The Walmart Catch Shares "Conspiracy".

"In the U.S. we work in the water quality issues and other issues in the Gulf of Mexico and fisheries issues, sustainable fishing, largely related to catch share programs in the U.S., which have become very accepted over these five years or so that we've been working. I don't know how much we've been a catalyst for that but we certainly have been supporting it."

- Rob Walton

http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2012/04/17/rob-walton-peter-seligmann-transcript/
«1

Replies

  • FS Karl SnapperFS Karl Snapper Posts: 285 Officer
    Too bad Rob Walton couldn't cite specific fisheries and numbers. And any successes have nothing to do with recreational angling.
  • FV Miss MaryFV Miss Mary Posts: 497 Officer
    His words may come back to haunt him on this one.
  • FV Miss MaryFV Miss Mary Posts: 497 Officer
    "The $1.3 billion Walton Family Foundation, started in 1987 by Wal-Mart's founders, Sam and Helen Walton, and directed now by the second and third generation of Waltons, has been underwriting EDF's successful effort to replace the nation's mostly small-business, owner-operated fishing industry — especially in communities such as Gloucester — with a model that works like a commodities market, with fishermen's "shares" of an allotted catch traded and potentially concentrated in the hands with the deepest pockets."

    http://www.gloucestertimes.com/fishing/x1774445793/EDF-Wal-Mart-Walton-ties-get-major-media-brush
  • Got TA GoGot TA Go Posts: 2,608 Captain
    I can't believe that anyone who fishes would ever spend a penny at Walmart.

    If they were the only store I could buy an item at....I'd do without.

    Rob
    www.gottagofishinginkeywest.com


    Hero's Don't Wear Capes....They Wear Dog Tags.
  • FV Miss MaryFV Miss Mary Posts: 497 Officer
    Watch this one.
  • EggsuckindogEggsuckindog Posts: 1,528 Officer
    Got TA Go wrote: »
    I can't believe that anyone who fishes would ever spend a penny at Walmart.

    If they were the only store I could buy an item at....I'd do without.

    Rob

    The Foundation and Corporate have nothing in common - Corp donated 97% of their political donations to Republicans - I doubt the Foundation did

    Just another good Foundation hijacked like so many others
    1976 SeaCraft master Angler - Merc 200 XRi
    dscf1243-1.jpg
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,580 Captain
    10:13 into the video...

    "International Conservation (ICC) secures vital natural resources and protects ecosystems and the essential services they provide..."

    Rob Walton is the Chairman of ICC.

    Walton Family Foundation has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in Catch Share implementation, which converts our "free" Public Trust Resource into commodities that can be "secured" by large entities such as ICC or Walmart. Huge profits to be made on this.

    Capt. Thomas J. Hilton
  • TarponatorTarponator Under a BridgePosts: 10,425 AG
    It's no secret Walmart along with may other large corporations support EDF. Nor is it a secret EDF supports catch shares. None of us, myself included, seem to like catch shares.

    However, which of these "public trust resources" turned "commodities" and have been turned into "huge profits" by "large entities such as ICC or Walmart"?

    Kindly post a few examples...Mike
  • mjacksmjacks Posts: 152 Deckhand
    Tarponator wrote: »
    It's no secret Walmart along with may other large corporations support EDF. Nor is it a secret EDF supports catch shares. None of us, myself included, seem to like catch shares.

    However, which of these "public trust resources" turned "commodities" and have been turned into "huge profits" by "large entities such as ICC or Walmart"?

    Kindly post a few examples...Mike

    This is an excellent question, and one that would likely shock you if you were to take the time to follow the money, and follow through to the profit motive of the vast majority of private foundations and the 501 (3) (c)s they throw millions of dollars to. It is essential that these groups create the next disaster e.g. "all that will be left in the ocean will be jelly-fish" in order to garner public interest and keep the money flowing.

    If interested, here is just one example - courtesy of Consumer Freedom. This is a breakdown of the origins of Seaweb and Vicki Spruill (now president of Ocean Conservancy). This example provides a relatively clear road map to the circle of friends who operate arm-in-arm to ensure that their donations income is "sustainable" at any cost. It all sounds surreal until you start to check these issues out for yourself and realize that they are factual. As always, "follow the money".

    SeaWeb
    Also known as a "project" of the Tides Center
    1731 Connecticut Avenue, NW, 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20009

    Overview

    What can you say about a group of alarmist publicity-seekers whose greatest passion is “saving” fish species that aren’t even endangered? Are they crazy? Power-hungry? Misguided, as the U.S. government has said? Sadly, SeaWeb is just one in a long line of recent entrants into the food-scare industry. And judging from the the company it keeps, SeaWeb is a prime example of the well-networked Nanny Culture. Its pockets are deep, its friends are powerful, its tactics are disingenuous, and it’s not going away any time soon.
    SeaWeb was formed in early 1996 as a project of the Pew Charitable Trusts. Rather than operating the project in-house, Pew awarded a start-up grant to the “Ocean Awareness Campaign” at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). The grant’s stated purpose was the promotion of “ocean awareness in the national audience of aquariums, zoos, and science museums.” So far, so good.

    But by the time SeaWeb was spun off as a separate entity, and Vikki Spruill took over the helm from NRDC program officer Lisa Speer (bringing along decades of PR and advertising experience, much of it in the food and restaurant industries), SeaWeb became a first-rate Food Nanny. Not that anyone was surprised. NRDC had long been a client of Fenton Communications, the Washington PR boutique that engineered its 1989 Alar-on-apples fundraising scam. SeaWeb joined that same client list in 1997, and the “Give Swordfish a Break!” campaign was born the following January.

    The two-year promotion’s premise, later termed “flawed to the core” by U.S. Fish and Wildlife officials, was that Atlantic swordfish populations were dwindling near extinction. SeaWeb’s plan, engineered by Fenton Communications, was to marshal the forces of celebrity chefs and high-profile restaurateurs to declare a moratorium on serving the fish until its numbers had demonstrably rebounded.

    Of course, when Fenton and NRDC launch a made-for-the-media effort like this, they don’t go it alone. Environmental Defense chipped in, as did the Pew Charitable Trusts (to the tune of over $2 million). And the Chefs Collaborative, another Fenton client, took the message to the pheasant-under-glass set. At the campaign’s peak, SeaWeb claimed that over 700 restaurants across America were declining to buy or serve swordfish.

    After two years of carping to the media about their solution-in-search-of-a-problem, SeaWeb finally called off the swordfish boycott in 2000, acknowledging that eating swordfish was once again “a personal choice.” The federal government, however, maintained throughout that swordfish were never in any danger in the first place. And some fishery industry analysts say that SeaWeb’s fishy jihad actually backfired. It seems that when the four-star restaurants stopped serving swordfish, the market was flooded with fish (you didn’t think the fishermen were going to stop catching it, did you?). When supply went up, the price went down, which meant that more and more mid-priced and “family” restaurants could afford to put swordfish on their menus. So while white-tablecloth dining may have been sans swordfish for a while, Mr. & Mrs. Middle America got to try the dish instead.

    U.S. imports of swordfish actually rose 200 metric tons from 1998 to 1999 alone (when the boycott campaign was in full-swing), as the marketplace expanded and prices slipped. One problem, though: domestic fisheries, which had previously supplied the high end of the marketplace with swordfish, suffered the economic consequences of SeaWeb’s campaign. Many went out of business for good. It seems their usual customers (elite chefs and restaurant suppliers) chose to support the political boycott rather than American fishermen.

    SeaWeb has since moved on to a variety of other projects, all aimed at changing your eating habits for the good of one politically-correct species or another. The Packard Foundation is bankrolling SeaWeb’s “Caviar Emptor” program, which seeks to reduce the demand for Caspian caviar, “a luxury product no one really needs.” Memo to Fenton Communications: we’ll decide what to eat, thank you.

    SeaWeb is a charter member of COMPASS (the Communications Partnership for Science and the Sea), a Pew- and Packard-funded Washington PR office for ocean issues. It also operates the misleadingly named Seafood Choices Network, a web site where you can be lectured on the political correctness of eating over two dozen fish species. “To dine or not to dine” verdicts are handed down by SeaWeb “partners” NRDC, Environmental Defense, the National Audubon Society, and the Monterey Bay Aquarium. All are frequent Pew and Packard donees, and all are present or former Fenton Communications clients.

    Motivation

    When SeaWeb and the Natural Resources Defense Council announced their joint effort to discourage the consumption of Caspian Sea sturgeon caviar, a news release blamed the imported caviar market for the “overfishing” of these sturgeon. SeaWeb’s web site still publicly brands the food as “a luxury product no one really needs and for which there are a number of viable alternatives.”
    Within three weeks of SeaWeb’s proclamation, Whole Foods Markets announced that it would begin selling a new “sustainable alternative to endangered wild sturgeon.” The news release was promoted to the mass media by another Washington PR outfit called Environmental Media Services (EMS). Could this be the “viable alternative” that SeaWeb is so keen on?

    Consider this: Whole Foods and EMS are both clients of Fenton Communications. It’s probably not a coincidence that one Fenton client is trying to skew public perception of an issue that could benefit another client.

    And another Fenton Client, EcoFish, is promoting its wares (again, with the help of EMS) as a “sustainable alternative” to so-called “overfished” species like Chilean sea bass and (of course) Atlantic swordfish. The real purpose behind SeaWeb’s campaigns seems to be to drive business to Fenton Communications’ other clients.

    In the legal world they call this “conflict of interest.” In the Public Relations world, it’s called “synergy.” Let the buyer beware.

    Black Eye

    In April 1999, at the height of the “Give Swordfish a Break!” campaign, the Washington Post called all 78 of the restaurants that SeaWeb claimed were participating in its Atlantic swordfish boycott.
    “About a quarter of the restaurateurs said they do indeed serve swordfish,” reported the Post. “Some said they had participated in the campaign for a short while, but then reneged after customers asked for swordfish or because they thought the ban was over. A couple of restaurateurs didn't remember signing a pledge…

    “Even among the majority who had stopped serving it, things weren't always clear-cut. A few restaurateurs said they joined the campaign but had taken swordfish off their menus for other reasons. A couple more said that they had never served swordfish in the first place or that it had been offered as a special and so was never a big part of their menu anyway. A few more said they were having second thoughts about continuing their participation.

    “And in at least two cases, it was hard to tell whether swordfish was on or off the menu because the restaurateurs hedged their answers after learning why the Post was inquiring.”
  • FV Miss MaryFV Miss Mary Posts: 497 Officer
    "SeaWeb
    Also known as a "project" of the Tides Center
    1731 Connecticut Avenue, NW, 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20009"

    Who funds Tides...anyone care to guess?
  • TarponatorTarponator Under a BridgePosts: 10,425 AG
    mjacks wrote: »
    This is an excellent question, and one that would likely shock you if you were to take the time to follow the money, and follow through to the profit motive of the vast majority of private foundations and the 501 (3) (c)s they throw millions of dollars to. It is essential that these groups create the next disaster e.g. "all that will be left in the ocean will be jelly-fish" in order to garner public interest and keep the money flowing.

    Thanks for your response. I have taken the time to follow the money. However, I failed to see your response tying catch shares to profits of, for instance, Walmart. Inuendo and editorials won't sway me. Facts will. Have I missed them?

    I've asked this seemingly harmless question several times, without evidence to support these claims.

    I'd love to believe them. Really, I would. However I don't see it.

    To put it a bit differently... One man's sustainable caviar is another man's global conspiracy.

    And the truth, I've found as a general rule, tends to like somewhere in the middle.

    And this question gets to just where it is....

    Catch shares have been around for a while. They have been marketed by some as a way to easy profit. This "profit motive" has been picked up by catch share opponents as evidence of the end game of catch shares. As if this is all a ploy for corporate profit, and benefiting the environment is only subterfuge. Show me this end with catch shares. They've been around for over a decade now, if memory serves. Show me the money.

    Thanks....Mike
  • TarponatorTarponator Under a BridgePosts: 10,425 AG
    FVMM, Soros, among others. What do I win? :)
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,580 Captain
    Tarponator is the kind of guy, standing a a rail track in a tunnel, saying; "That bright light has in no way been proven to be a locomotive....somebody show me the....BAAAM!

    Too late.
  • TarponatorTarponator Under a BridgePosts: 10,425 AG
    You have no idea what type of guy I am or am not. Please do not pretend otherwise or try and make this another character/motivation discussion. Please do pitch in and help us connect the dots, if possible. Thanks....Mike
  • TypicleseTypiclese Posts: 385 Officer
    Tarponator wrote: »
    Thanks for your response. I have taken the time to follow the money. However, I failed to see your response tying catch shares to profits of, for instance, Walmart. Inuendo and editorials won't sway me. Facts will. Have I missed them?

    I've asked this seemingly harmless question several times, without evidence to support these claims.

    I'd love to believe them. Really, I would. However I don't see it.

    To put it a bit differently... One man's sustainable caviar is another man's global conspiracy.

    And the truth, I've found as a general rule, tends to like somewhere in the middle.

    And this question gets to just where it is....

    Catch shares have been around for a while. They have been marketed by some as a way to easy profit. This "profit motive" has been picked up by catch share opponents as evidence of the end game of catch shares. As if this is all a ploy for corporate profit, and benefiting the environment is only subterfuge. Show me this end with catch shares. They've been around for over a decade now, if memory serves. Show me the money.

    Thanks....Mike

    You can't possibly be this naive...can you?

    I'll pose it to you as a question
    **WARNING** you might actually have to pull your nose out of Huffington post for 3 seconds

    There is only one "consumable protein source" that is not traded on the Merc (not the motor)...care to take a guess at which one?

    Once you honestly answer that question, then ask yourself; is their a market potential in the trade of this "commodity", then ask yourself the question about where the money flows and why that would be a worthy investment for a front 501c3.
  • ACME Ventures FishingACME Ventures Fishing Posts: 851 Officer
    Tarponator wrote: »
    Thanks for your response. I have taken the time to follow the money. However, I failed to see your response tying catch shares to profits of, for instance, Walmart. Inuendo and editorials won't sway me. Facts will. Have I missed them?

    I've asked this seemingly harmless question several times, without evidence to support these claims.

    I'd love to believe them. Really, I would. However I don't see it.

    To put it a bit differently... One man's sustainable caviar is another man's global conspiracy.

    And the truth, I've found as a general rule, tends to like somewhere in the middle.

    And this question gets to just where it is....

    Catch shares have been around for a while. They have been marketed by some as a way to easy profit. This "profit motive" has been picked up by catch share opponents as evidence of the end game of catch shares. As if this is all a ploy for corporate profit, and benefiting the environment is only subterfuge. Show me this end with catch shares. They've been around for over a decade now, if memory serves. Show me the money.

    Thanks....Mike

    Festa...EDF....400% profit for those getting behind their innovative fishery management scheme (Catch Shares).

    Catch Shares do not change the number of fish harvested.....TAC's and ACL's do, so its not about saving
    fish, not about conservation. Also remember bycatch allowances and such are not a Catch Share management
    tool, but possible in any fishery management, though recently allowed in only Catch Hsare managed fisheries,
    no doubt to create a sense of accomplishment, but again not a Catch Share management tool. So, if its not
    about conservation, what else could it be about???? Is Walmart being fooled into believing that it is about
    conservation? Not likely, especially with a Walton that has been at the helm of both Walmart and the Walton
    foundation, also having sat on EDF's board!

    Walmart bragged that their financial support to groups like EDF were to, in part "close, open acess fisheries".
    These open acess fisheries are the ones you and I are allowed to fish in, and take a catch home for dinner from.
    Walmart never stated it was directed at commercial fisheries only, and EDF is currently making a big push to
    move their market based fishery management into the recreational sector. How would Walmart benefit from this?
    close access to the fisheries, and where do the average people who want to eat fish for dinner have to go? Either
    a resturant or to the store to buy it! NOAA's "Vision 2020" shows the direction they are seeking for the recreational
    side. The commercial side is aleady clear as to what they want. Connecting the dots of NOAA, NMFS, MAFAC, ENGO's
    and big corporate interest (primarily through their various foundations), is not too hard. And yes, Walmart leaders have
    stated their support for Catch Shares through their funding of groups like EDF.

    Once ownership of a public resource is a reality, the its only a matter of time when larger corporate interest begin
    investing heavily in these rights. Yes Catch shares have been around for some time, but in the last handfull of years
    more new Catch Shares programs have started, and more US taxpayer money spent on them than in all previous
    years. What is a common thread in all of these? Number of fish caught not changed as a result of Catch Shares,
    number of fishermen working in the fishery greatly reduced, cost paid by the consumer for fish in Catch Share
    fisheries much higher, but wages for fishermen lower, and a consolodation of the ownership of boats harvesting
    the managed stocks. That is all by design, and describes why it is a "Market Based Fishery Management". As such,
    why would Walmart be in favor of a plan that is managed by the Market rather than Science? They are in the
    money making buisiness, and having access to a limited source of product is all about profit. They likely listened
    closely to the promise of a 400% return.

    Catch Shares don't manage Fisheries, they manage Fishermen! BTW, Walmarts own mission statement is
    violated by the very design premesis of catch Shares....but technically Walton Foundation donated the Money,
    just like EDF does not feel it violated its own policies, since Walton Foundation is technically not Walmart!
    However. a rotten Fish smells just as bad no matter what you call it .
  • TrippleTailIVTrippleTailIV Posts: 197 Officer
    IMO, the biggest problem with fisheries management (other than the brain trust that sit on the Council(s)) is the fact that all these egg heads try to 'manage' the recreational fishery as if it were a commercial fishery. Supply/Demand and all that economic science.

    The fact is I don't receive a dime for fishing, though I spend plenty... The reward I get for fishing is plain and simple, I get to be on the water.

    Some how we got to get these people to look at qualitative view of management and not these agricultural methods of maximum sustainable yield.
  • TarponatorTarponator Under a BridgePosts: 10,425 AG
    Festa...EDF....400% profit for those getting behind their innovative fishery management scheme (Catch Shares).

    Catch Shares do not change the number of fish harvested.....TAC's and ACL's do, so its not about saving
    fish, not about conservation. Also remember bycatch allowances and such are not a Catch Share management
    tool, but possible in any fishery management, though recently allowed in only Catch Hsare managed fisheries,
    no doubt to create a sense of accomplishment, but again not a Catch Share management tool. So, if its not
    about conservation, what else could it be about???? Is Walmart being fooled into believing that it is about
    conservation? Not likely, especially with a Walton that has been at the helm of both Walmart and the Walton
    foundation, also having sat on EDF's board!

    Walmart bragged that their financial support to groups like EDF were to, in part "close, open acess fisheries".
    These open acess fisheries are the ones you and I are allowed to fish in, and take a catch home for dinner from.
    Walmart never stated it was directed at commercial fisheries only, and EDF is currently making a big push to
    move their market based fishery management into the recreational sector. How would Walmart benefit from this?
    close access to the fisheries, and where do the average people who want to eat fish for dinner have to go? Either
    a resturant or to the store to buy it! NOAA's "Vision 2020" shows the direction they are seeking for the recreational
    side. The commercial side is aleady clear as to what they want. Connecting the dots of NOAA, NMFS, MAFAC, ENGO's
    and big corporate interest (primarily through their various foundations), is not too hard. And yes, Walmart leaders have
    stated their support for Catch Shares through their funding of groups like EDF.

    Once ownership of a public resource is a reality, the its only a matter of time when larger corporate interest begin
    investing heavily in these rights. Yes Catch shares have been around for some time, but in the last handfull of years
    more new Catch Shares programs have started, and more US taxpayer money spent on them than in all previous
    years. What is a common thread in all of these? Number of fish caught not changed as a result of Catch Shares,
    number of fishermen working in the fishery greatly reduced, cost paid by the consumer for fish in Catch Share
    fisheries much higher, but wages for fishermen lower, and a consolodation of the ownership of boats harvesting
    the managed stocks. That is all by design, and describes why it is a "Market Based Fishery Management". As such,
    why would Walmart be in favor of a plan that is managed by the Market rather than Science? They are in the
    money making buisiness, and having access to a limited source of product is all about profit. They likely listened
    closely to the promise of a 400% return.

    Catch Shares don't manage Fisheries, they manage Fishermen! BTW, Walmarts own mission statement is
    violated by the very design premesis of catch Shares....but technically Walton Foundation donated the Money,
    just like EDF does not feel it violated its own policies, since Walton Foundation is technically not Walmart!
    However. a rotten Fish smells just as bad no matter what you call it .

    Thanks for your response. I get it, I really do. Catch shares aren't good for the fishery by my estimation. As you point out, they manage fishermen and do nothing to directly manage the health of the fisheries.

    However, where's the mountains of profit? Where are these private exchanges?
  • TarponatorTarponator Under a BridgePosts: 10,425 AG
    Typiclese wrote: »
    You can't possibly be this naive...can you?

    I'll pose it to you as a question
    **WARNING** you might actually have to pull your nose out of Huffington post for 3 seconds

    There is only one "consumable protein source" that is not traded on the Merc (not the motor)...care to take a guess at which one?

    Once you honestly answer that question, then ask yourself; is their a market potential in the trade of this "commodity", then ask yourself the question about where the money flows and why that would be a worthy investment for a front 501c3.

    I am not that naive and I don't read the Huffington Post. By the way, there are plenty of other consumable protein sources not traded in Chicago, and even if there weren't certainly these would have made their way there already if we are to believe the arguments read here and elsewhere. Which takes us back to the point....

    Where are the fish exchanges? Where are these profits?

    Nowhere but in the minds of a few, as far as I can tell.

    Please, show me the money. In a non-condescending and fact-based way, if you don't mind.

    Thanks...Mike
  • TarponatorTarponator Under a BridgePosts: 10,425 AG
    Some how we got to get these people to look at qualitative view of management and not these agricultural methods of maximum sustainable yield.

    You make a good point, I think. However, wouldn't a quantitative view make the argument for recreational fisheries over commercial ones? From what I can gather the amount of money put into the system for each lb of fish caught on the recreational side is far in excess of the commercial impact. Said a bit differently, the relatively inefficient recreational fishery drives more economic activity than the relatively efficient commercial one. I also believe it drives more tax revenues through excise taxes and other mechanisms.
  • Ol MuckyOl Mucky Posts: 5,476 Admiral
    Tarponator wrote: »

    However, where's the mountains of profit? Where are these private exchanges?


    When you see companies like JP Morgan, Van Eck, The Vanguard (and the other top 10 holders) owning $1.5 billion in shares of beef, pork, poultry (and thats just in one company BRFS) and getting $.57 last year in dividends and promise this year as well...............
    Food investing is HUGE profits and there is no decline in sight.
    Check out companies like EATX, MOO, FUD MON (there's that Monsanto again) ........food future is big money. Commercial fish and fish farms will become traded. There is a TON of money to be made on it. WAL-Mart, EDF, Hewlet-Packard all these "enviro supporting companies" see the benefit of pushing for catch-shares, trading of the product............and they want to be the first in this game...........and will if we don't stop them


    Hope this helps a little
    I have a much bigger and more powerful button
  • TrippleTailIVTrippleTailIV Posts: 197 Officer
    True, it would make that argument. I hadn't considered that. Good point.

    It is clear rec drives the boat (no pun intended) in terms of economics and commercial fishing is, in many ways, an artifact of a bygone time. I emphatically believe there should be a commercial fishery; however, it seems like more often than not, I never see the commercial fish from the Gulf in the fish market. I see lots of farm raised and imports, but not so much the Gulf fish. The argument that commercial fisherman are feeding middle America seems to lack empirical evidence. I did see, though, gulf wild red snapper at 15$ a pound though recently...

    What seems to be out of whack is allocation. A buddy of mine lives in CA, allocation for most fish is 90:10 Rec to Comm. This reflects actual use of the resource in that state. When I look at red snapper (as this seems to be the only **** fish ever talked about in these forums), and an allocation of 50:49 (I think), it makes little sense.

    Texas dock biologists asks a series of value questions during their surveys, a **** long survey too (just say'n). I'm not sure how TX incorporates this into their state management, but it seems like a similar model could be imported into the Fed.

    Tarponator, I'll try to refine my argument and get back to you

    Thomas

    Qualitative information would be difficult to include into a fishery model; however,
  • TarponatorTarponator Under a BridgePosts: 10,425 AG
    Ol Mucky wrote: »
    When you see companies like JP Morgan, Van Eck, The Vanguard (and the other top 10 holders) owning $1.5 billion in shares of beef, pork, poultry (and thats just in one company BRFS) and getting $.57 last year in dividends and promise this year as well...............
    Food investing is HUGE profits and there is no decline in sight.
    Check out companies like EATX, MOO, FUD MON (there's that Monsanto again) ........food future is big money. Commercial fish and fish farms will become traded. There is a TON of money to be made on it. WAL-Mart, EDF, Hewlet-Packard all these "enviro supporting companies" see the benefit of pushing for catch-shares, trading of the product............and they want to be the first in this game...........and will if we don't stop them


    Hope this helps a little

    Thanks for your response, Ol Mucky. I wish it did help....

    The Merc has been around since the turn of the century. That's the 20th century or 110+ years if memory serves. Trading food futures is nothing new, and it's been big money for a very long time.

    However, if we are to believe the arguments written here and elsewhere, the primary goal of catch shares is additional profits from companies like Walmart or HP.

    This argument, however, is presented without a single shred of real evidence to support it as far as I can tell.

    Given catch shares have been around for a while, one would think these profits would already be realized. If there's one thing about capitalism that's true it is that capitalism generally find a fast way to profit. So where's this profit? Where are these exchanges?

    A seemingly naive question yet it has gone unanswered several times now.

    Is it that profit is not really the goal here? Could it be that profits were simply a selling point by eNGOs trying to court the corporate dollar? Or is it that we've simply not seen the end game yet?

    Really, I'd like to know....Mike
  • FinfinderFinfinder Posts: 9,615 Admiral
    Typiclese wrote: »
    You can't possibly be this naive...can you?

    I'll pose it to you as a question
    **WARNING** you might actually have to pull your nose out of Huffington post for 3 seconds

    There is only one "consumable protein source" that is not traded on the Merc (not the motor)...care to take a guess at which one?

    Once you honestly answer that question, then ask yourself; is their a market potential in the trade of this "commodity", then ask yourself the question about where the money flows and why that would be a worthy investment for a front 501c3.

    I cannot add much to this thread but as a cash commodity trader and exporter of agricultural commodities for over 20 years your above statement is completely false. I would explain but I have read the entire thread and get the impression you may end up staying at a Holiday Inn at some point. So why bother. Carry on. It is interesting read however confusing, it seem to me the same old evil Wal-Mart scenario prevails.
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,580 Captain
    Considerable industry consolidation has taken place as a result of Catch Shares. There is also less transparency of permit ownership and decision making because more permit holders are now incorporated, and processors and other non-fishing interests have become more active investors.

    How can you show profits when permit ownership is being cloaked?
  • TrippleTailIVTrippleTailIV Posts: 197 Officer
    Tom, you might want source what you say.

    Page 10 of "Paper Fish and Policy Conflict: Catch Shares and Ecosystem-Based Management in Maine's Groundfishery." Brewer, Jane 2011 in Ecology and Society 16(1)

    Verbatum:" Considerable industry consolidation has taken place as a result [implied catch shares]. There is also less transparency of permit ownership and decision making because more permit holders are now incorporated, and processors and other non-fishing interests have become more active investors."
  • TarponatorTarponator Under a BridgePosts: 10,425 AG
    Tom Hilton wrote: »
    Considerable industry consolidation has taken place as a result of Catch Shares. There is also less transparency of permit ownership and decision making because more permit holders are now incorporated, and processors and other non-fishing interests have become more active investors.

    How can you show profits when permit ownership is being cloaked?

    A fair question which might also beg a reiteration of my own....

    If ownership is being cloaked, and profit is not quantifiable, how can some presume that it is the end goal? Obfuscation is not proof positive.

    Getting past that, processors are not Walmart. Processors are not HP. "Other non-fishing interests" is nebulous.

    Where are these exchanges? Where is the buy-sell spread? Where is the profit? Who are theses "non-fishing interests"?
  • FV Miss MaryFV Miss Mary Posts: 497 Officer
    "And this is a quote from E.O. Wilson that we have Stone Age emotions, medieval
    institutions and God-like technology. Well, we need to figure out how to use human being to
    help create a better future. And that’s what I’m hoping we will talk about."

    http://www.opc.ca.gov/webmaster/ftp/pdf/public_comment/20110830_Helliwell_email_2_attachment_1_of_2.pdf
  • ACME Ventures FishingACME Ventures Fishing Posts: 851 Officer
    Tarponator wrote: »
    Is it that profit is not really the goal here? Could it be that profits were simply a selling point by eNGOs trying to court the corporate dollar? Or is it that we've simply not seen the end game yet?
    1) No
    2) Yes
    3) Yes

    Profits are al ready being made along the path, though the endgame money is unclear as of now
    but likely already in the mix, and certainly would be a factor if the realization of Catch Shares in
    most fisheries by 2016 is realized. (ever wonder why EDF chose 2016.......expecting a 2nd Obama
    term, and calculating little chance past that?) Catch Shares "Middle-men" are profiting now, these
    are the ones that own the shares and lease to others. Who 'really' owns these shares" ENGO's have
    already set precident with purchasing blocks of these shares, using corporate donations in California.
    They are not as valuable now as they will be if open access fisheries are closed....as is a goal of
    WalMart/Walton foundation funding of EDF.

    "Big Green" is about 'Green', $$$$$$ that is. These Billion dollar powerhouses have their hands into
    everything. EDF's "Cap and Trade" is an example of their invertments. They want corporate money
    to finance their causes, but investors expect a return. As such, these money machines work both
    ends of the issue to keep the money rolling in. EDF has bragged that the "Majority of its 'Donors' are
    individuals", they did not state that the Majority of their 'funding' came from these individuals
    however. I've not seen personal finance statements from these ENGO exec's, however, I'm sure we
    would not be surprised to see them rival corporate world officers pay.

    Last year saw the industries first entrant into the publicly traded market, and this is no doubt just
    the start. Catch Shares are not about conservation, thats clear. Catch Shares Fisheries have cost
    jobs and fishermens pay, thats established. So, where is the additional revenue seen in market
    prices of fish in Catch Shares managed fisheries going? Its certainly going somewhere. Why would
    ENGO's be spending large sums of money, donated by big corporations on Catch Shares, if it is not
    about conservation? Its more than just a social experiment, which points to the only other possibility.
    Its in its infancy. Alaska was the only major Catch Share region until a few years ago, and that
    has shown consolodation of the fleet to a handfull of ownership groups. These groups have numerous
    investors, which really would be nice to learn of. Shell corps make it a twisted mess to sort out.

    I personally do not want to wait it out to see the endgame of this posturing that is taking place. They
    are taking things one step at a time, building towards the closing of open access fishing. Then only the
    ones privilidged enough, or rich enough will be allowed to keep a fish for dinner, the rest will have to
    go to WalMart and buy it! (Vision 2020).
«1
Sign In or Register to comment.