[dpeck]

There have been quite a few articles over the last decade pointing out that the creation of DHS as a whole has been quite a waste of time and money with little benefit.

Katrina showed many of the problems with FEMA, though it seems to have improved since then. I'm not sure why enforcement of fisheries conservation belongs under DHS, and as someone who does a good bit of offshore fishing I'm not very happy with they way they over-regulate/enforce on recreational fishermen who would have a hard time making a dent in most populations while (seemingly) turning a blind eye to commercial efforts destroying them.

Others I don't have any insight into, but it seems that DHS has mostly the creation of a huge number of bureaucrats who's major responsibilities involve insuring that the money allotted is spend so that the same or more can be requested for the next fiscal year, with the actual agencies under it getting a smaller piece of the pie and more barriers to actually doing work than before.

[ims]

You're probably thinking of the National Marine Fisheries Service under NOAA for recreational fishing (under Dept. of Commerce, not Homeland Security). The Coast Guard, under DHS, enforces Magnuson-Stevens and the other conservation acts farther offshore where the commercial vessels fish.

And your point is well taken about DHS (as a department), but administrative organization seems to me to be a completely different problem than sinister-sounding "security theater," which is how the article paints pretty much all efforts associated with "homeland security".