How to Properly Feed Your FishIn the UKAFPO case, the UK govt tried to reallocate unused English fishing quota from the larger offshore vessels of the POs to the smaller vessels of the inshore fishing fleet. Despite confirming that the fish were a public resource6 UKAFPO v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs ; Courts and Tribunals Judiciary, 2018, para 100 and confirming that there has been no considerable reputable expectation, Justice Cranston did ascertain “for better or worse” that quota was a “ownership” for the purposes of human rights laws, but that as the quota was unused it had no value and therefore did not qualify for repayment due to its reallocation Appleby and Pieraccini, 2012. This case accomplished the results of permitting the instant reallocation of a relatively small amount to the price of the UK wide fishery of £4 million of unused quota, but by confirming that quota was a possession, the implication is that compensation may be due to affected quota holders if quota which was traditionally used was reallocated. In short, the court proven quota was an individual right. Of course, the extent of compensation due could be dependent on the character and extent of quota, anything which remains frustratingly poorly described. In fact the aggregate of human rights claims and the inadvertent introduction of “possessions” by poorly conceived and even more poorly regulated licensing regimes is having the effect of granting “squatters’ rights” over public assets.