Posted on 02/18/2002 2:59:11 AM PST by semper_libertas
(tongue(mine) in cheek(also mine))
kinda like broadcast rights? Would apply only within state controlled waters though...
I'm not much of a fisherman, but I presume that harvesting that last 5% would be prohibitive.
It seems that making fishing rights transferable increases management requirements. What about people who've been guiding or doing something else the last few years? What about people who are on their way out, but now have something worth a fortune? What about the up and comers who are saving for their own boat and don't get in the door in time? If we still have too many fishermen, will we start paying people not to fish after they bought these expensive permits with the understand that they could fish with them?
Why stop at fishing? I think the quality of lumber today is lousy. It's over competitive. It might help to limit the number of logging and milling licenses that are handed out, maybe making them transferable.
From what I can tell, fishermen don't lack for a sense of ownership in the species. They generally like the lifestyle and have too much invested to want to see it deteriorate. They're just willing to individually cheat if it will multiply their income, just like anyone else.
Well, thats creating a false economy and encumbering a market with an added level of "middlemen". Regulators you might say.
The problem is your "producers" are not producers. They do nothing explicitly to grow supply, they simply reject demand by setting false prices to recoup their investment in the shares.
Let actual fish farmers be the producers. No need to muddy the waters. When fish stocks become insufferably low, the real producers will have a field day (bay day?).
Within territorial boundaries it makes sense to allow property rights for real producers. But a simple allocation of shares for an equity that is neither contained, produced (at large), or otherwise controlled will do nothing but create a market in shares, not protect the profitability of the fisherman.
Your approach sounds very much like that described by US_MilitaryRules, wherein they have to apply ahead of time for an allotment of fish. He explains in his post #111.
Perhaps you approach may avoid this?
...and why is that a problem?
You may be right about lobsters being smaller and being taken younger and younger than before, but I was just trying keep the lobster discussion seperate from the commercial fish discussion.
I believe that Federal regulation of the oceans, rivers and lakes has been a disaster and we need to try a different way. "Physicist" had the most intriguing idea discussed on this thread, trying to figure out a way for indivduals or corporations to take ownership of certain areas that are now viewed a "communal." Like private game preserves or private stewardship of forests there would be an an incentive to protect and manage private property. The problem with Government regulation is that they only respond to political pressures from a wide myriad of pressure groups. One need only look at how much better private enterprise manages their forests compared to the massive government forests.
Thanks for taking the time to respond. I'm going to re-read your intriguing ideas later when I have a bit more time.
Get rid of government price supports!
Wouldn't higher prices only encourage more fishermen to hit the seas hoping for huge revenues, thus making the shortage even worse?
Pay fifty bucks a pound for pigeon, and watch how fast NYC develops a pigeon shortage...
What natural science theory do you base this on? You really have no basis for these assertions. Natural cycles are actually highly unstable with huge overpopulations and die-offs every few years. The North Atlantic fisheries system will reproduce this, just as the writer predicts.
But the higher prices are the result of poor catches. So even if more fishermen get lured onto the seas and fewer fish really do become available, they'll each be catching less and less. They'll need prices to be even higher and higher to make a profit. At some point fishermen can't pass their expense for going after rarer and rarer fish to consumers who're almost as happy with farm raised at $3-$5 per pound.
Your analog presumes that pigeon's can't be farm raised or substituted with farm raised chickens.
The model is so simplistic compared to real-world economics it's useless.
Comparing that model with what we are discussing is like comparing a light switch with a 4th order predictive filter. (maybe even more extreme)
Because people like to eat fish.
Look, the main argument in favor of capitalism, once you get outside of objectivist moral theorists (of which I am one, don't get me wrong) is that capitalism delivers abundance. Leonard Peikoff might denounce that as pragmatism, but people from the shanty towns to the boards of directors look only at the bottom line. Whatever it is, be it widgets or fish, capitalism is supposed to deliver more of it at a lower price. If capitalism can't make good on that promise, most people will ditch it in a heartbeat.
For that reason, the ecofreaks would love for everyone to believe that capitalism is all about expoiting resources until they are no good to anyone. I say they're wrong, but you seem to be agreeing with them, except that you tack the words "so what" on the end. I doubt you'll change many minds in favor of a free market approach.
Where do we disagree? External factors frequently affect systems that were in equilibrium, and fluctuations occur.
While it's true enough that increasing prices would reduce demand, it's also likely that increasing prices will INCREASE the number of fishing vessels, since any catch at all becomes more profitable.
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.