Posted by seahunt on December 21, 2003 at 02:34:07:
In Reply to: what are the benefits of the harvest? posted by Brad on December 20, 2003 at 21:31:39:
>According to the state constitution, the living resources of the state belong to ALL of the citizens equally. Why are a handfull of citizens allowed to take so much of this resource and convert it into personal income?
.
Yes, but like it or not, the U.S. Constitution is deeply based on an economic model that promotes people exploiting economic resources. The Constitution just looks at wild crops (and everything else) as something to be economically exploited. Actually, that's not the worst flaw in the system, but it is a problem that laws must sometimes be written to correct. The problem is that when it comes to wild crops, you have primitive human hunting instincts involved. Those hunting instincts can be extremely dmamging (especially when combined with technology) because there is no off switch. Also, since these relate to old customs (and because the effect is not very visible until it is too late), it is hard to get good laws governing them.
.
>It would be like me going down to the local park and cutting down all the trees and selling them for firewood. You can still visit the park, but somehow it isn't the same.
.
Yah. So. Go look at the forest. They did that already and it is as you say.
.
>i'm thinking... the personal wealth of those who exploit the resourcs, the middlemen, and the foreign markets aren't a sufficient return for the damage that is being done...
.
I'll buy that. Especially since the profits are really pretty minor. With a different business model, the fisheries could support communities for generations, like they often used to. This is what the Fish and Game absolutely must do, but hasn't up until now. I hope they get it finally, but I fear they don't. That is why I'd like Mr. Sonke to actually say what they plan to do to protect the squid. Do they have a plan for a maintainable harvest? It's not technically complicated. It will require a psychological and economic (laws) adjustment. We better all hope that they pull it off, cuz I think the squid are more critical in the ecology than is commonly known. Frankly, I think the squid are already on the way out though. I think that the Fish and Game will fail us again. I hope that I am wrong.
Ya know, I could write enforcable laws that would allow economic exploitation and maintainability, but until I see at least dock limits, I don't believe that Fish and Game will.
.
>When the squid go away, those who like to eat squid will have to suffer just like those who used to like eat abalone. As far as i know there has never been a fataltiy associated with the lack of abalone or squid. The abalone fishermen moved on...
.
No. I think you're missing some of the worst part of this. I don't worry about the people who eat squid. There are plenty of people. I worry about all the other trophic levels of the ocean ecology that depend on squid including bass, tuna, yellowtail, bonita, mackeral, white seabass, etc. Squid are a major foundation of the ocean ecology. Remove the squid and a lot of other things will go.
It's like urchins. They have an important part in the ecology that effects other species. The spines under urchins are a very important nursery for other species. The urchin harvest is not just about urchins.
By the way, study deer ecology to understand the situation with abalone. They are very very similar.
The abalone fishermen could have had a maintainable resource, but not using the business model that comes from current American laws. The downside of Capitalism is greed and results like Enron caused. Remember, there are people like that that get to help make game laws and they are unabashedly greedy with no care for the damage they cause. Check out the Forestry Department if you want to see the best action. It's run by the children of the logging company management and owners.
Wait a bit and the problems of our economic system are gonna make outsourcing look like a minor annoyance.
Enjoy, seahunt