Obama & the Fishermen UPDATED

Via Instapundit, Ed Morrissey explains why the fishermen are mad at Obama:

The White House and Lubchenco want an end to private commercial fishing and have taken steps to eliminate “freelancing,” for lack of a better term. Instead, they want to close the fisheries into “commodities markets” where the government essentially licenses fishermen and then allocates the catch based on a predetermined distribution plan. The “commodities markets” will kill many fishing-based jobs and essentially turn fishermen into government employees, and they’re not happy about it.

It just sounds so…


So Soviet, doesn’t it?

It just doesn’t sound like America, at all. No liberty. No freedom of choice. You can choose to work for the government, as they permit, or not work at all.

And there is a weird lack of joy to it all, don’t you think? No fishing because you love it; because it’s in your family, and your blood and your culture and there’s nothing you’d rather do than captain your own boat and work for yourself.

None of that.

No joy, no independence; just the state.

Obama is a cold guy, and he’s putting a chilling government into place.

Bleak, hopeless change. Cold, too.

Obama Misreads Message of “Live Free or Die

Also watch this

Also writing:
Michelle Malkin
Andrew Malcolm

About Elizabeth Scalia
  • JuliB

    May God have mercy on us all….

  • Doc

    How odd, in the face of all this evidence, that liberals, along with Republican media folk like Michael Medved, go absolutely ape at the mere mention of Obama and socialist in the same sentance. It was like McCain refusing to permit the mention of Jeremiah Wright during the campaign. Some Republicans would rather lose and be deemed “decent” by the corporate media than speak an ugly truth about a Democrat. Of course the only decent Republicans are those who lose gracefully, right? Republicans need some leaders with a little fire in the belly.

  • saveliberty

    Back when there was a Soviet Union, even liberals would point out that the Soviets would say the opposite of what was true. I thought of that when you wrote of the hopelessness and was reminded of the campaign slogan.

  • http://www.noodlingonit.com Kris, in New England

    I don’t see it as hopeless. It becomes clearer everyday that P.BO will be a one-term President. It will take a generation to repair the damage he will inflict on this great nation – and we will survive. We always do.

    It’s just that these dark times keep getting … darker.

  • Katie

    It’s gonna be fun when a former commercial fisherman cleans his clock in 2012.

  • Jeff

    Let’s face it: Obama hates the America we all grew up with. He was a bitter anti-American leftist his entire adult life, and is so now. He can barely conceal his contempt for the traditions and history of our country.

    Remember in November…

  • c matt

    Boy, talk about your dangerous catch – too bad we can’t just throw the O fish back.

  • Libby

    It’s this under-the-radar type stuff that really concerns me. We’re so caught up in the big controversies – the mosque, Shirley Sherrod, HRC, Cambridge police, is Obama muslim? – that these smaller, yet significant, changes made by unelected bureaucrats are destroying industries and people’s way of life.
    How long will it take to undo all of these bureaucratic changes? How permanent is the damage?

  • Rich

    Will starving peasants be put in prison for poaching deer, um, fish from the king’s holdings? Sounds like time for a modern Robin Hood to take from the ruling class.

  • archangel

    And we’re about to put the government in its place. :)

  • Shooter1001

    The price the gov’t pays for fish will be determined by Comrade Commodities Czar. The fish will be distributed by Comrade Commodities Czar. The ‘people’ will benefit with the monetary difference.
    When the cost to fish exceeds any possible gain for the fisherman, the fishermen will stop fishing. The gov’t will confiscate their unused boats and hire the fishermen who will take the boats out, get drunk, dump most of the fuel and return saying there were no fish today.

  • Timon

    Article 2 Section 1 of the Constitution grants the executive office authority to regulate and license fisheries. Further, the first amendment gives him the right to publish these regulations in the manner he deems fit, and the second guarantees his right to enforce acquiescence.

    Why all this sound and fury?

    [Gee, it sort of comes down to the "yes, the feds have a right to this jurisdiction," but SHOULD they do this? Hmmmm....where else do we hear that, lately? I suggest that they should not. If you don't see where common liberty as we understand it in America is impacted by decisions like this, then I can't help you. -admin]

  • Jeff

    Article 2 Section 1 says nothing of the kind.

  • baleen

    Guess this makes Sarah Palin, who owns a limited entry permit to fish for Alaska salmon, a commie?

  • http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/07/liberal-v-conservative.html Zachriel

    The Anchoress: It just doesn’t sound like America, at all. No liberty. No freedom of choice.

    Stop! Think! Try to be just a bit skeptical.

    The fishermen don’t own the fisheries. They are a shared resource, even more so than forests, which are also protected by law and treaty.

    World fisheries are collapsing. For there to continue to be fisheries and fishmen, and food for a growing population, will require careful management of these shared resources.

  • archangel

    Federal authority only extends to boundaries within FEDERAL WATERS. This boils down to whether or not STATE Coasts fall under FEDERAL jurisdiction.

    Too many people from all sides of the political spectrum are ignoring that document… the CONSTITUTION. This hits directly at the issue of WHY soooooo many states are up-in-arms over federal encroachment. This is why ObamaCare is the line-in-the-sand for many. The STATES are independent entities… PERIOD. THEY created this nation. THEY wanted to form a “more perfect union”. THEY did abrogate their status as FREE STATES.

    In so far as STATE law does not go counter to individual rights GUARANTEED (not created) by the Constitution, STATES are superior to FEDERAL. This is why the states have essentially taken the FEDERAL gov’t to court over the continual use of non-funded mandates. This is why many states are rejecting FEDERAL money… because the strings attached make the state simply a vassel-state and ward of the Federal Gov’t.

    I’m tired of the “woe-is-us” mentality. The socialist mindset of the liberal can no longer be tolerated. They need to be electorally purged and its going to happen. The states that don’t will end up EXACTLY like California… a failed state; not unlike GREECE. The chasm is widening and the battlelines are becoming more and more apparent. The liberal-left started this BS in the late 60′s with their own violent protests and disregard for the law.

    We will FINISH it through the RULE of LAW. We are right, they are wrong. The PEOPLE whom they have rejected and continue to demonize are still the cornerstone of this REPUBLIC.

    It starts in NOVEMBER.

  • dry valleys


  • archangel

    Sorry- major misprint: meant to type

    The STATES did NOT abrogate their status as free states.

  • archangel

    SCREAMING at the ignorance! :)

  • Gail F

    Is this why they were trying to take over all the waterways? I don’t know what ever happened with that, all the game organizations were protesting.

    It sounds like what the Obama administration wanted to do with cap and trade — make a limited number of licenses to produce carbon available for businesses to buy and trade. Talk about massive job loss. Hmm, does a commercial fishery also produce carbon?

  • Timon

    The depletion of the fisheries is a real problem. I joked about the constitution but there may be treaties which give the Feds authority to guard against depletion. On inspection, the Fisheries Act of 1995 gives NOAA authority to license fishing on the high seas, as the implementation of a 1993 UN treaty: to wit;

    “It is the purpose of this Act-
    to implement the Agreement to Promote Compliance with International Conservation and Management Measures by Fishing Vessels on the High Seas, adopted by the Conference of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations on November 24, 1993; and
    to establish a system of permitting, reporting, and regulation for vessels of the United States fishing on the high seas.”

    This may be connected to NAFO (northwest atlantic fisheries organization) to which, according to wikipedia, the US joined in 1995.

    So I guess there is authority. Yet, as the Anchoress pointed out to my joke, there is still the question of appropriate action. From the Boston Globe article, it seems the fear is that smaller companies will be driven out of business by a market system that favors corporations. But of course, such corporate power structures are necessary in any communist country, in order to maintain the desired control, as Lubchenco says.

    So we have both the reds and the rich, so why the sound and the fury (j/k)?

  • archangel

    “High Seas” = International Waters

    That would be the “Deadliest Catch” types. Being in “international waters” obviously falls under the pervue of the Federal gov’t. The question becomes fuzzier when its dealing with rivers and lakes not included within the Federal Park system inside the individual states. As I said in the previous post, the question is also regarding coastal regions of the coast facing states.

    The Feds also have jurisdiction regarding international trade. So, I would think the fisheries that export are already regulated on the federal level. The fight comes when the feds want to regulate local fisheries within a state.

  • archangel

    And not one “CAP” used. :)

  • archangel

    Sorry one more major point…

    Its not necessarily just the licensing issue. Its the predetermined allocation of the specific catches. Again, messing with market economics in a blatant attempt to nationalize another American industry.

    I said it beforem and I’ll say it again…
    BHO would be an American Hugo Chavez if he thought he could get away with it. He is a fascist in the truest sense of the word. He and his cronies in Congress no longer hide their desires. They would nationalize every segment of the economy if given the chance. They were given that chance in 2008 and look what they have wrought. They are the Jacobins of our age. Disdainful of faith because they are their own gods.

  • Pingback: He’s Like a One-Man Job-Disposal System. | Little Miss Attila

  • Bill

    This is a complicated issue. Problems with the depletion of fisheries, and division of what is left, has been going on for decades. There have been many attempts at solutions. This is not an issue that just came up.

  • Jeff

    The point here is that BO is trying to end private commercial fishing. That has no precedent of which I’m aware. Will the Deadliest Catch crews start working for Obama soon, and will he tell them the maximum number of crab they can catch?

    BO is really starting to smell at this point.

  • Bill

    The real point should be to spend a few hours or days (or more) finding out about the issue.

  • Jeff

    Yea well I think the fishermen have done their homework. It’s their ox that’s getting gored.

  • Fred

    This is not an example of Socialism in my opinion, it’s much more like Fascism: Big Business controlled by Big Government, in ways so complex no citizen understands what’s going on.

  • thesixthmoon

    Still waiting for an explanation of how Article 2, Section 1 of the Consitution authorizes the executive office to regulate fisheries. It does not say that, or anything close to that.

  • dry valleys

    Britain prepares for mackerel war

    (Worth noting that these industries are very heavily subsidised & the worth of these subsidies is questionable at the very best).

    You can look at the Marine Stewardship Council website- if for no other reason to see what you’ll be left with when everything else is wiped out.

    They tell me there’s a fish called tilapia which is a great survivor because it can be farmed with relative ease & eats a vegetarian diet, so no fish meal is called for. I’ve eaten some, it doesn’t taste of much but it goes well with strong spices for that very reason.

    [I find tilapia to be rather tasteless. Salmon, that's nice -admin]

  • dry valleys

    It is supposed to be tasteless in its own right, & to taste like whatever spice it is served with!

    There are apparently wild salmon fisheries in US waters in the Pacific that are sustainable. They also, of course, taste much better than the farmed ones. They are probably a bit more expensive but the true cost is lower.

  • Jeff

    Michelle Malkin has a great new post on this. Wonder if Obama will be able to tear himself away from “buying shrimp” to answer a question on this on his 6th vacation. Maybe he can even break out the teleprompter if necessary.

  • Joe

    I am not defending the President here, but the idea of selling tradeable fishing rights is the RIGHT way to deal with ocean fishing. We need more free market environmentalism, not less.

    The problem is the tragedy of the commons, an unowned resourse like fishing will be depleted to economic extinction if left unchecked. There are more fisherman than fish and the economics make it more profitable to fish as much and as quickly as possible before the resource runs out.

    You can deal with it by regulation of fishing or selling property rights in the fish.

    Regulation is when, say Alaska, has those derby crab seasons that last until the quota is filled (determined by state and federal biologists and fishery experts). That is inefficent and also tends to put fishermen in harms way to fish regardless of weather and conditions.

    Tradable rights are distributed initially to all fishermen. A single right is probably not sufficient to make a living on (because there are too many fishermen for not enough fish) but you can sell it to others so they can amass a quota they can fish. Again the state sets the quota for the year (because even healthy stocks can fluctuate widely year to year). You can fish a wider window.

  • Jeff

    The new caps from the Obama administration will reduce one fisherman’s annual revenue from 360,000 to 90,000. This will prevent him from running his business as it has been built up over the years, and basically force him to close up shop. There are plenty of fish out there. “Overfishing” is just another “the sky is falling” scare tactic from environmentalist whackos on the left.

  • Pingback: New England fishermen flotilla protests off Obama’s Martha’s Vineyard over more fed regulations « BUNKERVILLE | God, Guns and Guts Comrades!

  • http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/07/liberal-v-conservative.html Zachriel

    Jeff: There are plenty of fish out there. “Overfishing” is just another “the sky is falling” scare tactic from environmentalist whackos on the left.

    That is simply incorrect. Sustainable practices have to be implemented on an international basis. Once fisheries collapse, it could take generations for them to return to health. And that’s assuming the environment is protected from further degradation and exploitation.

  • dry valleys
  • MikeNos

    Timon says “The depletion of the fisheries is a real problem.” He is right to an extent, but the stocks are rebuilding while the allocations for fishermen are being cut back every year. There are enough fish to allow the fishermen to take more, and thus survive. It is all a shell game. See:


  • http://www.bunkerville.wordpress.com Bunkerville

    This is only the beginning. First the oil workers, now fishermen, next farmers: EPA to crack down on farm dust. They already are after the Amish farmers with fines.

  • Jeff

    I’m about as worried about “overfishing” as I am about global warming.

  • http://runswithangels.wordpress.com/ Bender’s Cheerleader

    [I find tilapia to be rather tasteless. Salmon, that's nice -admin]

    Salmon is indeed very yummy, but you apparently haven’t had Tilapia cooked properly. Mine is delish!:)

    There now, isn’t that a cheery comment?

  • Timon

    This is a bit late, but:

    thesixthmoon: I must have been thinking of section 4.

    I was just kidding. My next post corrected it by finding one of the treaties which gave the Feds responsibility for licensing in high seas fishing. Archangel pointed out that this obviously doesn’t apply to those waters in state boundaries. I had trouble finding anything specific on the new regulation or legislation, other than the stated intention to use a few large businesses to maintain a tighter control of the market.

  • Pingback: Barack Obama’s plan to nationalize the fishing industry | KimPriestap