> 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 htt

> 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".