4 ms·

Here is the question that interests me... For over 100 years, commercial fishing has been an issue. Atlantic cod was the canonical tragedy of the commons, with

Here is the question that interests me... For over 100 years, commercial fishing has been an issue. Atlantic cod was the canonical tragedy of the commons, with early multinational agreements that attempted to fix it. They're still shaky. On land, we hit a point a long time ago. American Bison are a very illustrative example. Guns and railroads could harvest the whole population in a few seasons. Factory conveyor belts could use all the hides hunters could harvest. Industrial society and commercial hunting just didn't go together. Wild populations can't produce on the scale we can consume. So basically..the oceans are bigger than the prairies, but arent they essentially the same? Have we outgrown commercial fishing?

user5994461 9y ago
>>> Have we outgrown commercial fishing? We could certainly finish any species of fish quickly if we could catch all of them quickly. There are fish farms, should be more durable than waiting for fish to reproduce and catch them in the wild.
maxerickson 9y ago
We've certainly outgrown unrestricted harvests. But it's likely there is some sustainable level of harvest. Whitetail deer are an interesting case, predators have been squeezed out so hunting is an important check on the population and my impression is that we tend to manage for a big hunt (license and tourism $$$) rather than a healthy population level.
- dalbasal 9y ago
  There is, in a theoretical sense. Possibly not in a practical sense. A recreational herd/fishery is very different from a commercial one. The scale is smaller. The self interested political incentives are usually overshadowed by social/ecological/altruistic interests. There are no "commercial viability" concerns, so all sorts of arbitrary restrictions aren't a problem. The incentive to cheat is much smaller. Recreational hunters and fisherman always make arbitrary rules about what's "sporting" anyway. Fly fishing only. No baiting... These are usually ways of lowering productivity, not increasing it. The whole thing dovetails nicely with ecosystem preservation, etc. Commercially, the US decided a long time ago that deer and such should not be commercial commodities. Did they leave some sustainable harvest potential the table? Sure. How big was it? Not big^. But, they took away huge risks of ecological harm. Same question for ocean fisheries. Are there some theoretically sustainable methods/quotas/rules? Sure. How well will they be written & policed in an international, commercial environment? Questionable? How important is commercial fishing of wild populations to us? Not very, and less important every year. ^Obviously, this is relative. In the context preindustrial economies and their economic output, deer (or trout, etc.) may have been very important. In the 1800s, less so. In the 21s century, the potential contribution of wild deer to the economy is miniscule. Just like you say, recreational value is probably more valuable and than the actual outputs (meat, hides, etc.) even in money terms.
_ph_ 9y ago
Commercial fishing is fine, as is hunting - as long as there are healthy populations and the fishing/hunting is within the bounds by which the population of the animals can regrow. Ironically, without the absurd overfishing of the past, we could sustain much higher fishing quotas today than we can with the decimated fish population.
- dalbasal 9y ago
  There a couple of relatives in there. Sustainable -how sustainable? If the only bar is sustaining the annual harvest for the medium term, that's not the highest bar. Commercial fishing can have it mpacts within those bounds that we might still find unacceptable. .Especially so if you consider how little knowledge we really have about ocean ecologies. I for one think the goal should be recovery. If you look at old records of major fisheries, I think it's clear that they're depleted now relative to the past. Atlantic cod is well documented. You can see footage of old Australian tuna fishing operations. Clearly, current populations are far smaller. East Atlantic Mackerel fisheries. Herring. The entire mediteranean sea. Salmon... The other relative is relative value. Even if fisheries can support 1950s (pick a year) harvests, the size/value of that harvest as a percentage of our economy is a lot smaller. This is a long term trend. Relative importance of commercial fish harvests declines over time. What I am suggesting is that there is a point where it's not worth it.
  - _ph_ 9y ago
    Well, yes. I was speaking about the fundamental question talking about healt ecosystems. With todays almost erradicated populations there is little doubt that we should mostly stop fishing.
- jackmott 9y ago
  tautology. it is fine as long as it is fine. of course!
microcolonel 9y ago
American Bison are an example which sheds light on the problem. The Bison in the commons were exploited to near extinction, but the Bison on private ranchland are plentiful today. The problem is not commercial fishing or commercial hunting, the problem is a lack of ownership. If you have no means to prevent others from overexploiting a resource, then you have no incentive to protect it; If you don't own the resource and nobody will stop anyone from exploiting it, your best move is to join in exploiting it at whatever rate humanly possible.
BurningFrog 9y ago
This tragedy of the commons can be solved on the oceans as we've solved it on land, by property rights. Iceland and New Zealand have decent systems in place, and have a healthy sustainable populations that they harvest. The basic idea is that if you own the fishing rights to a certain area, it is profitable to let the population grow big before you harvest it. Thus greed motivates conservation.
belorn 9y ago
The major difference between the prairies and the oceans is that we humans eat practically every animal the size of a rabbit or bigger, while when it come to sea creatures people are very picky. This result is a very wasteful fishing, especially when looking at historical methods (which hasn't completely stopped yet). Imagine if people went hunting by setting fire to the forest, only interested in the meat a handful of species. In the wake of destruction a massive desert forms with barely any life left. Do this on a global scale for a few decades, and you have the kind of fishing we had up to the early 2000. We have hopefully outgrown that kind of fishing.

user5994461 9y ago

>>> Have we outgrown commercial fishing? We could certainly finish any species of fish quickly if we could catch all of them quickly. There are fish farms, should be more durable than waiting for fish to reproduce and catch them in the wild.

maxerickson 9y ago

We've certainly outgrown unrestricted harvests. But it's likely there is some sustainable level of harvest. Whitetail deer are an interesting case, predators have been squeezed out so hunting is an important check on the population and my impression is that we tend to manage for a big hunt (license and tourism $$$) rather than a healthy population level.

dalbasal 9y ago
There is, in a theoretical sense. Possibly not in a practical sense. A recreational herd/fishery is very different from a commercial one. The scale is smaller. The self interested political incentives are usually overshadowed by social/ecological/altruistic interests. There are no "commercial viability" concerns, so all sorts of arbitrary restrictions aren't a problem. The incentive to cheat is much smaller. Recreational hunters and fisherman always make arbitrary rules about what's "sporting" anyway. Fly fishing only. No baiting... These are usually ways of lowering productivity, not increasing it. The whole thing dovetails nicely with ecosystem preservation, etc. Commercially, the US decided a long time ago that deer and such should not be commercial commodities. Did they leave some sustainable harvest potential the table? Sure. How big was it? Not big^. But, they took away huge risks of ecological harm. Same question for ocean fisheries. Are there some theoretically sustainable methods/quotas/rules? Sure. How well will they be written & policed in an international, commercial environment? Questionable? How important is commercial fishing of wild populations to us? Not very, and less important every year. ^Obviously, this is relative. In the context preindustrial economies and their economic output, deer (or trout, etc.) may have been very important. In the 1800s, less so. In the 21s century, the potential contribution of wild deer to the economy is miniscule. Just like you say, recreational value is probably more valuable and than the actual outputs (meat, hides, etc.) even in money terms.

_ph_ 9y ago

Commercial fishing is fine, as is hunting - as long as there are healthy populations and the fishing/hunting is within the bounds by which the population of the animals can regrow. Ironically, without the absurd overfishing of the past, we could sustain much higher fishing quotas today than we can with the decimated fish population.

dalbasal 9y ago
There a couple of relatives in there. Sustainable -how sustainable? If the only bar is sustaining the annual harvest for the medium term, that's not the highest bar. Commercial fishing can have it mpacts within those bounds that we might still find unacceptable. .Especially so if you consider how little knowledge we really have about ocean ecologies. I for one think the goal should be recovery. If you look at old records of major fisheries, I think it's clear that they're depleted now relative to the past. Atlantic cod is well documented. You can see footage of old Australian tuna fishing operations. Clearly, current populations are far smaller. East Atlantic Mackerel fisheries. Herring. The entire mediteranean sea. Salmon... The other relative is relative value. Even if fisheries can support 1950s (pick a year) harvests, the size/value of that harvest as a percentage of our economy is a lot smaller. This is a long term trend. Relative importance of commercial fish harvests declines over time. What I am suggesting is that there is a point where it's not worth it.
- _ph_ 9y ago
  Well, yes. I was speaking about the fundamental question talking about healt ecosystems. With todays almost erradicated populations there is little doubt that we should mostly stop fishing.
jackmott 9y ago
tautology. it is fine as long as it is fine. of course!

microcolonel 9y ago

American Bison are an example which sheds light on the problem. The Bison in the commons were exploited to near extinction, but the Bison on private ranchland are plentiful today. The problem is not commercial fishing or commercial hunting, the problem is a lack of ownership. If you have no means to prevent others from overexploiting a resource, then you have no incentive to protect it; If you don't own the resource and nobody will stop anyone from exploiting it, your best move is to join in exploiting it at whatever rate humanly possible.

BurningFrog 9y ago

This tragedy of the commons can be solved on the oceans as we've solved it on land, by property rights. Iceland and New Zealand have decent systems in place, and have a healthy sustainable populations that they harvest. The basic idea is that if you own the fishing rights to a certain area, it is profitable to let the population grow big before you harvest it. Thus greed motivates conservation.

belorn 9y ago

The major difference between the prairies and the oceans is that we humans eat practically every animal the size of a rabbit or bigger, while when it come to sea creatures people are very picky. This result is a very wasteful fishing, especially when looking at historical methods (which hasn't completely stopped yet). Imagine if people went hunting by setting fire to the forest, only interested in the meat a handful of species. In the wake of destruction a massive desert forms with barely any life left. Do this on a global scale for a few decades, and you have the kind of fishing we had up to the early 2000. We have hopefully outgrown that kind of fishing.