An economic theory of fishing

Yesterday four of us paid a sum of money to go on a two hour fishing trip in the Bristol Channel. Despite the best efforts of the skipper to locate a shoal of mackerel, we caught just three 🐟🐟🐟 However, by happy coincidence, an earlier excursion that day had been far more successful (as evidenced by the gore on the skipper's T-shirt) and there were more than 50 unwanted fish in the boat's hold that we were invited to take away with us. The equivalent market value of the fish was well in excess of the hire fee for the boat. We were happy, the skipper was happy, and a finite natural resource was saved from waste.

Back home, we lit a barbeque and grilled 25 fish for friends and family. The remainder went in the freezer or were given away. Our 'exertions' thereby bought us an evening's company and entertainment, and a fair quantity of wine, cake, and fresh vegetables.

The questions I now put to the economic sages of SW (of which there are many) are:

(1) Was our unexpected boon of protein and entertainment justified by our inputs? Or are we in fact "idle benefit scroungers"?

(2) Is any moral responsibility attached to the previous fishing party who wasted a valuable economic resource (for reasons unknown)?

(3) Is there any way in which a better economic outcome could have been achieved? And can this little parable be related to contemporary society?

Answers on a postcard please 😌

SomeMichGuy · M

1) There was utility to the captain in your removal of fish so that he did not have to; the fish was pay for your work in removing it, and cost him nothing out-of-pocket. Remember, he was content to make his fee twice over in exchange for performing his "normal" level of work; his business is based on renting his boat + equipment, using his knowledge to find fish, and helping clients to fish, with no guarantee of a specific outcome, even if he correctly characterizes the average or typical [mode] outcome.

So he valued not having to do additional work, and gave you what you hauled away as your wages.

2) Perhaps the other group was wasteful & slothful...or perhaps it was tourists who wanted a fun time, and did not have the time or storage to process all of the super-abundant harvest from the sea.

Boom (with the other party) and bust (with your party) are the inherent risks of a bursty / uncertain product to harvest.

Should there be any moral judgment about a party's ability to deal with a huge windfall of fish? It sounds as though the trip is designed as a tourist outing.

3) Sure.

A) Have the skipper calculate the max number of mackerel he can catch and get a group to take and resize to a smaller net so as not to overfish and set up a given trip for potential waste.

This would model rational fishing, and give him a chance to inform clients of overfishing of species vs. sustainable levels of fishing, to preserve the precious biodiversity & food source.

B) Skipper changes his business model; clients are "crew for a tour", and he nets what he can AND SELLS IT, modulo some allowance per client (WHEN available).

He trades a lesser take for income from simply going out, and he still educates clients in the reality of fishing, conservation, etc.

SunshineGirl · 36-40, F

@SomeMichGuy Thanks for your answers. Fishing's not really my thing anyway (although I love being on the water and seeing familiar landscapes from a different angle), but the dynamics of micro-economies fascinate me. The skipper is a retired Royal Marine, using his skills for more peaceful ends and helping to build tourism in quite an impoverished town. The big imponderable is the assumed scarcity of most species of marine fish. The previous clients may have been staying at a hotel, which may explain why they left the fish behind. Anyhow, none went to waste, and we got cheap fish, a nice trip out, and sun tans 🌞

SlaveEt · 36-40, F

1) the money paid (and the effort to earn it) and the effort of going out there and fishing balances the scales in my book.

2)no because nothing on Earth is ever wasted. Even if we humans don't use it and just throw it away, something else on this planet is being "given" a valuable resource just as you were given the fish.

3a)"better" is a judgment call and a study in what ifs. While fun, distracting and occasionally educational, what ifs won't change what has already taken place.

3b) I'm sure it could but why bother?