Judge upholds rule allowing more Hawaii bigeye tuna fishing

[Omaha Steve]

Source: AP

By JENNIFER SINCO KELLEHER and AUDREY McAVOY

HONOLULU (AP) — A federal judge has ruled longline fishermen in Hawaii may continue catching more bigeye tuna, or ahi, than the maximum set by international regulators.

U.S. District Judge Leslie Kobayashi on Wednesday issued the ruling rejecting environmental groups' claims that the extra fishing is illegal.

The opinion came just in time for the year-end holidays when Hawaii consumers crowd stores to buy ahi sashimi for Christmas and New Year's celebrations. A ruling adverse to the fishermen had the potential to shut down or curtail the Hawaii fishery for the rest of the calendar year.

Michael Tosatto, the Pacific Islands regional administrator for the National Marine Fisheries Service, said Thursday the agency is happy the judge found the rules lawful.

FULL story at link.


FILE - In this May 12, 2009, file photo, bigeye tuna line the floor of the United Fishing Agency's auction house in Honolulu. A federal judge has ruled longline fishermen in Hawaii may continue catching more bigeye tuna, or ahi, than the maximum set by international regulators. U.S. District Judge Leslie Kobayashi on Wednesday, Dec. 23, 2015, issued a ruling rejecting environmental groups' claims that the extra fishing is illegal. (AP Photo/Eugene Tanner, File)

Read more: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/68775d59ba90424282db51a05095af2b/ruling-upholds-rule-allowing-more-hawaii-bigeye-tuna

[restorefreedom]

1. money always wins

profits over people, animals, the environment, fill in the blank.....ad infinitum.

wonder if there is any further legal recourse? this seems to be blatantly in violation of international rules.

ooops, forgot, rules don't apply to the u.s., silly me.......

[Cassiopeia]

2. One day they'll ask

Where did all the Ahi go?

[msongs]

5. then when hungry they will eyeball each other like old time cartoons, the turkey over their heads

in that little cloud

[Mbrow]

3. the ruling might be illegal itself,

it depends on if we signed a treaty to abide with the international regs or not. If we did the reg become law of the land. I do believe thats how it works, I might be wrong.

[GGJohn]

4. The only time a treaty would be illegal is if it was contrary to the US Constitution,

I don't see how this treaty would be contrary to the Constitution.

[happyslug]

6. The issue is what was the intent of the treaty.

Last edited Fri Dec 25, 2015, 04:41 PM - Edit history (2)

If the treaty says the parties will pass laws to enforce the treaty, the courts have ruled that the failure to pass such laws means those treaty teams are NOT the law of the land even if the treaty was ratified by congress.

On the other hand if the treaty says the terms are agreed to in the treaty itself, then and only then, does the treaty become the law of the land.

The same with regulations, if the regs had to be adopted by the US and were not then the Judge is correct, for the treaty only requires adoption of the terms set forth in the treaty not the terms themselves.

This is a real techical difference but important in this case.

Given that the US government agency that regulate such fishing APPROVED of such fishing implies that it is up to that agency to determine the amount of fish that can be taken under the treaty . Thus the Judge upheld the ruling of the agency.

The Judge also appears to have adopted the rule that when it comes to regulations issued by a regulatory agency, interpretations of such regs are up to that agency. Again the Judge following prior court decisions as to that point of law. In this case the regulations issued by the agency regulating such fishing were ruled to be within that agency's power either under the law making the treaty the law OR the terms of the treaty itself.

[GGJohn]

7. Thanks for the information.

Very informative.

[happyslug]

8. I added the comments about regulations after your post.

Just a comment to other readers that you made a comment on my post but that I later added something, in this case the comments that judges will defer to regulatory agencies when it comes to the regulations issued by that agency.