I'm not sure what the marine equivalent of a bandwagon is (a love boat?), but there's one headed our way. I'm talking about the movement called "individual fishing quotas," as described in a recent Los Angeles Times article. The original theory is straight out of the free market school of economics: Give people the ownership of something, and they'll be good stewards. As I've written before, this isn't necessarily so.
Indeed, as the article points out, such programs can't work unless there are restrictions on overall catches. And they also can't work unless there are mechanisms -- including coverage by scientific observers -- to limit, reduce, and discard other species by catch. And don't neglect dealing with fishing gear impacts on bottom habitat.
Starting to sound familiar? Those are some key elements of a well managed fishery. As a result, many argue that the benefits credited to individual quota fisheries are really simply because the fisheries are well managed.
That said, it's a reasonable idea to allocate individual fishermen their share of the overall catch and hold them accountable for it. Indeed, if they were called "individual accountability programs," or "individual performance programs," there might not be much debate.
There's also no question that aligning economic self-interest with regulatory responsibility is a good deal where you can do it. Balancing rights with obligations is critical. But there are right ways and wrong ways to design these programs. Some of them are heavy on rights and short on obligations. Getting the science right and ensuring that fishermen are obliged to follow it is critical.
The good news: We seem to be moving away from the free market purist version of individual quotas toward a recognition of the proper role of regulation in these systems. If so, maybe one of these days we'll be happy to hear the band arrive.
Can EPA regulations on CO2 be blocked?
Comments
View as Flat
Biodiversivist Posted 1:17 am
15 Nov 2008
I think we should interject market forces by paying a bounty on violators. The bounty hunters would of course have their own reality show, be portrayed as heroes, and get a cut of action figure sales.
Seriously though, a bored bureaucrat who has to slog around on boats all day for next to nothing is not very motivated and is also susceptible to bribes.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 4:19 am
15 Nov 2008
The linked article to the Atlantic cod fishery was not fair because that industry was wiped out many decades ago, and IFQs had nothing to do with it. You have to have a sustainable fishery and some very good numbers before even thinking about an IFQ system. At best, Atlantic cod should be restricted to the recreational and maybe small commercial hook and line folks - and yes, a few are coming back although very slowly because of competition from dogfish (another issue).
I think that IFQs are a great idea if the numbers have the best science. Plus, any by-catch is not wasted but counts toward the IFQ poundage, a nice twist that reduces discards. In most cases, the bad things that came out of NMFS was not the IFQ concept but the political numbers - numbers that the scientists could not support. This is a very serious accusation against the NMFS, since they had control of the fisheries since Magnuson was implemented by Congress. Let's put the blame where it belongs - on the NMFS and not the poor fisherman. -sammie
Onward through the fog
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 5:41 am
15 Nov 2008
Cf. the phenomenon of the increased marketplace value of wild animals, whether living individuals or body-parts as "trophies," etc., once the animals' species is officially declared "endangered."
Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 7:25 am
15 Nov 2008
Most catches are indeed inspected as to species, poundage, and any size limits by state and federal officials. It is one of the most regulated industries in the nation.
Where do you get the idea all the sudden that the fishermen would regulate themselves? You show both a misunderstanding of the industry as well as a horrible prejudice.
And who said that IFQs allowed some relaxation in any rules? If anything, there are MORE rules such as GPS monitors and more observers than ever.
If anything, the IFQ system should reduce catches in two ways: (1) by-catch is included in the IFQ tally and (2) if a boat has a little left in its IFQ allotment, it would be uneconomical to go back to sea to catch a very small load.
I have no idea why you folks blindly repeat stereotypes and the "fish rapers of the sea." True there are bad actors just as there are bad environmentalists! Je t'accuse!
Onward through the fog
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 3:55 pm
15 Nov 2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/16/weekinreview/16bittman. ....
The similarly much-respected Carl Safina is also an optimist, according to Bittman, provided we take the right actions, globally, pronto.
As cheered as I am by this kind of talk, I remain a pessimist. That fish populations, even overfished ones, should be able to reflourish, given the right conditions, is not too surprising a bit of wisdom from the fish experts.
But human nature is the big obstacle; and human nature is an entirely other matter.
For starters, even the well-meaning Mark Bittman does not take the time to suggest that there is far more to thinking about wild fish, our close vertebrate kin, with regard to ecology and ethics, than simply dropping a net into the ocean, pulling it back up, and hoping there will be something (someone) inside for dinner.
Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 7:30 am
16 Nov 2008
The results so far are very uneven.
There seems to be some major BS flying around the media that under the IFQ system, the fishermen would manage their own fisheries and do a better job than the government because if they over-fish, they will work themselves out of a job - possibly permanently. This is technically known as "a crock." The NMFS has absolutely no intention of letting fishermen manage anything of their own except in cases of aquaculture and fish farming (a different subject but it was in the NYT article by Bittman, who like me thinks they are horrible although for shellfish I disagree).
The IFQ system was merely a way to weed out the small players in the game, those that had traditional permits but only used them rarely. This tended to aggregate the permits to those boats and captains with historically high catches. Many independent, small guys HATE the IFQ system for that reason - they lost thousands in when the old permits expired.
The sister program to the IFQ was the boat buy-back program, where NMFS would purchase the boat, permits, and gear in a kind of auction and pay cash to the permit holder - to scrap the boat. It is not as well known and wasn't funded all that great, although a few hundred boats did go that way.
Neither program to limit fishing has had much effect, either, as the historical catches reported by NMFS bounce around 9.2 to 9.5 billion pounds a year since 2001. This means that there has been some consolidation in the fishing fleet, where less boats are catching more fish! Nothing is perfect, I suppose. -sammie
Onward through the fog
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 9:12 am
16 Nov 2008
The U.S. spends far too much money on a military that is used to enforce U.S. business interests around the world. Instead of continuing to allow this immoral, illegitimate pursuit, these people should be used to enforce fishing regs, for example. Of course, this isn't what the ruling class wants, but it would be a good solution. Despite the baloney spouted by the fishing industry, as put forth by Sam Wells, there is no effective enforcement of fishing regulations.
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 10:39 am
16 Nov 2008
For example, several have stated as fact that fishery observers are corrupt and that there is no real enforcement, which are such downright uneducated statements they are hilarious and not worth taking seriously.
I'm not going to get into a pissing match with folks who don't know the the politics, economics, sociology, technology, and history about the commercial marine fisheries of the United States. However I will say that as more and more fishermen are run off the water by draconian regulations, high costs, and low dock prices, you'll get your wish eventually. We just won't have a fishery anymore except a few boats up in Alaska.
No, instead you'll be eating mislabeled and possibly toxic imports and farm raised fish that tastes like pooh and creates worse pollution than catching wild fish - if you care to eat the stuff at all. There is no "fish lobby" but you can trust that we'll have plenty of industrial beef, chicken, and pork which you can run away from and be a self-satisfied "vegan." Gosh what a great country!
Onward through the fog
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 2:09 pm
16 Nov 2008
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink