gatoraubrey2 wrote:Aside from the fact that we've established that this isn't BP's decision...
This is totally fine. BP's liability in the immediate future is to provide replacement income in proportion to the amount lost due to the oil spill. If they can replace this income by providing alternate employment, so much the better. Why just hand people money to sit and do nothing, when you could hand them money for contributing to a solution? Heads up: they've stopped fishing. They're not doing anything all day. No one is entitled to be paid for nothing, so long as employment is available.
Because our laws are supposed to hold that people who's livelihoods are taken through negligence are compensated... regardless of any other issue. Is was NOT THE FISHERMEN who caused this mess, it was BP and they are fully and utterly responsible for the fact that these fishermen are, as you say "doing nothing all day". That the people who have been so severely harmed
also happen to be among the best experts to help fix the problem is irrelevant. A lot of people working on the spill are not associated with the fishing industry, they just came to work. Why should the fishermen not be similarly compensated.
Second, if you truly think skimming oil from a dirty, smelly Gulf is somehow "equivalent" to going out and using your skills to catch fish, make your own decisions, etc... you have no concept of either job.
gatoraubrey2 wrote:And don't forget, they're being paid far above minimum wage for a job any kid could do.
Running a vessel, even serving as a deck hand is not a job "any kid" can do.. unless you were raised on a boat.
gatoraubrey2 wrote:If, as Player suggests, there proves to be lasting damage to the Gulf fishing industry, then BP should be held liable for the continued lost income, in proportion to the amount of that lost income. No one can determine what that amount will be, because no one has tried to fish yet and compared the yield to previous trends.
Oh, bull.. again, on ALL counts. An exact estimate is not forthcoming, no. However, it is absolutely clear that no one is fishing on the Gulf right now and that not just fishermen, but suppliers and even secondary supporters (everything from the grocer to clothing merchants) have ALL lost significant income. BP should be paying ALL of those costs NOW, but instead, many people are having to rely upon food pantrys and church/community assistance just to get by. Many face losing homes, no utilities, etc. This is just plain WRONG!
Second, the idea that simply assessing the difference in catches will truly give us the full damages would only be thought by someone with very little knowledge of fisheries, ecology and particularly the Gulf.
1. Big losses are happening RIGHT now. BP us dragging its feet, offering a pittance and often asking people to sign waivers of future liability, etc in exchange.
2. The immediate damage,as will be seen in the next year is not representative of the full damage. That will show the immediate losses. However, longer term losses are due to happen from longer term poisoning (particularly for the "pinnacle" or "near-apex" species, such as snappers, etc. -- many of the biggest money game fish). Look up the term "bioaccumulation" if you want a picture of this. Another long term damage comes from loss of progeny and future stocks. This many not be fully and completely known for some time. A huge drop in the larvae count will absolutely give us an indication of trouble, but the real picture will not become evidence unless and until the time when those larvae would reach "fishable"/"reproduction" ages.
3. Even given the above, the stocks, allowed fishing, etc will be altered to match available catches. So, for example, the snapper fishery (just to pick a semi-arbitrary stock) might be shut down for the next 20 years, but a market may develop for a new pelagic or ground fish, such as moonfish. (actually, I think that fishery has already been developed, but anyway...). However, these are not "straight" exchanges. The equipment, techniques, etc needed for different fisheries vary a great deal. Some fishermen can do well on multiple fronts, but they have to have the correct gear. Even if BP is asked to compensate for the changeover, some just won't be able to for a variety of reasons ranging from just lack of knowledge/skill (somewhat fixable), boat limitations (not necessarily fixable -- some boats can operate nearshore, others operate further off, few can do both, just to name an example). Finally, the fact that another fishery opens up doesn't mean that new fishery will provide income for everyone who wants to and has the ability to fish the new stock. Often these tertiary stocks are more limited than previous targets.
4. Long term health damage, etc are not going to show right away.
5. There is just no way to estimate the potential commercial value of species not currently being exploited. But, that is precisely where new income, opportunities, etc usually come.. from newly developed stocks. To take one classic example, Red Drum (aka "redfish") was considered "trash" up until "blackened redfish" became the craze. Then it became a multis million dollar fishery. In fact, many, many of the most important current fisheries were once considered "trash". Even lobsters (they are, of course mostly a northeastern fishery, the spiney lobster stocks are too low for much commercial fishing, but still... you get the point.).
gatoraubrey2 wrote:At that point, the money will have to come in the form of a straight subsidy, because the fishermen will be back to spending their days on the water, fishing. Until such time as they begin to re-start the industry, they can get up in the morning and go to work, just like I do.
No, fishermen work far too close to the edge, in most cases, to simply sit out a year and then "pop back in the water". Second, if you think the stocks will return in anything like what they were before in just a year.. you have no knowledge of what was there and the damage that has been done. Yes, they MIGHT rebound... in 50 years or so. In the meantime, many, many species are likely to be irrevocably lost. Many will pass most people's notice because they are not currently viable species. Even aside from the argument I put forward above, you have to remember that the natural world is like a finely tuned engine of many parts that all fit together in ways we don't fully understand. Taking out one piece can be as stupid as pulling a hose, because "you don't need it". If you pull the radiator overflow hose, you might get away with that, (at least for a time), but ... Well, Aldo Leopold said it best:
The first rule of intelligent tinkering is to keep all the parts.
(oh, and were you even aware that fishermen are STILL having to fight in court for settlements from the Exxon Valdese?.. and that happened 20 years ago! Meanwhile, Exxon has long since kept showing record profits. Now, by what logic is that in any way "right" or "just". The herring stocks, Pacific sardine stocks NEVER rebounded... 20 years later.)
thats great!
