Hawaiian spinner dolphins may not have to entertain bored primates much longer:
Tourists would be prohibited from swimming with dolphins near Hawaii under a new proposal from the Obama administration. The National Marine Fisheries Service proposed Tuesday to establish a 50-yard barrier that prevents people from getting too close to Hawaiian spinner dolphins, even though they are not listed as endangered or threatened species. This could affect tourism companies, including those that take people dolphin watching, as well as residents who attempt to swim, snorkel or kayak with Hawaiian spinner dolphins.
[...] "The number of commercial operators engaged in wild dolphin viewing has grown dramatically in Hawaii in recent years, putting new pressures on easily accessible groups of resting Hawaiian spinner dolphins," the agency wrote.
Also at Miami Herald (AP).
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Thexalon on Wednesday August 24 2016, @02:01PM
When a resource held in common is being overly used or misused, it's up to the government to step in and make efforts to control how it is used. In the case of the dolphins, I'm going to assume that the marine biologists behind this move know at least as much about effect all of this activity is having on the dolphins than the tourism companies - after all, they are scientists whose living does not depend on this decision.
Sure, these dolphins might not be an endangered species. At the same time, having a bunch of monkeys around doesn't seem like something that would help them. Also, at least some species of dolphins have been known to attack humans when hungry or stressed or even as part of an organized effort, and I'm sure if that happened the same people complaining about this move would be saying "Why didn't the government do something?"
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Wednesday August 24 2016, @06:07PM
Emphasis added:
Also, at least some species of dolphins have been known to attack humans when hungry or stressed or even as part of an organized effort, and I'm sure if that happened the same people complaining about this move would be saying "Why didn't the government do something?"
Some of the same people, sure. Other people are more consistent about their views on government policy, and I feel like you're painting with an overly broad brush. You'll be hard pressed to find a comment in my history that calls for the federal government to regulate anything. I think this comment [soylentnews.org] from two years and two days ago is the closest you'll find, and it clearly isn't anywhere close. Though jdavidb [soylentnews.org] would vehemently disagree with the ending of my linked comment, I believe he is similarly consistent in his opposition to federal governments.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Wednesday August 24 2016, @11:32PM
I was thinking mostly about the businesses whose bottom lines would be negatively impacted by the regulation, who thus oppose it, but whose bottom lines would also be negatively impacted by the bad press about, say, a newborn dolphin-birthed baby getting eaten by dolphins.
I agree there's such a thing as a consistent viewpoint. My experience is that businesses and business owners trying to preserve their own profit margins rarely are, however.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 24 2016, @09:02PM
and I'm sure if that happened the same people complaining about this move would be saying "Why didn't the government do something?"
Just like if we didn't conduct mass surveillance on the populace and a terrorist attack happened, the people complaining about the mass surveillance would then completely reverse their positions and demand mass surveillance? Come on now. Not everyone is an irrational, cowardly authoritarian who is concerned about safety (from an almost nonexistent threat in this case) above all else.