of at least passing interest to recreational fishermen:


Wall Street Journal

REVIEW & OUTLOOK

Save the Fish

November 14, 2006; Page A20

We like fish. They're tasty, good for you and catching them is good
sport. We'd hate to see them disappear from the Earth's waters in our
lifetime, as a recent meta-analysis in Science magazine suggested could
occur. The four-page paper looked at trends across various regions from
different sources and concluded that if present trends continued, the
total collapse of fisheries around the world could occur by 2048.

Now, extrapolation of any trend far enough into the future can bring
surprising results (remember Dow 36,000?). And at least one professor
of marine sciences has called this particular extrapolation
"mind-bogglingly stupid." But it's certainly true that some fisheries
are overtaxed. And while the problem is worse in the developing world
than in First World countries, we in the West have not exactly
perfected the art of fisheries management. No one believes that cows
are going extinct any time soon, and chickens seem safe. So what's the
problem with fish?

Well, unlike domesticated animals, no one owns them. Government
programs to set catch limits and so reduce fishing effort are a
constant source of friction with fishermen, who are always pushing for
higher limits than regulators feel are advisable. It's not that
fishermen want to decimate their cash crop. But the system is set up to
encourage them to push for whatever they can get, now. There's a better
way.

Iceland has saved its fishing industry by adopting a system of
individual, tradeable quotas. It's not quite the same as owning the
fish, but it's probably as close as you can get short of starting a
fish farm. The quotas are an asset that can be bought and sold, and
their value is dependent on the viability of the fishery, so they give
fishermen a direct financial stake in sustaining the fishery. It also
takes the hair-pulling out of the current frequent negotiations between
regulators and fishermen over where to set the limits for a given year
or several years.

The current U.S. law on fisheries management expires this year and must
be renewed. This has occasioned a resumption of the same old fight,
with fishermen demanding that certain rules be relaxed and
environmentalists pushing for a tightening of the restrictions. Why not
instead sell the fisheries to the fishermen? Set the quotas at a
reasonable level, and let the fishermen themselves decide in whose
hands they're worth the most.

For some, this will serve as a buyout program; they will sell their
quotas and retire. We suppose the environmentally minded might even be
willing to purchase some quotas and keep them. This could be expensive,
but if they're right about the need to reduce fishing in a particular
fishery, sitting on a quota they've purchased could prove a sound
investment over time. Nor are tradeable quotas merely a libertarian
fantasy; groups like Environmental Defense have also come out in favor
of them.

The alternative, as three decades of command-and-control fisheries
management has shown, is a tragedy of the commons on the high seas. We
don't expect to see the last fish hauled from the ocean, whatever the
models may say. But there's no question the world could be doing a
better job managing that resource. The need to reauthorize the current
law offers an opportunity for rights-based reform.

URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116347564360922368.html

"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
ps.com...
of at least passing interest to recreational fishermen:


Wall Street Journal

REVIEW & OUTLOOK

Save the Fish

November 14, 2006; Page A20

We like fish. They're tasty, good for you and catching them is good
sport. We'd hate to see them disappear from the Earth's waters in our
lifetime, as a recent meta-analysis in Science magazine suggested could
occur. The four-page paper looked at trends across various regions from
different sources and concluded that if present trends continued, the
total collapse of fisheries around the world could occur by 2048.

Now, extrapolation of any trend far enough into the future can bring
surprising results (remember Dow 36,000?). And at least one professor
of marine sciences has called this particular extrapolation
"mind-bogglingly stupid." But it's certainly true that some fisheries
are overtaxed. And while the problem is worse in the developing world
than in First World countries, we in the West have not exactly
perfected the art of fisheries management. No one believes that cows
are going extinct any time soon, and chickens seem safe. So what's the
problem with fish?

Well, unlike domesticated animals, no one owns them. Government
programs to set catch limits and so reduce fishing effort are a
constant source of friction with fishermen, who are always pushing for
higher limits than regulators feel are advisable. It's not that
fishermen want to decimate their cash crop. But the system is set up to
encourage them to push for whatever they can get, now. There's a better
way.

Iceland has saved its fishing industry by adopting a system of
individual, tradeable quotas. It's not quite the same as owning the
fish, but it's probably as close as you can get short of starting a
fish farm. The quotas are an asset that can be bought and sold, and
their value is dependent on the viability of the fishery, so they give
fishermen a direct financial stake in sustaining the fishery. It also
takes the hair-pulling out of the current frequent negotiations between
regulators and fishermen over where to set the limits for a given year
or several years.

The current U.S. law on fisheries management expires this year and must
be renewed. This has occasioned a resumption of the same old fight,
with fishermen demanding that certain rules be relaxed and
environmentalists pushing for a tightening of the restrictions. Why not
instead sell the fisheries to the fishermen? Set the quotas at a
reasonable level, and let the fishermen themselves decide in whose
hands they're worth the most.

For some, this will serve as a buyout program; they will sell their
quotas and retire. We suppose the environmentally minded might even be
willing to purchase some quotas and keep them. This could be expensive,
but if they're right about the need to reduce fishing in a particular
fishery, sitting on a quota they've purchased could prove a sound
investment over time. Nor are tradeable quotas merely a libertarian
fantasy; groups like Environmental Defense have also come out in favor
of them.

The alternative, as three decades of command-and-control fisheries
management has shown, is a tragedy of the commons on the high seas. We
don't expect to see the last fish hauled from the ocean, whatever the
models may say. But there's no question the world could be doing a
better job managing that resource. The need to reauthorize the current
law offers an opportunity for rights-based reform.

URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116347564360922368.html


And the recreational fisher is excluded. They belong to all the people, and
limits, including on commercials, work. Problem is the limits can be
excessive on commercials, and some of the fishing methods are very
detrimental to fish. Bottom Trawls that decimate the bottom, fish traps
that get the babies in the kelp, and then countries that ignore the fishing
quotas. The modern fishing fleet is extremely efficient! Fantastic
electronics, airplanes spotting. And 100 mile long long lines, and nets big
enough to wrap a complete bluefin tuna school. The international quotas are
acknowledged to be flaunted. Maybe the real cure, is when a ship flunts the
quota, and is caught, it becomes a new reef in the sea.

Alotta Fagina wrote:
You wrote:

We like fish. They're tasty, good for you and catching them is good
sport. We'd hate to see them disappear from the Earth's waters in our
lifetime, as a recent meta-analysis in Science magazine suggested could
occur. The four-page paper looked at trends across various regions from
different sources and concluded that if present trends continued, the
total collapse of fisheries around the world could occur by 2048.

Science magazine: the people who brought you the coming Ice Age and the
famine that would kill half the world's population by 1999.

Some people make their living selling doctored nude pictures of Monica
Belluci; some do this ****.

Read on, Fagina. The WSJ expresses doubt about the Science Magazine
projection but
notes that fishery stocks are declining throughout much of the world.

Resources can be used up and disappear. Much of Europe has been
deforested entirely.
I'm sure many people would be surprised to learn that a couple of
thousand years ago there a *lot* of subtropical forests in (Judea,
Palestine, Israel, the Holy Land...whatever you care to call it). When
they talk about the "cedars of lebanon", they aren't referring to a
total of two trees. Lack of conservation and/or lack of vision beyond
the immediate needs of a present generation resulted in the permanent
loss of forest lands and much of the associated topsoil. If we wait
until the damage is done, so that we can say "OK, now we believe, we're
willing to accept the total disappearance of a resource as evidence
that it is being mismanaged", it's then too late.

The management of fishery stocks is pretty important to the world
economy, and of no small concern to recreational boaters who enjoy
hooking up with a decent fish once in a while. Many people go boating
primarily to go fishing, so the health of the resource and how it may
be managed on an international or commercial basis should be a
legitimate concern for many recreational boaters.

"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
oups.com...

Alotta Fagina wrote:
You wrote:

We like fish. They're tasty, good for you and catching them is good
sport. We'd hate to see them disappear from the Earth's waters in our
lifetime, as a recent meta-analysis in Science magazine suggested could
occur. The four-page paper looked at trends across various regions from
different sources and concluded that if present trends continued, the
total collapse of fisheries around the world could occur by 2048.

Science magazine: the people who brought you the coming Ice Age and the
famine that would kill half the world's population by 1999.

Some people make their living selling doctored nude pictures of Monica
Belluci; some do this ****.

Read on, Fagina. The WSJ expresses doubt about the Science Magazine
projection but
notes that fishery stocks are declining throughout much of the world.

Resources can be used up and disappear. Much of Europe has been
deforested entirely.
I'm sure many people would be surprised to learn that a couple of
thousand years ago there a *lot* of subtropical forests in (Judea,
Palestine, Israel, the Holy Land...whatever you care to call it). When
they talk about the "cedars of lebanon", they aren't referring to a
total of two trees. Lack of conservation and/or lack of vision beyond
the immediate needs of a present generation resulted in the permanent
loss of forest lands and much of the associated topsoil. If we wait
until the damage is done, so that we can say "OK, now we believe, we're
willing to accept the total disappearance of a resource as evidence
that it is being mismanaged", it's then too late.

The management of fishery stocks is pretty important to the world
economy, and of no small concern to recreational boaters who enjoy
hooking up with a decent fish once in a while. Many people go boating
primarily to go fishing, so the health of the resource and how it may
be managed on an international or commercial basis should be a
legitimate concern for many recreational boaters.


As an aside to the conservation. England became world dominant after the
Spanish fleet was decimated because they had the trees from the American
Colony and Spain had cut all their trees to build their fleets.

Calif Bill wrote:

As an aside to the conservation. England became world dominant after the
Spanish fleet was decimated because they had the trees from the American
Colony and Spain had cut all their trees to build their fleets.

When we visited New England last month we toured some 18th Century
buildings. Using very broad planks in the floors was considered a sign
of wealth in those days, up to a point. On a couple of these excursions
the tour guides informed us that none of the planks in the floors would
ever be 24-inches or larger. During colonial times, the King's
foresters would blaze all of the trees larger than 24-inches in
diameter to indicate that when the tree was harvested it was to be sent
to England for use in planking warships. One of the tour guides claimed
that this is where the term "King's ransom" originated. (Would want to
check that out a bit before signing on entirely).

It is interesting to compare how the English, French and Spanish
developed their territories in the Western hemisphere and how that
shaped destinies. While there were certainly many early Spanish
settlements, Spain primarily sent priests and soldiers to subjugate the
native population and extract resources. Spain also extended its
influence across what was by far the most enormous geographical area.
France set priests, soldiers, and some settlers as well and was just
slightly less territorially ambitious than the Spanish. The English
originally claimed the smallest territory, set up permanent
settlements, concentrated on relocating religious and political
dissidents (as well as convicted criminals) to the New World on a
permanent basis, and concentrated on creating colonies that could be
exploited by English trading monopolies. Probably due to the fact that
more farmers, tradesmen, and families were sent by the English than by
the French or Spanish the English society ultimately prevailed across
the majority of North America. (Priests don't procreate, and soldiers
eventually go "home").

All of which reflects, in a way, on fisheries management: How we choose
to utilize our resources (of all types) today will make a difference in
the future. We may not be able to
clearly define what that difference will be, but history is filled with
examples to show us that resource management is critical. Time after
time, it appears that "conservation" (a moderate term curiously out of
fashion these days) is more prudent than unrestrained exploitation.

Alotta Fagina wrote:
You wrote:

Much of Europe has been deforested entirely.


Bu- bu - bu - bu - but Europe is a Socialist Utopia (TM) where everything
is perfect (or at least better than the mean old Yoo Ess of A.


Most of the deforestation of Europe occured before socialism was
invented.

Changes in society brought about by increasing urbanization in Europe
and the "industrial revolution" contributed to the early development of
socialist philosophy.



Actually, government-owned forests over here get razed because they're
leased to logging companies; forests owned by the loggers themselves are
carefully managed and replenished. So much for the "capitalists only seek
to maximize profits and maximize them NOW" crap.


So, you are arguing that the "logging companies" razing the forests are
not capitalist organizations? Do tell.

Farmers, fishermen, loggers, miners; they all make a living extracting
resources. That's very much OK, since the resources (with the possible
exception of minerals) will repenish themselves at a rate equal to
harvest if properly managed.

Fisheries management, and resource management in general in the US, is
one of those areas where our society actually operates from a semi-
socialist model. Because we have set aside "public lands" and "public
waterways" we have created public ownership of the natural resources
these lands and waterways contain. (Public ownership of natural
resources is a key principle in a socialist economy). This isn't some
new-fangled liberal invention foisted off as an insult to the flag in
the last 50 years or so, in fact "public lands" are a tradition that
dates back to colonial days in the US. (Most towns had "common"
pasturelands, i.e. Boston Common, where everyone could graze their
livestock in common).

If we operated from a purely capitalist perspective, the public lands
and waterways would be sold to private operators who would then be free
to do as they would with the resources.
Corporations under pressure from stockholders couldn't be blamed for
taking the management route that maximized near term profits; few
people are altruistic enough to care whether somebody who won't even be
born for another 50 years will be able to utilize a particular resource
of make a living harvesting it.

I support the allocation of harvestable resources into "shares". Sort
of. Take the crab fishery in Alaska, for instance. Under the
time-honored model, the "season" opens up for a couple of weeks and
everybody with a commercial crab license scrambles to board as many
crab as they possibly can. Crews are worked around the clock, and often
in weather conditions that are insane, and as a result there are a lot
of deaths each year associated with the fishery. If you can haul in
1,000,000 pounds of crab, great! If you get skunked or chased off the
water by severe storms conditions, that's just your tough luck and
better luck next year.

Under a shares system, each licensee is allocated a particular amount
of crab. If conditions are exceptionally dangerous, fishing can be
postponed until the weather moderates slightly (although during winters
in the Gulf of Alaska "moderates" is a relative term). When a licensee
boards as much crab as allocated, he or she either has to stop fishing
or buy unused allocation from another fisherman. Some free enterprise
prinicples still apply, as in order to maximize profits a fisherman
needs to collect his allocation as efficiently as possible.

The problem with the shares system is that within a few years most of
the small operators will have sold out to the mega-corporations.

Fisheries management, in particular, gets complicated because of the
recreational aspect.
(There are few "recreational" loggers, by comparison). From a purely
economic perspective, each fish caught by a recreational fisherman puts
a *lot* more money into circulation. How many fishermen are really
paying about $500 a pound, or more, for fish dinners? :-) Boats,
motors, fuel, bait, tackle, etc.....how many fish does a guy need to
catch to offset $100k spent on a fishing boat? A lot! So, nobody
realistically claims to be "saving money" when sport fishing.

From a larger perspective, that of providing food to the world, the
commercial fisheries are much more efficient than the sports fishery.

It's a tough call. Glad somebody else is making it.

On 15 Nov 2006 22:25:37 -0800, "Chuck Gould"
wrote:

How many fishermen are really
paying about $500 a pound, or more, for fish dinners?

I'd like to get my costs that low.

Alotta Fagina wrote:
..... forests owned by the loggers themselves are
carefully managed and replenished.

Where?
Here in the south-east USA, large number of the forests
owned by logging companies have been sold off to developers.

Furthermore, unless your idea of "carefully managed &
replenished" means clear-cutting every 8 years and
replanting a monoculture of modified DNA fast-growing pine
trees... not exactly the same thing as an ecologically
balanced forest... then the logging companies don't
replenish ****.


So much for the "capitalists only seek
to maximize profits and maximize them NOW" crap.

Go look in a mirror.

DSK