[Draft] Repeal GA 199 Sustainable Fishing Act

[Tinfect]

The answer is to privatise fishing grounds. Tragedy of the commons solved.

OOC:
Because there's just no such thing as commercial pollution or overfishing.

[Imperium Anglorum]

The answer is to privatise fishing grounds. Tragedy of the commons solved.

OOC: Because there's just no such thing as commercial pollution or overfishing.

In private fishing grounds, yes. The reason why you're seeing what you're seeing is because a collective resource is being used for private gain. The solution is to privatise the resource.

[Tinfect]

The reason why you're seeing what you're seeing is because a collective resource is being used for private gain. The solution is to privatise the resource.

OOC:
Alternatively, use a collective resource for collective gain, because the whole problem is the private motive in the first place.

[Ransium]

In private fishing grounds, yes. The reason why you're seeing what you're seeing is because a collective resource is being used for private gain. The solution is to privatise the resource.

What if your discount rate is so high that sustainably managing your private fishery is seen as less profitable than getting as much fish as possible now and not caring about the inevitable collapse of the fishery in a few years?

GA 199 is a core environmental resolution to me. A repeal of GA 199 is something I'm very skeptical of and would advocate against unless the replacement was equally of extremely high quality and protective of our sustainable fish stocks.

[Imperium Anglorum]

What if your discount rate is so high that sustainably managing your private fishery is seen as less profitable than getting as much fish as possible now and not caring about the inevitable collapse of the fishery in a few years?

Possible. Still comparatively less likely than the government mispricing access rights.

[Kenmoria]

"“Considers” is not in the same tense aspect as “Concerned” or “Convinced”, which makes the preamble look odd."

[The Greater Siriusian Domain]

OOC: Because there's just no such thing as commercial pollution or overfishing.

In private fishing grounds, yes. The reason why you're seeing what you're seeing is because a collective resource is being used for private gain. The solution is to privatise the resource.

OOC: That would require more work than simply privatizing the resource without any restrictions. You'd have to limit the size of privatized fisheries and provide areas of "no man's land" where sustainable populations can maintain themselves, and you'd have to realocate them each year based on populations. At that point, you've basically negated any economic benefit that you may have had from getting rid of the sustainable fishing act.

And that's only considering species that don't stay in one place all the time, like Tuna. It would have the exact opposite effect on Grouper and other shallow-water fish - since those don't tend to wander too much, a privatized fishery would still quickly be depopulated without limits.