Talk:Individual fishing quota

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Fisheries and Fishing (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fisheries and Fishing, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of fisheries, aquaculture and fishing. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can register your interest for the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

"there has been some evidence showing that due to highgrading little progress has been made."

this is lacking a citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merge[edit]

The following was copied from the talk page of individual transferable quota by User:ImperfectlyInformed.

I think these two should be merged. I like the "Individual fishing quota" as a title more, since it is more descriptive, and the term which I was familiar with prior to reading these articles. II | (t - c) 00:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this. --Geronimo20 (talk) 02:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
You like "Individual fishing quota" more as well? It is a commonly used term in New Zealand? II | (t - c) 02:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
In New Zealand the terms that are used are "Individual transferable quota", and TAC or TACC (total allowable commercial catch). But that doesn't mean much to most people. Do you think just "Fishing quota" would be a better title for the article, which can then discus the variants? --Geronimo20 (talk) 02:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. If corporations have quotas, and I imagine they do in some cases, then it is not really individual. In fact, it appears that in some cases they even apply to countries.[1] I think "Fishing quota" would be a better title, and we could have a broad discussion of the policy. II | (t - c) 03:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay. Have a crack at it if you want. Otherwise I'll have a crack at it later. --Geronimo20 (talk) 03:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


  • Corrections: the US ITQ moratorium ended 6 years ago.
  • NPOV: Removed the booster and critical tones while continuing to include descriptions of all the positive and negative elements.
  • New: separate subsections for the different facets of ITQ plans. New refs, quantification of the scale of ITQ implementation, more consequences -- added by Lfstevens (talk) 05:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Some of these additions are good, but some of the rewriting is problematic. You have reverted my correction and continue to conflate "individual fishing quotas" with "individual transferable quotas". They are not necessarily the same; the later is a special case of the first. An "individual fishing quota" is an "individual transferable quota" only if it is "transferable", that is, if you can trade it. If you can't trade it it, then it is not an "individual transferable quota". More seriously, you have removed accurate material (which however needs proper citations) about the use of ITQs by a number of countries, and you have given no explanation for this, You have replaced this material with an account of IFQs in the United States, a country that makes limited use of these quotas. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Edits on April 6th, 2013[edit]

I removed "essentially a free for all" on the Command and Control section, because this is generally not true. Restrictions to gear type, boat size, number of entrants, fishing times, vessel sizes, etc were often in place during command and control era.

I deleted "so it's future availability is not compromised by current exploitation rates." This line is somewhat misleading. ITQ's were originally designed for economic reasons - to prevent the over-capitalization of the industry that arises from the competitive "race to fish." Setting a scientifically based total allowable catch (TAC) is the aspect of catch shares that prevents over exploitation, but this isn't a unique property of catch shares, nor is it related to the rationalization, which is the pre-allocation and privatization of the fishery.

I removed "undamaged" because it is not necessarily true, nor were fish typically "damaged" before catch shares.

I removed "higher and profitable price." The year round availability of fresh Halibut that results from catch shares does raise the price, so I think that this statement just needed to be expanded on to explain the causality and how it relates to Halibut. Also, "profitable" is redundant, since "higher" is obviously more profitable. It could be pointed out that most fishermen receive less money for their halibut due to lease fees, and fishing is generally less profitable because of this.

I added the statement:

However, ITQ use in fisheries is fundamentally different than pollution quotas, since the latter regulates the byproduct of an industry, whereas fishery ITQ's regulate the actual output product of the fishing industry, and thus amount to exclusive industry participation rights.

People often call ITQ's a "cap and trade" form of fishery management, so I just wanted it to be clear that it doesn't really work like carbon caps.

Removed "Had to go out" and replaced it with, "sometimes embarked". I prefer the new edit "tended to fish," but it still could be more accurate. Many fishermen choose not fish in rough weather regardless of management scheme. It should indicate that this behavior wasn't universal, but was more likely before ITQ's. How about:

A secondary consequence was that some boats tended to fish when the fishery was "open" regardless of weather or other safety concerns

or it could be "many" but it shouldn't be implied that this is a universal attribute.Alaskaa (talk) 05:25, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

proposing some changes (May 5, 2013)[edit]

I'd like to edit the command and control section. Fisheries are still under common ownership in ITQ programs, as both UN law and national policies policies dictate that fish still aren't owned until they are caught. ITQ property rights are for the right to harvest fish, but the actual fish are still not owned until landed. Additionally, common property attributes still apply to ITQ fisheries because harvest rights are shared among ITQ holders. Changes in biomass and variability of the market value of the fish are distributed among the stakeholders, and are not acutely concentrated on a single individual (unless there is a single stakeholder). Additionally, it is the catch limits in ITQ's that reduces over-harvesting due to common property issues, but this isn't unique to these programs, as many fisheries are still managed by limiting the harvest but without the pre-distribution of catch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alaskaa (talkcontribs) 18:16, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Individual fishing quota. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:57, 13 November 2017 (UTC)