Javascript Disabled Detected

You currently have javascript disabled. Several functions may not work. Please re-enable javascript to access full functionality.

Who owns the fishes?

Started by Guest_Irate Mormon_* , Sep 12 2010 09:59 PM

Prev

Next

This topic is locked

78 replies to this topic

#21 Guest_gzeiger_*

Guests

Posted 13 September 2010 - 04:59 PM

I agree philosophically with Irate and schambers, but I think it isn't very useful to discuss this issue (or a broad range of others) in this light, because the key decisions simply aren't made in this context at all. That is to say, bureaucracies really don't make decisions on principle but rather are governed by process. Decision-making is spread out among a relatively large number of people, with objectives that may be but aren't necessarily related to your view of the issue, and in many cases they arrive at a final outcome that is the sum of many small decisions not made with the end in mind. If you look at all the posts "defending" the action, not one person said it was the right thing to do, or even that they had a right to make the decision. They only explained why it was made, and superficially they are correct.

If you want to correct a person who's making bad decisions, you either tell him why his decision is wrong or if he is an idiot you find someone else who will understand and get them to help instead. To correct a bureaucracy that is making bad decisions, you have to change the process.

Back to top

#22 Guest_fundulus_*

Guests

Posted 13 September 2010 - 05:15 PM

They *do* have the right to make those decisions. But of course no one would agree with them. You're right, it can all be described as a sum total of processes leading to a decision. We have absolutely no influence on these processes, partially because no asked us (unlikely at the moment) but because we weren't able to inject ourselves into such decision-making as was carried out. And I'd guess that no one with our views was consulted, either. That's a long-term problem we face: in the eyes of such decision-makers we don't exist. The useful lesson here is that we have to be able to be heard, or we're just passing bodily fluids into the wind no matter how much we wail and gnash our teeth.

Back to top

#23 Guest_Irate Mormon_*

Guests

Posted 13 September 2010 - 10:12 PM

That isn't true, they were already resources held in the public trust, therefore property of the state and under authority of the state to regulate/manage. There were regulations governing their capture and possession beforehand under the same authority.

Ah yes, there's that "trust" issue. Which is something that doesn't come easily to me.

I wonder exactly what abuses such a law is designed to curtail?

Back to top

#24 Guest_fundulus_*

Guests

Posted 13 September 2010 - 10:17 PM

I wonder exactly what abuses such a law is designed to curtail?

People collecting every single fish or mussel out of a stream, damming a stream without coordinating such an action with neighbors, altering stream flow and water quality by gravel mining. I've seen the first in coastal New England with people poaching bait for lobster traps, putting a liner in the back of a pickup truck and netting out a day's worth of alewife run in a stream into the payload "pool". I guess we could stop such actions at gunpoint ourselves, maybe nailing the perps to a tree or something, but preventing it in the first place seems to be better.

Back to top

#25 Guest_Irate Mormon_*

Guests

Posted 13 September 2010 - 11:35 PM

People collecting every single fish or mussel out of a stream, damming a stream without coordinating such an action with neighbors, altering stream flow and water quality by gravel mining. I've seen the first in coastal New England with people poaching bait for lobster traps, putting a liner in the back of a pickup truck and netting out a day's worth of alewife run in a stream into the payload "pool". I guess we could stop such actions at gunpoint ourselves, maybe nailing the perps to a tree or something, but preventing it in the first place seems to be better.

I don't believe the first is possible. Not without poison at least (Now, who would do such a thing? :-k

). The second - surely regulated already. The third - ditto. None of which has anything to do with collecting "baitfish". Or why the government claims exclusive ownership thereof.

Back to top

#26 Guest_fundulus_*

Guests

Posted 14 September 2010 - 08:15 AM

They're all related, different faces of the same thing, if the habitat goes you might as well collect out all of the fishes and mussels. And yes, in some small streams it's entirely possible for someone to systematically collect all of the fishes out for bait certainly with migratory fish runs.

If you have deep-seated ideological views of the world that are resistant to any observations of human activities, we might as well stop this discussion now. We slide into the faith-based.

Back to top

#27 Guest_gerald_*

Guests

Posted 14 September 2010 - 01:56 PM

Growing human population ==> Less resource per person ==> More need to regulate use of resources.

I'm not saying that regulations don't need to be well thought-out - they certainly should be - but it's logical that regs get more numerous and more stringent as more people share dwindling resources. Most states and many local governments have lists you can get on to receive notices when they're soliciting public input on changing enviro regulations (wildlife, fishing, water quality, air quality, land use/development, etc).

Now if capitalist economics wasn't the precarious heap of pyramid schemes upon pyramid schemes that it is, and "Growth" wasn't the Be-All and End-All of corporations and governments, then maybe we wouldn't need such an "arms race" between resource users and resource regulators ...

Back to top

#28 Guest_Uland_*

Guests

Posted 14 September 2010 - 03:09 PM

I'm not so sure I'd blame capitalism Gerald.
Among the recent top ten polluted places, none are places where capitalism thrives.

Back to top

#29 Guest_fundulus_*

Guests

Posted 14 September 2010 - 03:43 PM

Hmmm, that could open up a debate on whether China is capitalist or not, and what's thriving. It might be necessary to tease out "democratic" from "capitalist".

Back to top

#30 Guest_Uland_*

Guests

Posted 14 September 2010 - 04:46 PM

Let's try it this way. Did Psephurus gladius thrive under communist rule? Did politics play a role or was it an issue of too many people and not enough capital to maintain resources for those people? If you would say that China is capitalist now, do you feel that capitalism is getting in the way of resource management?

One might make an argument that growing economies might be best suited to handle the waste of the ever growing population.

Back to top

#31 Guest_fundulus_*

Guests

Posted 14 September 2010 - 05:12 PM

Oh, China... the trouble with them at the moment is that they're expanding *everything* quickly, such as building the Three Gorges dam and other environmental catastrophes. In a million words or less, young raw capitalism is destructive; look at Europe of the past 400 years, and certainly the industrialization of North America. Now, we don't do as many crudely destructive things, we've already done them. So an expanding capitalist economy like China, with very authoritarian government, is probably the optimally worst arrangement for environmental protection even though they're just now beginning to do positive things. Certainly the Chinese government would have very nakedly possessive views about all natural resources.

Back to top

#32 Guest_Uland_*

Guests

Posted 14 September 2010 - 06:52 PM

I think it really comes down to people being destructive rather than capitalism itself. China 30 years ago was not environmentally speaking in great shape. Per capita, how many dams, factories and cars were in place while the environment deteriorated? Did capitalism in any form get them to that point? Not a whole lot of capitalism to be found in China 30 years ago with a whole lot of people living "simple lives" compared to western countries.

I guess my point is - people aren't going to stop making babies. You should should hope to have enough productive means (capital) to manage as best you can the effects these people will have on their surroundings.

Back to top

#33 Guest_fundulus_*

Guests

Posted 14 September 2010 - 08:32 PM

China wasn't in great shape 30 years ago, you're right, but today they're opening one new coal burning power plant a week that probably doesn't have really great scrubbing technology if any. They talked a good game for a long time, now they have the capital to do some real harm. They were able to do some damage before just by poor farming practices in the north that have enabled the Gobi to expand at a faster rate, giving Beijing regular dust storms. Today it would amaze anyone on this list at how thoroughly polluted all of their harbors are, and the rivers that enter those harbors.

I guess more money can lead to more destruction faster and easier. And we've exported much of our polluting industry to China.

Back to top

#34 Guest_travishaas_*

Guests

Posted 14 September 2010 - 09:02 PM

I can't argue with the statement that China has done horrific damage to its natural environmental. But it is also currently kicking some serious butt in the realm of green energy investment:

http://www.guardian....gy-pew-research

I guess they realized that humans living in a cloud of smog aren't very productive workers.

Back to top

#35 Guest_fundulus_*

Guests

Posted 14 September 2010 - 10:21 PM

You're right. They've been smart enough to buy many of the "green energy" patents originally developed in this country but not put into production here. So now they're building a large amount of that technology, too.

Back to top

#36 Guest_Irate Mormon_*

Guests

Posted 15 September 2010 - 03:35 PM

Ahem*

Getting back to the subject:

Growing human population ==> Less resource per person ==> More need to regulate use of resources.

The first half of this assertion is clearly true and has troubled me for a long time. As long as the human population keeps growing, our needs will keep growing. Now the second half is debatable, but instead of arguing that point I claim that it is not applicable in this case. We are not talking about habitat alteration, development, erosion, dams, or any of that stuff - we are talking about removing fishes from the water. And not the kind of fishes people eat. This is not a resource that is suffering from "fishing" pressure. Other pressures, maybe, but overharvesting - no. What exactly was the problem that somebody decided needed correcting? Thus I move this debate from the philosophical realm into a factual and practical one. Bruce (?) shared with us that Alabama has 3 people who devote their whole day to regulating fisheries and creating new laws. (Did I get the state right?). Let's say Tennessee has something similar. If they are really overworked and don't have time to do all they need to do, then surely Tennessee's regulations are a response to some specific problem. Or else they have so much time on their hands they are just looking for new things to make laws about.

Back to top

#37 Guest_fundulus_*

Guests

Posted 15 September 2010 - 04:31 PM

I think it really is as simple as feeling they can't adequately monitor bait collecting, and fishing in general, with current resources and decide on something they think will simplify their operation. I think the disconnect here is to us this is profoundly stupid and weird, but obviously not to them. Bureaucratic decisions are rarely the result of an elaborate conspiracy.

Back to top

#38 Guest_Uland_*

Guests

Posted 15 September 2010 - 04:40 PM

Martin,
I would say the most obvious answer is introducing fishes beyond their native range. In a state like Tennessee, could be disastrous for sensitive fishes where a similar species might be introduced. I know, I know, releasing bait is already illegal.

Back to top

#39 Guest_gerald_*

Guests

Posted 15 September 2010 - 05:09 PM

I agree for most species, but there are some where pet trade collecting could be significant, e.g. blackbanded sunfish in the NJ-DE-MD area, or perhaps certain colorful killies or darters with small distributions and/or small populations. No, I can't name any N.Amer fish that has been over-collected to death, yet, but wildlife agencies have seen popular herps over-collected and are justifiably wary. Native fish as a hobby seems to be growing and I suspect demand fot Purty Fish will grow. That said, my previous comment was really addressing all forms of resource protection regulations, not just fishing.

And to step off-topic again (sorry Martin), Re China: It's not free-market, and at least some in their society recognize the impending disaster of overpopulation, but it sure as hell IS capitalist. It's just a question of who the profits go to.

Now the second half is debatable, but instead of arguing that point I claim that it is not applicable in this case. We are not talking about habitat alteration, development, erosion, dams, or any of that stuff - we are talking about removing fishes from the water. And not the kind of fishes people eat. This is not a resource that is suffering from "fishing" pressure. Other pressures, maybe, but overharvesting - no.

Back to top

#40 Guest_Newt_*

Guests

Posted 15 September 2010 - 06:56 PM

We are not talking about habitat alteration, development, erosion, dams, or any of that stuff - we are talking about removing fishes from the water. And not the kind of fishes people eat. This is not a resource that is suffering from "fishing" pressure. Other pressures, maybe, but overharvesting - no. What exactly was the problem that somebody decided needed correcting?

A small but important point- the laws are not talking about removing fishes from the water. You can put darters on your trotline or throw 'em on the bank all day long. What you can't do is take them away from the water in which you caught them. As Uland touched on, this seems to be an attempt to limit bait-bucket introductions and disease spread, though it is a halfway sort of measure. It would make much more sense to forbid movement of any live bait between waters. I suspect the regulation is a sort of useless compromise.