Recently, a couple of friends and I went fishing on the Moorman's river, about a half hour away from Grounds. As we drove up there, one of my friends informed me that in order to fish on the river, I technically needed to have a fishing license, but that it wouldn't be a problem if I didn't. Once we arrived at the trailhead to get to our fishing spot, it became very clear that no one was going to stop me from being on the trail, fishing on the river, or generally doing whatever I wanted while I was there. The gates were wide open, and even if it were closed there was a clear path where people regularly walk around it. Though I've only been a couple of times, there has never once been any sort of officer or ranger monitoring the area to ensure everyone follows protocol.
The state had half-heartedly tried to exclude this public good and failed. There was a requirement to purchase a fishing/hunting license through a complex process involving many fees from about $10 up to over $200. However, since the good was not excludable in its current state, and one person's use of the trail does not decrease the utility I get out of being on it, it can be looked at as a public good and I am completely disincentivized to pay for a license. I enjoy free riding and so does everyone else, so either the state needs to increase the excludability of the river, or accept its use as a public good.
1 comment:
I can completely understand why an individual would be disincentivized to pay for a license. Like Andrew mentioned, the good is essentially non-excludable, since it isn’t closely monitored and anyone can access the water and begin fishing if so inclined. As a result, there is little incentive to spend one’s own money when they can benefit equally from free-riding. On these grounds, the rational consumer would choose not to invest. Given an additional piece of information, however, the rational consumer might choose differently. At least, that’s what happened to me.
The first time I bought a Virginia fishing license, I was in a rush to meet my friends at a lake and bought the wrong license by mistake. To go fishing a single time at a nearby lake with friends, I needed the most basic license, which cost about $10. Instead, I ended up purchasing a license package that went far beyond what I needed, and cost about $50. Despite this mistake, I don’t necessarily regret having paid more than necessary, because I recognize the benefit that the license system brings to the environment and local ecosystems. In a way, by paying more than the marginal benefit I'd actually receive from the license, I was inadvertently funding the cost of free-riders who underinvest in this public good by not buying a license. Fishing regulations are explicitly created to protect fish populations. Given that issuing these licenses has proven to effectively protect fish populations, I don't consider fishing licenses to be a failed attempt to exclude. While I can completely understand why an individual would be disincentivized to pay for a license, I personally will continue to invest in this system which protects our ecosystem by continuing to purchase annual fishing licenses.
Post a Comment