Join The Discussion: Should We Pay Fisherman Not To Fish?

An opinion I heard once was that if we allow the sea/river/bay to replenish it’s populations, we’ll have a job in the long run vs. until we deplete it entirely.

How would this work? Fish don’t respect international boundaries so even if you get American fishermen not to fish, what’s to stop those from other countries to deplete the fish stock in their own national waters?

I find the greens/enviros around me eat the most fish.

If you give a man a fish, he eats for a day. If you teach a man to fish he’ll bore the pants off you for all eternity.

Or – to update the old joke, he’ll expect to have a job for him and his descendants for ever.

Think of an industry that no longer exists. Are we still paying the workers in that industry? If we are, why and for how long? If not, why not?

Not only do the “green/enviros around me” tend to be the ones that eat the most fish, I’ve found they’re even more likely to be the type that insist on wild-caught and sneer at farmed fish.

Instead of paying fishermen not to fish, why not pay fishermen to do many of the valuable non-fishing jobs available?

Idiocy at its finest. Why not pay me to hunt pandas? Or my neighbor to not break up the sidewalks with a sledgehammer? Or pay serial killers not to hunt people. Regulate it and help them find new jobs.

In the long run, thanks to over-population, the seas will be depleted anyway, and we’ll need those serial killers to train the fishermen to make Soylent.

I had no idea that we paid farmers not to grow certain things. WTF is up with that?
So if we paid fishermen not to fish… would they be able to just sit on their butts and do nothing? Pretty much giving them welfare?

I say give the fishermen some training for different jobs and perhaps even help them find one.

When loggers were threaytened with loss of forests they took responsibility for their actions and started regulating themselves. It was not a perfect system but there are still forests to log and money to be made! If the fishing industry wants to continue to exist they better figure out a plan to sustain the fisheries. I don’t think government involvment would help as much because I distrust government involvement to “fix” an impending disaster. They seem to have trouble fixing disasters after they happen.
Many “farmers” that are paid to not grow specific crops are taking advantage of the system and getting rich doing nothing.

Hi, everyone! I’m glad that this topic has generated so much discussion!

If you post your comments on the actual blog site and not on Neatorama (or in addition to posting on Neatorama), then you can more fully participate in the conversation. The original blog site is what my usual readers check out.

my family business is a restaurant that has operated successfully in the same market for over 10 years. market forces are changing, and chain operations are invading our area. the number of potential customers is basically the same as when we started, our costs of doing business have tripled over the years. should there come a time when the government will pay us not to serve food?

The correct path is adequate and measured fishing.

@ Michael W
“2)Enforce ban with deck guns, torpedoes.”

How would you enforce a ban on weapons without using uh….weapons?

@ su wei
“no, if we can’t fish my hometown would be nonexistent. ”

Move to where there is work/retrain. Mining towns die, farms die, people move….why should fishermen (fisher people…) be any different?

Or go ahead and fish until there’s nothing left to catch, I’m sure that’ll work out well for you in the long run.

@Avarana
“The correct path is adequate and measured fishing.”

Agreed. If that means there isn’t enough to keep all the current fishermen employed then I guess they’ll be looking for other jobs.

Good/high times come in all industries, automobiles, homes, boat building, utilities, farming, telecom, etc. Fishermen aren’t unique, they just seem to be less adaptable than others.

@kingthorin
“Move to where there is work/retrain. Mining towns die, farms die, people move….why should fishermen (fisher people…) be any different?
Or go ahead and fish until there’s nothing left to catch, I’m sure that’ll work out well for you in the long run.”

do you have any idea how many towns/villages/cities in Alaska are completely dependent on the fishing industry? you’re not only talking about displacing thousands and thousands of fishermen, but the people who’s jobs (doctors, lawyers, restaurants, engineers, teachers…) whose livelihood completely depends on the money brought in by these fishermen.
are you also lumping subsistence fishermen in this? because then you’re talking not just about money, but food.
the overfishing problem is NOT caused by the mom and pop fishermen we have here in Alaska. but by large (often foreign) corporations that trawl the ocean floor.
there are responsible restrictions on fishing here in Alaska based on science done by Fish and Game. maybe tuna are being overfished, but not salmon/halibut etc here in AK.

Ban the Japanese.

@su.wei

Did you seriously just say this??
“maybe tuna are being overfished, but not salmon/halibut etc here in AK.”

Why do you suppose tuna are being overfished? Do you honestly think that salmon/halibut won’t end up in the same category?

Secondly, obviously if all the fishermen are displaced the other business will be as well. It’s not as if when the fishermen leave and go elsewhere their requirement for other services simply completely disappear.

Paying fishermen subsidies not to fish may be the only method of preserving a fish population and allowing it them to continue producing so that the world does not deplete the fish population, or end the entire industry.

It may make more sense to pay fishermen not to fish than it does to pay farmer not to grow.

Renewable resources affect our food supply as much or more than it does our energy supply.

Or, prohibiting fishing except as leisure activity and entertainment could reduce overfishing that will deplete the fish population at current rates, and allow the oceans to cleanse themselves without human help. Sometimes natural resources are better than man made or man manipulated resources.