Ok, but that isn’t universal. Here in California, you do need a license for ocean fishing. With the notable exception of fishing from piers. Which makes sense, since you couldn’t physically fit enough people on all the piers in California to cause a problem.
In a perfectly rational world, we’d evaluate for each case whether it’s likely that a tragedy of the commons scenario would emerge, and only have regulations in the cases where it matters. In practice, we rarely have enough information to make that decision, and have to make worst-case assumptions instead like “what if everyone did it?” And of these, they’re applied inconsistently, for the normal political reasons. Such is life.
What do you think the reason is for the Coastal Protection Act 1949? I might agree with you if those who wrote it justified it by saying “we’re worried that if millions of individual people took a single pebble, there’d be no beach left”, but I doubt that was their reasoning. More likely they recognised that coastal erosion was an issue and wrote some broad legislation to try and control it and prohibiting one person taking one pebble is just a side effect of that legislation.
Lots of people walking in and buying a can of beans is a problem. A few people buying a few cans of beans is not.
Perhaps a more apt analogy might be the restrictions that were put in place during panic buying. People trying to buy ALL of the beans was a genuine problem. The solution was not to completely ban the sale of beans.
I guess the point I’m trying to make is that for many scenarios, the ‘problem’ is nonexistent at the very small end of the scale. If a thousand people walk across my lawn in single file, the grass will be shredded. If a single person walks across my lawn, the damage is too small to measure.
‘What if everyone did it?’ often yields a false impression of whether or not a smaller number of people can do it. I mean, ‘sustainability’ is a thing, after all.
We have similar laws in the United States when it comes to state and federal parks. If I go for a hike at Pinnacle State Park in Arkansas, I can’t walk out of there with a lovely flower or a neat looking cottom mouth even though the park is lousy with flowers and snakes and what I take won’t be missed. These laws exist to protect the integrity of the environment to ensure that future generations are able to enjoy the park.
I don’t know about Picadilly Circus, but there are limits to the number of people who are allowed in most commercial buildings here in the United States. If you go to a restaurant, sometimes you will see posted the maximum occupancy of the building. So we’ve actually got codes to prevent everyone from going to Starbucks at the same time.
Ninja’d. We were driving cross country when I was a kid (9 yo?), and we stopped at the Petrified Forest. Still have a cool photo of me and my 3 sibs variously displayed on/around a huge petrified stump.
I was told we couldn’t take any petrified wood and was kinda bummed. But when I heard why, I completely understood. I don’t see why anyone can’t. SMH.
Purely anecdotal, but we keep track of mushroom finds on a calendar and revisit spots yearly. We harvest a percentage of what’s there, never more than we’ll use.
It seems like the flushes are the same or better each year, especially chanterelles.
The obvious difference is that it is easy to regulate the sale of a product when you already have someone either directly involved in each sale or at least supervising the self checkout. How do you imagine that would work for the coastline. Another obvious difference, people need food but there is no need for sand and pebbles taken from the beaches. I’m pretty sure you can go and buy some pebbles or sand if you want.
I get the point you’re making and in some cases it’s a valid one, but I also think people tend to underestimate the logistics involved in controlling an activity and if that activity is completely unnecessary you may as well just ban it.
Let’s take you lawn scenario. Presumably your lawn isn’t positioned where trespass is a problem, but if it was unfenced and on the corner of the block there would be a genuine desire for pedestrians to cut the corner and you might be concerned that it will wear the lawn down. What are you going to do? You see someone walk across the lawn and you say “hey, get off my lawn, you’ll wear it out”. They respond by saying that one person on your lawn won’t do any harm. How do you control access to your lawn?
I think a key distinction is between individual actions which would be harmful if everyone did them simultaneously and individual actions which have a lasting effect which can cumulatively add up to significant damage.
A million people visiting a coffeeshop won’t cause any harm to the location as long as they are spaced out. Put a million people carving their initials on a wall might cause the wall to collapse.
And I’ll note that most buildings have a maximum capacity which limits the number of people who can be inside at the same time. So everyone in the UK couldn’t legally turn up at the Starbucks in Picadilly Circus, all at once.
I mentioned it above, but for anyone who hasn’t come across the term, much of what’s being discussed here is the problem known as the Tragedy Of The Commons. There’s an extensive Wikipedia article summarizing and linking to a lot of ideas and research on this dating back to the 19th century.
I recently ran across a case of souvenir hunters carting away part of a national treasure and of them leaving behind things that changed it. It’s the Morning Glory Pool in Yellowstone.
Apparently it used to have a white scalloped border that has been taken completely away. And the coins and other debris that have been tossed in have blocked some of the vents, causing the water to cool, which allows bacteria to live further into the pool.
I’m of two minds about that. Yes, the area of blue has receded. But I like the other colors that have expanded.
But I don’t think all such laws are based on that premise.
I would say it’s more like “if picking up pebbles were legal, then enough people would pick up pebbles to create a problem” or even *when picking up pebbes was legal, enough people did pick up pebbles to create a problem."
Indeed, but those codes aren’t the thing that actually result in people not all going there at once, on a day to day basis. People, generally, just aren’t all going to do it.
What’s my motivation in this scenario? Are they actually going to wear it out, or am I just saying that because I resent them walking there?
If they might actually wear it out, then my argument is legitimate. (Note: I never said there were no such things as cumulative problems, just that the assumption can be spurious)
If they won’t actually wear it out, I should say something else, like “I don’t want you to do that”