End of the line

Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
4,445
Location
Student Hell Headingley
I did a search and found nothing so:

I'm not really a campaigner but feel that we should be aware of what is going on as regards the fish stocks in our oceans.

Anyone seen "End of the line" film? Not seen it yet but it sounds as though we should all be doing something about fish stocks and over-fishing.

See here for some details: http://endoftheline.com/

Any support for the campaign would be brill' IMO but have a look anyway, I think it's important.

Thanks.
 
findus a fish finger :D

the cheap versions use alaskan pollock .

Didn't watch the film but what do they suggest as an alternative to eating then?
 
I rarely eat fish, more a seafood/shellfish person.

Is fish not seafood?

Personally I always buy one more cod than I need and just throw it away, just incase my darkest thoughts are realized and they decide to take over the world.

Cod overlords are my worst nightmare.
 
Is fish not seafood?

Personally I always buy one more cod than I need and just throw it away, just incase my darkest thoughts are realized and they decide to take over the world.

Cod overlords are my worst nightmare.

I mean the non-fish seafood, calamari, mussels, prawns, etc.
 
I don't think I would be too fussed if somebody told me I could never eat fish again. I rarely have cod or haddock. My most consumed fish is Tuna, and I don't even eat much of that.
 
I like the odd cod & chips and a bit of smoked salmon now and then, that's about it. Oh and tuna sandwiches occasionally.

Edit: not really on topic is it. :d
 
So there you have it: the great British public.

2 reasonably serious replies, a few trying to be witty, one **** and the rest off topic; that is really impressive!

For such a serious thing as possibly over fishing our stocks to the point of extinction I find it amazing that you guys basically don't give a ****.

An international group of ecologists and economists warned that the world will run out of seafood by 2048
 
Problem is that theres no price to stock. For farming, land commands rent according to farming demand and therefore price works as a mechanism of suppressing demand and production.

For fishing what needs to be done is the creation of licenses which are expensive. This is effectively putting a price on stock. If there is overfishing then the price fish demand wont be high enough to make a profit and hence the fall in supply. Similarly the increase in price due to the license itself will quell demand.

The problem is that, how does the EU go around telling fishermen that they aren't allowed to go fishing anymore without paying tens of thousands of pounds when they have been doing it all their lives.

90% of the public is stupid and this problem "Tragedy of the commons" is very well known. However, what do economists know about fishing would be the most common argument.

edit:

This is the free market solution by Ronald Coase.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coase_theorem

Someone needs to be given the ownership of the fish stocks so that they can act in the best interests of overall stock.

As Ludwig von Mises said decades ago

"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.".
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom