2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures bomb books budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration international internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal portland mayor president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes television terrorism theater third parties timber payments transportation union university of oregon violence washington water wildfire women

Earlier, Rod More stated that the Council must balance ecological and economic concerns. However, it's not really a balance because the Magnuson-Stevens Act prioritizes conservation above economic considerations.

The Magnuson-Stevens Act mandates in National Standard 8 that conservation measures take into account the economic and social impact on communities, and minimize those impacts to extent practicable.

As a law student at Lewis and Clark, I wonder whether it really "practicable" to weigh any economic considerations when salmon stocks are this low? Given the lack of data and sharp drop in numbers, isn't a complete ban the more prudent approach?

posted 5 years, 3 months ago
view in context