things government does
"Or maybe you don’t. In fact, government intervention has been a big success. Many fisheries have rebounded, to the benefit of the fishermen as well as consumers."
Too bad that he thoroughly discredits his argument with a reference to climate change. Ahem.
This comes close to one of the concepts that I enjoy watching people twist around in. Time was when the majority of gun enthusiasts were sportsmen. Not so much anymore, as an extension has been made into a whole different class of potential customers.
But there is still a kinship therewith the old core and I am struck by the fact that without hunting regulations there would be no game, period, except on private estates that are large enough to contain the natural wanderings of some of the critters within their boundaries.
Conservation of game requires regulations, hopefully based on a balance of best biological science and other stakeholders- sportemen, landowners, farmers etc. Always imperfect. Regulations require enforcement although Wildlife officers are regarded similarly to BLM bureaucrats in the worldview of the substantial overlapping groups of sportsmen/firearms libertarians.
Anyway, as to the subleties of my thinking on the matter is the ALEC written proposed constitutional amendment that was passed by both houses but stalled in the Judiciary committee. It basically attempted to co-opt the sportsmen's lobby in an affort to give constitutional protection to CAFOs.
But as far as central Indiana goes, we're darn close to living in an agricultural desert with the exception of the re-introduced (the Indiana subspecies is extinct) whitetail that has adapted very well to our mix of crops and woodlots.
So I guess that hunters can shoot clays at the club or chase deer once a year but that's about it.
The conservation lobby really went missing in the 2014 Farm Bill discussion where they've historically been in an unholy alliance with environmental groups. The libs got put on the defensive on food stamps and everybody was just interested in giving the agro-industrial complex lobbyists as many bones as possible.
Likewise the liberal side was further bought off by bones on alternative ag subsidies, some "climate change" money for ag schools, etc.
Anyway, I remain convinced that absolutely the best farm bill money the public spends is for paid conservation diversions, particularly buffer strips. Pay what it takes to bid them in. I suppose it would constitute some tacit admission that some of the nutrient that ends up in lakes and estuaries comes from ag (it does, probably better than half) but the retirement of a couple million acres of mostly productive land would reduce the need for price support (insurance) payments.
And in a world where the good land is going to get farmed, the vast majority for the foreseeable future in a convnetional matter, it is the most practical way to reduce nutrient runoff. For the money it is also the best wildlife habitiat, with water and long travel corridors. Owners can be incentivized to plant pollinator species for bees.
There should have been an alliance of a multitude of interests on the matter but a whole lot of other lobbies elbowed their way to the front of the line and conservation got short shrift.
Re: things government does
there is nothing in my crop insurance policy (thanks for paying some of my premium) that covers turkey damage, deer damage, or the occasional idiot neighbor that tries to burn the whole field down.
Re: things government does
The fact is in many cases that the avid wild game hunters are allied with the nuts at the NRA. Therefore, it only makes common sense for farm owners with a differing philosophy to ban all hunting on his rural property.
I think I just might do that. I won't really miss those deranged people traversing on my land shooting bullets through my buildings and stealing copper wire from my drying setup.