Thursday, January 6, 2011
Flying carp and public choice
In another pitched battle over property rights and externalities, Great Lakes states have been fighting to control the carp invasion before the Great Lakes are infested with the fish. See here for a video. They will decimate native species and are a danger to boats. But shipping helps the economy in the short run and keeping the carp out would raise costs in the fishing industry. See here for an editorial. The issue reminds me of the phosphorus in the dishwasher regulation (only a bit more gruesome).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It seems as if many invasive animal species have been the unintended consequence of trying to fix another environmental problems. I found an article on NPR about yet another unintended consequences of the Asian carp. Fisherman are trying to take advantage of the situation by selling the carp to Chinese markets and even attempting to re-brand the fish for the US consumer. This could potentially be advantageous, by keeping the carp population low and allowing fisherman to potentially replace lost profits.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.npr.org/2010/11/23/131540483/startup-company-forks-over-asian-carp
Costs and benefits.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, that video was crazy! I have never seen anything like that. In terms of the issue, I think that the government needs to face scientific fact and quit denying that this invasive species has entered the Great Lakes. I think it needs to start putting more resources into trying to solve a solution to the invasion. If we do not take action, our lakes, the Great Lakes' $7 billion fishing industry, and the drinking water supply relied on by millions of people will be at risk. I realize that shipping helps the economy in the short-run, but the long-term effects of allowing the Asian carp to invade our lakes will be more detrimental to our environment which will also in-turn negatively affect our economy (e.g., the fishing industry).
ReplyDeleteI agree with Kaitlin. The costs involved with controlling the Great Lakes carp invasion are tremendously outweighed by the benefits. Although our economy is boosted in the short run by the shipping, the possibility of the carp infesting our lakes and destroying the fishing industry is not a risk that Michigan, and other surrounding states, should be willing to take. Although I do not have statistics, I would argue that the benefit of saving the entire $7 billion industry by preventing the invasion is much greater than the cost associated with keeping them out. I am interested as to what exactly these costs would be. These figures would be necessary in order to determine if the benefits of controlling the carp truly outweigh the costs.
ReplyDeleteThat video was pretty cool. After reading the article, I believe that it is in the best interest to help eliminate the invasive species in the Great Lakes, the Asian carp. I do understand how big the costs must be to do this and I do not know other alternatives that could alleviate some of the high cost, but it should be a long term goal. Allowing an invasive species to thrive and not doing anything about it could spell disastrous for that particular lake long term. I think that if the fishermen think the problem is bad now, they should not think about what it could be in five years. But as stated above, obviously some numbers would need to be provided in order to make a decision.
ReplyDeleteI believe that too many people are not only underestimating the damage and problems that these fish will cause, but they're ignoring the facts due to costs. I agree with the rest of the class and think it is absolutely imperative that the government does whatever is needed to stop these fish from destroying the great lakes. As David mentioned, not only is the fishing industry a $7 billion industry, the time and money that it would cost to restore all the damage if these fish were to get into the great lakes is significantly more than to stop this problem before it gets out of hand. I think there is way too much at risk, these fish are a huge problem!
ReplyDeleteI wasn't sure what Prof McKinney meant by a "danger to boats", before I saw the video, but holy cow do I see what you mean! That could be a potential movie remix of Alfred Hitchcock's "Birds"!
ReplyDeleteI don't know what the procedure would be to limit the number of these fish, but it seems like another very expensive operation that our already struggling governments will be responsible for
I think the question that has to be addressed is short term consequence versus long term benefit. All too often we choose the short term option because it provides the simplest solution. We are way too short sighted on many of these issues. This seems like a no-brainer to me. You take the hit in the short term to ensure the viability of an important economic industry in the long term. Would we be better off with no fishing industry as is often suggested when discussing the damage that these fish are doing? This should never have gone as far as the Supreme Court. Common sense has gone out the window, and in the mean time the fish keep coming. Pretty soon, all this talk will be moot, and asian carp will be the catch of the day at every restaurant in the region.
ReplyDelete