Ronald Bailey casts his net and reels in expert opinions on the future of fisheries.
New at Reason
Comments to "New at Reason":
Kwix | August 25, 2006, 4:19pm | #
And Mark Lundsten, a former Alaska halibut and sablefish fisher, described how the creation of individual fishing quotas (IFQs) in Alaska transformed those fisheries. In 1994, before (IFQs) the halibut fishing season was a "derby" (called that because it was reminiscent of demolition derbies) lasting 72 hours. After IFQs were assigned, the season lasted 245 days. Fishers did not have to go out in bad weather and consumers got fresh rather than frozen fish. Inevitably establishing property rights in fisheries means that many fishers and boats will have to leave the industry. This fact always generates a lot of initial resistance among fishers.Not saying that this method of fishery management is wrong, but it does go against the traditional libertarian idea of laissez faire economics. In this instance the "property rights" are not so much established as a government sanctioned quota system. You can fish anywhere, but you can only bring in so much fish and to make it profitable only so many boats can sail. This is a defacto government imposed restriction on the number of businesses (ships) that can operate in a market.
cecil | August 25, 2006, 4:34pm | #
Kwix, even a hardcore libertarian needs to eat and must recognize the tragedy of the commons.Individual property rights are the key, not quotas, I'll agree. But, formal property rights ,even if established by government, are better than a system that externalizes all costs to the detrement of everyone.
Of course, the feds know how to handle this: throw money at the fishermen.
http://www.examiner.com/a-213103~California__Oregon_salmon_fishing_declared_economic_disaster.html
joe | August 25, 2006, 5:15pm | #
A very interesting piece.I wonder why these ideas have been put into practice in Candada and New Zealand, but no in the US or Japan?
Lowdog | August 25, 2006, 5:25pm | #
Probably some fisherman lobby here in the US is too short-sighted to see the advantages. Or people who just really don't understand the problem.I am one libertarian who is not oblivious to the huge problem of our government's collusion with business. Unfortunately, it's been like that since the beginning. I was trying to explain to a friend how many regulations did not sprout up from the benevolence of our government, but because some business lobbied the government to get said regulation in place to protect themselves (said business). He seemed to think it was a new development since Bush II.
I find it tough to believe that the "Fisherman Lobby" would wield more clout in Washington than in Ottowa or Aukland. The fishing industry is a much bigger player in both of those countries than in our own.
Lowdog | August 25, 2006, 5:52pm | #
Well, it goes to show how much I know, since I did call it a "Fisherman Lobby". :)Maybe it is a simple lack of economic understanding, like many (most) things?
I would have to bet that enviromentalists of some sort should shoulder some blame, as well. For some reason, many environmentalists have a horrific aversion to anybody owning anything, even if, in this specific case, ownership would also create more of a stewardship attitude.
pedantic fisherman | August 25, 2006, 5:55pm | #
Hmmm, actually you haul in a net, while you reel in a line.Pedro Bento | August 25, 2006, 5:55pm | #
Where's Ottowa? :)joe | August 25, 2006, 6:03pm | #
Lowdog,I'm still not feelin' ya.
I don't think that Canada has fewer environmentalists or a greater propensity towards capitalistic problem solving than the U.S.
Perhaps it has to do with the fact that the Chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee spending all his time uncovering "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on mankind."
Isaac Bartram | August 25, 2006, 6:10pm | #
Where's Ottowa? :)I don't know. I'm still trying to figure out where Aukland is?
I'd know but damn publik skules didn't teech us no geographamy
kevrob | August 25, 2006, 6:48pm | #
Ron, this is a fisher. People are "fishermen" and "fisherwomen" - even "fisher folk", if you want to be inclusive.Kevin
I know what Mr. Bailey means in context, but I still was struck by the ironic phrase "private communal property."
MUTT | August 25, 2006, 7:45pm | #
theorize as you will: complete lack of any conservative ethic has utterly collapsed the fishing stock. the Gulf, NE, the Banks, countless spots in the Pacific: the fish are gone. Now what? Thats a LOT of protien, gone, AND, on top of that, a lack, total lack, of a conservative ethic re: dumping waste/poisons in the sea has combined with the brainless overfishing to massivley wreck the idea as fish as a source of food.Note this wasnt caused by Gvt intervention, this was lazay- fare to the fare the well. Now what?
A "free market" soultion? Will the
"invisible hand" make an appearance?? I await Lib wisdom.
Aresen | August 25, 2006, 8:05pm | #
MUTTPlease read up on what is referred to as the "tragdy of the commons."
Here is a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons#Garrett_Hardin.27s_essay
The libertarian "take" on this is that, as there are no property rights in a "common", there is no interest in maintaining it. The libertarian solution is to establish a property right, so that the owner has an interest in maintaining what used to be a common and preventing its degradation for his/her own long term profit.
Libertarians prefer a defined property right as opposed to a state property, which becomes the object of political manipulation. The state is almost invariably interested in the immediate, short term gain and political payoff than in the long term maintenance of the asset. The Aral Sea under the Soviet Union is a classic example of the latter.
There are other solutions - regulation, leases, quotas, etc - but they are subject to the same political manipulation as direct state ownership.
MUTT | August 25, 2006, 9:09pm | #
Well, yes Aresen: the tradgedy of the common. No conservative (as in conservation) ethic. So, somehow, there is needed (maybe too late for the next 50 years) some sort of conservation ethic. I hate to say it, but so far in Libertarianland, I see "first one in and slam the door, devil take the hindmost" aka lazy faire.My Pop spent his life as a game warden in W. NYS.
It seems to be a intractable problem..........too many people, no self dicipline, no thought for next year.
Property rights, as in handed down (hereditary) fish quotas? Sinking furrin raiders? (I am proud to be an old shipmate of Cap'n Garbage, who stormed a line cuttin Russian boat in the early 70's & held the crew @ gunpoint) State determined wieght of haul? Dare I say it.....conservation?
Whatever, its way past late now. The fisheries need to be left the hell alone for decades, then managed, conservativly.....Appreciate yr heads up, Wikipedia holds all the validity of chickenhawk radio in my mind, however...I will read the essay.Again, thanks for the response.....
MUTT | August 25, 2006, 9:13pm | #
Well, yes Aresen: the tradgedy of the common. No conservative (as in conservation) ethic. So, somehow, there is needed (maybe too late for the next 50 years) some sort of conservation ethic. I hate to say it, but so far in Libertarianland, I see "first one in and slam the door, devil take the hindmost" aka lazy faire.My Pop spent his life as a game warden in W. NYS.
It seems to be a intractable problem..........too many people, no self dicipline, no thought for next year.
Property rights, as in handed down (hereditary) fish quotas? Sinking furrin raiders? (I am proud to be an old shipmate of Cap'n Garbage, who stormed a line cuttin Russian boat in the early 70's & held the crew @ gunpoint) State determined wieght of haul? Dare I say it.....conservation?
Whatever, its way past late now. The fisheries need to be left the hell alone for decades, then managed, conservativly.....Appreciate yr heads up, Wikipedia holds all the validity of chickenhawk radio in my mind, however...I will read the essay. Rats: link no serbe)Again, thanks for the response.....
Shoot, Aresen....Im having no luck getting this essay off Wik. The address given yields no results. Mind, now, Im about as smart as a flounder with this damn devil machine, & any help you can offer will be appreciated.....since the Common is the subject, are you familiar with the work of Murray Bookchin?
R C Dean | August 25, 2006, 10:42pm | #
formal property rights ,even if established by governmentJust FYI - all real property rights can be traced back to a grant from the sovereign. So this way of creating property rights is actually pretty typical.
Aresen | August 25, 2006, 11:01pm | #
For the wikipedia link, it is merely a link to a rather good article written on the subject. I found it via a google search "tragedy of the commons".While property rights may not appeal to you, the simple fact is that an owner has an interest in conserving a resource, not wasting it. "First in gets the prize" may not seem fair, but it is one of the rewards of having the initiative to go out and find a resource. There may be a million tons of whatever precious substance you covet right under your house, but if you don't have the initiative to find it and the next owner of your property does, why should you be entitled to benefit?
It is the same logic that we already apply in patent law. For some reason, however, there is a romanitic notion that mineral/fishery/land resources belong to "everyone" and that "everyone" (usually in the form of the state) is entitled to a benefit from the discovery of the resource.
You say that it will take decades for the fishery to recover. I agree. However, many corporations and family businesses have been built on generations-long plans where the owner has taken a long view, rather than a short one.
Other than a few monarchies [the Tudor dynasty comes to mind], I cannot think of a government that has taken the long view. Generally, they can't think past a year or two.
I very much doubt the capability of any government to take on the long term recovery of the fisheries. The US and Canada together might be able to do it for the Grand Banks, but it would take an incredible amount of political courage to do so in the face of the certain opposition of political forces both inside our countries and internationally.
I can think of one "fish" group which has recovered - whales. But that is due to an almost total ban on whaling worldwide. That ban was not brought about by a wish to restore the whale stocks to a level of sustainable yield, but due to a romanticized perception of whales as intelligent, "cuddly" creatures. Whether this perception is justified or not (I personally oppose whaling), I leave to you. But it was politics, not foresight, which has led to the recovery of the various whale species.
Isaac Bartram | August 26, 2006, 2:12pm | #
Note this wasnt caused by Gvt intervention, this was lazay- fare to the fare the well.That strikes me as an awfully odd thing to say in view of the huge subsidies that many governments have given to massively destructive factory fishing fleets. It is highly unlikely that those methods would have attained that kind of scale in strictly private fleets.
Russell | August 27, 2006, 2:33am | #
Looks like they've gutted the fact checking department at The New Yorker, and gone belly up at the MacArthur Foundation:"The profile notes that with modern fishing methods "[e]ntire populations of fish can be erased."
Erased indeed-- they've merely been shifted to the tail of the Poisson distribution,
MainstreamMan | August 27, 2006, 11:25am | #
"private communal property and exclude outsiders. In other words, property rights, even informal property rights, can help restore and protect fisheries."This requires us to recognize society as an actual entity. Rothbard would be appalled.
MUTT | August 27, 2006, 5:56pm | #
Aresen wrote "While property rights may not appeal to you, the simple fact is that an owner has an interest in conserving a resource, not wasting it.".....where did you get that idea?
Im a long time defender of property rights, even own some. Re: Bookchin. You are missing something vital about him. His monograph on the Vermont Constitution (arguably the fiercest protector of individual liberties in the Republic) is a fierce piece on self geveranance. Murray became an Anarchist only after being tossed from the CP in the late 30's. Theres a lot there.
Finally, if the Commons were such a pillaged disaster, why were the common lands fenced by the Crown & its new supporter, Capital, to FORCE otherwise independant people into the mills? Why were the Highlands of Scotland cleared, if this notion of common ownership- not of EVERYTHING, but of some things: grazing lands, farm lands, hunting lands- was doomed to failure? Seems to me it worked well enough, a lot of folks didnt need a "Crown"- or slave work in mills.
But thats just me. Look what "private property" has wrought in Appalachia, and how Pennsylvania became a toxic oilpool in the late 1800's. Interesting enough, theres a splendid example of this in Arizona. The lead mines started smeltering lead into ingots. The smoke from which destryed tens of thousands of acres of grazing & farm lands, some private, some "common".
Private interests, rich with profits, coulkd hire gunmen, & the Army- to deal with "troublemakers". Used to be called the Green River Valley, up there by Jerome. Still is, as a matter of fact. But it still aint green, & wont be.
Private property rights pulled that one.
So, you see, Im not black & white here. You cant assume because Im skeptical of what you posit I am therefore hostile to the notion of private property....