7 ms·

I think fisherman know how to be safe without bureaucrats in DC that have never been in a fishing boat butting in. You just need coast guard for emergencies.

I think fisherman know how to be safe without bureaucrats in DC that have never been in a fishing boat butting in. You just need coast guard for emergencies. They got along just fine before 2018 when this committee was created.

thinkingtoilet 2y ago
Did they? What were the accident rates before and after? Why was the committee created? Do you think the people who axed these committees have an answer to the above questions? Or is it simply "government is bad"?
- theultdev 2y ago
  I look forward to the evaluation by the administration to see if it's needed or it's redundant red tape. There's already OSHA, NIOSH, and NOAA that cover these things, so imo it's probably redundant at the least, harmful and wasteful at the worst.
  - LiquidSky 2y ago
    >I look forward to the evaluation by the administration to see if it's needed or it's redundant red tape. That's kind of the point: they're doing no such thing. All of the talk from Trump, Musk, the now-departed Ramaswamy, etc. hasn't been about sober analysis and careful evaluation, it's endless mockery and dumb jokes ("look at this agency name or person's title, what does that even mean LOL"), or "government bad" as the parent put it. The pushback this gets isn't because people love bureaucracy or hate efficiency but because it's obvious this isn't an actual effort to improve anything, just mindlessly slashing things businesses/the powerful don't like and stunts to make the base clap.
    - theultdev 2y ago
      It just happened. You have no idea what the evaluations were, they haven't been released and you weren't in the discussions. I hope they will be though. From an outsider perspective this committee in particular seems redundant as there are other agencies that handle this scope. If you want to boil it down to "government bad" sure, but I view it more as "over-regulation is bad". Or do you view the government as a well oiled machine that couldn't have any bloat and we should never evaluate and cull feature creep in it?
      - LiquidSky 2y ago
        >You have no idea what the evaluations were Sure we do because, again, the people put in charge of these initiatives spend endless time just making jokes about agency names that they clearly (sometimes explicitly!) have no idea about or mindless promises to cut the government in half. >Or do you view the government as a well oiled machine that couldn't have any bloat and we should never evaluate and cull feature creep in it? Since you missed it the first time I'll copy the part of my comment that addresses exactly this again: >The pushback this gets isn't because people love bureaucracy or hate efficiency but because it's obvious this isn't an actual effort to improve anything, just mindlessly slashing things businesses/the powerful don't like and stunts to make the base clap. The problem is you're assuming good faith when there has been ample demonstration that there isn't any here.
        theultdev 2y ago
        You're assuming good faith of these committees. Comes down to who you trust. I voted in Trump to do this and more, I trust the evaluations were made properly and I support the decision. There's obvious bias in your tone (which is okay, which is why I stated my position) so it makes sense you don't like this move because you don't trust this administration. We're similar in that regard in that I don't trust the government implicitly, which is why I support culling bloat.
        LunaSea 2y ago
        Trust shouldn't even be a factor. Decisions should be made based on facts and numbers and your side (you, Trump and Elon included) have provided none of these. It's pure ideology without basis in objectivity.
        viraptor 2y ago
        If they were made in good faith, then surely we have some documentation for it in order to learn from those original mistakes. Or some way for people to evaluate that choice... It was a transparent decision not some random populist move... Right?...
Kon-Peki 2y ago
“This is unsafe! I quit!” “No problem, as a non-employee you are hereby confined to your cabin except to use the head, and you can eat in the galley but you have to pay for your meals, they cost $100 and will be deducted from your final paycheck. If you have a negative balance when we dock at a port in around 3 months, you must pay immediately or we will send the debt to collections. Have a nice day” Maybe you want to read up on how things work at sea?
- theultdev 2y ago
  That's not what this committee handled, other government programs such as OSHA, NIOSH, and DOL handle that. You don't need a special fishing committee to make sure workers have good working conditions and proper pay. That's universal to any job.
  - electrondood 2y ago
    > ...to make sure workers have good working conditions and proper pay. That's universal to any job. This is wildly untrue. The less skilled your labor, the more exploitative the available jobs are. This is why we have labor regulations, to protect these people.
    - theultdev 2y ago
      Why did you leave all the important parts out of the quote? I already noted that there are agencies that handle labor regulations. You left that out. This committee had nothing to do with labor regulations...
twic 2y ago
DHS merely inherited the Coast Guard's responsibility for the fishing industry. It wasn't just unregulated before 2003!
- theultdev 2y ago
  That's false. The DHS didn't inherit any fishing responsibilities in it's creation. The Coast Guard has and still does work with related agencies (NOAA/NMFS, Fish and Wildlife, EPA, etc.) in this regard. This committee in question didn't even exist before 2018.
dboreham 2y ago
> I think fisherman know how to be safe without bureaucrats in DC that have never been in a fishing boat butting in. There's 1000 years of people killing themselves needlessly that says they don't.
- theultdev 2y ago
  Yes it's commonly known when sailors takeoff, they sing praise of the NCFSAC saving them after a 1000 years of ocean deaths. Other agencies may do the same thing, but the NCFSAC changed the sea game (when created in 2018) Before 2018, sea blood bath.
- ANewFormation 2y ago
  Fishing is dangerous work and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future. What matters are the data which nobody has dug up. Was there a significant reduction in fatalities following this committee's creation? Did it have a significant and likely causal relationship on those declines? And finally - assuming there was a decline d the committee was responsible for it, are they still meaningfully necessary or are the prior established rules sufficient to maintain the improvements moving forward?
mcculley 2y ago
I grew up in the commercial fishing industry and then worked in the tug boat industry. Many USCG regulations that were vehemently opposed by the old men save lives every day. This is a classic Chesterton's Fence. Those who don't understand the origin of the regulations will continue to have strong, uninformed opinions about them. Many crew working on boats have safety gear only because USCG requires it. The owners of those boats would not expend the money without the regulation.
- theultdev 2y ago
  What regulations of this committee do you think saved lives that other agencies did not? The USCG, NMFS, NIOSH, and OSHA regulations are still there. When you were growing up, was it earlier than 2018? This committee didn't exist before then. But yeah, maybe we should add 20 more agencies just to be safe...
  - avs733 2y ago
    This committee doesn’t make regulations they make expert suggestions. This is way off the original topic of course…but you can do a quick search of the federal register they you can see the agenda of meetings and such. A recent one reviewed structural failures that led to boats sinking. Fields learn as new things happen. There’s a reason aerospace industries talk about rules having body counts. Freezing regulations rarely makes work easier or faster, it just makes knowledge sharing worse. There this large assumption across HN that if one doesn’t understand something l, that must meant it doesn’t make sense. It’s a bad way to operate in the world…independently of ideology…lack of understanding is not unique insight.
    - theultdev 2y ago
      I think we'll get by without their "expert suggestions" as we did in 2017 before they existed. It boils down to whether or not this committee was beneficial or not. I have not seen any data backing up that it helped at all since it's inception in 2018.

thinkingtoilet 2y ago

Did they? What were the accident rates before and after? Why was the committee created? Do you think the people who axed these committees have an answer to the above questions? Or is it simply "government is bad"?

theultdev 2y ago
I look forward to the evaluation by the administration to see if it's needed or it's redundant red tape. There's already OSHA, NIOSH, and NOAA that cover these things, so imo it's probably redundant at the least, harmful and wasteful at the worst.
- LiquidSky 2y ago
  >I look forward to the evaluation by the administration to see if it's needed or it's redundant red tape. That's kind of the point: they're doing no such thing. All of the talk from Trump, Musk, the now-departed Ramaswamy, etc. hasn't been about sober analysis and careful evaluation, it's endless mockery and dumb jokes ("look at this agency name or person's title, what does that even mean LOL"), or "government bad" as the parent put it. The pushback this gets isn't because people love bureaucracy or hate efficiency but because it's obvious this isn't an actual effort to improve anything, just mindlessly slashing things businesses/the powerful don't like and stunts to make the base clap.
  - theultdev 2y ago
    It just happened. You have no idea what the evaluations were, they haven't been released and you weren't in the discussions. I hope they will be though. From an outsider perspective this committee in particular seems redundant as there are other agencies that handle this scope. If you want to boil it down to "government bad" sure, but I view it more as "over-regulation is bad". Or do you view the government as a well oiled machine that couldn't have any bloat and we should never evaluate and cull feature creep in it?
    - LiquidSky 2y ago
      >You have no idea what the evaluations were Sure we do because, again, the people put in charge of these initiatives spend endless time just making jokes about agency names that they clearly (sometimes explicitly!) have no idea about or mindless promises to cut the government in half. >Or do you view the government as a well oiled machine that couldn't have any bloat and we should never evaluate and cull feature creep in it? Since you missed it the first time I'll copy the part of my comment that addresses exactly this again: >The pushback this gets isn't because people love bureaucracy or hate efficiency but because it's obvious this isn't an actual effort to improve anything, just mindlessly slashing things businesses/the powerful don't like and stunts to make the base clap. The problem is you're assuming good faith when there has been ample demonstration that there isn't any here.
      - theultdev 2y ago
        You're assuming good faith of these committees. Comes down to who you trust. I voted in Trump to do this and more, I trust the evaluations were made properly and I support the decision. There's obvious bias in your tone (which is okay, which is why I stated my position) so it makes sense you don't like this move because you don't trust this administration. We're similar in that regard in that I don't trust the government implicitly, which is why I support culling bloat.
        LunaSea 2y ago
        Trust shouldn't even be a factor. Decisions should be made based on facts and numbers and your side (you, Trump and Elon included) have provided none of these. It's pure ideology without basis in objectivity.
        viraptor 2y ago
        If they were made in good faith, then surely we have some documentation for it in order to learn from those original mistakes. Or some way for people to evaluate that choice... It was a transparent decision not some random populist move... Right?...

Kon-Peki 2y ago

“This is unsafe! I quit!” “No problem, as a non-employee you are hereby confined to your cabin except to use the head, and you can eat in the galley but you have to pay for your meals, they cost $100 and will be deducted from your final paycheck. If you have a negative balance when we dock at a port in around 3 months, you must pay immediately or we will send the debt to collections. Have a nice day” Maybe you want to read up on how things work at sea?

theultdev 2y ago
That's not what this committee handled, other government programs such as OSHA, NIOSH, and DOL handle that. You don't need a special fishing committee to make sure workers have good working conditions and proper pay. That's universal to any job.
- electrondood 2y ago
  > ...to make sure workers have good working conditions and proper pay. That's universal to any job. This is wildly untrue. The less skilled your labor, the more exploitative the available jobs are. This is why we have labor regulations, to protect these people.
  - theultdev 2y ago
    Why did you leave all the important parts out of the quote? I already noted that there are agencies that handle labor regulations. You left that out. This committee had nothing to do with labor regulations...

twic 2y ago

DHS merely inherited the Coast Guard's responsibility for the fishing industry. It wasn't just unregulated before 2003!

theultdev 2y ago
That's false. The DHS didn't inherit any fishing responsibilities in it's creation. The Coast Guard has and still does work with related agencies (NOAA/NMFS, Fish and Wildlife, EPA, etc.) in this regard. This committee in question didn't even exist before 2018.

dboreham 2y ago

> I think fisherman know how to be safe without bureaucrats in DC that have never been in a fishing boat butting in. There's 1000 years of people killing themselves needlessly that says they don't.

theultdev 2y ago
Yes it's commonly known when sailors takeoff, they sing praise of the NCFSAC saving them after a 1000 years of ocean deaths. Other agencies may do the same thing, but the NCFSAC changed the sea game (when created in 2018) Before 2018, sea blood bath.
ANewFormation 2y ago
Fishing is dangerous work and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future. What matters are the data which nobody has dug up. Was there a significant reduction in fatalities following this committee's creation? Did it have a significant and likely causal relationship on those declines? And finally - assuming there was a decline d the committee was responsible for it, are they still meaningfully necessary or are the prior established rules sufficient to maintain the improvements moving forward?

mcculley 2y ago

I grew up in the commercial fishing industry and then worked in the tug boat industry. Many USCG regulations that were vehemently opposed by the old men save lives every day. This is a classic Chesterton's Fence. Those who don't understand the origin of the regulations will continue to have strong, uninformed opinions about them. Many crew working on boats have safety gear only because USCG requires it. The owners of those boats would not expend the money without the regulation.

theultdev 2y ago
What regulations of this committee do you think saved lives that other agencies did not? The USCG, NMFS, NIOSH, and OSHA regulations are still there. When you were growing up, was it earlier than 2018? This committee didn't exist before then. But yeah, maybe we should add 20 more agencies just to be safe...
- avs733 2y ago
  This committee doesn’t make regulations they make expert suggestions. This is way off the original topic of course…but you can do a quick search of the federal register they you can see the agenda of meetings and such. A recent one reviewed structural failures that led to boats sinking. Fields learn as new things happen. There’s a reason aerospace industries talk about rules having body counts. Freezing regulations rarely makes work easier or faster, it just makes knowledge sharing worse. There this large assumption across HN that if one doesn’t understand something l, that must meant it doesn’t make sense. It’s a bad way to operate in the world…independently of ideology…lack of understanding is not unique insight.
  - theultdev 2y ago
    I think we'll get by without their "expert suggestions" as we did in 2017 before they existed. It boils down to whether or not this committee was beneficial or not. I have not seen any data backing up that it helped at all since it's inception in 2018.