[duncanbojangles]

This statement in the article really upset me, and I'd like HN to let me know if I'm over reacting:

"at a time when constitutional arguments for states’ rights are gaining traction, this disagreement over the lowly menhaden could be grounds for questioning the constitutionality of the federal government’s power to interfere with the state of Virginia and its ability to manage its own natural resources."

To me, when a migratory fish's population can be directly linked to one location, and that population has an effect on out-of-state fish and bird populations, then it is no longer that state's own natural resources.

[ggchappell]

I don't know if over- or under-reaction is really the issue here. I think you are confusing "constitutional" with "good".

Whether something is in accord with the U.S. Constitution depends on what the Constitution says, and not on what would be the best thing to do. You've made a reasonable argument, but it is one that is irrelevant to questions of constitutionality.

[duncanbojangles]

You're completely right, I was assuming that what is good for nature is what should be law. I'm having such a hard time wrapping my head around the short-sightedness shown by these mega-corporations and lawmakers. We're just humans, doomed to die, but whole species are stake here. I don't feel that fishing a species to extinction could be that beneficial to so few people in the short run.