I was reading some random Wikipedia articles when I came across something interesting. In the article on rock samphire it was mentioned that while it was once grown commonly in gardens in England it is now hard to obtain seeds, and the collection of wild specimens is illegal under wild plant protection laws.

Which shows the problem with such protection.

Let us think about, say, cows. Or even better chinchillas.There is no better way to preserve a species than to use it as food or clothing. Cows are large creatures needing a lot of land. If we were somehow forbidden form using them for food, their numbers would dwindle significantly, possibly to the point of extinction, as their land requirements would make them a pest to farmers. Likewise, chinchillas are a rodent pest. Were it not for the need for their fur, they would likely be exterminated in any crop growing region.

Actually, an even better example may be the alligator. When it was a protected species, its number were very low, despite all government protection. When it began to be farmed, its numbers increased significantly. Like the similarly once rare bison, commercial farming did more to preserve a species than all the environmental laws in the world.

The exception is seen in the early career of the alligator, or in commercial fisheries. In cases where no one owns the creatures in question, when they are caught and cultivated in the wild, then there is no incentive to preserve them. However, that does not call for environmental regulation. One solution would be to create property rights in certain fisheries or hunting grounds, which would encourage sensible husbandry. And even better solution would be to do nothing. As we have seen both with alligators and farmed fish, when numbers dwindle, certain "greedy" businessmen will begin to rear the animals in captivity to make sure the supplies continue. It may not please environmentalists who want to see all critters loose in the wild, but it does preserve a species quite well.

And that brings me back to these laws. What was once a common garden plant is now unusual,. Why? Because of protection. Protection has made wild harvesting of seed impossible, and so seed supplies remain low, making the plant less common, not more. And in any case where numbers of a species dwindle, extinction becomes more likely, not less. In short, government protection made it less likely species will be preserved, not more.

Now, I am not saying the preservation of species is or should be our goal. Nor am I singing the praises of alligator farmers or chinchilla ranches. But my own beliefs are not important here. My point is, assuming preserving species is our goal, the enactment of government protections produces results contrary to that goal. Creatures which are hunted or plants which are gathered into extinction are those humans desire. If we did nothing, a supplies dwindled and prices rose (as collection become more difficult due to dropping numbers), provided individual property is protected and trade is free, some individual will attempt to farm them*. And that, rather than interventionist policies, will better preserve a species.

And that is my point here. We often engage in feel good activities, taking the "obvious" route to an answer without asking what the consequences will be. We don't do it so often in private life, and when we do, we usually correct our choice. However, in the government this seems more common, and, because of both the difficulty of changing laws and the simple inertia inherent in government, government very rarely correct mistakes,  and when they do it usually takes an inordinately long time.

So it is incumbent upon us to think through all the side effects, before we begin to enact a new government measure. Be it environmental protection or multi-billion dollar bailouts. far too often we have enacted the "obvious" or the "popular" solution and as a result found ourselves facing an outcome completely different from the one we had envisioned.

-------------------------------------------------------------

* A handful of species have resisted farming. Oaks with sweet acorn mutations do not breed true, for example. Efforts to farm truffles have had mixed results, though I don't doubt that technology will resolve that. And the price of ivory does not, in general, cover the costs farming elephants would require. (Though that last may be more due to political climates in Africa and Asia than any real economic impossibility.) However, most plants and animals can be farmed in some way, even if it is simply fencing off a relatively large area and letting them roam.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTSCRIPT

The irony of this post is that I am a vegetarian (my reasons don't matter at the moment), so I don't actually eat any of the creatures I mentioned. However, I can recognize that, if species preservation is your goal, being a farmed creature is the most certain way to ensure continuation of the species.

On the other hand, there is one other solution. Allowing private property in both land and animals, while enjoying the wealth inherent in a free society, allows individuals who want to preserve species the ability to do so with their money. Having two friends, with limited means, who run an animal sanctuary, I can attest this is not the absurd solution many environmentalists suggest. In the early 20th century many opposed to the uncontrolled hunting of raptors as pests took a subscription and founded raptor sanctuaries which continue to today, for example. They were not rich, yet they achieved something the US government had trouble doing for a long time, increasing the number of breeding pairs of raptors.

Actually, that is my answer to most environmentalists' claims of how to preserve nature. Allow people to own it, and allow them to get rich enough to do so. If people want natural lands, they will pay to create them. If not, then why do we tax them to create something they don't want?