Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Physicist
Do you see a difference in the ownership of "sea lots" as opposed to ownership of the fish?

When flying over S. Korea a few years ago I noticed "tracts" of sea marked by buoys and bound by nets. I don't know exactly what they were farming (sea weed? fish?) but it seemed clear that locals were making use of these parcels to farm a profit.

I can see ownership of parcels of sea in areas currently owned by the respective countries (no conflict there). Different parcels may be best suited for different types of farming, and would be subject to valuation via auction.

This doesn't deal with international waters, but does give incentive to negotiate or buy ever larger segments of ocean. Therefore the ownership would track with the ability to render it profitable in an incremental fashion.

In the early west we didn't parcel out ownership of the wildlife but rather the land itself. In time fences went up. Back then it was probably as inconceivable of fencing large tracts of land in the midwest as it seems inconceivable that we may someday fence off large tracts of sea and ocean. But maybe thats where we are headed. It would be ownership as you say, but ownership of sea not fish.

268 posted on 02/19/2002 9:21:57 AM PST by semper_libertas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies ]


To: semper_libertas
That certainly will work (and does work) for some species, but it is my understanding that the most important North Atlantic stocks are migratory. Cod and menhaden, for example, feed inshore but spawn offshore, while salmon, shad and herring do the opposite.
270 posted on 02/19/2002 9:31:36 AM PST by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 268 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson