venta

I think it shows a touching faith to assume, against all available evidence, that a truly free market would result in fish stocks being conserved.

Care to tell me what this 'available evidence' is? Rising costs of production lowering quantity consumed is a pretty standard economic rule. Furthermore, problems with overfishing only exist in areas fished by subsidized fishermen--care to show me otherwise?

Remove the subsidies from fishing, and supply will fall as it becomes more expensive to catch fish; price for fish will rise, lowering the quantity consumed. This isn't just a matter of economic theory: if that doesn't happen, then we can safely assume that the EU has been wasting a ton of money for several decades, but not even the EU can manage that kind of cack-handedness.

Fishing is a declining, or at best a mature, industry for the same reason that most primary-sector industries are declining in advanced societies--other sectors are advancing and more profitable. This is why we both work in software.

And Onebyone, if you'd like me to rephrase the bet above to 'will not be completely wiped out of the fishing areas in question' I'll be happy to rephrase it. It's still a trick question that has to do with the marginal cost of catching the last few hundred fish. I'll still win, so don't take it. (Natural resources are rarely completely exhausted, though they may be usefully exhausted. But useful exhaustion is just part of Schumpterian creative-destruction, i.e. part of the market.)

As for cod farming, a brief bit of research indicates it's scientifically viable, if still controversial:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2440779.stm

...and a bit more research proves the point I was making:
http://www.alaskajournal.com/stories/102102/fis_102102.shtml

'Unlike farmed salmon, Forster believes cod is unlikely to wreak havoc with the wild industry. "The wild fisheries are very substantial and tend to be pretty much year-round, so there's a constant flow of available product," Forster said. "With the prices the wild fishery is getting now, it's more than able to compete with anything that cod farmers are likely to do. The challenge will be whether the farmers can get their costs down low enough to compete."'

In other words, cut the subsidies, let costs rise for wild fishermen, and all of a sudden farmed cod becomes particularly viable. Sort of like what happened with salmon.

All of which, you're correct, is irrelevant if the sole purpose of all this mess is to maintain a fishing industry, largely run as it is, at any cost. But if that's the case, it's not fishermen who are foolish.