WSJ editorial on Fisheries Management

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

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 shit.

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

Go look in a mirror.

DSK

I'd like to get my costs that low.

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

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.

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.

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.