NOAA facts forum - part 3 - Stephen D Kroll

Stephen D. Kroll - Diver and Member of the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council, Alpena, MI - speaking at the NOAA Facts Forum held at the Sheboygan Yacht Club on September 21st, 2017.

Mr. Kroll, while sincere, is currently working with NOAA. He also seems to sincerely believe that those who oppose this will and should change and nothing else is reasonable. That, in itself is an unreasonable position.

He, and some of the other speakers, say that NOAA has changed from a top down organization to a bottom up agency. Yet they do not bring out any rule/regulation changes to show that the agency will no longer have the authority to impose unreasonable fines or incrementally take over property adjacent to the sanctuary.

(Some current maximum NOAA imposed fines - for those who may be interested:
"B. Criteria for Determining Penalty and Permit Sanction Initial Base Penalty and Permit Sanction – two factors are considered in determining the initial base penalty and permit sanction amount (collectively, the “initial base penalty”): 
(1) the gravity of the prohibited act that was committed; and (2) the alleged violator’s degree of culpability, based on an assessment of the alleged violator’s mental culpability in committing the violation. These two factors constitute the seriousness of the violation.3 Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. § 2431, et seq). 

The current maximum statutory civil penalties permitted by the seven statutes most commonly enforced by NOAA are as follows: 
Magnuson-Stevens Act – $140,000 per violation 
National Marine Sanctuaries Act – $140,000 per violation 
Endangered Species Act – $32,500 per violation (knowing violations - endangered species) 
Marine Mammal Protection Act – $11,000 per violation 
Lacey Act – $11,000 per violation 
Northern Pacific Halibut Act – $200,000 per violation 
Antarctic Marine Living Resources Conservation Act – $11,000 per violation

And these are, by NOAA's own document - the MOST commonly enforced statutes.)

Nor do they bring out any regulatory changes in the agency that specifically state that the state's constitution (And any other laws of the state)  will overrule any and all rules and regulations of the agency that may trouble the citizens or restrict their constitutional rights in a way that is inconsistent with the letter and spirit of the laws of the state of Wisconsin.

This blog has also posted video from a meeting held in March to organize some opposition to the proposed sanctuary. (Which was the first time this author had heard about it even though the process has apparently been going on for some years.) That video may be found here. 

My apologies for the shakiness of the video.

"18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God." ~ John 3:18-21