Ive been thinking about government regulations regarding environmental protection. In general...

Ive been thinking about government regulations regarding environmental protection. In general, I tent to believe that less government intervention in the lives of citizens, the better. But since I moved to the coast of BC and started working in the fishing industry, ive been thinking about all the laws and regulations set up to conserve fish and their natural habitat.

In regards to sports fishing laws, one person can only catch a certain amount of fish per day. These laws are in place to prevent over fishing of waters. Working in this industry, I know that if these laws were not in place, over fishing would certainly be an issue. If people could take whatever they want, those waters would be barren in a few years. My question is, what would be the libertarian answer to prevent over fishing? Obviously many people would disagree with the idea that someone can only possess a certain amount of fish and have these rules enforced by the government. What is the alternative?

Attached: Salmon-Species.jpg (700x905, 222K)

>What is the alternative?
Kill 9 out of 10 of all indians, chincks and mexicans.
Kill 10 out of 10 of all niggers and muslims.
As a bonus, kill the jews too.

With reduced global population, you have fish for everyone.

Privatization of oceans. The only thing that keeps overfishing occurring is the fact that the ocean is considered a "commons". IF somebody owned the oceans, they would have an interest in sustainable fishing because they would be charging people to fish there. They would like that to keep occuring.

Safari hunts have done more than anything to preserve endangered species for similar reasons.

>kill everyone
>no more over-fishing
Italians aren't white

Thank you user.
I don't really like to be considered in the same specie of the nordics.

Quality response. That makes sense for fishing, but what about in regards to other forms of ecological preservation. The government can shut down any fishing in an area if boats are interfering with whale migration. There is no economic incentive to shut down fishing to allow these whales to migrate and fishing closures are done to simply allow the whales to do their thing for a few months. How would this get done in a libertarian society?

If is wasn't for all the Asians pulling anything that moves out of the waters we would probably be better off. Fuck once I saw them pulling rock cod out of the waters underneath the lions gate bridge. When there's a fucking sewage treatment directly across the inlet.

desu here on the west side of the island its americans that come up here to fish. big groups of 60 year old men come up here and grab around 200 lbs a day. still within their daily catch though.

in regards to that rock cod, that thing was fucked anyways if it was living near a sewage treatment plant.

>tent to belive
Nice try synth.

autocorrect sorry

Don't apologize, damn... We all know only a certain type of person follows conservation laws, we don't need to explain. It is barbarism versus the enlightened ones.

The more hunters hunt, the more regulations are needed; which puts money into the game and environment, which helps it flourish.

Look at Africa, hundreds of animals would be extinct because of niggers if it weren’t for reserves.

There is nothing wrong with government regulation when it comes to nature user. Just look at Teddy Roosevelt he set up the park system all around the USA and we have preserved natural beauty that people visit to this day.

I don't know any fishermen that are against laws protecting wildlife. I also don't know any libtards that are fishermen.

coho tastes like shit

Then what about carbon pollution ruining my neighborhood? Is this nature or not?

you just dont know salmon

sockeye or go home

This

He's not wrong though

Did you just sincerely ask if your neighborhood was considered nature.

Attached: brain_problems.jpg (291x302, 21K)

Obviously, brain dead argument. Less people, less scarce resources. Now you just lack people to harvest the resources.

How many people do you need pulling fish out of the water

Is fishing natural? Are anthills natural? If both are yes, why wouldn't neighborhoods be natural? Where else are humans going to live? My point is there are all kinds of ways to harm civilization for industrial purposes. Regulations are (should be) always meant to protect the many from few.

Depends how big the pond. In a global sense, I have no idea but as long as there are profits more will enter the market until there is no longer a supply and some things are worth protecting.