Obama To Ban Fishing? Not Yet, But… Give the Regulators Time

Is the Obama administration trying to ban sport fishing? Not at this time. Is the Obama administration setting up structures and processes that could, and probably will, eventually result in more regulatory restrictions on sport fishing? You betcha. But, with all due respect to anglers, that’s not the biggest problem with the “Interim Framework For Effective Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning” issued by the Interagency Ocean Policy Taskforce (latest version dated December 9, 2009). Government goes after industry long before it dares to subtly, oh-so-subtly, impose new restrictions on individuals. The framework, which we will now shorthand as “CMSP,” will affect off-shore drilling operations, commercial fishing and commercial shipping first and foremost.

Some conservative bloggers erupted in outrage when the report came to light, saying that – as Gateway Pundit put it – “Obama’s latest assault on your rights – he wants to ban sport fishing.” That was an overreaction, but an understandable one given the aggressive nature of this administration when it comes to environmental issues and the fact that the CMSP report specifically lists “recreational fishing” as an activity that needs to be “better managed” (page two of the report). Perhaps “better managed” translates into “leave them alone,” but one may be forgiven for thinking not.

On the other end of the spectrum, George Soros’ steno pool declared that worries about a sport fishing ban were “absurd,” as though nothing in the CMSP report could possibly have an impact on recreational fishing, even though the report itself kicked that particular door wide open. That is not to say that a ban on recreational fishing is in our immediate future, but it’s terribly naïve to believe that the CMSP framework won’t create the regulatory environment that will result in painful restrictions on the sport in the future. What does it all mean? Sit back, relax and let Dr. Environment break it down for you kids. (OK, so I don’t have an actual PhD, but seeing as how the University of Tennessee is awarding Al Gore an honorary doctorate, I’m sure that my degree just has to be in the mail).

The CMSP framework is another classic, benevolent big-government gambit. It sounds great, appears to encompass everyone’s concerns and the end results of the exhaustive process proposed are supposedly the epitome of noble. Consider a few features of the program:

• The oceans and the Great Lakes would be divided into nine “Regional Planning Areas” stretching from the Western Pacific Ocean to the Caribbean Sea. Using the CSMP process, the task force would establish goals for each Regional Planning Area.

• The task force will develop a strategic action plan based on input from regional regulatory agencies, environmental organizations, citizen groups and industry. Which of these groups do you think will actually shape the strategic action plan? Yeah, me too.

• The scientific community will be involved as well, of course. According to CMSP report: “The regional planning body would consult scientists, technical experts and those with traditional knowledge of or expertise in coastal and marine sciences and other relevant disciplines throughout the process to ensure that CMSP is based on sound science and the best available information.” Might we speculate as to how “scientists, technical experts and those with traditional knowledge of or expertise in coastal and marine sciences” might opine when it comes to environmental issues? If you’re thinking that such scientists and technical experts will tend to support those policies and positions that tend to increase their prestige and funding in deference to environmental extremism, I would be inclined to agree with you.

• Let’s not forget about transparency. The CMSP process is positively dripping with transparency. But, when one is dealing with an inherently complex technical issue like this one, what does that actually mean? It sounds nice in an MSM story, but “transparency” is actually progressive shorthand for “righteous justification” when it comes to imposing more statist controls on the free market. In terms of liberal-speak, “transparency” always makes it transparently obvious that we need more regulation and restrictions because it will have been transparently proven that environmental groups have transparently shown that corporate interests are transparently trying to destroy the planet. Transparently.

As part of the noble effort to protect the oceans and the Great Lakes, the Ocean Policy Taskforce will examine the effects of: commerce and transportation (i.e., shipping), commercial fishing, oil and gas exploration and development, recreational fishing and traditional hunting, fishing and gathering. Is there any real doubt about how, when the day is done, those interests will be protected as opposed to some of the other progressive causes that are listed in the taskforces plan, such as environmental conservation and renewable energy? One would have to be a fool or terribly naïve not to recognize the end game here. We’ve been down this road, many times, before.

But then liberals are much better at biding their time than are conservatives. Don’t hold your breath waiting for anybody in the lazy old media to actually drill down into the issue, but the implications of this initiative are ominous. Obama’s Ocean Policy Taskforce won’t impact recreational fishing today, or even tomorrow, but it will slowly, inevitably, have just that effect as time goes by. More to the point, the task force’s mission will undercut additional segments of the free market in the name of environmental purity. Obama claims to be in favor of offshore oil and gas exploration, for example, even as his Interior Department throws obstacles in the way of the leases needed to accomplish the task. The CMSP process will help this and future progressive administrations create even more road blocks to obstruct energy companies.

The real problem here is the inevitable phenomena of regulatory creep. Nobody sold the Clean Air Act to the American public as something that would increase the cost of automobiles and gasoline, but that’s what happened – eventually. Nobody said that wetlands protection measures would mean that somebody couldn’t develop a new shopping center because muddy tire ruts in a field drained to a ditch that led to a creek that connected with a river that is part of “waters of the United States,” but that’s what happened – eventually. The CMSP process, on paper, is good and noble and wonderful and there’s nothing in it that directly calls for restrictions on sport fishing, but you can take this to the bank: that’s what will happen – eventually.