5 ms·
A perspective from the north pacific on fisheries, counsels, voting rights, etc - The whole thing is a many sided tug of war. Ultimatly Fisheries are very compl
by orik 9y ago
A perspective from the north pacific on fisheries, counsels, voting rights, etc - The whole thing is a many sided tug of war. Ultimatly Fisheries are very complicated.
Green Peace & Environmentalists would like us to reduce our use of capture fisheries or abandon the practice altogether. (Even though capture fisheries produce protein without damaging biodiversity, unlike farms. also less greenhouse impact.)
Financial stakeholders usually are perceived as wanting to let everyone fish a ton, but not actually always the case. Markets have perversely rewarded extreme overfish and extreme under fishing before because less supply = higher prices. Why catch 10x the fish when you can just raise prices 10x?
Independent fishers and little guys would like less regulation because quota systems, fisheries counsels, etc consistently screw the small guy in favor of larger corporations gaining more control of the industry. These systems grant certain families exclusive rights to 'gold mines that keep refilling', but makes it prohibitive for someone not in the industry to every buy a boat and try at it.
People trying to manage food output like this regulation and quota systems because it's impossible to regulate and manage fisheries when everyone is allowed to do it, it's a lot easier to manage with just a few companies.
The biggest problem we have now with fisheries in the developed world (if your #1 priority is to feed the world without disrupting ecosystems) is that we are underfishing in the pacific, and in europe. Although current systems with mostly financial steak holders and environmentalists in charge are not ideal, I can't think of any realistic structure change that doesn't just lead to additional under fishing, as any new groups would have an increase of people interested in conservation for the sake of conservation, and there doesn't seem to be any way to get people interested in feeding the world in the door.
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago> Green Peace & Environmentalists would like us to reduce our use of capture fisheries or abandon the practice altogether Bans seem to work better for charismatic animals. We spend about $10,000 per year per tiger on conservation efforts [1]. Meanwhile, marine protected areas [2], of which some are no-fish no-catch, are notoriously under-enforced [3]. Which kind of makes sense given nobody is directly incentivized to pay for it. [1] https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/extinction-countdown/cost-to-save-the-worlds-tigers-10000-each-per-year-or-just-pennies-a-day/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/extinction-countdown/co... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_protected_area#Coral_reefs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_protected_area#Coral_re... [3] http://worldoceanreview.com/en/wor-2/fisheries/illegal-fishing/ http://worldoceanreview.com/en/wor-2/fisheries/illegal-fishi...
- orik 9y agolike I was saying, many people would like us to abandon this large source of protein even though sustainable fisheries are possible. Look at the fisheries in New Zealand or Alaska for examples of very well managed fisheries. In many developing countries it's not a tragedy of the commons problem, it's a structure/stability problem. How can you ever have managed fisheries without political stability, or with stability but rampant corruption? How can you have political stability without economic stability and food? It's a chicken and an egg problem.
- gnat 9y agoHello from New Zealand! I beg to differ about "well managed fisheries". NZ has regulatory capture, massive bycatch problems, and some species are near to collapse the way that orange roughy collapsed. The government talks it up as a sterling example of property rights, but the results are atrocious. It's a faith-based claim of success. Sample shenanigans: http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/313631/mpi-official-admits-fish-dumping-widespread http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/313631/mpi-official-a... http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11830436 http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objecti... https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Barry_Torkington/publication/275413421_New_Zealands_quota_management_system_-_incoherent_and_conflicted/links/56736e2308aee7a4274389dc.pdf https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Barry_Torkington/public...
- blackguardx 9y agoI'm not sure if you meant ocean farming or land farming, but most environmentalists oppose land fish farming because of the practices used to get fish meal are pretty destructive and impacts of concentrated penned animals (antibiotic use, waste, etc.) that affect all dense animal protein production. http://www.farmedanddangerous.org/salmon-farming-problems/environmental-impacts/ http://www.farmedanddangerous.org/salmon-farming-problems/en...
- Neliquat 9y agoSure, if you ignore the rapidly growing auqaponics/bioponics tech that has been around si ce the 80s. Its basically a semi sustaining closed loop of agriculture and fish farming, using the waste of each, as the input to the other. Less food, antibiotics, and fertilizers in one shot.
- CalRobert 9y agoIs it a foregone conclusion that we need to be producing this much protein?