Replies

"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.

Ownership of the land at that time was not wholly uncontested. We had conflict with the natives, which was overcome in time, but required systems of frontier forts and overwhelming power. For the pioneers to be successful that power had to be close at hand and effective.

Unlike the American continent of 200 years ago, the seas are not as lightly contested. To consider establishing "Sea Grants" whether by parcelling the sea or allotting quotas in international waters would certainly result in conflict, but not with a relatively impotent opponent. It would be conflict of a massive global scale.

Any country which may currently dominate particular sectors of the sea, the Russians for instance, would have no incentive to give up their "production" for the sake of some other country being allocated a stake in that sector. They would defend their "ownership by possession" with full military force.

Many countries who would of necessity be party to such ownership arrangements also have no working concept of capitalism, free-markets or investment planning. Indeed, they may be at the brink of extinction themselves (Vietnam, various small island nations, African states...) and therefore MUST maximize their harvest just to stay alive.

Ownership can be established, but only by traditional means. It would require the military exertions of a super power. It would require a massive Navy, Air Force and Army (much larger than we have now). The conflict would also rapidly escalate beyond the seas. Such military dominance would incur the wrath of the world, of course, and the resultant social upheaval may have a far greater consequences on global economies than a severely depleted fish population.

The USA would sooner eat chicken, than have Motorola or Boeing kicked out of China, Russia, Europe, etc...

I'm not convinced that ownership of EXISTING wild populations of fish need be established. I don't believe ownership of international waters need be established. I do believe that NEW populations of fish that are farmed within existing territorial boundaries would pose a much better long-term solution.

In this way, the competition becomes not one of ownership of the sea, or wild populations, but a contest to produce the greatest amount of fish in the most efficient, cost-effective manner.

We must rearrange the economy of fishing from that of a mining operation to that of a production operation. Instead of an economy of fur trappers and wild game hunters we would have an economy of farming. Ownership of wild fish cannot be successful.

Once the profits of farmed operations match or exceed the profits of mining operations we can expect to see a gradual reduction of "strip-mining" and an eventual recovery of wild populations.

With ever greater $$ expended in farming operations we also create incentives to advance production technology and genetic engineering. Both are areas in which the USA may take substantial leads today without shooting anybody.

Your arguments apply to any and all international trade. Why are the seas not swarming with more pirates than we can shoot? The cargo carried on ships is far more valuable than the fish in the sea.

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.