19 Sep 2008

Economically Trivial Fish (or Farms?)

In response to this post, Fixed Carbon said...
A friend commented to me recently that the wealth generated by the agricultural sector is so much greater than that of salmon fishing and the other economically trivial concerns of environmentalists that we should forget about the fish. What do you think?
This comment raises two big concerns -- marginal values and property rights. Although those concepts can take ages to discuss, here's my simple summary:

The marginal value of something falls as you have more of it. The first glass of water (in the desert) is worth a LOT compared to the millionth glass of water out of a reservoir. Thus, it's not a simple case of all fish or all ag -- but where to balance between those two extremes.

Property rights are important. You can't just knock down someone's house to build something "more important" (unless you are in China or are named Kelo), so it makes no sense to wipe out a river and the "rights" inherent to the flows of water and fish in the river. The same case can be made for riparian rights to divert flows from a river onto adjacent farmland. What matters, once rights are determined, is that those who want to alter the distribution of rights be able to negotiate with those who hold them. Negotiation should involve money (and perhaps charm) -- not guns or legal coups.

Bottom Line: Farmers and enviros will have to live with each other. Better yet, they have the greatest incentive to protect property rights. (If they don't, urbans will eat both of their lunches.)

1 comment:

  1. The *commercial* salmon business may be relatively unimportant (and in fact an argument could be made that as a game species, like ducks and trout, salmon should not be fished commercially at all). However, the recreational fishing and hunting business is quite large, and furnishes incomes to a large number of people living in areas where there is not a heck of a lot of other things to do (trees have been cut down, mines played out...). And, there is an incalculable societal value in our citizens' ability to re-create themselves in the outdoors.
    So, yeah, food is important; I grow it for a living. So are these other things, and they need not be mutually exclusive, unless we want them to be.


Read this first!

Make sure you copy your comment before submitting because sometimes the system will malfunction and you will lose your comment.

Spam will be deleted.

Comments on older posts must be approved (do not submit twice).

If you're having problems posting, email your comment to me