a) Fishermen aren't stupid--any explanation that rests upon merely writing off the intelligence of someone you oppose is almost certainly wrong (and potentially offensive) b) Scientists aren't ridiculously lacking in self-interest c) To truly screw things up this badly requires the long arm of government d) Blaming this on the free market (as some above did) shows a lamentable lack of knowledge of the facts--the fishing industry is hardly a 'free' market e) I will bet $1000 to anyone here that in the next ten years, whether governmenst take action or no, none of the fish under debate for legislation now will be fished to extinction. (This, by the way, is a sucker bet--don't anyone take it unless they're just secretly trying to finance my education.)
What's going on with fish populations is a bit misunderstood--they are falling, but whether they'll fall below a level where it's no longer viable to fish them is a big question. (E.g. as number of fish fall, price of those same fish go up, scarcity forces some fishermen out of the market, etc.)
The question is about government quotas and government subsidies--fishing is a highly subsidized industry in many EU countries. This means that a) your taxes are higher than they 'should' be, b) the price of fish in the supermarket is less than it 'should' be, c) more fish are caught than 'should' be, and d) there are more fishermen in a declining industry than there 'should' be.
So what people are really debating is a 'beggar thy neighbor' debate: everyone agrees that fewer fish probably ought to be caught. But if you're Spanish, you'd prefer the British caught fewer fish, and vice versa. :)
Now, if you actually wanted to get rid of the problem, get rid of the subsidies, let the price of fish in the supermarket rise, and all of a sudden some of these fishermen find it less viable to continue their work (and some of them start to look at fish-farming, which becomes a bit more economically viable). But none of these happen while fish is artificially cheap.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
And of course, there's more to it than this...
Date: 2002-12-25 08:50 am (UTC)a) Fishermen aren't stupid--any explanation that rests upon merely writing off the intelligence of someone you oppose is almost certainly wrong (and potentially offensive)
b) Scientists aren't ridiculously lacking in self-interest
c) To truly screw things up this badly requires the long arm of government
d) Blaming this on the free market (as some above did) shows a lamentable lack of knowledge of the facts--the fishing industry is hardly a 'free' market
e) I will bet $1000 to anyone here that in the next ten years, whether governmenst take action or no, none of the fish under debate for legislation now will be fished to extinction. (This, by the way, is a sucker bet--don't anyone take it unless they're just secretly trying to finance my education.)
What's going on with fish populations is a bit misunderstood--they are falling, but whether they'll fall below a level where it's no longer viable to fish them is a big question. (E.g. as number of fish fall, price of those same fish go up, scarcity forces some fishermen out of the market, etc.)
The question is about government quotas and government subsidies--fishing is a highly subsidized industry in many EU countries. This means that a) your taxes are higher than they 'should' be, b) the price of fish in the supermarket is less than it 'should' be, c) more fish are caught than 'should' be, and d) there are more fishermen in a declining industry than there 'should' be.
So what people are really debating is a 'beggar thy neighbor' debate: everyone agrees that fewer fish probably ought to be caught. But if you're Spanish, you'd prefer the British caught fewer fish, and vice versa. :)
Now, if you actually wanted to get rid of the problem, get rid of the subsidies, let the price of fish in the supermarket rise, and all of a sudden some of these fishermen find it less viable to continue their work (and some of them start to look at fish-farming, which becomes a bit more economically viable). But none of these happen while fish is artificially cheap.