A Solution to Overfishing - Property Rights

[Hazlitt]

This thread is a response to Ann Cahills article in todays Examiner (EU fisheries chief proposes 'discarding' quotas)

THE EU fisheries chief, Joe Borg, has proposed scrapping fish quotas and instead telling vessels how many days they can spend fishing.

The problem with overfishing is a typical result of "The Tragedy of the Commons"[1][2][3]

This problem commonly occurs in such cases where a government prohibits homesteading or private property rights. Obviously in the case of seas the problem of defining borders becomes more difficult, but it can be done (States currently have boundaries defined for their national waters)

In 1940 Ludwig von Mises wrote:

If land is not owned by anybody, although legal formalism may call it public property, it is used without any regard to the disadvantages resulting. Those who are in a position to appropriate to themselves the returns — lumber and game of the forests, fish of the water areas, and mineral deposits of the subsoil — do not bother about the later effects of their mode of exploitation. For them, erosion of the soil, depletion of the exhaustible resources and other impairments of the future utilization are external costs not entering into their calculation of input and output. They cut down trees without any regard for fresh shoots or reforestation. In hunting and fishing, they do not shrink from methods preventing the repopulation of the hunting and fishing grounds.

EU States should privatise their national waters, owners would look after their property and its capital value, including the stocks of fish and the use of the property (recreation, etc) this would be a far more effective means of combating the overfishing problem.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] William Forster Lloyd, Two Lectures on the Checks to Population, 1833

[2] The Tragedy of the Commons -- 162 (3859): 1243 -- Science - "Tragedy of the Commons" by Garrett Hardin, 1968, Science

[3] Tragedy of the commons - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[sharper]

Property rights only have relevance when you have an enforceable boundary. There's no practical way for private individuals to establish or enforce such boundaries (on people and especially on the fish) so "owning" the rights to a patch of sea would be effectively worthless.

[Hazlitt]

Property rights only have relevance when you have an enforceable boundary.

Are States not capable of enforcing their waters boundaries? It is more difficult sure but not impossible.

[JCSkinner]

Yes, yes. We should privatise everything, because that always improves things.
Like British rail, for example.

[The Caped Cod]

Yes, private ownership of land has done wonders for forestry hasn't it.

[sharper]

Are States not capable of enforcing their waters boundaries? It is more difficult sure but not impossible.

What does state 1 do when the fish in their "property" migrate to "property" owned by state 2?

[Hazlitt]

Yes, yes. We should privatise everything, because that always improves things.
Like British rail, for example.

Not an argument against privatising seas.

[Hazlitt]

Yes, private ownership of land has done wonders for forestry hasn't it.

What are you talking about?? Give us some examples at least.

[The Caped Cod]

The sea water is in constant motion, it is the sea bed that would be the basis for property lines. It would be like owning the air that's over the ground.

[adamirer]

Three solutions:
1) the current try-to-blunder-along-as-best-you-can.
2) Ireland stand up in EU negotiation and take fishing rights back off the table. Play hard ball - irrespective of how Lisbon goes.
3) Let the stocks run dry and then everyone is equally fubared.

I'd rather 2, but methinks 1 is how it'll be.