Privatizing Animals?

  • News
  • Thread starter calculusrocks
  • Start date
  • #1
calculusrocks

Main Question or Discussion Point

http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj1n2-1.html [Broken]

The salmon fishery provides a nearly perfect example of the differences between private and common property management. Salmon are anadromous fish. They hatch in the clear, shallow waters of the upper reaches of rivers, go downstream to the sea where they grow to maturity, and then return upstream to spawn another generation in the same rivers where they were hatched. Management of a fishery should be a relatively low-cost operation because the only requirements are to maintain a high-quality spawning environment and to prevent overfishing. The fish don't need to be fed because they grow to maturity in the sea and return as a highly valuable source of protein.
Outside the United States we find a strikingly different situation. In Iceland and in some northern European countries, the salmon fishery is in much healthier shape because the rights to the salmon or the salmon rivers are privately owned. Some of the finest stretches of rivers are owned or leased by individuals, groups of fishermen, or fishing lodges, and the salmon are not overfished. It is in the economic self-interest of the resource owners to conserve the salmon. Limits are effectively placed on the number of fish that can be caught, enough fish are released to maintain a healthy population, and the owners carefully protect their streams and see that agricultural and grazing activities do not adversely affect the quality of the water.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Answers and Replies

  • #2
Evo
Mentor
23,104
2,448
Is there some point to this? Because as is, it's going to get deleted real quick.
 
  • #3
calculusrocks
Perhaps animals should be private property instead of common property in order to prevent extinction. The article is extensive.
 
  • #4
Evo
Mentor
23,104
2,448
Perhaps animals should be private property instead of common property in order to prevent extinction. The article is extensive.
You do know that when salmon swim upstream to spawn that it's a one way trip? They die.

http://www.fish.washington.edu/hatchery/education.html [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #5
calculusrocks
You do know that when salmon swim upstream to spawn that it's a one way trip? They die.
Yup, but they also reproduce. It's just like farming.
 
  • #6
19
1
What is the difference between private land and public land? You still don't own the stream.
 
  • #7
Evo
Mentor
23,104
2,448
Yup, but they also reproduce. It's just like farming.
So, what's your point?
 
  • #8
DaveC426913
Gold Member
18,549
2,026
Uh, are we comparing apples to apples?

"Outside the United States we find a strikingly different situation. In Iceland and in some northern European countries..."

I'll bet the ratio of mouths-to-feed divided by miles-of-coastline is probably different by several orders of magnitude.

[EDIT: Indeed, the U.S. has 250 times more people-per-mile-of-coastline than Iceland]

Point-being: it's not like the U.S. has the options that Iceland (and some northern European countries) have.
 
Last edited:
  • #9
CRGreathouse
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
2,820
0
What is the difference between private land and public land? You still don't own the stream.
So, what's your point?
I imagine the point is one possible solution to the Tragedy of the Commons.
 
  • #10
Evo
Mentor
23,104
2,448
I imagine the point is one possible solution to the Tragedy of the Commons.
That's just it. He's posted a link and has not bothered to form the basis for a discussion, at all.
 
  • #11
calculusrocks
Uh, are we comparing apples to apples?

"Outside the United States we find a strikingly different situation. In Iceland and in some northern European countries..."

I'll bet the ratio of mouths-to-feed divided by miles-of-coastline is probably different by several orders of magnitude.

[EDIT: Indeed, the U.S. has 250 times more people-per-mile-of-coastline than Iceland]

Point-being: it's not like the U.S. has the options that Iceland (and some northern European countries) have.
The whole term mouths to feed begs the question that salmon exists for the sole purpose of feeding humans, and that there are mouths that need to be fed. I see no reason to accept that. I also don't see how this is a boundary to the discussion of privatizing the salmon.

The options are the same. Keep it common, and then everyone fishes them to extinction. License it, which has some enforcement problems, or privatize it, which introduces the profit motive.

The Tragedy of the Commons seems to re-appear when profits are taken out of the equation. Salmon is one example, and the journal has many others. One that most people can relate to is public parks. They are riddled with trash, and all sorts of elements, because there is little motive to keep it clean, except for some environmentalists willing to take the time or some public servant for hire. Perhaps if someone owned the park, they'd have the motive to keep it clean so customers would keep coming back.
 

Related Threads for: Privatizing Animals?

  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
570
  • Last Post
2
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
39
Views
4K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
50
Views
5K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
71
Views
7K
  • Last Post
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
4K
Replies
4
Views
13K
Top