Thanks for your thoughts. I’m somewhat familiar with these issues from my background in fisheries management and wildlife biology.
It seems to me that your concern is that what you could call the “indirect effects” (e.g. giving money to the wrong people, encouraging policies that harm other animals) might be worse than the “direct effects” (saving the lives of the specific animals). I think this is a valid concern, and somewhat similar to the risks I raised in my post.
In my experience (limited to a few developed countries), fisheries catch shares work a bit differently to how you’ve explained hunting licenses. In most cases, the government uses catch shares to limit how much fishing can happen—so catch shares are not so much a product that is sold to consumers, but rather a tool used to limit the amount of fish that the commercial industry can take.
In most cases, we would be buying the catch shares off of the commercial fishers who hold them. This would give money to those fishers, which might be used for harmful things (e.g. fishing in another fishery instead), and I list that as a concerning risk in my post. But I don’t think this would be as obviously bad as providing money to a hunting program.
I agree with your point about raising fish for release. This could plausibly be a bad thing in fisheries where fish are raised for release, although it’d be possible to do research to understand the size of this risk, given a particular fishery.
In that case , in which we are buying from the fisherman The catch shares, (which seems similar to carbon credits,?) I am much more sympathetic to this. And I think this sounds like a very promising potential cause.
Thanks for your thoughts. I’m somewhat familiar with these issues from my background in fisheries management and wildlife biology.
It seems to me that your concern is that what you could call the “indirect effects” (e.g. giving money to the wrong people, encouraging policies that harm other animals) might be worse than the “direct effects” (saving the lives of the specific animals). I think this is a valid concern, and somewhat similar to the risks I raised in my post.
In my experience (limited to a few developed countries), fisheries catch shares work a bit differently to how you’ve explained hunting licenses. In most cases, the government uses catch shares to limit how much fishing can happen—so catch shares are not so much a product that is sold to consumers, but rather a tool used to limit the amount of fish that the commercial industry can take.
In most cases, we would be buying the catch shares off of the commercial fishers who hold them. This would give money to those fishers, which might be used for harmful things (e.g. fishing in another fishery instead), and I list that as a concerning risk in my post. But I don’t think this would be as obviously bad as providing money to a hunting program.
I agree with your point about raising fish for release. This could plausibly be a bad thing in fisheries where fish are raised for release, although it’d be possible to do research to understand the size of this risk, given a particular fishery.
Thank-you for responding!
In that case , in which we are buying from the fisherman The catch shares, (which seems similar to carbon credits,?) I am much more sympathetic to this. And I think this sounds like a very promising potential cause.