Ahh I did not know she ended up there! Yes, the crew from that period were all SECORE, and several other initiatives. I think it is likely that new members of the aquatics team are introduced and become involved because the other members of the team are. It doesn't hurt the resume either. All a good thing.
I think that is the double edged sword. They can't preserve everything and they are somewhat hamstrung because if they operate as their charters sate, they spend their money ensuring that they preserve what they do have. Kind of a negative feedback loop. They can't just buy coral and toss it in.
What Hawaii bill?
It’s two separate things at work if that isn’t clear already. Bills are legislative, environmental review is administrative and in this circumstance under court order.
But the review was prompted by the introduction of the bill, right? Like the USDA and the animal welfare act - for decades, “animal” just meant “mammal” - until the USDA was threatened with a lawsuit to make it include birds as well.
No, it wasn’t. This is why I’m point in g these things out as you’re mistaking processes which contributes to overall confusion.
In fact, the environmental activists never could convince the legislature this sustainable fishery should be banned. They’ve been trying every year for almost 20 years. No legislature has ever agreed with them. This is why they turned to the courts where they also lost until it was appealed to the high court which at the time was stacked with fellow environmental activists and that is how they got a BS ruling that kicked off this entire process
The USDA wasn't threatened with a lawsuit. They were in fact sued under the AWA.
This is because a certain ilk of activist and political animal can't ever accept anything fairly arbitrated if it doesn't provide them with the exact answer that THEY want. They are willing to turn anything and everything upside down and trample on anything, anybody, any precedent, any tradition to get what THEY want, dang common sense, law, consensus or logic or what they destroy in the process. You can't compromise or give an inch, because they want it all and use whatever foothold they can get purchase on to take more. Their ends always justify their means even if they can't even articulate what their ends are and are ignorant to the effects of their means.
Again, yes, it works at the federal level. The Lacey Act Amendments two years ago were killed largely because of grassroots efforts by everyday people contacting their legislators. Reaching out to district offices does have an impact. Legislators don't like to upset voters in their districts if they can avoid it.
I don't agree with this for the most part. The "other side" of many issues are rabid ideologues that can't be compromised with and any attempt to do so just cedes ground for the next round. One side, in effect turns the other side into the same thing. You put 10 kids in a room and walk away, one will end up with all of the lunch money all of the time. It is human nature. Resisting the bully does not make you the bully, but compromise usually has you bend the knee while the bully stands on your hand.
