The balancing force is assigning property rights to resources. Without these, the old rule of "tragedy of the commons" takes over. With private ownership of resources, the owner has an incentive to manage the resource properly.

This is why privately owned forests are cared for better than Federal ones that sell cutting rights for a pittance.

Unfortunately, it's damn hard to set up borders and property arrangements for fish and oceans, where the resources are free swimming. It ain't like a mining claim. One would suppose you could parcel off certain specific fishing grounds to individuals or groups, especially with modern navigation techniques, but that won't help for deep ocean fishing very much. We're a ways from the technology of Clarke's "Deep Range."

Under these circumstances, regulation is not inappropriate. Private self-regulation would be ideal, but the problems of enforcement make it a government issue in the real world.

I have no problems with realistic numerical restrictions, protected areas, or the like under these particular circumstances. Good grief, I've lived with strict hunting and fishing limits all my life, and so has every sportsman in America.

The real issue is whether the regulations are made with the goal of preserving and using a resource in a reasonable manner, or whether the objective is actually to destroy the industry and leave the resource completely untouched. There are environmentalists in both camps, but unfortunately a lot more of them in the latter.