Do women make less than men?

[PLAYER57832]

One classic example is found in fisheries CPU or "catch per unit effort". Because it is so difficult to assess fish stocks directly (in the past has been impossible), indirect methods like CPU are used. Theoretically, if there are more fish, you should catch them more readily. If there are fewer, it should take more time. Right off, I am sure you can see quite a few problems. People's skill varies, etc. Those can be corrected for to a large extent. When direct assessments were lacking, it was one of the data points used to assess fishery stocks, just taken with the understanding of its limits.

So, what happens when a fishery stock starts to go?

The first thing is that people wind up spending more time and get better equipment. They keep the catch rates up, but it takes longer. According to standard market economics, the price increases. In fisheries, that happens slowly because there are a lot of different fish out there and a lot of options for buying things other than fish. Even so, it does happen. This fuels the already wealthier fishermen to improve their boats more, to keep up their fishing take.

Note the problem? The lack of/increase in demand is not really tied to the base stock, it is tied to the amount delivered to the market. In fisheries, the end result is that by the time a fishery becomes untenable, the stocks have already been depleted too far to readily rebound. This happened with Cod, with just about every stock you can think about.

There are various "fixes" that have been tried. I won't go into all of that because you just asked for an explanation of why the market is too slow to respond. If you want me to get into the biology , I can.


OR-- take agriculture.

Agriculture is a different case. I will take just one problem. A lot of the arable land west of the Sierras, over to roughly the Mississippi get their water from several underground aquifers. These aquifers are being depleted and not restored. The water is essentially being "mined", not cycled. Even when the "natural" water cycle is all that is being used for agriculture, we find that the water is being polluted, being withdrawn or diverted in various ways. Note.. I am not saying that farms don't pollute. Large factory farms, in particular are a big problem. (smaller farms usually are not, though there can be exceptions). BUT.. there is nothing in the market place to reflect these losses.

Wait, I thought to markets had already solved this with enclosed hatcheries and modern fish farms?

Not he problems I noted above, no. They do help add to the food supply, but we still need healty oceans for many, many reasons. Those small examples just gave a tiny piece of one aspect of the problem.

Plus, there is a bit of a regular market cycle with the wild caught fishes. Several times in the last 20 years, the most popular fishes have been over fished, making other fish more cheaper, at which point, they become popular for accessibility. The former species have years to replenish, while the later is fished. Currently, Tilapia is fairly popular. I've also noticed an unusual amount of salmon in stores (which is excellent, but that might not be related, since it's often river caught, and rivers tend to, you know, belong to people).

As I already explained, this is NOT what really happens in fisheries.

Tilapia is a farm-raised fish. It is not wild-caught. No significant amount of commercial salmon is, as you say, "river-caught". (there is a very very small Native American river fishery), its essentially all ocean-caught. Sportsmen catch salmon in rivers, but the meat is highest quality in the ocean.

and no, rivers don't "you know, belong to people". They are one of the original public resources, laws and principles that stand even today. No one "owns" a river -- though plenty of people still try to claim they do.

But, since you cannot be bothered to verify even the most basic facts you give out here....

[Mr_Adams]

One classic example is found in fisheries CPU or "catch per unit effort". Because it is so difficult to assess fish stocks directly (in the past has been impossible), indirect methods like CPU are used. Theoretically, if there are more fish, you should catch them more readily. If there are fewer, it should take more time. Right off, I am sure you can see quite a few problems. People's skill varies, etc. Those can be corrected for to a large extent. When direct assessments were lacking, it was one of the data points used to assess fishery stocks, just taken with the understanding of its limits.

So, what happens when a fishery stock starts to go?

The first thing is that people wind up spending more time and get better equipment. They keep the catch rates up, but it takes longer. According to standard market economics, the price increases. In fisheries, that happens slowly because there are a lot of different fish out there and a lot of options for buying things other than fish. Even so, it does happen. This fuels the already wealthier fishermen to improve their boats more, to keep up their fishing take.

Note the problem? The lack of/increase in demand is not really tied to the base stock, it is tied to the amount delivered to the market. In fisheries, the end result is that by the time a fishery becomes untenable, the stocks have already been depleted too far to readily rebound. This happened with Cod, with just about every stock you can think about.

There are various "fixes" that have been tried. I won't go into all of that because you just asked for an explanation of why the market is too slow to respond. If you want me to get into the biology , I can.


OR-- take agriculture.

Agriculture is a different case. I will take just one problem. A lot of the arable land west of the Sierras, over to roughly the Mississippi get their water from several underground aquifers. These aquifers are being depleted and not restored. The water is essentially being "mined", not cycled. Even when the "natural" water cycle is all that is being used for agriculture, we find that the water is being polluted, being withdrawn or diverted in various ways. Note.. I am not saying that farms don't pollute. Large factory farms, in particular are a big problem. (smaller farms usually are not, though there can be exceptions). BUT.. there is nothing in the market place to reflect these losses.

Wait, I thought to markets had already solved this with enclosed hatcheries and modern fish farms?

Not he problems I noted above, no. They do help add to the food supply, but we still need healty oceans for many, many reasons. Those small examples just gave a tiny piece of one aspect of the problem.

Plus, there is a bit of a regular market cycle with the wild caught fishes. Several times in the last 20 years, the most popular fishes have been over fished, making other fish more cheaper, at which point, they become popular for accessibility. The former species have years to replenish, while the later is fished. Currently, Tilapia is fairly popular. I've also noticed an unusual amount of salmon in stores (which is excellent, but that might not be related, since it's often river caught, and rivers tend to, you know, belong to people).

As I already explained, this is NOT what really happens in fisheries.

Tilapia is a farm-raised fish. It is not wild-caught. No significant amount of commercial salmon is, as you say, "river-caught". (there is a very very small Native American river fishery), its essentially all ocean-caught. Sportsmen catch salmon in rivers, but the meat is highest quality in the ocean.

and no, rivers don't "you know, belong to people". They are one of the original public resources, laws and principles that stand even today. No one "owns" a river -- though plenty of people still try to claim they do.

But, since you cannot be bothered to verify even the most basic facts you give out here....

So you are trying to say to me if I own the left bank, and the right bank of a river for a few miles, and just for my fancy, say this land of mine is at the source of said body of water, you are telling me I do not own that portion of the river? If that is what you are trying to say, then we have nothing to discuss, as we have a fundamentally different understanding of right and wrong, which cannot be reconciled.

[PLAYER57832]

[ So you are trying to say to me if I own the left bank, and the right bank of a river for a few miles, and just for my fancy, say this land of mine is at the source of said body of water, you are telling me I do not own that portion of the river? If that is what you are trying to say, then we have nothing to discuss, as we have a fundamentally different understanding of right and wrong, which cannot be reconciled.

You cannot dam the river. You cannot halt passage or limit access. Its not my opinion, its one of the most basic and most enforced laws there are.