provide clarity or allay concerns about the funding sources, regulatory impact, mandatory nature, and role of States, local governments, Tribes, and interested groups in implementing the National Ocean Policy. This is unacceptable, especially now that the final plan has been released.”

Here’s some background from the Natural Resources Committee:

 On July 19, 2010, President Obama signed Executive Order 13547 to adopt the final recommendations of the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force to implement a new National Ocean Policy, which includes a mandatory Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning initiative to “zone” the oceans. In this unilateral action, he established a top-down, Washington, D.C.–based approval process that will hinder rather than promote ocean and inland activities and cost American jobs.

The final implementation plan raises more questions than answers and provides even less information on what the Obama Administration will impose under the guise of a National Ocean Policy and the impending regional management plans.

Due to concerns about the impact of the National Ocean Policy on economic and recreational activities in ocean, coastal, and inland environments, the House of Representatives in both the 112th and 113th Congresses passed amendments by bipartisan votes to halt funding for President Obama’s National Ocean Policy. The Natural Resources Committee has held multiple hearings and sent a series of letters to the National Ocean Council to conduct oversight and get answers to the many questions surrounding this policy. 

Congressman Warns About Threat Posed by National Ocean Policy

 

Since 2009, I have been warning about the threat to recreational fishing posed by this Administration’s National Ocean Policy (NOP). I began on the now defunct ESPN Outdoors website and have continued to sound the alarm as the Activist Angler.

In fact, this attempted Big Government takeover of our waterways --- not just the oceans, but inland as well --- is what prompted this website, after ESPN bowed to political pressures and declined to support me and what I had written.

This leads me to a recent opinion piece written by Rep. Richard Norman “Doc” Hastings, chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee.

He begins this way:

“In the famous poem ‘Paul Revere’s Ride,’ Revere instructs his fellow patriots to use lanterns to signal whether there’s an attack coming by land or sea. While we may no longer have to fear the British, Americans should be warned of a new threat coming by sea in the form of President Obama’s National Ocean Policy and ocean zoning initiative.

“President Obama is using the ocean as his latest regulatory weapon to impose new bureaucratic restrictions on nearly every sector of our economy. While marketed as a common sense plan for the development and protection of our oceans, it is instead being used to create a massive new bureaucracy that would harm our economy.”

And here’s an excerpt:

“Imposing mandatory ocean zoning could place huge portions of our oceans and coasts off-limits, seriously curtailing recreational activities, commercial fishing, and all types of energy development – including renewable energy such as offshore wind farms.

“What’s even more alarming is that the impact of this Executive Order is not limited to just our oceans. It establishes regional planning bodies with the authority to regulate as far inland as necessary. All rivers eventually drain into the ocean, which gives this policy the justification it needs to reach far inland.

“For example, the Gulf of Mexico Regional Planning Body will make decisions to regulate activities throughout the entire Mississippi River watershed if those activities have the potential to affect the Gulf of Mexico. This means a policy billed as protecting our oceans will have the ability to regulate inland activities that occur as far north as Minnesota. If farmers and ranchers thought having the EPA in their backyard was bad, wait until the National Ocean Council comes sailing upstream for a visit too.”

Read the complete article here.

Thanks to Rep. Hastings for recognizing this threat and sounding the alarm. Many still do not know about the NOP or, if they do, refuse to acknowledge that it poses a danger to the future of fishing.

I assure you that the threat is real. Please, tell your representatives and senators to oppose the National Ocean Policy, and, if you or they want more information, do a search on this site. There’s plenty here.

Go here for Congressional contact information.

'Management by Politics' Threatens Recreational Fishing

Do you know a fisheries biologist? If not, almost certainly you know someone who does. That’s because we as anglers share the water with these trained professionals who want what we want --- healthy fisheries.

For decades, our fish and wildlife management system has been the envy of the world. Decisions are based on science, not politics, with financing provided directly by anglers and hunters through license fees and excise taxes.

States have led the way in implementing and maintaining this successful North American conservation model, in which fish and wildlife are managed as public and sustainable resources.

The National Ocean Policy (NOP) could change all of that.

If it is allowed to proceed unchecked, management by science for conservation will be replaced by management by politics for implementation of a preservationist ideology.

Instead of decisions regarding our fisheries being made by state wildlife commissions and professional biologists, they will be made by nameless bureaucrats who know little to nothing about aquatic life and aquatic systems.

Here’s a breakdown of how that massive, top-down management system will work, as explained by Rep. Doc Hastings, chair of the House Natural Resources Committee:

“The increased bureaucracy created by the Executive Order is astonishing: a new 27-­member National Ocean Council (NOC); an 18-member Governance Coordinating Committee; 10 National Policies; 9 Regional Planning Bodies --- each involving as many as 27 Federal agencies as well as states and tribes; 9 National Priority Objectives; 9 Strategic Action Plans; 7 National Goals for Coastal Marine Spatial Planning; and 12 Guiding Principles for Coastal Marine Spatial Planning.

“In addition, the draft National Ocean Plan Implementation Plan lists more than 100 outcomes, actions, and milestones for federal agencies to comply with beginning in 2011 and 2012.”

Using Executive Order 13547 and notably without approval from Congress, President Obama created the NOC and the NOP in 2010. Ostensibly, they set in motion a system for “marine spatial planning” of our oceans, coastal areas, and the Great Lakes. In other words, a massive bureaucracy will tell us where we can and cannot fish in these waters, just as it will regulate other activities, including drilling and aquaculture.

Recreational fishing advocates warn that this juggernaut likely will do nationally what implementation of the Marine Life Protection Act has done in California, take away public fisheries not all at once, but piecemeal. “Death by a thousand cuts,” in other words.

And if you live 500 or even 1,000 miles from the coast or the Great Lakes and think that this power grab won’t affect you, you’re wrong. Language in the NOP leaves the door open for federal bureaucrats to move as far inland as they deem necessary to better protect the oceans, coastal areas, and Great Lakes.

Also, while the NOP pretends to “solicit stakeholder involvement,” guidelines clearly reveal that the feds will have the final say.

Most recently, this administration denied a request for more than 75 days of public comment regarding the NOP.  

“Given the high economic stakes, the vast amounts of new red-tape set to be unrolled, and the fact that some 15 agencies spent over two years devising this scheme, it’s unreasonable that the Obama Administration won’t allow the American people more than just 75 days to review and comment on it,” Hastings said.

Consequently, Hastings and others in Congress are fighting back.

The Natural Resources Committee recently sent a letter to members of the House Appropriations Committee, asking that it “please consider including language in each appropriations bill to specifically prohibit the use of funds for implementation of the National Ocean Policy.”

Rep. John Fleming added that he will continue to oppose the policy because existing laws already manage fisheries “and we don’t need a costly, massive, new, job-destroying layer of bureaucracy to centralize more power in Washington.”

At least one state is opposing the NOP as well. A concurrent resolution was introduced into the South Carolina Legislature “to oppose and refuse to recognize or enforce the coastal and marine spatial plans created in South Carolina pursuant to the authority of the National Ocean Council.”

Will other states follow? I hope so, just as I hope that there will be court challenges to the NOP under the 10^th Amendment, which says that powers not specifically granted to the federal government are reserved to the states or the people.

What would work best to stop the NOP, though, is an outpouring of opposition from anglers all across the country to their senators and representatives. The future of recreational fishing in this country will be guided by what we choose to do, or not do, at this critical moment.

Go here to contact your federal representatives and senators. 

(This opinion piece appeared originally in B.A.S.S. Times, a B.A.S.S. publication. BT is a monthly must-read for anglers who care about conservation and environmental issues related to fishing.

(And speaking of must-reads, have you checked out my book, Better Bass Fishing? Please do. It's available on this site, as well as at Amazon and other booksellers.)

New York Times Dishonest in Support of Catch Shares, National Ocean Policy

Photo from Asbury Park Press

Big surprise. The New York Times (NYT) supports Catch Shares and the National Ocean Policy and believes “House Republicans do not much care about” fish and oceans.

The NYT makes that accusation because Republicans have led the campaign to deny funding for these Big-Government schemes that would limit access and tell us where we can and cannot fish.

But hey, NYT, Democrats also supported the amendment to limit Catch Shares. Among the more notable: Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts, Rep. Frank Pallone of New Jersey, and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy of New York.

 Do they not care either?

 Of course, the NYT is entitled to its opinion. But supporting that opinion with half-truths, inaccuracies, and intentional omissions is dishonest.

It also says that “most commercial fishermen” support Catch Shares, which privatizes a public resource by allotting “shares” of a fish stock to individuals. If the newspaper said “some” or even “many,” I wouldn’t argue. But “most” simply is not true.

Catch Shares is an extremely controversial issue among commercial fishermen and recreational anglers alike. Those who oppose it believe that it will limit participation, while doing little to conserve fisheries. On the commercial side, a few big operators eventually would dominate, much as has happened with agriculture. And when applied to recreational fisheries, Catch Shares would deny growth to that sector by freezing its "share."

And here’s the part that I like best from this dishonest appraisal:

“Also caught in this anti-regulation slipstream was President Obama’s National Ocean Policy, a White House effort to address ocean-related issues, ranging from municipal water pollution to wetlands preservation, that are now spread over 20 agencies operating under more than 140 laws. Republicans saw this blameless attempt to coordinate policy as a threat to jobs and pet programs, and voted to prohibit the use of federal dollars to carry it out.”

Did you note use of the word “blameless,” implying noble intentions on the part of the Obama Administration? And how about the lie that the policy simply is intended to “coordinate policy”?

In fact, the National Ocean Policy establishes a huge bureaucracy that would decide what we can do where on public waters. It’s not about coordinating; it’s about control.

And here is how it would be done:

A 27-member National Ocean Council, an 18-member Governance Coordinating Committee, and 9 Regional Planning Bodies, each involving as many as 27 federal agencies, as well as states and tribes.

In this structure, nameless regulators would set 8 National Priority Objectives, 9 Strategic Action Plans, 7 National Goals for Coastal Marine Spatial Planning, and 12 Guiding Principles for Coastal Marine Spatial Planning.

Those who oppose Catch Shares and the National Ocean Policy, both Republicans and Democrats, do care about fish and oceans. They just don’t want them micro-managed by preservationist environmental groups using the Obama Administration as their surrogate.

House Strikes Again to Stop Big Government Assault Against Recreational Fishing

Shortly after passing an amendment to limit funding for Catch Shares (See “House Votes Against Catch Shares Expansion” below.) the U.S. House of Representatives also used a bipartisan vote of 246-174 for another amendment to halt funding of President Obama’s National Ocean Policy (NOP).

The National Ocean Council would use the NOP to “zone” uses of the nation’s waters, starting with the oceans. In effect, federal bureaucrats would tell us where we can and cannot fish.

“The National Ocean Policy creates a new layer of federal bureaucracy that has the potential to make major changes to the way inland, ocean and coastal activities are managed,” said Rep. Doc Hastings of Washington, chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee.

“Mandatory ocean zoning has already proven to be an excuse for the Administration to block economic activity. Without knowing the potential jobs and economic ramifications of the Policy, nor the amount of time, money and resources it will cost to implement, it is imperative that we halt funding so that these questions can be answered and proper Congressional oversight can be conducted.”

*     *     *

This may be the first presidential election in history where the rights of coastal fishermen enter the national debate --- Jim Donofrio, RFA

*     *      *

Rep. Bill Flores of Texas said this:

“The National Ocean Policy was formed without congressional authority and would be run by unaccountable and unelected Washington bureaucrats. These proposed policy guidelines and processes have the potential to change the permitting criteria and requirements for a large number of economic sectors, including tourism, agriculture, manufacturing, maritime shipping, traditional fuels and renewable energy development, mining and power production.

“It is imperative that we first understand the effects this policy will have on jobs as well as the vast coastal and inland economies, which collectively impact almost 80 percent of our entire country. I was pleased to see the passage of my amendment preventing the funding for the National Ocean Policy, which had the potential to take funds away from existing congressionally authorized activities critical to the ocean and coastal economies.”

And Jim Donofrio, executive director of the Recreational Fishing Alliance, added, “This is not about Democrats or Republicans. It’s about protecting the rights and heritage of our coastal residents.

"RFA has had numerous meetings with high-ranking members of Congress about these policies, including House Speaker (John) Boehner who himself is a fishermen and understands what we're dealing with right now at NOAA Fisheries and within the White House CEQ. This may be the first presidential election in history where the rights of coastal fishermen enter the national debate."