That is not a solution. It is the Tragedy of the Commons. The situation stabilizes with a very small number of fish in the sea.
The goal should be to maximize the catch over a very long time period. That can be done by making sure that individuals own the fish that are being caught, just as the solution to the Tragedy of the Commons was to partition the land and sell it to individual farmers.
I would do it like the selling of the state industries in Russia. Every person in the countries that border the North Atlantic would get a share of the fish. The shares could then be sold to companies. Anyone could fish in the North Atlantic, but they'd have to pay the companies that own the fish, in proportion to their take. If a certain fish stock, say, cod, became depleted, the owners would naturally raise the price of cod.
The way it stands now, the price mechanism is actually working against the fish. The price changes with the scarcity of the fish, but the difficulty in catching the fish doesn't change in proportion (owing to the fact that they travel in schools). (The passenger pigeon went extinct largely because of its penchant for forming the largest flock possible; even the last remnant of the species was hard to miss.) Because the price goes up faster than the difficulty in catching the fish, there is actually an incentive to overfish.
Capitalism can indeed overcome this, but the fish need owners first.
Until recently, I lived in the Northeast and the fishing industry is in tough shape. The government regulations that are in effect already have not helped anyone, and more regulations is not a good solution.
My grandfather was involved in the fishing industry (in Boston) for over 40 years and was lamenting the decline in the early 70’s. At that point, in time the Russian factory ships were coming as close as 3 miles from the shore and sucking up all the fish and processing them all in one operation. Well, the government stepped in and declared that we have a 200-mile limit. Everything stabilized for a few years but eventually the fisherman upgraded and modernized their fleets. Every one was happy for a few years but eventually demand outstripped supply for the “preferred” fish (Haddock, Cod and Halibut).
Skip ahead a 25 years and what happens now is that there are plenty of certain types of fish, but not enough of the “preferred” fish. So what the government has done is limit the amount of the “preferred” fish that can be caught. Sounds good, right? Aha, not so fast. When a boat goes out to catch the species of fish that aren’t limited the nets also scoop up a certain number of the types that are regulated. By the time the net gets unloaded the fish are all dead. The Captain of the fishing boat has only two choices: bring the Haddock and Cod in for sale and risk getting fined by the government or just dump the dead fish back in the ocean.
I’m not an expert on this issue but watching the fishing industry in New England decline has been painful to watch. I’ve oversimplified the NE fishing industry here but I hope that this small amount of information contributes some understanding of the complexity of the problem.
People have no concept of economics. There's a steady level of demand. It's not possible for prices to rise and demand to fall. As the supply of fish declines, it is demand staying CONSTANT that causes the price to rise. Sure, fewer people are willing to pay the higher prices, but as long as there are more people willing to pay that price than the remaining supply of fish, it is in the economic best interest of the commercial fisherman to keep going out to wipe out the last remaining stocks of an overfished species, since he's getting so much $$$ per pound.
The original article is a bit confusing regarding tuna. When they talk about overfished they mean bluefin tuna....good luck finding that in your local seafood market, most of it is going to Japan for a zillion dollars a pound. Yellowfin (chunk light) and Albacore (white meat) tuna aren't particularly overfished and can be bought relatively cheaply everywhere.
That's one problem I haven't been able to figure out. Property rights are the bedrock of a capitalist free market. However in this case, not only are the fish not owned until they're caught, the oceans themselves are not owned by anyone.
Perhaps some sort of fish "ranches" established in the ocean would help in the long run. But I don't know enough about the relevant technology or ecology to know how realistic that might be.
You make a good point about schooling behavior assisting overfishing even amid scarcity. But do all the "table fish" (first time I've heard that term incidentally) exhibit this behavior? Or only some species?
In any case, the demand side incentive to raise prices would still be largely intact. Just delayed.
Capitalism can indeed overcome this, but the fish need owners first.
We need an Adopt-a-Fish program! Brilliant. We can start a 501(c)3, and mail sad looking pictures of fish to the leftist mailing lists. Calling Sally Struthers! Calling Sally Struthers! hey, Bono how about a FishAID concert?
(sorry I couldn't resist the giggle)
Seriously though. Your proposal for ownership is not required, other than as a means to drive up costs by withholding the product until it can be "auctioned" in essence to the highest bidder. I cannot see this necessarily accelerating the preservation of the fish. It will add a positive bias to the cost of ownership of the fish, but it would be little different than if the fish were government regulated. And only hasten the outcome of cost-increases caused by naturally depleted stocks. I suspect many small fishing operations are already on the verge of collapse.
There should be no significant difference whether the fish school or swim alone. In fact, if anything it would hasten the decline of the little guys if the big guys can continuously beat the little guys to the schools. A randomly dispersed fish population would favor the little guy by not making it necessary to fish the same waters.
Nay, we must consider that the REAL intent of this article is to accelerate the demand for government regualtion in order tio initiate a "fish tax". This is a "Make Work" program for envirodoctrinaires. They need money from the fish mongers so they may receive government grants to further "study" the need for further "protections" etc etc...
Its all about redirection of cash flow, through the use of government guns (harpoons?)
But back to my original point: We would need a catchy (no pun intended) name, how about the "Piscine Protection and Fish Adoption Consortium for Environmentalists" (PPFACE)?
Sounds like capitalism will be the MOST effective means of regulation. As fish become more scarce prises will rise, demand will drop and number of fishing vessels will drop accordingly.
That is not a solution. It is the Tragedy of the Commons. The situation stabilizes with a very small number of fish in the sea.
That's exactly what it is. Tragedy of the Commons and freepers should read up on it. The fishing grounds near the NorthEast coasts of America and up into Nova Scotia and Newfoundland are way over fished. Boats that land in New Bedford bring in a fraction of what they did 10 years ago. Gets worse each year and baits must stay out longer each fishing trip to get a catch worth marketing.
May 24, 2000 Advisory board: Cod limits should be cut
By MICHAEL MACDONALD -- Canadian Press
ST. JOHN'S, Nfld. (CP) -- Atlantic Canada's beleaguered cod fishery received more bad news today.
The Fisheries Resource Conservation Council, a federal advisory body, issued a bleak report saying catch limits for northern Newfoundland and the Georges Bank off Nova Scotia should be reduced this season.
The council, which recommends catch limits to the federal Fisheries minister, said the cod stocks in both areas are not recovering as quickly as expected.
Off the coasts of northern Newfoundland and southern Labrador, the council recommends the total allowable catch for northern cod be reduced to 7,000 tonnes from 9,000 tonnes.
"The northern cod stock was by far the largest cod stock in Atlantic Canada," said Fred Woodman, chairman of the fisheries council, which is made up of government and industry representatives.
"Today, it is only a dismal remnant of what we had."
In the mid-1980s, the northern cod fishery was hauling in 200,000 tonnes annually.
Atlantic Canada used to land about 500,000 tonnes of cod annually in the 1980s. The total cod catch now is about 10 per cent of what it used to be.
Federal scientists say the stocks remain fragile, especially farther offshore. Until the offshore stocks start to grow, the inshore stocks will remain small, scientists concluded in an earlier report.
On the Georges Bank, the total allowable catch for cod caught by U.S. and Canadian fishermen should be cut to 2,000 tonnes from 3,000 tonnes, the council said.
"The council continues to be very concerned with the lack of recruitment experienced in the stock," the council said.
Recruitment refers to the number of fish that survive long enough to be considered big enough for commercial harvest.
However, there was some good news for other groundfish stocks on George Bank, an area southwest of Nova Scotia that is frequented by U.S. fishermen.
Catch limits for haddock and yellowtail flounder will be increased this season.
"The haddock and yellowtail stocks are recovering from the lows of the 1990s," Woodman said in a letter to Fisheries Minister Herb Dhaliwal.
As for cod, the council said it was convinced hungry seals were taking a big chunk out of the northern cod stocks.
"The council agrees with fishermen that predation by seals is negatively impacting the stock," Woodman's letter says.
Last month, scientists with the federal Fisheries Department issued a bleak report saying the size of the cod population off northern Newfoundland was still 97 per cent smaller than in the early 1980s.
However, the scientists said they didn't have enough scientific data to determine what impact the seals were having on the stocks.
The once-thriving commercial cod fishery collapsed in the late 1980s, prompting a widespread moratorium in 1992 that wiped out 40,000 jobs in Atlantic Canada and eastern Quebec.
After seven years of rebuilding, a small commercial quota was established last year for inshore fishermen in northern Newfoundland and southern Labrador.
When asked what was causing the slow recovery of the cod, scientists have cited a number of factors, none of which have proved conclusive.
Overfishing by huge, foreign trawlers is a favoured theory on the East Coast. Rising water temperatures in the latter half of the 1980s has also been linked with big changes in the North Atlantic's ecosystem.
Earle McCurdy, head of the 23,000-member Fish, Food and Allied Workers union, blames seals for the high mortality rates among cod.
Earlier this year, the council recommended reducing catch limits for cod in the northern Gulf of St. Lawrence and southern Newfoundland.
Dhaliwal later approved those recommendations, which included cutting the limit in southern Newfoundland by one third to 20,000 tonnes. The south coast cod fishery is the only major cod fishery left in Newfoundland.
Somehow I think the fish have done quite well over the millenia without "owners."
Forget about Willie, Free the Fishes! ;)
Does Jesse know about your plan to enslave the altitudely challenged? :)
The goal should be to maximize the catch over a very long time period. That can be done by making sure that individuals own the fish that are being caught, just as the solution to the Tragedy of the Commons was to partition the land and sell it to individual farmers.
Hey! You pre-thunk me!