http://www.theatlantic.com/business/arch...n/257604/#

More proof that leftists are wrong in just about every conceivable way.

A property rights approach makes more sense than our current adversary regulatory model for most, if not all, environmental issues. But the current approach means more jobs for bureaucrats, lawyers, consultants, and lobbyists. And it's those bureaucrats, lawyers, consultants, and lobbyists who write the rules. So guess what's going to happen?

I read the article, but I couldn't really find a summation of the 'property rights' approach they kept referring to. Anyone able to sum it up? I'm all for anything which increases the longevity of our fisheries.

(05-25-2012 09:18 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  I read the article, but I couldn't really find a summation of the 'property rights' approach they kept referring to. Anyone able to sum it up? I'm all for anything which increases the longevity of our fisheries.

Here is the law of unintended consequences with the strong state model:

Quote:Dozens of fish stocks in the United States remain overfished, despite herculean efforts to impose meaningful fishery regulations, from total catch limits to restrictions on fishing gear other inputs. Such measures try to limit access, but they do not alter the fundamental incentives of the commons. Each participant in the fishery retains every incentive to get what he or she can, even at the expense of the whole. In many fisheries, we see this manifested in a destructive and wasteful "race to catch," as each boat tries to get what it can before the fishery reaches its catch limit and closes. The resulting practices may make for good reality television, but they don't foster sound ecological stewardship. Traditional regulatory strategies do little to encourage concern among resource users for the long-term health of the resource and pit resource users against conservation interests.

And here is the mention of property rights approach:

Quote:A recent study in Science that looked at over 11,000 fisheries over a fifty year period found clear evidence that the adoption of property-based management regimes, often called "catch shares" or ITQs, prevents fishery collapse. (More here.) This is only the latest piece of evidence supporting the use of property institutions for fishery conservation. As Hardin predicted, the institution of property rights averts the tragedy of the commons.

There are many reasons for this. The creation of property rights in an ecological resource not only creates incentives for greater resource stewardship, to conserve the underlying value of the resource today and into the future. It also gives those who rely upon the resource a stake in the broader set of institutions that govern the resource.

If you think about it this way...

What will yield more fruit year after year... A wild Orchard owned by the commons that allows only so many apples per year to be picked (thus giving incentives to get out there first and fast to pick them before the number is reached)

or

A orchard owned by a farmer who's long term profits are tied directly to the health of the orchard?

More info and Catch Shares

Catch share is a term used for fishery management systems that dedicate a secure privilege to harvest a specific area or percentage of a fishery’s total allowable catch to individuals, communities or associations.[1] Types of programs that are considered catch shares include, but are not limited to, individual transferable quota (ITQs), individual fishing quota (IFQs), territorial use rights fisheries (TURFs), limited access privileges (LAPs), sectors, and dedicated access privileges (DAPs). Catch shares are different from traditional management as catch shares provide long-term secure privileges to participants, which has been credited as providing an incentive for efficient, sustainable use of fish stocks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catch_share

From that Wikipedia, catch shares come off quite similar to cap and trade-type legislation, yes? There's an overall quota, with different shares allotted to different users, those shares can be sold or traded to whom they like, but there still is an overall cap. It basically gives ownership of the area to the different fishers, which encourages responsible usage as not only do they have incentive to make money off the product, but their shares themselves are profitable as long as the fishery stays healthy.

I've always liked this sort of legislation, and I don't think it goes against leftist policies either.

(05-25-2012 10:04 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  From that Wikipedia, catch shares come off quite similar to cap and trade-type legislation, yes? There's an overall quota, with different shares allotted to different users, those shares can be sold or traded to whom they like, but there still is an overall cap. It basically gives ownership of the area to the different fishers, which encourages responsible usage as not only do they have incentive to make money off the product, but their shares themselves are profitable as long as the fishery stays healthy.

I've always liked this sort of legislation, and I don't think it goes against leftist policies either.

Wait. It is like cap and trade? I guess these righties will now have to flip flop and say it is bad.

Robert, you are constantly calling me a righty, and I don't have a huge problem with cap-and-trade. I think pollution taxes are better, but I could live with cap-and-trade.

What's useless are the legions of EPA bureaucrats. You could replace a lot of them by extending the cap-and-trade model to many areas.

(05-25-2012 10:10 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I don't have a huge problem with cap-and-trade. I think pollution taxes are better, but I could live with cap-and-trade.

What's useless are the legions of EPA bureaucrats. You could replace a lot of them by extending the cap-and-trade model to many areas.

I can't disagree with this, though I'd prefer cap and trade over pollution taxes due simply to the ease of measuring one to the other.

(05-25-2012 10:04 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  From that Wikipedia, catch shares come off quite similar to cap and trade-type legislation, yes?

The difference is it's a shared private ownership and not a "commons" That's a pretty big difference..

(05-25-2012 10:10 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Robert, you are constantly calling me a righty, and I don't have a huge problem with cap-and-trade. I think pollution taxes are better, but I could live with cap-and-trade.

What's useless are the legions of EPA bureaucrats. You could replace a lot of them by extending the cap-and-trade model to many areas.

Libertarians = rightwing.

(05-25-2012 10:18 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(05-25-2012 10:04 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  From that Wikipedia, catch shares come off quite similar to cap and trade-type legislation, yes?

The difference is it's a shared private ownership and not a "commons" That's a pretty big difference..

What do you mean by this?

(05-25-2012 10:24 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(05-25-2012 10:10 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Robert, you are constantly calling me a righty, and I don't have a huge problem with cap-and-trade. I think pollution taxes are better, but I could live with cap-and-trade.

What's useless are the legions of EPA bureaucrats. You could replace a lot of them by extending the cap-and-trade model to many areas.

Libertarians = rightwing.

Yes...Like Democrats = Communists. Grow up man.

(05-25-2012 10:45 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(05-25-2012 10:18 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(05-25-2012 10:04 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  From that Wikipedia, catch shares come off quite similar to cap and trade-type legislation, yes?

The difference is it's a shared private ownership and not a "commons" That's a pretty big difference..

What do you mean by this?

Commons typically means the assets are not owned by a private group but by a government entity.

Yes...A great example of this takes place in the GOM involving the Rock Crab fishery. Each fisherman has an assigned area to fish and they take great pride in overseeing the fishery. When one catches a Rock Crab, they only take one claw so it can defend itself when returned to the Gulf. Of course the removed claw grow back. Rock Crabs are very territorial and will stay put in a particular area for their entire lives. My cousin that is in this business says he has caught the same crab dozens of times. He knows this because he has painted numbers on their backs for ID.

(05-25-2012 11:09 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Yes...A great example of this takes place in the GOM involving the Rock Crab fishery. Each fisherman has an assigned area to fish and they take great pride in overseeing the fishery. When one catches a Rock Crab, they only take one claw so it can defend itself when returned to the Gulf. Of course the removed claw grow back. Rock Crabs are very territorial and will stay put in a particular area for their entire lives. My cousin that is in this business says he has caught the same crab dozens of times. He knows this because he has painted numbers on their backs for ID.

I thought of you Fo, when I read this entry. I haven't read the entire story, but I'm pretty sure it's gonna make your head explode.

http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/20...state.html

So they actually get ownership of an area too, with the ownership of the rights to the percent of the quota? Or is the 'quota' really a division of the overall land or fish-able area?

I'd think it would have to be the latter, wouldn't it? And I'm not trying to be obtuse here, I just want to know how this works because being a native floridian and a seafood lover, fishery conservation is a topic close to the heart. And I also just tend to like new, original ideas to old problems. I find them interesting.

(05-25-2012 11:23 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  And I also just tend to like new, original ideas to old problems. I find them interesting.

There is nothing new under the sun.

Property rights go back millennia.

(05-25-2012 10:57 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(05-25-2012 10:24 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(05-25-2012 10:10 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Robert, you are constantly calling me a righty, and I don't have a huge problem with cap-and-trade. I think pollution taxes are better, but I could live with cap-and-trade.

What's useless are the legions of EPA bureaucrats. You could replace a lot of them by extending the cap-and-trade model to many areas.

Libertarians = rightwing.

Yes...Like Democrats = Communists. Grow up man.

Not a like comparison to my post.

(05-25-2012 11:23 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  So they actually get ownership of an area too, with the ownership of the rights to the percent of the quota? Or is the 'quota' really a division of the overall land or fish-able area?

I'd think it would have to be the latter, wouldn't it? And I'm not trying to be obtuse here, I just want to know how this works because being a native floridian and a seafood lover, fishery conservation is a topic close to the heart. And I also just tend to like new, original ideas to old problems. I find them interesting.

No, they own and are stewards of the area. When a person owns something they tend to take better care of it...