I would not bore my readers with the below project:

Maybe I don\'t compare with Jules Verne\'s masterpiece, but it was rather large.
Maybe I don\'t compare with Jules Verne\'s masterpiece, but it was rather large.

However, since this was a feat of biojournalism, here are a few excerpts from the essay:

Dividing up the Fish: A Way to Sustainability and Success

“O Oysters,” said the Carpenter,
“You’ve had a pleasant run!
Shall we be trotting home again?’
But answer came there none–
And this was scarcely odd, because
They’d eaten every one.
-Walrus and the Carpenter, Lewis Carroll

Unless we are prepared to face a world where all the fish stocks suffer the same fate as the oysters in this whimsical child’s poem, innovative fishery management programs must be implemented. On the West Coast, such a plan has already been set in motion. These plans tend to be controversial and the debate still rages on: should the Pacific Fishery Management Council implement plans to use Individual Fishing Quotas (IFQs) to manage sustainable fisheries within its jurisdiction?

The ocean is considered a public resource, and in most places so are the fish. Limited Access Privilege Programs (LAPPs) are a way of dividing up the resource and granting a share of that resource to a fisher, a company, or a community. This share, called a quota share, is essentially a piece of property. These rights-based programs, also called catch share programs, may eliminate the “tragedy of the commons,” the notion that people will overexploit a public resource because the incentive to do so is always higher than the cost of protecting the resource. As it relates to fisheries, this means the benefit of overfishing is higher than the incentive to use sustainable practices and preserve the fish stocks for the future. IFQs (also called ITQs, or Individual Transferable Quotas) are a type of catch share program that grants quota to individuals in the system, such as fishers.

These types of management programs are one of the options that might solve the fisheries crisis. As the fish stocks are depleted, the industry dependent upon them is being thrown into economic despair. Almost 60 percent of fisheries in the world have already declined or are on the brink of collapse due to overfishing (Jacques and Smith 27). Fish stocks are not just important from an ecologic viewpoint; the economic problems that occur because of this collapse are also on a massive scale worldwide. In the US, the fishing industry contributed 28 billion dollars to the gross national product in 2002. In the groundfish fishery (comprised of species like whiting, flounder and lingcod) managed by the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC), seven species of groundfish are currently at extremely low levels due to overfishing.

In 1883, Thomas Huxley, a respected member of the scientific community, issued a statement stating that he believed the resources of the sea were “inexhaustible”. He believed that the productivity of an acre of fishing ground in the North Sea was so high that no man could make a significant impact on it. He was sadly mistaken. That same acre in the North Sea now has about a tenth of the productivity it had in Huxley’s day.

Much research was conducted on IFQs and still more is yet to come. Despite this, IFQ systems are rare in fisheries, which are mostly dominated by competitive-TAC based management. Many of management systems fail, causing fishers to lose faith with the councils that try to enforce them. Sometimes the failure is do to the high rate of accidental catch, or bycatch, of other species. The incentive for rushed and sloppy fishing practices that occur under many competitive TAC-based systems causes this problem. In an IFQ system, the incentives change. Fishers have a long-term share in an industry and like a share in the stock market, would like the value of it to increase. This fosters more sustainable fishing practices, and fishers take time to avoid bycatch, therefore preventing the “tragedy of the commons.” Any good management system changes the incentives so the most likely behavior that occurs is one that will benefit the system the most.

This is just one reason an IFQ system is environmentally beneficial. An IFQ system allows the TAC to be lowered without destroying the economic viability of the system. If a fisher catches more than his quota allows, the fisher will have to purchase or lease quota to cover his accidental catch. This is far superior to the wasteful dumping of fish that currently occurs in the Pacific groundfish industry. The rationalization of the fleet also reduces the number of boats that impact the ocean; thereby reducing the environmental harm the industry creates. A study done on the benefits of ITQs found that the percent of fisheries that were collapsed under a competitive TAC-based system was twice that of those under ITQs, a statistic that the authors say, “probably underestimates ITQ benefits, because most ITQ fisheries are young.” The longer ITQs are in place, the bigger the benefits are.

In the end, the implementation of IFQs in the Pacific groundfish fishery can be a model for the rest of the world. A successful IFQ program satisfies both the economic and ecological needs of the world. And yes, there will be those who argue against it, but this will happen with any revolutionary program. Unfortunately, a revolutionary program is what is needed to stop the fishing industry from permanently collapsing. As Charles Clover, author of The End of the Line says, “There is one solution that is controversial with fishermen…but it is simple and totally effective. That is preventing fish from being exposed to any kind of fishing gear at all.” Besides that option, this is the solution that will benefit the fish and the fishers the most.

If the above paragraphs don’t make as much sense, I apologize. Its hard to pick certain paragraphs out of a 20 page essay to post.

About Citations: I have a lot of sources, but they are not always cited in the usual manner. If anyone would like to see where I got any of my information, simply contact me and I will be happy to furnish you with 3 pages of annotated sources and 5 pages of work cited.

About Info Hell: Info Hell (as it is called by the professors, the GTFs, the students, the administrators and everyone, except the parents) is a rite of passage involving 10 weeks of hard labor on a single project. It is infamous for ridding the school of excess Pre-journalism majors. Type “Info Hell” into google to find the lamenting and blog posts of journalism students… as well as the FAQ page for the School of Journalism and Communication.

From a fellow blogger, and UO student’s perspective: Late Update-Hella Info