Posted on 02/18/2002 2:59:11 AM PST by semper_libertas
ROFL! I propose we rename the Department of Education to the Department of Chum, and let's go fishin'!
Are you referring to Bill Clinton in the Bronx? You mean he might have a shot at a small businesss opportunity doing something he's obviously talented at? Think of all of those potential soccer mom customers lining up for a taste of Bill...
Vaguely germane historical note:
First(?) US treaty on Grand Banks fishing:
The Paris Peace Treaty of September 3, 1783
"In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity. ...
Article 3:
It is agreed that the people of the United States shall continue to enjoy unmolested the right to take fish of every kind on the Grand Bank and on all the other banks of Newfoundland, also in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence and at all other places in the sea, where the inhabitants of both countries used at any time heretofore to fish. And also that the inhabitants of the United States shall have liberty to take fish of every kind on such part of the coast of Newfoundland as British fishermen shall use, (but not to dry or cure the same on that island) and also on the coasts, bays and creeks of all other of his Brittanic Majesty's dominions in America; and that the American fishermen shall have liberty to dry and cure fish in any of the unsettled bays, harbors, and creeks of Nova Scotia, Magdalen Islands, and Labrador, so long as the same shall remain unsettled, but so soon as the same or either of them shall be settled, it shall not be lawful for the said fishermen to dry or cure fish at such settlement without a previous agreement for that purpose with the inhabitants, proprietors, or possessors of the ground. "
Ownership would be applied to the fish in the sea themselves, not to areas of the sea. A person owning some number of shares of, say, Atlantic cod would say, "I own x percent of the cod in the Atlantic." Of course, you can't label fish like you can cattle on the open range. Fish are a commodity. You'd instead treat fish coming out of the ocean like power coming off the grid. (The comparison I'm making here is to an honestly deregulated power industry like we have here in Pennsylvania, not to a monopoly power system.)
The shareholders would be the "producers" and the fishermen the "consumers". A fisherman contract with a shareholder to buy some of his fish, up to an agreed-upon limit, at an agreed-upon price. It's still up to the fisherman to catch the fish, but it doesn't matter where he catches them; he's just "pulling them off the grid". The shareholder would be legally unable to sell more fish than he holds the rights to, and the fisherman legally unable to catch more fish than he has arranged to purchase.
Of course, some people are going to cheat. (Poaching will be a problem under any conceivable approach to limiting the catch.) The advantage here is that private citizens suddenly have a monetary incentive to put a stop to it; that's real money coming out of their pockets. If the fisheries are considered an unowned resource, poaching is a victimless crime and so is unlikely to be addressed in a meaningful way.
Ecofreaks would be able to protect all the fish they wanted, if they cared to. It's just a matter of putting up enough cash.
wow, they would have to get help measuring em that long...most men could reach only about 33".
(think about it...it'll come to you)
a small but crooked enterprise he would be experienced at, yes.
Fair enough, everything is a negotiation. Best to start bold, cave on the little stuff....then beat the cr@p out of em in a dark alley.
Capitalism, or, more properly, private property, is the solution here. The problem is that the fish are not the property of any person, or group of people, so no person, or group of people, is motivated to defend them. If someone owned these fish, you can be damn sure they'd defend them against poachers. They'd also make sure that the fish reproduced themselves.
Africa has the same problem with the sex market in rhinoceros horns. Asians believe that ground rhinoceros horns are an aphrodisiac, and African poachers kill off the state owned herds with impunity. Because no one owns the rhinoceri, no one is motivated to defend them.
The problem IMO is that fishing rights are not transferable property. The stock of fish itself therefore has much less value to the fisherman -- rather like someone who has a derivative claim on a stock's dividend, he's not interested in retaining earnings because they're not his.
...thanks again for providing the REAL world insight. THAT is EXACTLY how the government screws up the situation.
This situation is SCREAMING for the removal of government subsidies and interference. But NOBODY will EVER succeed in implementing a solution that DOESN'T create MORE government involvement.
Which bureaucrat will EVER vote himself out of a job?
We need a "Boston Tea Party" of Atlantic proportions.
I had to read a bit to find the problem, but I knew it was the gov'ts fault.
(Yes, I know that fish swim and don't respect political boundaries. In an imperfect world, a solution doesn't need to be a perfect solution, just a good solution.)
You say that like it's a bad thing.
Much like the book The Population Bomb which was a bestseller over 30 years ago and predicted mass famine and ecological destruction in western civilized countries by the year 2000. Of courses, not one prediction of book came true...
Do you see aqua culture happening on the East Coast like out here in on the West Coast and in BC to help increase the fish populations in the Atlantic!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.