Posted on 02/18/2002 2:59:11 AM PST by semper_libertas
There has to be some market incentive for people to actually BREED ocean fish, even though some of them may swim into other waters. But I sure don't know how that's done.
But, let's all remember that whales were nearly extinct until Rockefeller refined kerosene, making whaling too expensive. The whale population stabilized---well below where it had been, but certainly not extinct. The fish population may indeed drop to low levels before the prices go up so astronomically high that even then it becomes prohibitive to "get into fishing." In that example, all I could see is a substitute of some sort coming out, not necessarily "more fish." What do you think?
There are several new studies on this, if you would be at all interested in informing yourself. You might try Dan Flores book.
By the way, how did socialism do on this issue? The latest work by anthropologist Shepard Kretch, "The Ecological Indian," found that despite vastly inferior technology, the Plains Indians were probably slowly killing more buffalo than could be replenished, especially because they seemed to have an affinity for bison fetuses. (Sounds oddly liberal and "socialist" in the modern sense, doesn't it?) Capitalism is the ONLY alternative, and our challenge is to find a way to ensure that there are genuinely enforced "property rights" or market rights in the oceans. Then, like the forests under Weyerhauerser's control---where they PLANT FIVE TIMES MORE TREES than they cut down---we'll have all the fish we, or anyone else, needs.
Once the fishing countries recognize the fish as property (this has to be done by international agreement in any case), it would be done at the ports where the fish come in. It is true that countries don't always live up to their trade agreements, but in such a case the other countries (and perhaps some privateers, if the amount of money is large enough) would work on interdiction, just as they do with the drug trade. Of course a fishing boat is a lot easier to pick out than a drug runner.
Once the problem of ownership is solved--and I'm not saying it would be easy, just that it needs to be done--the incentive to increase fish stocks would be in place.
When I was a young girl...11-14 years old, we took a couple vacations up to Newfoundland...my brothers and I would go fishing off the rocky coast near my mother's home, and the fish was so plentiful that it actually was a bit boring catching them. They were every where! Because the water was so clear you could see thousands and thousands of them. These were big fish...cod fish and flounder. The last two times I was up there, in '86 and '99, there were no more fish to be seen. There was NOTHING in/around/near the very same docks we fished off of as kids. It's really sad. So many people now have come to depend on welfare for their very existence instead of the local fishing industry that at one time provided so well for most folks' livelihood.
Thanks for that informative link. I stand corrected. As Johnny Carson used to say, "You see, I did not know that!"
Yes, I've long known that fishmeal is an excellent protein supplement for livestock feeding, but I had always thought that American farmers used feed products that were not fish-based, due to reasons cited in my previous post. (Just shows you how much time I spend on the farm! ;)
Interesting side note: last night, while watching the Olympic coverage on the Canadian station (which thankfully we receive up here in the Seattle area), there was a commercial break, and one of the ads was for some brand of Canadian poultry (don't remember the name) but prominently displayed on their label was the claim "exclusively grain and vegetable fed chicken." (Or words to that effect).
Now I'm intrigued. I live fairly close to the Canadian border... I don't know, now I'm tempted to drive up north, cross the border, and pick up some of this chicken, cook it, and do a taste comparison.
The introduction of kerosene only delayed the crash, which in any case came at different times for different species. Whales were still hunted almost to extinction. Here's a nice page about sperm whales that contains the following:
...The development of the harpoon gun in the 1860s brought more hunting of the large baleen whales and less emphasis on Physeter.
By the 1930s a decline in some of the baleen species had resulted in renewed interest in sperm whale hunting. Floating factory ships could remain for lengthy periods within the prime habitat of Physeter, especially the North Pacific. In the 1936/37 season, for the first time in many years, the annual kill rose above 5,000. Subsequent efforts at international regulation were largely unsuccessful. In the 1950/51 season the take was 18,264 sperm whales, in 1963/64 it peaked at 29,255, and it remained above 20,000 in all but one season until 1975/76. About one-fourth of the total catch was made by shore-based operations, and the remainder by pelagic expeditions. Finally, in response to immense scientific and public concern, the International Whaling Commission began to reduce quotas substantially. The kill in the 1978/79 season was 8,536, the quota set for 1980/81 was only 1,849, and no kill was authorized for 1981/82. ...
...Physeter now is thought to number only 5,000-10,000 individuals in the Southern Hemisphere, having been nearly exterminated by the intensive commercial kills that continued through the 1970s (Marine Mammal News 15[1989]:5). There doubtless are fewer in the Northern Hemisphere. The official USDI classification of Physeter as endangered, which had been criticized by some parties as being alarmist, now can be recognized as fully accurate.
Kerosene bought the whales a hundred years, which is a more stunning result than anything any environmentalist will ever achieve, but in the end it couldn't do away with the Tragedy of the Commons.
OH! You were talking about porpoises.
"So, what's the problem?" -- Burger King VP.
"That will stop the evil exploitation of fish!" -- PETA spokeslunatic
Then Japanese kelp fisherman were permitted to harvest kelp off the California shore...result "bye bye fish". Today, you can catch NOTHING large or special off the coast.
HABITAT is the key.
1. Restrict foreign fishing to the 12 miles off shore.
2. Take debris like the WTC, old car bodies and create reefs offshore.
3. Set strict size limits with huge fines for violations.
Nature will replenish itself with 5-10 years. Fishing will be better than it ever was, and it will ALL BE OURS. CREATE A FISH FARM off America's coast...for America, by America. All other nations KEEP THE HELL OUT.
Our fish will return and flourish, an industry will provide food for America with just some instant commonsense.
"Once the problem of ownership is solved--and I'm not saying it would be easy, just that it needs to be done--the incentive to increase fish stocks would be in place."To establish ownership will require warfare. The concept being discussed is analagous to the land Grants of 18th and 19th century USA. As payment for services to the government, or merely with the promise of making the land productive the US government allocated parcels of land to average citizens.
High AQ people such as Hollywood stars believe they know better than the little people in most any matter.
Socialist promoters are almost by definition high AQ people. IQ is not a factor at all.
Nothing has done more to protect the environment, save human lives and improve the world conditon than...money.
Free-market capitalism and the pursuit of profit is the single greatest POSITIVE influence on the environment. I of course include humans in the scope of the word "environment".
American agriculture is now so abundant we can freely GIVE food to starving peoples of the world.
American profits are so high that we can GIVE free medical care to people who could not afford it otherwise...
We can GIVE free medical care and equipment to 3rd world countries...
We can GIVE clothing and shelter to 3rd world people...
We can freely teach the world how to improve their own world for themselves...
We have more TREES in the USA now than we did 200 years ago..WHY? PROFIT! MONEY! We plant them for harvest...we plant them for beauty as well since we can AFFORD too..
We can AFFORD to clean up our air because money has made us able to afford the equipment.
The more money we make, the MORE we can afford to protect the environment. First we must survive, then we can plant flowers, tree's and protect the animals.
The animals in desperately poor 3rd world countries are the MOST at risk.
Heck in the US we are so rich we can afford to protect TIMBER WOLVES of all things...and DEER. Heck, when deer become too abundant in some neighborhoods we tranquilize them and transport them out by helicopter. UNHEARD of 20 years ago.
Abundance of MONEY protects the environment, lack of money causes the environment to be plundered.
Every so-called environmentalist that exists should pray to God for the benefits of free-market capitalism and republicanism.
Environmentalists are not welcome in authoritarian, communist or dirt poor countries of the world.
Nobody would ask the Russians or Vietnamese to surrender their rights. If they are party to the agreement (as I'm sure they would want to be if they value international trade in other goods), they would get shares enough to represent their rights. Negotiating who gets what shares will be a tough battle on all sides, but it will be waged at the table and not at gunpoint.
As soon as Russia owns its fraction of the world's fish, its attitude towards exploiting it will change completely. That's the way it is with ownership.
Your assertion that the Vietnamese must max out their catch in order to survive is wrong. Even in the worst-case scenario, at some point it would be to their economic advantage simply to sell the shares and stop fishing, which is a big improvement over the "stop fishing" scenario they will otherwise face. Right now they max out their catch not because there is no alternative, but because it is the most economically attractive alternative. That can be changed through ownership.
The process of granting land as property in the U.S. was indeed a painful process, yes. But you must agree that SOME process to do that was absolutely necessary. If it hadn't been done, the U.S. would be a barren mud patch by now. I'm hopeful that the granting of ownership to wild fish stocks will not need to be that painful, but even if it is, it is just as necessary.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.