3 ms·

So this is like requiring hunters to wear GPS tags so the game wardens can locate and interview them more efficiently. Half the country will think this is a goo

So this is like requiring hunters to wear GPS tags so the game wardens can locate and interview them more efficiently. Half the country will think this is a good idea.

doodlebugging 4y ago
Most hunters likely already have their GPS location monitored anyway if they are carrying cell phones into the field. It is not too much of a stretch to see an edge case where one or more of them could become interesting enough to game wardens to find themselves under investigation. The vast majority of people though have no reason to worry about their government wanting or needing to know where they are at any hour. It doesn't follow though that they will not be tracked 24 hours a day using tools and devices that they make a conscious decision to purchase, thus enabling this tracking, in real time, and facilitating their discovery should the mean old government ever decide that they are worth spending some of the investigations budget to study.
- wrycoder 4y ago
  We are discussing what is coming, not what is now: a requirement to track.
  - doodlebugging 4y ago
    This libertarian leaning publication fails to emphasize the reason behind the tracking, fisheries management, since that might shine enough light on the situation that some of their more 'reason'able readers may end up understanding and offering some support to this data collection. The federal agencies involved have, as part of their responsibility, the task of managing the health of our nation's fisheries which, believe it or not, requires them to have the data about where the fish are being harvested in order to understand how healthy the population of sport and food species actually are in our federal waters. Maybe it would make more sense to subsidize the equipment that would be necessary to gather the data. We subsidize some land crops, charter boats could become like marine combines. The devices could be tracked without needing to know who owns the boat since the important information is the location where all the fish hang out and how many there are. Catch size and species distribution is already a reportable metric I believe. Any fisherman worth his salt probably wants to be able to live the fishing lifestyle forever. If their activities contribute to the collapse of local fisheries because they were reluctant to accurately report which species are in their area of operations, how often they are taken, where they are taken, etc then they have no one to blame but themselves when their livelihoods are destroyed. No one cares who takes the fish. They want to know which fish was taken, where it was taken, how many were taken there, how large they are, etc. This allows people to understand how best to manage fisheries. These are public waters and they are taking a public resource. They have no privacy expectations and shouldn't get a pass with a bullshit excuse about their secret fishing spots being leaked to the competition since that will happen anyway as their hired help jumps from boat to boat trying to make a decent living on what looks on paper to be shit wages for the work they perform. It's good to ponder how something like this can become a slippery slope but you have to avoid sliding down the existing slippery slope that where we don't have actionable information to use to prevent problems (in the fisheries) before they occur. The entire article was about using location and other information gleaned from those who are regularly in the best position to know and who have a vested interest in the information being accurate to enable them to continue in their chosen profession. The publisher made a conscious editorial decision to tilt the tone of the article towards this being a huge invasion of privacy rights for people who by the nature of their profession should not be not entitled to those protections during the conduct of their operations since their activities occur entirely in public.
    - eesmith 4y ago
      > Maybe it would make more sense to subsidize the equipment that would be necessary to gather the data. I believe it is subsidized. Or more precisely, from https://media.fisheries.noaa.gov/2021-11/06-102-Revision_signed.pdf https://media.fisheries.noaa.gov/2021-11/06-102-Revision_sig... : ] OLE currently manages a grant that provides relief to fishermen for their initial VMS equipment purchases through cost reimbursement. This grant, and any reimbursement under it, is subject to available funding. That doesn't mean it's actually funded though. > These are public waters and they are taking a public resource. Even more directly, this only concerns the "owner or operator of a charter vessel or headboat for which a charter vessel/headboat permit for Gulf reef fish has been issued" (emphasis mine). https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-50/chapter-VI/part-622/subpart-B/section-622.26 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-50/chapter-VI/part-622/su... . > The publisher made a conscious editorial decision to tilt the tone of the article towards this being a huge invasion of privacy rights Agreed! They didn't mention that it was only certain types of charter boat (see emphasis above), AND they didn't mention how the decision says that all of this information already had to be reported, with no evidence of people faking their trip records. Hence it cannot be anything about "secret fishing spots".
      - doodlebugging 4y ago
        >That doesn't mean it's actually funded though. This is very true. Funds must be allocated from the federal budget towards the program before there will be any actual subsidy. Both parties use this fact to shift federal dollars towards programs they support. Defunding a program or specific parts of one also makes it impossible for someone to use the program even if it has been legislated into existence.
    - wrycoder 4y ago
      It also helps them plan out their daily boarding and verification activities with a minimum of effort. Governments seem to have an increasing need to know where everyone is, all the time, and what they are doing. There is no problem controlling the fisheries by simply auditing the catch when it's brought ashore. I can see a problem with tuna and other fish being transferred directly to Japanese ships and never brought ashore, though.

So this is like requiring hunters to wear GPS tags so the game wardens can locate and interview them more efficiently. Half the country will think this is a good idea.

doodlebugging 4y ago

Most hunters likely already have their GPS location monitored anyway if they are carrying cell phones into the field. It is not too much of a stretch to see an edge case where one or more of them could become interesting enough to game wardens to find themselves under investigation. The vast majority of people though have no reason to worry about their government wanting or needing to know where they are at any hour. It doesn't follow though that they will not be tracked 24 hours a day using tools and devices that they make a conscious decision to purchase, thus enabling this tracking, in real time, and facilitating their discovery should the mean old government ever decide that they are worth spending some of the investigations budget to study.

wrycoder 4y ago
We are discussing what is coming, not what is now: a requirement to track.
- doodlebugging 4y ago
  This libertarian leaning publication fails to emphasize the reason behind the tracking, fisheries management, since that might shine enough light on the situation that some of their more 'reason'able readers may end up understanding and offering some support to this data collection. The federal agencies involved have, as part of their responsibility, the task of managing the health of our nation's fisheries which, believe it or not, requires them to have the data about where the fish are being harvested in order to understand how healthy the population of sport and food species actually are in our federal waters. Maybe it would make more sense to subsidize the equipment that would be necessary to gather the data. We subsidize some land crops, charter boats could become like marine combines. The devices could be tracked without needing to know who owns the boat since the important information is the location where all the fish hang out and how many there are. Catch size and species distribution is already a reportable metric I believe. Any fisherman worth his salt probably wants to be able to live the fishing lifestyle forever. If their activities contribute to the collapse of local fisheries because they were reluctant to accurately report which species are in their area of operations, how often they are taken, where they are taken, etc then they have no one to blame but themselves when their livelihoods are destroyed. No one cares who takes the fish. They want to know which fish was taken, where it was taken, how many were taken there, how large they are, etc. This allows people to understand how best to manage fisheries. These are public waters and they are taking a public resource. They have no privacy expectations and shouldn't get a pass with a bullshit excuse about their secret fishing spots being leaked to the competition since that will happen anyway as their hired help jumps from boat to boat trying to make a decent living on what looks on paper to be shit wages for the work they perform. It's good to ponder how something like this can become a slippery slope but you have to avoid sliding down the existing slippery slope that where we don't have actionable information to use to prevent problems (in the fisheries) before they occur. The entire article was about using location and other information gleaned from those who are regularly in the best position to know and who have a vested interest in the information being accurate to enable them to continue in their chosen profession. The publisher made a conscious editorial decision to tilt the tone of the article towards this being a huge invasion of privacy rights for people who by the nature of their profession should not be not entitled to those protections during the conduct of their operations since their activities occur entirely in public.
  - eesmith 4y ago
    > Maybe it would make more sense to subsidize the equipment that would be necessary to gather the data. I believe it is subsidized. Or more precisely, from https://media.fisheries.noaa.gov/2021-11/06-102-Revision_signed.pdf https://media.fisheries.noaa.gov/2021-11/06-102-Revision_sig... : ] OLE currently manages a grant that provides relief to fishermen for their initial VMS equipment purchases through cost reimbursement. This grant, and any reimbursement under it, is subject to available funding. That doesn't mean it's actually funded though. > These are public waters and they are taking a public resource. Even more directly, this only concerns the "owner or operator of a charter vessel or headboat for which a charter vessel/headboat permit for Gulf reef fish has been issued" (emphasis mine). https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-50/chapter-VI/part-622/subpart-B/section-622.26 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-50/chapter-VI/part-622/su... . > The publisher made a conscious editorial decision to tilt the tone of the article towards this being a huge invasion of privacy rights Agreed! They didn't mention that it was only certain types of charter boat (see emphasis above), AND they didn't mention how the decision says that all of this information already had to be reported, with no evidence of people faking their trip records. Hence it cannot be anything about "secret fishing spots".
    - doodlebugging 4y ago
      >That doesn't mean it's actually funded though. This is very true. Funds must be allocated from the federal budget towards the program before there will be any actual subsidy. Both parties use this fact to shift federal dollars towards programs they support. Defunding a program or specific parts of one also makes it impossible for someone to use the program even if it has been legislated into existence.
  - wrycoder 4y ago
    It also helps them plan out their daily boarding and verification activities with a minimum of effort. Governments seem to have an increasing need to know where everyone is, all the time, and what they are doing. There is no problem controlling the fisheries by simply auditing the catch when it's brought ashore. I can see a problem with tuna and other fish being transferred directly to Japanese ships and never brought ashore, though.