Replies

You'd be right if the high prices were caused by increased demand. But not if the high prices are caused by lower supply. In the case of low supply, the cost of finding and catching the rare fish should offset the profit to be had by selling them.

Let's assume that that's the case. While an equilibrium may eventually be achieved that prevents the fish from being hunted to extinction, it will still stabilize at fish population that is very much smaller than it is today, with no prospect of it coming back.

I think we can do better. In fact, I believe that the ocean fisheries can one day be more abundant than they were in the wild state.

In fact, I believe that the ocean fisheries can one day be more abundant than they were in the wild state.

I'd like to believe so too. But I have very little knowledge of this subject. Could you explain how you think the ocean fisheries can become so abundant?

I agree, but I don't necessarily agree with your solution to "market rights" to the fish. I don't know how that can be enforced. Even if governments can legally extend a 500, or 1,000-mile "fishing zone" around their countries, I don't see how that can be practically enforced.

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?