0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Certainly there is an argument that the only way to preserve scarce resources is to allocate ownership (and thus responsibility) over the resource (this was what caused the fencing of the commons). In that respect, the idea makes sense; but the practical implementation you suggest would not, in my opinion, be able to be made to work.
Firstly, tagging fish, rather like branding cattle, will work, but only if you can do the same for their offspring. This is far easier to do with cattle, which generally have one live birth a year, than with fish that will spawn millions of eggs that are not easily traceable to the parent. Arguably, this could be better achieved with DNA testing, but this would be a very expensive procedure to implement (to DNA test each fish caught), and how do you allocate ownership to the fourth generation, when maybe each of the great grandparents of the fish came from a different stock group?
Another problem would be enforcement - how do you enforce that a fisherman will DNA test the fish? What about fish that do not come from an existing stock?
There is another problem with regard to protection of asset values. Many fish are caught and eaten by other predators (whales, larger fish, seals, etc.). When you apply an asset value to the fish, it is reasonable for the owners of that asset value to seek to protect their assets (just as sheep farmers act to prevent wolves from getting to their sheep). How would you envision this playing out?
Here is my point, the offspring of the fish you release are not owned they are free. You tag the fish released and should they be caught then they charge a price relative to the cost of production don't forget each year they will be releasing thousands of new fish all tagged. The whole point of the scheme is to increase fish stocks, not to give complete overship of all the fish in the sea.
If it worked as I'm suggesting there would be no need to DNA test the fish, but if it did happen the fishermen would not do it the organisation in charge of there production would, using the coast guard ect.
That is expected, infact that would be a desired outcome, if the fish released are eaten by other fish or predators then the seas ecosystems would be improving. If it was government run then taxation would be paying for it, fishermen would be charged for each tagged fish they caught. The costs of a tagged fish would be high Because they would cover the cost of production if possible.
If they were DNA traced or had a small device implanted inside them, the fisher men would have no way of knowing which fish were tagged and which were not.
But if your suggesting all the fish released and there offspring were owned and DNA traced then basically all the fish in the sea would be eventually own by an organisation.
That is something that I really do not want to see, and under that situation the fisher men would have to pay for every fish they caught, which would probably just lead to the blackmarket fishing and selling illegally to restaurants.
Bottom line is whatever you do, criminals will look for way around it, the way to make a cheep buck, even if the fisher men did find a way to find and throw back the tagged fish at least the situation would be better than it is now.
It's just an idea. Some want to ban fishing altogether, if current trends keep up there will not be any fish left.
This really is a problem caused by the fisher men, they could be the answer to the problem.
Quote from: sooyeah on 23/09/2007 14:03:53It's just an idea. Some want to ban fishing altogether, if current trends keep up there will not be any fish left. Despite all the scare stories, I cannot see this being an outcome, but I can easily see a situation where there will no longer be any fish left suitable for the fishing industry to catch (possibly that means no fish that are suitable for human consumption).
Quote from: sooyeah on 23/09/2007 14:03:53This really is a problem caused by the fisher men, they could be the answer to the problem.Isn't this a case of when things are going well, it is our genius, but if things go wrong it is all their fault?Did not society as a whole promote fishing, when it suited society to do so; and now we have come to the end of the road, we simply pass the blame on to the fisherman who served society so well in the past.
Quote from: sooyeah on 23/09/2007 14:03:53If they were DNA traced or had a small device implanted inside them, the fisher men would have no way of knowing which fish were tagged and which were not.That would turn it into a game of roulette.In my opinion, if the systems were made sufficiently portable and robust to be able to be implemented at every point of landing, then I cannot see how you could prevent the systems from finding their way aboard the boats themselves.
Quote from: sooyeah on 23/09/2007 14:03:53But if your suggesting all the fish released and there offspring were owned and DNA traced then basically all the fish in the sea would be eventually own by an organisation. Only a universal system has any possible way of being enforced. A system that applies only to some percentage of the catch would be totally unenforceable.
Quote from: sooyeah on 23/09/2007 14:03:53That is something that I really do not want to see, and under that situation the fisher men would have to pay for every fish they caught, which would probably just lead to the blackmarket fishing and selling illegally to restaurants.Black markets always exist (just as the black market in ivory still continues, but made worse because there continues a legal market in antique ivory, and this presents a cover for the black market in illegal ivory).
Quote from: sooyeah on 23/09/2007 14:03:53Bottom line is whatever you do, criminals will look for away around it, the way to make a cheep buck, even if the fisher men did find a way to find and throw back the tagged fish at least the situation would be better than it is now.Much easier to enforce a law where every fish must be paid for to one supplier or another (then if no supplier has been paid then the action is clearly illegal, whereas in a mixed economy, a fisherman can casually claim that the fish has no owner, and so has no documentation to fill, and no payment to make).There are always ways around the system, but much more difficult to achieve in a uniform system than in a hybrid system.
Bottom line is whatever you do, criminals will look for away around it, the way to make a cheep buck, even if the fisher men did find a way to find and throw back the tagged fish at least the situation would be better than it is now.
Quote from: another_someone on 23/09/2007 15:28:21Quote from: sooyeah on 23/09/2007 14:03:53It's just an idea. Some want to ban fishing altogether, if current trends keep up there will not be any fish left. Despite all the scare stories, I cannot see this being an outcome, but I can easily see a situation where there will no longer be any fish left suitable for the fishing industry to catch (possibly that means no fish that are suitable for human consumption).Well some fish stock are at 10% of what they were 25 years ago. Some fish have already been so over fished that they are almost extinct. Scare stories? That is not the case, it's the hard reality of over fishing.
I agree anyone involved in the process has their part to play, however if fishermen acted a tiny bit more responsibly, then it is possible we wouldn't be here.
But really this is not a problem caused by the smaller fishermen its the giant fishing companies, with giant boats which basically suck everything up they pass over.
People who eat fish also pay a part but, better fishing practice would do alot to solve most of the problems.
You could check at the point of sale, in the shops at the other end of the system, then trace where the fish came from.
As another suggestion you could stick a tax on all fish people purchase and a tax on all fish caught by the fishermen the money generated could then be used to fund the fish farms and help replenish the sea.Under which the farm would be run by the government and the fish released would be owned by no-one and then the fishermen would just pay a tax on the whole catch.
The other idea about realising fish with tags could be used as a way of farming free range fish they would lose some of the fish but the fish they sold would be healthier.
Quote from: sooyeah on 23/09/2007 15:59:22You could check at the point of sale, in the shops at the other end of the system, then trace where the fish came from.If you have a single piece of salmon on your plate, this might be possible, but how do you suggest you do this with a single slice out of a giant tuna, or where fish are ground up into fish meal?
Quote from: sooyeah on 23/09/2007 15:59:22As another suggestion you could stick a tax on all fish people purchase and a tax on all fish caught by the fishermen the money generated could then be used to fund the fish farms and help replenish the sea.Under which the farm would be run by the government and the fish released would be owned by no-one and then the fishermen would just pay a tax on the whole catch.It has its benefits in terms of simplicity, although there are still a number of holes in this (not necessarily more holes than in any other system).A French fishing boat comes ashore with a boat load of fish - where does the tax go - is this to support the French fish farms, even though he caught all of his fish off the coast of Iceland?
What if he had been fishing in more than one area, how do you allocate the tax?
What about the landing of species that are not farmed?
What motivation is there in the system to better reward more effective fish farms?
It is a system you could run side by side, where you could apply a hefty tax on unbranded fish, but where the fishermen could identify the particular fish farm, they could pay a smaller royalty direct to the fish farm, and so reduce his costs and reward the farmer who achieves the best results.
All of this ofcourse changes from the current system, since the present system does not release farmed fish back into the wild, and I suspect at present many environmentalists would be wary of doing so.
Quote from: sooyeah on 23/09/2007 15:59:22The other idea about realising fish with tags could be used as a way of farming free range fish they would lose some of the fish but the fish they sold would be healthier. This, I suspect, would be more plausible (from the health perspective) than releasing farmed fish into the wild, but it does require some way of cataloguing all the fish presently in the seas, and somehow allocating initial ownership of that fish.
Quote from: another_someone on 23/09/2007 17:06:21Quote from: sooyeah on 23/09/2007 15:59:22You could check at the point of sale, in the shops at the other end of the system, then trace where the fish came from.If you have a single piece of salmon on your plate, this might be possible, but how do you suggest you do this with a single slice out of a giant tuna, or where fish are ground up into fish meal?It would be done at the factory that they are made, pre-use.
Quote from: another_someone on 23/09/2007 17:06:21It has its benefits in terms of simplicity, although there are still a number of holes in this (not necessarily more holes than in any other system).A French fishing boat comes ashore with a boat load of fish - where does the tax go - is this to support the French fish farms, even though he caught all of his fish off the coast of Iceland? It would all depend on how the system was set up, the tax could go to European union and then be sent to each country that had a fish farm.Or you could tax related to the actual catch, then the money would go to the farm that actually releases that species.If the tax was generated by each country then you would have to tax share with the countries involved, that would cause some problems.
It has its benefits in terms of simplicity, although there are still a number of holes in this (not necessarily more holes than in any other system).A French fishing boat comes ashore with a boat load of fish - where does the tax go - is this to support the French fish farms, even though he caught all of his fish off the coast of Iceland?
Quote from: another_someone on 23/09/2007 17:06:21What if he had been fishing in more than one area, how do you allocate the tax?Well the tax by species and then allocation to the farm that produces would solve that. But then you would no doubt have a situation where two farms produce the same fish and then argue over who is closer to the catch site.Under that situation I would recommend a tax share, which would mean all of the catches would be divided between all the farms that produce that species.
Quote from: another_someone on 23/09/2007 17:06:21What about the landing of species that are not farmed?Well the non-farmed fish numbers would probably have been increased due to a greater numbers of other fish being released. So the again the tax would be split up and shared between all the farms.
Don't forget your taxing all areas of the process, the buyers the producers and the middle men as well, So the overall tax burden on each would be lower.
Quote from: another_someone on 23/09/2007 17:06:21What motivation is there in the system to better reward more effective fish farms?Well rewards should be more than just financial. If the system was intergrated and there was some form of over control then the fish farms could adapt and release the fish needed. If each farm was left to its own devices they would probably all start producing the same fish, which would give the most benefit financially.This is why I think the farms would need to be government run, the overall benefits to the economy would stem from that. This is a world problem, why could you not allow the U.N to run the scheme? All coastal countries would have a farm, all countries would pay a tax on the fish all the revenue would then be shared out to the farms that produces the catch. So the U.N and environmental groups could run it.
Well thats a good idea, the unbranded fish would be more expensive so the fishermen would throw them back, I only hope the fish thrown back, survive.
Quote from: another_someone on 23/09/2007 17:06:21All of this ofcourse changes from the current system, since the present system does not release farmed fish back into the wild, and I suspect at present many environmentalists would be wary of doing so.It would be nice if any environmentalists reading this could voice an opinion, I would say that, what I am suggesting is no different to what they do with monkeys or other nearly extinct spices, do they not raise them in a zoo and then release them back into the wild to help the population increase.
The whole point of running the scheme is to leave the wild, wild, but to have improvement in the eco-system while allowing fisher men and others to carry on working. If all fish became owned what would stop a sole owner banning all fisher men from working or giving all fishing rights to one company?
I really think it should be a world scheme to repair the damage done, overall ownership shouldn't be allowed.
Quote from: sooyeah on 24/09/2007 12:24:50I really think it should be a world scheme to repair the damage done, overall ownership shouldn't be allowed. Having politicians providing centralised control over resources has always proved to be the worst of all possible worlds.You asked earlier why fishermen are not behaving responsibly, and I suggested it was because they were never given responsibility. Giving politicians centralised control over fish stocks does nothing to mitigate this - fishermen will still not be given responsibility for their fish stocks,
and so will still have no motive to behave responsibly. What you are suggesting is equivalent to to collectivisation of agriculture that Stalin implemented in the Soviet Union that lead to the great famine. Centralised control of resources is too blunt an instrument, and does not work.
You need the flexibility of allowing (and motivating) people at the coal face to optimise their own actions in the light of local conditions. If the only people motivated are the guys at the centre, and the rest are just blindly following orders, the system will not work.
Quote from: sooyeah on 24/09/2007 12:24:50Quote from: another_someone on 23/09/2007 17:06:21Quote from: sooyeah on 23/09/2007 15:59:22You could check at the point of sale, in the shops at the other end of the system, then trace where the fish came from.If you have a single piece of salmon on your plate, this might be possible, but how do you suggest you do this with a single slice out of a giant tuna, or where fish are ground up into fish meal?It would be done at the factory that they are made, pre-use. You are now creating a very complex system, where some fish are checked at one point in the system, some at another point in the system. Such a level of complexity and inconsistency will generate an enormous number of holes within the system, as well as generating costs.
At present, fish are normally checked on landing, which is as close to the point of capture as people are willing to go - but every point in the system further away from the point of capture just increases the likelihood that someone will sidestep the system.Quote from: sooyeah on 24/09/2007 12:24:50Quote from: another_someone on 23/09/2007 17:06:21It has its benefits in terms of simplicity, although there are still a number of holes in this (not necessarily more holes than in any other system).A French fishing boat comes ashore with a boat load of fish - where does the tax go - is this to support the French fish farms, even though he caught all of his fish off the coast of Iceland? It would all depend on how the system was set up, the tax could go to European union and then be sent to each country that had a fish farm.Or you could tax related to the actual catch, then the money would go to the farm that actually releases that species.If the tax was generated by each country then you would have to tax share with the countries involved, that would cause some problems.But Iceland is not a member of the EU - and what if the fishing fleet is Russian?
Quote from: sooyeah on 24/09/2007 12:24:50Quote from: another_someone on 23/09/2007 17:06:21What if he had been fishing in more than one area, how do you allocate the tax?Well the tax by species and then allocation to the farm that produces would solve that. But then you would no doubt have a situation where two farms produce the same fish and then argue over who is closer to the catch site.Under that situation I would recommend a tax share, which would mean all of the catches would be divided between all the farms that produce that species.But since catch and farming are only loosely related by the species of fish they produce, then it will lead to people trying to farm popular species of fish on the cheap, get the profit from the catches, but have no real benefit (maybe even a liability) on the feral stock levels (they would be technically feral rather than strictly wild stock).
How do you work this out?
If you release one species of fish, they may be food for another breed, but they could also represent competition for yet another species, or could be predators for yet a third species, or could be a disease vector for a fourth species. You cannot assume that adding a species will equally benefit all other species.
Quote from: sooyeah on 24/09/2007 12:24:50Don't forget your taxing all areas of the process, the buyers the producers and the middle men as well, So the overall tax burden on each would be lower. Complexity, complexity, complexity.So, now, every time I use a product of any kind, I have to know if fish were in some way used to produce some of the raw material for that product (maybe fish were fed to the chickens I buy, or maybe fish glue was used somewhere, or maybe I am buying a mix of food, some of which includes fish and some which does not), and I have to work out the exact percentage of fish in the mix before I know my tax liability?
Quote from: sooyeah on 24/09/2007 12:24:50Quote from: another_someone on 23/09/2007 17:06:21What motivation is there in the system to better reward more effective fish farms?Well rewards should be more than just financial. If the system was intergrated and there was some form of over control then the fish farms could adapt and release the fish needed. If each farm was left to its own devices they would probably all start producing the same fish, which would give the most benefit financially.This is why I think the farms would need to be government run, the overall benefits to the economy would stem from that. This is a world problem, why could you not allow the U.N to run the scheme? All coastal countries would have a farm, all countries would pay a tax on the fish all the revenue would then be shared out to the farms that produces the catch. So the U.N and environmental groups could run it.Do you really believe national governments, much less the UN, is competent to run such a scheme (British Leyland writ large).This is really going back to the debates we had elsewhere about centralised planned economies - you are now talking about a centralised planned fish sector of the economy.
Quote from: sooyeah on 24/09/2007 12:24:50Well thats a good idea, the unbranded fish would be more expensive so the fishermen would throw them back, I only hope the fish thrown back, survive.Evidence to date unfortunately show that most fish that are thrown back are either dead before the hit the water, or will not survive long after.
Quote from: sooyeah on 24/09/2007 12:24:50Quote from: another_someone on 23/09/2007 17:06:21All of this ofcourse changes from the current system, since the present system does not release farmed fish back into the wild, and I suspect at present many environmentalists would be wary of doing so.It would be nice if any environmentalists reading this could voice an opinion, I would say that, what I am suggesting is no different to what they do with monkeys or other nearly extinct spices, do they not raise them in a zoo and then release them back into the wild to help the population increase.What we do with monkeys is totally different.We rear a small number of monkeys (not millions).The monkeys are relatively disease free (the conditions in fish farms leads to higher levels of infection in the fish than is common in the wild). One fear is that releasing large numbers of farmed fish into the wild could spread infection into the wild population.There is some attempt to train the few monkeys that are released back into the wild to cope with conditions in the wild (having been brought up in the more protected environment of a zoo) - again, not at all practical for millions of fish.
Quote from: sooyeah on 24/09/2007 12:24:50The whole point of running the scheme is to leave the wild, wild, but to have improvement in the ecosystem while allowing fisher men and others to carry on working. If all fish became owned what would stop a sole owner banning all fisher men from working or giving all fishing rights to one company? There are two issues.Firstly, the owner is going to want to maximise profits, so clearly he will only ban all fishing if that is a requirement for the sustainability of his long term profits - which is exactly what we would want.The point about having sole rights depends on the legal framework you put around the issue. It may be that this is an acceptable way of doing things, or you may regard it as contrary to public interest as it may be regarded as a form of monopoly, and we already have legislation regarding the creation of cartels and monopolies.
The whole point of running the scheme is to leave the wild, wild, but to have improvement in the ecosystem while allowing fisher men and others to carry on working. If all fish became owned what would stop a sole owner banning all fisher men from working or giving all fishing rights to one company?
The problem with this, with fish as with reindeer, the animals do not respect political boundaries, so it might present difficulties for the fishermen to follow their school if the entered waters that the fishermen were not allowed to follow into.
Quote from: another_someone on 24/09/2007 13:46:02But Iceland is not a member of the EU - and what if the fishing fleet is Russian?As I said you would need to address all of these issues as you set the system up. That is why I was suggesting that it should be a U.N run operation, all countries get a say.
But Iceland is not a member of the EU - and what if the fishing fleet is Russian?
Quote from: another_someone on 24/09/2007 13:46:02But since catch and farming are only loosely related by the species of fish they produce, then it will lead to people trying to farm popular species of fish on the cheap, get the profit from the catches, but have no real benefit (maybe even a liability) on the feral stock levels (they would be technically feral rather than strictly wild stock).They should be run by not for profit organisations, the benefits they bring should be the main consideration. Employment for fisher men, better ecosystems, and protection of the resources.
But since catch and farming are only loosely related by the species of fish they produce, then it will lead to people trying to farm popular species of fish on the cheap, get the profit from the catches, but have no real benefit (maybe even a liability) on the feral stock levels (they would be technically feral rather than strictly wild stock).
Quote from: another_someone on 24/09/2007 13:46:02If you release one species of fish, they may be food for another breed, but they could also represent competition for yet another species, or could be predators for yet a third species, or could be a disease vector for a fourth species. You cannot assume that adding a species will equally benefit all other species.Your right, that is why you would need serious scientific over sight by the environmental community. They are not easy questions to answer, which fish is probably the hardest, unless you only release the ones caught to balance against the action of fisher men.
"Centrally planned" no! it's more and exercise in environmental repair. The farms replace what was taken nature does the rest.
Quote from: another_someone on 24/09/2007 13:46:02Quote from: sooyeah on 24/09/2007 12:24:50Well thats a good idea, the unbranded fish would be more expensive so the fishermen would throw them back, I only hope the fish thrown back, survive.Evidence to date unfortunately show that most fish that are thrown back are either dead before the hit the water, or will not survive long after.A study into why might be able to find a solution
Quote from: another_someone on 24/09/2007 13:46:02What we do with monkeys is totally different.We rear a small number of monkeys (not millions).The monkeys are relatively disease free (the conditions in fish farms leads to higher levels of infection in the fish than is common in the wild). One fear is that releasing large numbers of farmed fish into the wild could spread infection into the wild population.There is some attempt to train the few monkeys that are released back into the wild to cope with conditions in the wild (having been brought up in the more protected environment of a zoo) - again, not at all practical for millions of fish.No it's the same, just bigger, I don't think fish need education, they may, but I don't think they do.
What we do with monkeys is totally different.We rear a small number of monkeys (not millions).The monkeys are relatively disease free (the conditions in fish farms leads to higher levels of infection in the fish than is common in the wild). One fear is that releasing large numbers of farmed fish into the wild could spread infection into the wild population.There is some attempt to train the few monkeys that are released back into the wild to cope with conditions in the wild (having been brought up in the more protected environment of a zoo) - again, not at all practical for millions of fish.
I really take issue with the idea that anyone could own nature. Its the utter lack of respect for nature that got us here. If nature becomes owned then those that own it can treat it as they like(legally).
This is an issue of sustainability. The primary concern should be bringing fish back from the brink.
I still don't see it going to be easy to have the Chinese, Russians, Burmese, Americans, North Koreans, Somalis, et al, sign up to this – let alone allow appropriate audits to ensure it functions properly.
Profit, in a narrow sense, is not the key issue; the key issue is some system of reward for success, and penalty for failure – profit is merely the conventional way of achieving this. If there is no reward for success, then you lack quality control.
The trouble is that scientists and environmentalists are not omnipotent. Even assuming that all environmentalists were saints, and all fishermen were sinners, that the scientists and environmentalists are still only offering theory, and you still need a feedback mechanism to demonstrate that theory translates to practice (in other industries, e.g. Mining – you can have geologists who will tell you where to mine for whatever you are looking for, but one does noit glibly accept the geologists theory, one tests it against practice, and often the geologists get it wrong – how are you proposing we test the environmentalists theories against practice?).
As I said above, whether you regard it as profit, or something else, you still need a feedback mechanism that rewards results, not merely rewarding conformance to theory. Profit is the traditional way of doing this, but if you want some other means, then by all means think of another way of doing it – but if results are not rewarded, then there will be no way of separating good practice from bad practice, and the final outcome will always be failure.
But if the UN is planning an running all of this, then how can you regard that as anything but centrally planned? What is less central than the UN?
I don't think you need much of a study into why fish die when they are taken out of the water.
Depends on the fish, but it is more complex than formal training in the way that one might train a human being. Fish farming is probably closer to poultry farming (in some respects, battery farming) than to keeping fish in a small tank. Fish are not expected to be physically strong (they have not had to build up strength overcoming natural obstacles), their immune systems will have had different threats, they will have generally had to adapt to a very different environment than they do in the wild.
Quote from: sooyeah on 24/09/2007 20:54:36I really take issue with the idea that anyone could own nature. Its the utter lack of respect for nature that got us here. If nature becomes owned then those that own it can treat it as they like(legally). I would argue quite the converse – the reason we are where we are is because nature is not owned.Farmers own a bit of nature – but that ownership brings with it responsibility. Fishermen have never owned anything more than their boat, and they have made great efforts to look after their boat, but have had no incentive to look after that which they did not own.Ownership does not mean you can do what you like with something. Quite the contrary. I own my car, but I am legally required (if I am to use my car on a public road) to maintain it to a minimum standard. My ownership of that car is what makes me legally personally responsible for the car, whereas I have no responsibility for a train I do not own, so I am not legally bound to maintain a train to any particular standard (although the owner of the train is responsible for such).If I were to own a pet, it does not mean that I have the right to abuse that pet, it simply means that I am responsible for that pet.
Quote from: sooyeah on 24/09/2007 22:03:49This is an issue of sustainability. The primary concern should be bringing fish back from the brink. The issue for me is responsibility, which brings us to ownership. If you cannot work out who is responsible, the you cannot fix a problem. By responsibility, I do not mean blame - it is easy to blame, but blame does not fix problems - giving responsibility for a solution, and providing rewards for responsibilities carried out successfully, is what brings results.