Main Content

What modern safeguards should be instituted in order to ensure appropriate protections for fish and fish habitat?

Obligation to act, not simply the ability

SCORE:
5.0
Theme:Compliance and Enforcement
on 11/25/2016

4

Views

0

Comments

Scores

1

Follows

2 ideas: 1) Obligation to act, and 2) Mandatory increase in compliance staff to certain key numbers.1) Beyond simply having the ability to enforce/fine/reprimand/force compliance, there ought to be some standard base obligation of our government to do these things. Companies, industries, and other entities that destroy, pollute or otherwise harm fish and fish habitat require a baseline of guaranteed repercussions, to a degree that impacts them and forces them to change. We are too fond of cutting deals, sympathizing, letting things go, or charging laughably low amounts of money. Are we serious about protecting fish, fish habitat, and by extension, our water systems? Then be serious. Mandate an Obligation to Act.2) An act is useless with no enforcement muscle. A mandatory minimum number of enforcement personnel should be guaranteed such that they can reasonably cover problems in our regional watersheds. Again, are we serious? Then be serious. Mandate a feasible number of personnel.

Comments »

No comments have been posted on this idea yet.
Date modified: