img_3554

It wasn’t until this morning that I first read about the novel concept of “fish shares.” Am I behind the times? Perhaps. But regardless of how cutting edge this idea (and practice) is, it merits significantly greater attention. Why aren’t the commercial striper fishermen off the coast of Cape Cod using a fish share system?

What are fish shares? The concept is based on the idea of regulating the fishing industry so that it remains healthy, and fish stocks aren’t depleted. By contrast to the current use of total catch quotas, i.e. X lbs of striper can be caught in a given season, fish shares rely on individual quotas or shares, i.e. each fisherman can bring in X lbs of striper in a given season. What is the result? By removing the pressure from fishermen to go out and get as many fish as quickly as possible to beat out competing fishermen, a system of fish shares encourages catching fish more gradually.

In theory the results of fish share programs are tremendous (and according to this NYTimes article, the promise bears out in practice!). Fishermen win because they are able to work under safer conditions (not compelled to go out in bad weather), are given increased security that their catch isn’t going to be taken by another fishermen, and potentially more money because they can more directly respond to fluctuations in the market price (fishing more when the price is high, less when the price is low). Fish win because catching the same number of fish at a more gradual pace leaves many fish in the water longer, thereby allowing for greater reproduction. Consumers win because the fish that they get is fresher and there is greater price stability on account of the more regular supply of fish on the market. 

Aaron Hirsh provides the economist’s argument for why fish shares work in his piece titled “Fish Shares and Sharing Fish” (same as article cited above) posted on the NYTimes last week. 

“If a fish population is controlled by a single, perfectly rational agent — an idealized entity economists refer to as “the sole owner” — he or she will manage it to maximize its total value over time. For almost every population, that means leaving a lot of fish in the water, where they can continue to make young fish. The sole owner, then, will cautiously withdraw the biological equivalent of interest, without reducing the capital — the healthy population that remains in the sea.

But if the fish population is available to many independent parties, competition becomes a driving concern. If I don’t extract as much as I can today, there’s no guarantee you won’t take everything tomorrow. Sure, in a perfect world, you and I would trust each other, exercise restraint, and in the long run, grow wealthier for it, but I’d better just play it safe and get those fish before you do. The race for fish ensues, and soon, the tragedy of the commons has struck.”

So why hasn’t there been more movement towards fish shares for striper fishing in the environmentalist-friendly North East? As Barry Estabrook asks in his post on the topic of fish shares published on Gourmet last week, “So what’s the catch?”  To me, this seems a reasonable question. Got any ideas? Post them here.