Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC)   "Bio economic theory" predicts that fishing does not cause extinctions, because third-world fishermen are experts at fisheries management. Lets see how that's working out   (bbc.co.uk ) divider line 28
    More: Sad, Amazon, fish  
•       •       •

3105 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Aug 2014 at 7:52 PM (1 year ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



28 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2014-08-13 06:08:21 PM  
Let me guess, the same people who came up with "bio economic theory" also invented "trickle-down economics"?


"Mainstream thinking has predicted that scarcity would drive up price, which would increase fishing costs and help save depleted species. But that is not what has happened."

Fish sells for more, therefore the cost of fishing supplies increases? How the fark is that supposed to work?
 
2014-08-13 07:56:14 PM  

fusillade762: Let me guess, the same people who came up with "bio economic theory" also invented "trickle-down economics"?


"Mainstream thinking has predicted that scarcity would drive up price, which would increase fishing costs and help save depleted species. But that is not what has happened."

Fish sells for more, therefore the cost of fishing supplies increases? How the fark is that supposed to work?


Yeah I'm really confused, either we're misreading that, or they're taking the other half of the "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance" quote to heart.
 
2014-08-13 07:57:52 PM  

fusillade762: Fish sells for more, therefore the cost of fishing supplies increases? How the fark is that supposed to work?


It sounds like basic supply and demand.

You know: "You have a greater supply of money! I demand you pay more for my product!"
 
2014-08-13 08:01:37 PM  

Obbi: fusillade762: Let me guess, the same people who came up with "bio economic theory" also invented "trickle-down economics"?


"Mainstream thinking has predicted that scarcity would drive up price, which would increase fishing costs and help save depleted species. But that is not what has happened."

Fish sells for more, therefore the cost of fishing supplies increases? How the fark is that supposed to work?

Yeah I'm really confused, either we're misreading that, or they're taking the other half of the "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance" quote to heart.


Unless they're suggesting that the scarcity causes increased fishing costs - harder to find the big fish - which in turn drives up prices which makes people buy less of them...

I think they just get the cause/effect part backwards which makes it sound weird.
 
2014-08-13 08:02:24 PM  

DuudeStanky: Obbi: fusillade762: Let me guess, the same people who came up with "bio economic theory" also invented "trickle-down economics"?


"Mainstream thinking has predicted that scarcity would drive up price, which would increase fishing costs and help save depleted species. But that is not what has happened."

Fish sells for more, therefore the cost of fishing supplies increases? How the fark is that supposed to work?

Yeah I'm really confused, either we're misreading that, or they're taking the other half of the "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance" quote to heart.

Unless they're suggesting that the scarcity causes increased fishing costs - harder to find the big fish - which in turn drives up prices which makes people buy less of them...

I think they just get the cause/effect part backwards which makes it sound weird.


It also doesn't take into account biomass collapse and how it effects breeding
 
2014-08-13 08:02:59 PM  
Price of fish goes up
More people decide to fish
Cost of fishing supplies increases with demand

Is it really that hard to follow economics?
 
2014-08-13 08:03:05 PM  
Somebody explained to me how it works in the Philippines.  The men are all fishermen next to the sea, and the women all have real jobs.  As long as the men bring back anything they can be considered to be working and don't need to get a paying gig.  Hence they won't stop fishing until every fish is caught.
 
2014-08-13 08:03:30 PM  
Fishing stocks are a farking textbook example of The Tragedy of the Commons.

Any dissimilar economic theory applied to fishing holds water about as well a dragnet.
 
2014-08-13 08:04:56 PM  

fusillade762: Let me guess, the same people who came up with "bio economic theory" also invented "trickle-down economics"?


"Mainstream thinking has predicted that scarcity would drive up price, which would increase fishing costs and help save depleted species. But that is not what has happened."

Fish sells for more, therefore the cost of fishing supplies increases? How the fark is that supposed to work?


only way i can consider that in the way they are implying, is that scarcity will eventually drive up how much those in the fishing trade can charge for their produce, thereby raising the cost of obtaining fish from the fishers. scarce fish becomes boutique product not available to the 99%, thereby saving them from getting totally fished out.

maybe.

of course, its this same profit cycle mentality that some claim can save endangered animals. by eating them, and therefore make a market for their continued existence.

on the face of it, those two schools of thought seem opposed.


/i am not an economist
 
2014-08-13 08:05:23 PM  

fusillade762: Let me guess, the same people who came up with "bio economic theory" also invented "trickle-down economics"?


"Mainstream thinking has predicted that scarcity would drive up price, which would increase fishing costs and help save depleted species. But that is not what has happened."

Fish sells for more, therefore the cost of fishing supplies increases? How the fark is that supposed to work?


They could mean total costs, including time (i.e. it takes longer to find a rare fish than a common fish) of course that doesn't work out well if the fisherman is willing to take ANY fish.

I suspect the reasoning is like this: If I like Trout, and I have a favorite spot to fish for Trout, I will fish there as long as I can catch a reasonable amount of them.  Once notice that day after day I ending up catching 10 Carp to 1 Trout, I will go somewhere else.

But if I can still make a living catching Carp, I might not go away, I'll catch Carp and Trout and eventually the Trout will be completely gone, since I did not move on when they became rare.
 
2014-08-13 08:05:56 PM  
Ask the New England Cod fishermen how well Bio economic theory worked out.

Or the Peruvian anchovy fishermen.

Or those who fished the Irish Sea.

Or the Blue Walleye in the Great Lakes.

Or to get away from fish, the passenger pigeon.
 
2014-08-13 08:06:32 PM  

DuudeStanky: Obbi: fusillade762: Let me guess, the same people who came up with "bio economic theory" also invented "trickle-down economics"?


"Mainstream thinking has predicted that scarcity would drive up price, which would increase fishing costs and help save depleted species. But that is not what has happened."

Fish sells for more, therefore the cost of fishing supplies increases? How the fark is that supposed to work?

Yeah I'm really confused, either we're misreading that, or they're taking the other half of the "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance" quote to heart.

Unless they're suggesting that the scarcity causes increased fishing costs - harder to find the big fish - which in turn drives up prices which makes people buy less of them...

I think they just get the cause/effect part backwards which makes it sound weird.


They might have also been talking about the opportunity cost of catching fish that aren't endangered -- but that is a force that hastens extinction.
 
2014-08-13 08:07:30 PM  
Breaking News: Unregulated market and/or subsistence hunting* can lead to extinctions. Film at 11.

*Fishing is just aquatic hunting
 
2014-08-13 08:10:58 PM  
Hunting /fishing only leads to extinction when coupled with lack of private property rights.
 
2014-08-13 08:12:01 PM  

stirfrybry: Is it really that hard to follow economics?


No, it's not. Certain imbeciles who post in every thread just like to blurt out anything so that people will talk to them.
 
2014-08-13 08:20:53 PM  
The fishing situation is a great example of greed causing ignorance.  Experts are aware that, in order to restore populations of fish like the Atlantic cod, fishing for them would have to essentially stop for a few of years to let them breed.  If we did that, we could enjoy good fishing again - especially if we regulated it more carefully going forward.  Missing out on a few years of fishing, however, is unacceptable to the fishing companies and individual fishermen - even if it results in an abundance and many years of good fishing down the road.  Fishing continues full steam ahead even though catches are light and populations are obviously dwindling. 

This kind of pattern repeats itself whenever you look at any natural resource that is decreasing faster than it can be replenished.  There's a strong attitude of "forget the future, we need these resources today!"  I wonder how many resource companies have plans for when the resource finally runs out?  Perhaps some of them refuse to believe it can even happen at all?  Perhaps others will expect bailouts? They won't be in a good place, regardless.

Taking a short term loss if it means preventing the complete destruction of your entire industry and a return to better yields seems like an obvious burden to take up, but I suppose most fishermen, fishing companies and other connected industries operate financially on a day-to-day basis, like a single man living paycheck to paycheck.  They can't afford to save their own jobs.
 
2014-08-13 08:41:25 PM  
You can take my fishing pole away when you pry it from my cold, dead hands!
 
2014-08-13 08:43:47 PM  
This "Bio economic theory" sounds a lot like that "deep, hot biosphere" nonsense that people bought into because it claimed that the oil would never run out.

God we're headed for some serious systemic failures.
 
2014-08-13 09:04:03 PM  
Dear Yahoo! Answers:
How is tragady of the commens formed?
 
2014-08-13 09:15:36 PM  

Pattuq: The fishing situation is a great example of greed causing ignorance.  Experts are aware that, in order to restore populations of fish like the Atlantic cod, fishing for them would have to essentially stop for a few of years to let them breed.  If we did that, we could enjoy good fishing again - especially if we regulated it more carefully going forward.  Missing out on a few years of fishing, however, is unacceptable to the fishing companies and individual fishermen - even if it results in an abundance and many years of good fishing down the road.  Fishing continues full steam ahead even though catches are light and populations are obviously dwindling. 

This kind of pattern repeats itself whenever you look at any natural resource that is decreasing faster than it can be replenished.  There's a strong attitude of "forget the future, we need these resources today!"  I wonder how many resource companies have plans for when the resource finally runs out?  Perhaps some of them refuse to believe it can even happen at all?  Perhaps others will expect bailouts? They won't be in a good place, regardless.

Taking a short term loss if it means preventing the complete destruction of your entire industry and a return to better yields seems like an obvious burden to take up, but I suppose most fishermen, fishing companies and other connected industries operate financially on a day-to-day basis, like a single man living paycheck to paycheck.  They can't afford to save their own jobs.


A logical industry (see: farming... sometimes) would switch up the catch every few years to allow for the population to regenerate.

Imagine if loggers went to the same spots in the forest every year, and just pulled up reprod trees all the time.
 
2014-08-13 09:36:48 PM  

Pattuq: The fishing situation is a great example of greed causing ignorance.  Experts are aware that, in order to restore populations of fish like the Atlantic cod, fishing for them would have to essentially stop for a few of years to let them breed.  If we did that, we could enjoy good fishing again - especially if we regulated it more carefully going forward.  Missing out on a few years of fishing, however, is unacceptable to the fishing companies and individual fishermen - even if it results in an abundance and many years of good fishing down the road.  Fishing continues full steam ahead even though catches are light and populations are obviously dwindling. 

This kind of pattern repeats itself whenever you look at any natural resource that is decreasing faster than it can be replenished.  There's a strong attitude of "forget the future, we need these resources today!"  I wonder how many resource companies have plans for when the resource finally runs out?  Perhaps some of them refuse to believe it can even happen at all?  Perhaps others will expect bailouts? They won't be in a good place, regardless.

Taking a short term loss if it means preventing the complete destruction of your entire industry and a return to better yields seems like an obvious burden to take up, but I suppose most fishermen, fishing companies and other connected industries operate financially on a day-to-day basis, like a single man living paycheck to paycheck.  They can't afford to save their own jobs.


Canada has had a moratorium on Atlantic cod fishing since the early 90s. This has not yet led to a recovery of fish stocks, but it has fuelled an increase in seal populations which feed on large numbers of cod. Of course, it doesn't help that while Europeans continue to denounce the canadian seal hunt, they ignore the moratorium and continue unabated to send their trawlers to catch cod on the Grand Banks.
 
2014-08-13 10:04:29 PM  
Gillnets are allowed, so non-target species are harvested regardless.  Ergo arapaima go extinct.  Yeah, sounds about right.
 
2014-08-13 10:08:18 PM  
The fundamental flaw with that "bio-economic" theory is so obvious even an MBA graduate can see it:  It does not account for substitution.

In a market where there is little or no substitution, such as rhino horns, the price does dramatically increase as the quantity decreases.  Of course this assumes demand remains relatively constant.

On the other hand, the Arapaima is simply a food fish.  Yes, it is a biologically unique creature but it is not a particularly unique product.  It is sold as food in the food market.  Yes, it is considered tasty.  Yes, there is strong demand for it.  However, there are substitutes.  At the end of the day, if you are hungry, you don't care if you eat Arapaima, catfish or whatever else lurks in the river.  You want something to satisfy your hunger.

Other fish are plentiful.  The Amazon fish market has dozens if not hundreds of choices.  Though the numerous fish would have some product differences such as taste, texture, etc, they are all reasonable substitutes in this regard:  they are edible.

Substitutes are a form of competition.  All else equal, competition will pressure prices down.

Arapaima is increasingly rare but the price signal isn't working.  Why?  Market competition:  Arapaima just isn't enough of a unique product to warrent its own price or market.  Unlike rhino horns, there are other fish meats "good enough" to eat.  That means Arapaima gets lumped into a general "fish meat" market where its price must compete against the glut of other fish "good enough" to eat.

/ fark you, neo-liberal economists
 
2014-08-13 10:17:27 PM  

dittybopper: Breaking News: Unregulated market and/or subsistence hunting* can lead to extinctions. Film at 11.


Interesting point. In 1700's Japan's rulers noticed that the Islands were being deforested, very rapidly.  Their response was to impose strict limits on that amounts of wood that could be harvested. Japan still has forests.
 
2014-08-13 10:48:43 PM  
The important thing is there will be enough fish to eat while I am alive.
 
2014-08-14 01:33:12 AM  

MBA Whore: The fundamental flaw with that "bio-economic" theory is so obvious even an MBA graduate can see it:  It does not account for substitution.

In a market where there is little or no substitution, such as rhino horns, the price does dramatically increase as the quantity decreases.  Of course this assumes demand remains relatively constant.

On the other hand, the Arapaima is simply a food fish.  Yes, it is a biologically unique creature but it is not a particularly unique product.  It is sold as food in the food market.  Yes, it is considered tasty.  Yes, there is strong demand for it.  However, there are substitutes.  At the end of the day, if you are hungry, you don't care if you eat Arapaima, catfish or whatever else lurks in the river.  You want something to satisfy your hunger.

Other fish are plentiful.  The Amazon fish market has dozens if not hundreds of choices.  Though the numerous fish would have some product differences such as taste, texture, etc, they are all reasonable substitutes in this regard:  they are edible.

Substitutes are a form of competition.  All else equal, competition will pressure prices down.

Arapaima is increasingly rare but the price signal isn't working.  Why?  Market competition:  Arapaima just isn't enough of a unique product to warrent its own price or market.  Unlike rhino horns, there are other fish meats "good enough" to eat.  That means Arapaima gets lumped into a general "fish meat" market where its price must compete against the glut of other fish "good enough" to eat.

/ fark you, neo-liberal economists


I think I love you.
 
2014-08-14 02:41:43 AM  
So I had to find out who in their right mind would come up with such an asinine theory, that is so patently absurd even a Farker can see right off the top it doesn't work. Here is what Wiki has to say:

Milner Baily ("Benny") Schaefer was born in Cheyenne, Wyoming in 1912 and died at the age of 57 in San Diego, California in 1970. He is notable for his work on the "Population Dynamics of Fisheries." (1954) Schaefer's seminal paper[2] further extends the biological model to account for dynamics of fishing pressure in an unregulated fishery, assuming that fishing effort increases until profit can no longer be made. Thus, the fishery reaches an equilibrium, referred to as the bionomic equilibrium by H. Scott Gordon in a paper published the same year as Schaefer's but focused on purely economics of fishing.[6] Apparently, Schaefer and Gordon did not know about each other's work, and today their [7] , but this is a mistake. Together, the work by Schaefer and Gordon set the basis for quantitative analyses of fisheries economics.

Apparently, their idea, developed in the 1950s and unrefined since, is that in any given year, the effort expended to catch X amount of fish will be equal to the amount of fish available to catch, since as fish become more difficult to catch, the effort expended will likewise increase; thus the amount caught and the amount available to catch will remain in rough balance. The economic model assumes that as it becomes more difficult to catch fish and thus more costly, fishermen will switch to less-difficult fish to catch, relieving the pressure on the more-easily caught fish, and allowing their numbers to increase.

Oh, and who did Shaefer work for while developing this handy theory for why fisheries could never be overfished? The Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission.
 
2014-08-14 10:19:42 AM  

gibbon1: dittybopper: Breaking News: Unregulated market and/or subsistence hunting* can lead to extinctions. Film at 11.

Interesting point. In 1700's Japan's rulers noticed that the Islands were being deforested, very rapidly.  Their response was to impose strict limits on that amounts of wood that could be harvested. Japan still has forests.


Generally, I tend to distinguish market hunting (hunting for profit), subsistence hunting (hunting purely for food), and sport hunting (hunting for enjoyment).

The first two cases (market and subsistence hunting) have provably led to extinctions and near extinctions.  Sport hunting hasn't, and in fact in North America at least has lead to the preservation and actual population increases in game species.

Aside from North America, though, I haven't heard of a single case of hunting that led to an extinction or near extinction that wasn't caused by either market hunting or subsistence hunting, or some combination of both.

Whenever someone tries to come up with an example to counter that assertion, it's almost always market hunting that is the real culprit, not sport hunting.
 
Displayed 28 of 28 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report