For instance, a rise in prices is an indication either of a reduction in supply (certainly true here), an increase in the cost of supply (also true: we have to fish more to catch less fish) or an increase in demand, which is probably not true, given that there are more food alternatives available to the world than ever before. More likely, fish has become more of a luxury item, like steak, rather than the staple that it was.
So, the bottom-line problem is that it costs suppliers more to harvest each fish that they catch. This obviously hasn't deterred fisheries from still trying to catch fish because there is still sufficient demand to warrant their efforts. They know that they can sell what they come back with; it's just a question of how much profit they will make.
Smart suppliers have focused, and will continue to focus, on reducing their costs through more efficient netting techniques and finding areas with more fish. This effort is truly global, and not local market-dependent.
Therefore, it's not enough to say that higher prices will reestablish equilibrium, as that hasn't been true so far. Even at higher market prices, fish populations continue to drop. There is no healthy equilibrium.
This does concern me, but then the earth always proves more resilient than we give it credit to be, and so do people.
A fisherman Freeper tells us in an earlier post that the government SUBSIDIES fishing to the tune of $2.5B. There would appear to be the problem. Our otherwise free-market has been bastardized by the government. They are paying fisherman to purge the ocean of otherwise unprofitable fish.
First lets ELIMINATE government subsidies so that the fish prices will seek a natural level, then lets see who is left...