Tragedy of the Commons and its Origins in the U.S. Flashcards
Review the two characteristics delineating private, public, club and common pool resources, and place ocean fisheries within that typology
Ocean fisheries are to be non-excludable subtractable, expansive territory and migratory (unbounded)
Review why, in a common pool/open access ocean fishery 1) it is rational for fishers to fish beyond the point where fish populations are able to rebound to carrying capacity; and 2) it is not rational for an individual fisher to cut back on fishing
3) Review at what point it is no longer rational for a fisher to fish in an open access fishery
- because there is more profit
- if you don’t take it someone else will
- when profit= 0
Review why open access is a 1) economic tragedy; 2) environmental tragedy; and 3) social tragedy
*Economic tragedy: declining profitability of fishers to zero
*Environmental tragedy: degrade fish populations ability to regenerate
*Social tragedy:
-Consumer: declining amount of fish on market (prices increase)
-Public land owners & tax payers: subsidize fishers
Review why many early Americans viewed natural resources, such as waterways, fish and wild game, as open access/common pool resources
Illustrate how the Hamiltonian vs Jeffersonian America debate was reflected in the cod fishery’s pound net vs haul seine battle
Pound net: rich high class, high labor, hiring people to fish, highly efficient, high yield (they caught everything
Small gear/Haul seine: cheap tech, small class, low yield, lower labor, feeding local market/people
*refer to SG
Define/explain common law and clarify when it is used
Common law: basic rules; reasonable conduct
*US inherits British Common Law System
In the absence of a statute (law) addressing an issue:
Courts resolve conflict among individuals by relying on standard of reasonable conduct & expectations [originally based on interpretations of Magna Carta]
*Once decision is made the decision serves as precedent for subsequent controversies that are analogous
Define/explain Public Trust Doctrine, and its implications for resource management
Public Trust Doctrine: The government/state holds certain resources in its trust (so that they may enjoy things like navigable water, carry commerce, liberty of fishing etc), there is a limit to privatization some resources are always common resource
*The State has the right to hinder private rights in the interest of the public. has a right to regulate – for sustainability
Describe the legal justifications that pound net and haul seine fishers each used in the court battle, link their arguments to their associated ideologies (economic liberalism or technocratic utilitarianism); and identify which argument won
*Pound net:
-More labor and capital intensive but was highly efficient– high yield outcomes.
-Wanted open access because of Common Law: there was no specific statute or law prohibiting their fishing practices.
- Technocratic
*Haul seine:
Cheap technology at small scale– low yield outcomes
Wanted state intervention to regulate resources because of the Public Trust Doctrine: state had a duty to regulate the fishery in order to prevent overfishing and ensure sustainability, thus protecting the common good.
Economic liberalism
Who wins: pound net
Review the Resource-economic development model, and identify example stakeholders in the fishing industry through backward, forward, final demand and fiscal linkages
- Backward Linkages: Boat, nets, gear, machine Manufacturing
- Forward Linkages: output-based industries- facilities in canning and freezing, seafood whole sales and grocery stores, companies that transport the fish
- Final Demand Linkages: incomes generated by the fishing industry lead to consumer spending- household goods (food/clothing)
- Fiscal Linkages: (developed later), fines, business taxes, licenses
Characterize the state of the US fishing fleet up to 1976
*Foreign fleets were only allowed within 3 miles of shore. U.S fleet was out competed.
*US was unproductive due to old technology
Importing ~75% of seafood supplies
Characterize the broad intent of the FCMA of 1976, and clarify how that aligned with environmental policies of the era
Fishery Conservation and Management Act (FCMA)
Broad Intent: Promote Fishing and Economic Benefit for the U.S.
- increase U.S. control over its domestic fisheries and enhance the economic benefits
- much of the U.S. continental shelf’s fishery resources were vulnerable to overfishing by foreign fleets
-stimulate rural economic development in coastal regions, particularly in areas that were economically dependent on fishing and related industries
- it did not fully align with the emerging environmental policies of the era,
Describe jurisdictional changes enacted through FCMA
Boot out foreign fleets
State: 0-3 miles from short
Federal: 3-200 miles
Provide explicit examples of how the FCMA promoted the industry in each area: 1) effort increasing; 2) cost cutting; and 3) risk-reducing/revenue-ensuring subsidies to the industry
1.fishing capacity
-Loans for fishing vessel construction
-Loans for fishing gear
2.cost cutting
-Fuel tax emissions
-State-funded research & development on fishing tech
3.risk reduction/revenue ensuring
-US backed/guaranteed loans (pick up tab if fisher defaults)
-Income supports → if you fail to bring enough in you’ll get a check
-Payments to fishers if they lose access to fisheries due to regulations
Identify three technological advances associated with “industrial fishing” that were advanced through the FCMA
- Massive industrial scale nets
-Purse seines: lay out the net in a big circle to get around an entire school of fish
-Long liners: Can be miles long ex: SSU to Santa Rosa
-Trawlers: massive weighted nets that drag on ground and capture all fish and everything on the bottom of the ocean floor - WWII sonar technology/GPS
-If you are a fish out there you will be found
-everyone can now track fish - Factory ships (floating fish processing machines)
Explain 3 reasons why FCMA Management Councils did prioritize healthy fish stocks speaking to: 1) makeup of the councils, 2) the role/power of scientists; and 3) the interests of fishers and other stakeholders in the industry
- Make up of councils
-Councils were made up of fishers, government bureaucrats, scientists, and public representatives.
-Fishers: conflict of interest, as they were regulating the very resource they depended on for income.
- Goal: maximum benefit of nation → employment - Role/power:
- Scientists were advisory: recommendations on limits
- needed to prove that a fish stock was unhealthy before councils would take action - Interests
- Fishers and industry stakeholders prioritized economic development, emphasizing the need to “get as many fish as we can”
-maximize the number of jobs supported by the fishing industry
Explain 2-3 reasons why perspectives on the situation changed in the 1990’s
- Fish stocks:
-Cod stock absolutely crashed
economic hardship
2.Sport fishing industry:
-Taking high end clients out to catch fish and aren’t catching any
-Recreational fishing catches nothing
-No final demand
3.Environmental community:
-Law suites (resource wars)
-Public lands and public seas are the publics resource not private companies to exploit
Through the 1996 Fisheries Sustainability Act (FSA), identify 3 ways in which the fisheries management was altered, directly referencing old and new rules
- Representation
Old Rules:
- benefits over sustainability.
Minimal representation from the recreational fishing sector or environmental advocates.
New Rules under the FSA:
-Representative of fishing recreation industry
-Environmentalist on representation
- Goals
Old Rules:
- maximizing harvests and employment with little attention sustainability.
-Fishery habitat and bycatch were secondary considerations.
New Rules under the FSA:
-Revive the stocks
-Manage fisheries habitat- allow fisheries to reproduce
-Reduce bycatch
- Powers of Councils
Old Rules:
-Councils could approve fishing limits even if stocks were showing signs of decline
-scientists could not prove the stock was unhealthy (burden of proof on scientists).
New Rules under the FSA:
-Have to prove the stock is healthy enough to allow more fishing (burden of proof)
-Regulatory tools → limited entry used
- Scientists
Old Rules
Scientists only made recommendations
New Rules
set definitive stock thresholds and recovery targets.
Clarify the most important game-changing rule concerning stock levels in the FSA
- Shift of Burden of Proofburden of proof shifted to fisheries management councils. Councils had to demonstrate that a stock was healthy enough to justify additional fishing or expanded harvest limits.
protecting fish populations by default rather than risking overfishing until proven otherwise - Scientists’ Role: From Recommendation to Mandate
Scientists were required to establish minimum stock levels. No longer a recommendation but a mandate
