img_4619

Stumbling upon the Gourmet and NYTimes articles on “fish shares” last Saturday compelled me to put up a post titled “Fish Shares for MV Striper”. In light of Owen’s comments in response (on the perceived upsides to implementing a fish share system), and after a bit more reading, I want to add a few additional comments.

“Why isn’t the practice of fish shares widespread?” Misdirected Discourse is Part of the Problem: Similar to the fight against global warming, pursuing a solution to our increasingly depleted fisheries will go nowhere on the back of environmental arguments. Significant reform of an industry are rarely taken in the name of benefitting Mother Nature. (Think I’m wrong? Give me one example!) By contrast, it is always necessary to target the human component. But, saying that humans will loose out on a delicious sushi is hardly sufficient (ahem, ahem, Times.com article “How Not to Save the Fish”). For the argument to be convincing it must focus on the economic implications of failing to reform and the economic rewards for carrying out reforms (am I beginning to sound like Jay Karpen?). This means targeting not only consumers (who have indirect, but important, say in the production of what they eat), but also getting fishermen onboard. Sure consumers have a vested interest in ensuring that delicious wild salmon remains in supermarket coolers, but for individual fishermen (indeed the fishing industry as a whole) their livelihood is on the line. Therefore, we must be diligent in maintaining the focus of discussion on the interests of the fishing industry, once the fishermen are convinced, there will be movement towards increased sustainability.

 We’re Not at Square One: There are examples of success in the realm of fisheries management, and there are efforts underway to make certain fisheries more sustainable. As this TampaBay.com article from Jan. 30th 2009 explains, there is currently proposed regulation pending Commerce Department approval to implement a fish shares program for grouper fishermen in the Gulf of Mexico. To overlook the successes and current efforts in any advocacy campaign would be a mistake, there are surely many lessons that can be learned from the few programs that are already up and running. 

Nothing is Perfect: There are potential downsides to implementing a fish shares quota system. At first thought, a few of the disadvantages are a disincentive to innovation and a barrier to entry into the industry. (How would you break into a particular fishing industry if all of the fish shares are already given out? Would the regulation agency step in and water down the shares so that you too could get in on the action? Would you have to purchase shares off of another fisherman?) Or, as this Pensacola News Journal article alleges, problems can also arise if a fish share program isn’t readjusted each year, and can result in an overabundance of certain species. Surely there are other disadvantages, any discourse about the benefits of a fish share program must address the negative impacts as well, even if they are not completely mitigated.

Certain Fisheries Better Suited Than Others: An additional possible explanation why certain fisheries haven’t adopted a fish share system of regulation while others have, is that certain fish species and geographies may be better suited to a fish share system than others. While it is easy to conceive of a fish share system that takes place in a small bay and pertains to a fish species that migrates very little, several complications arise when (international) maritime boundaries and migratory fish come into play.