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

Marine biologist and blogger WhySharksMatter presents the latest in his "ethical debate" series, picking a hot topic from the field of conservation biology, presenting both sides, and letting his readers argue it out. Since his readers include scientists, conservationists, students, and laypeople from around the world, these conversations are always interesting.

This week's ethical debate... in order to let depleted stocks recover, should we pay fisherman to not fish the same way we pay farmers to not grow certain crops? Is it right to blame fisherman for overfishing?

Anyone concerned about the origin of their seafood dinner or the future of our planet's threatened oceans has a stake in this... join in the discussion!

"If the Federal government is telling people that they aren’t allowed to earn a living anymore, should the government in some way compensate these people for lost wages? If not for this government decree, these people would be earning money to feed their families and pay their bills. Does the government not owe them something in return for cutting off their source of income?"

Link

From the Upcoming ueue, submitted by whysharksmatter.

Newest 5

Newest 5 Comments

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.

Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)

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.

Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)

@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.

Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)

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