Posted by Peter P on February 21, 2004 at 15:44:52:
In Reply to: Re: "most fishermen are conservationists" posted by Sonke on February 21, 2004 at 10:10:00:
Don't mean to harp on you Sonke. My comments are really directed at the mentality present in the government agencies entrusted with protecting our resources for all to enjoy. I think your following comments speak volumes of that mentality:
"How much money are you as a non-anlger putting toward marine resource conservation?"
First off, plain and simple, money does not save fish - not killing them does. More anglers creates more money for DFG and less fish in the sea.
It appears obvious that hunter/fishermen interests take precedence over living resource conservation. This probably will not change until those who give preference to a vibrant ecosystem, and these include those hunter/fishermen willing to restrict their pleasure activity in this field, place and demand an emphasis on maintaining a vibrant ecosystem.
Money talks - BS walks.
You came here asking for ideas to raise funds. Here's some:
Let's say a healthy sustainable ecosystem can sustain 3,000,000 anglers. Allocate 1.5m to fishermen and 1.5m to conservationist. Equal rights, right? Some will exercise their right to fish, others their right to save fish. After a certain date the remaining unsold inventory is sold on a first come basis. If all are sold, auction off another 10% since this will not harm the ecosystem. This is your gravy to get them all sold.
It could become a very competitive event. You will not only be selling, and limiting your sales, to fishermen, but to conservationists as well. Promote it. Increase your customer base.
Impartial resource protection and analysis has to take precedence, not taking advantage of. As in since 3m anglers can be adequately supported, we will sell 6m licenses. Everyone has to "catch" something with their license. We must come to the realization that if someone has a right to take game life, someone else has an equal right to save game life.
On the commercial side this becomes more complicated since there is a direct economic impact to the economy. At least start by not giving away licenses as you are doing today. $400 for a commercial squid license is a give away. The market price of squid can probably sustain a much higher license fee and remain fairly unchanged through competition. Auction off commercial licenses, maybe for longer time periods without a catch guarantee. Allow non fishing commercial interests who can demonstrate their commercial activity to be directly related to the "catch" along with an equivalent economic value, to buy a license from the limited pool available. Half and half.
These ideas could lead to larger game populations and more licenses. How's that sound?
Hope this helps.
Post a Followup