Fishermen ‘very happy’ with SCOTUS ruling: Allen Walburn and David Goethel

The Supreme Court siding with a group of fishermen who challenged a 40 year old legal doctrine known as Chevron. The ruling cuts the ability of federal agencies to interpret the law and prevents the administration from having too much power over their businesses. It could have sweeping implications for the environment, public health in the workplace. Let's bring in now fishing charter captain Alan Walburn and retired fisherman David Gaithal. Thank you very much to both of you. Alan, I'll start with you first. You joined us on this program as we were awaiting this ruling and you talked to us about the impacts that it could have on your business. So what is your reaction to the ruling? Well, obviously, I'm very happy. And basically what it does, it prevents government agencies from imposing basically taxes on small businesses. Anytime they want to gather information and don't have a budget for it, they just pass that cost on to the small businesses. And as you know, we sued them last year over the vessel monitoring systems. And the courtroom that came down on that case was very clear. And I, I predicted at that time that the herring fisherman would win based on the same doctrine that we want on. And that's what happened. David, what's your reaction? Well, my, my reaction is, is twofold. 1 is this shows that the little guy can actually beat City Hall despite what people think. And the 2nd is that this was a doctrine that gave the bureaucracy a get out of jail free card. They didn't have to prove that they were correct, that their program was adequate or useful. They just could make up the rules as they went along. Alan, if you could just bring this down to somebody who is, you know, not totally familiar with this case and how this would have directly impacted your business, what it would have forced you to have to do on your own fishing vessel. This particular case did not directly affect me in the sense that I would not have had to put a monitor on my boat. But but for the pairing fisherman up in the Northeast, they would have been required to put a, a, a monitor on their boat to monitor their catches, Pay that monitor $700.00 a day plus housing, feeding and being responsible for that individual on the boat at all times. It's much like you driving to work and they, the government says you got to have a monitor in your car to make sure you're not breaking any laws as you drive it back and forth to work and have to pay for that monitor. It was totally ridiculous ruling and we we predicted it would get thrown out and it did. And our legal team, New Civil Liberties Alliance won our case that down here on the best monitoring systems took this case and they won it. And it's a huge public advocacy law team, and we can't thank them enough for everything they've done to help the fishermen in this country. Yeah. And I know that you are standing up for them even though it wouldn't have directly impacted you. You see it happening elsewhere, and you worry it could be coming to you. Right. And you all have to stand up together. David, you have written a lot about this. I mean, I remember your op-ed back in January, were you very specifically called out the bureaucrats threatening to sink your fishing business. The Supreme Court can keep others afloat. You talked about how this new regulation would threaten to wipe out your income. What do you want people to know about this? Well, I want people to know that the, you know, the, the, the regulations were being promulgated outside the law. And that's what the court found, that basically the NOAA Fisheries was using Chevron deference to just say we're going to do this because we can't, not because the Magneson Stevens Act says we can't. The Magneson Stevens Act was actually quite specific. It said you would have to carry up service if requested. You would have to have certain safety equipment and a sticker from the Coast Guard. And in 1-2 specific fisheries in the Pacific Northwest, they would have to pay for the observers, but they were limited to three to 4% of the gross value of the fishery. In our case, there was no limit on the gross value of the fishery. When I had to pay for observers back in 2015, a lot of times the observers were making more money than I was, was gross. I was losing money leaving the mirror every day. And so, you know, I think this is a really important concept that, you know, people who aren't elected, IE the bureaucracy cannot just go out and make rules because they say they care. And, and I think that's what people need to know is right. I mean, you know that every day that you head out there, it's going to cost you to go out, but you don't know what your catch is going to be and how much that's going to be. And you don't know how much money you're going to make. So they have to have that mandated 709 hundred dollar daily fee for the monitor could just wipe so many right out of business and you stood up together. Thanks so much for joining us here, guys. Appreciate it. Our best to you, Alan. Good luck down there in Naples.