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.

This reminds me about that letter that was written about not raising pigs... If I find it, I'll link to it.

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?

The idea of the Federal or state governments paying anyone NOT to do what they normally do is ridiculous. Whether fish or crops, doesn't matter.

However, I don't have an issue with Federal or state governments regulating the fishing industry. But, only to maintain fishing populations. The downside is that it's all becoming so politicized that it's difficult to tell what is being done for true fish population control and what is being done for politics.

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

if you pay a man not to fish he can eat one day, if you pay his occupational retraining he can eat his whole lifetime

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?

sure we pay farmers not farm

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.

"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?"

1)Ban trawlers.
2)Enforce ban with deck guns, torpedoes.

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

secret asian man:- 'cos then they wouldn't be fishermen and we'd be "demeaning them" or something.

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.

There are government programs that help pay for displaced fisherman to go back to school. Plus the U.S. fisheries are so heavily regulated that fish populations are stable. We even work with other countries, for instance, the U.S. will temporarily suspend fishing to assure Canada they will catch their quota.

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.

It's all about moderation. The government needs to find a balance when allowing fishermen to fish and banning them from fishing and then actually enforce it. I like seafood, and it would really stink if there were no more fish left. We should have vetoed that $700 billion bailout (or was it trillion?) and then used that money getting the fishermen AND everyone at GM, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, etc., etc., new jobs an educations and stuff. Personally, I think we should do all that New Deal stuff like the CCC. They sound like pretty good options.

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.

@15
if you ever meet a subsidized farmer, never ever call it welfare, call it a subsidy

there's a difference between subsidizing farming and fishing, the main reason to subsidize farming is to maintain profitable prices on crops

for fishing, it's the save the resource

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.

I come from a small fishing town Kodiak, Alaska. I have personally worked on commercial salmon boats. The only way our town makes money is with fishing and tourism. (you've all seen some of our guys on Deadliest Catch.)

Skipweasel
"secret asian man:- ‘cos then they wouldn’t be fishermen and we’d be “demeaning them” or something."

no, if we can't fish my hometown would be nonexistent.

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

I did this, the agriculture department paid for my training. I spent 5 years getting my degree. Now instead of making 20,000 in three months fishing, I make $9.50 an hour WITH my bachelors. it doesn't really help.

Instead we should:
1) get rid of farmed fish. they weaken the wild populations.
2) Ban trawling. They are the BIGGEST problem.

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?

YES

& I AM NOW A FISHERMAN

I'M NOT FISHING GIVE ME $$$

The correct path is adequate and measured fishing.

Just over 50% of the fish caught globally is not for human consumption but for livestock feed and pet food. Seabeds are being dredged up, diverse ecospheres destroyed... for cow food.

Put limits on how much fish can go to livestock, switch from tuna chow to chicken for your cat and you start to solve the problem

@ 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.

Why not pay everyone who's not fishing (ie up taxes on fishing until there are not too many people trying to do it ;-)

@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.

@su.wei
Sorry that your home town is dependent on a quickly diminishing resource... but that's the way things happen.

I live in a part of Colorado where coal mining kept a lot of small towns alive. When that stopped being so worthwhile a lot of those small towns died. Before that it was the gold rush. All of those towns had people employed to support the miners (doctors, lawyers, bartenders...).

But, things change. Certain resources become more and less valuable. Some resources get regulated. I won't be crying any tears over coal miners/oil drillers when we really begin to regulate CO2 emissions, just like I didn't get upset when some of the logging towns shut down as national forests were created around them.

Ban the Japanese.

since the late 70's we know the fish stocks that are the most endangered. Nothing has been really done, fishing industry and communities thrived, or just survived where they shouldn't have. now we have to face real extinction : unpleasant decisions have hence to be made, hitting big companies as well as mom & pop operations. too bad, too late. fisherman have dug their own tumb by fighting fishing quotas years after years. very unfortunate but real.

2 thoughts :
- nobody is going to help my retail business if I go bankrupt
- read what happens when 'extinction' comes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nauru

@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.

I agree with Skipweasel's "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?"

When reasonable people lose their work, they look for a new job. Sometimes this means you have to go back to school. It is not the rest of the world's problem that you have put all your eggs in one basket and are now out of a paycheck.

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.