I am sitting here listening to this. These channels were built for navigation and commercial use by taxpayers' dollars many years ago, and the seagrass grows back. Each time, they mitigate when trying to maintain it. Where is the logic? Where is the logic when we built those channels with American tax dollars for commerce and now, each time they dredge it--they already dredged it once--it grows back and they have to come back and file another ES statement. Why are we doing this? {time} 1630 Who is this helping out? Not the fish because the eelgrass grows back again, because they have to dredge it again. It costs money, slows down commerce, and that is interfering with the economy of this country. I have been through these channels. They can't show me where the dredging hurts. In fact, it helps. It is like you said, mowing the grass. You let it grow too long, you are going to get in trouble. We let this eelgrass grow too long, you are going to hurt the channel or you are going to hurt the fish in the long run. So I compliment the gentleman on his amendment, and I will support this amendment strongly.
Share
More from Don Young
We therefore firmly believe that a 45-day comment period will allow all stakeholders and the general public more than enough time to review the SEIS and provide meaningful comment.
The facts and data do not support this. In the North Pacific, bycatch has been on the agenda at nearly every meeting since I began working in the Council process in 2015.
More broadly, this sequence of events starkly illustrates why we believe fishery management plans should be developed in-region through a transparent and robust review process rather than through an outside, centralized body.
What good are two members of the council--although their being native, what will it help you if you don't have the authority to make decisions on the council?





