Let's say we have 12 people, each with a different perspective regarding fish and natural resource management. Which one is "proper" and why is it proper and all the other 11 are not? And who decides which perspective is proper?

It is necessary to national security that food production, processing, distribution, and sales be maintained. Independence could help, but it's not necessary. For example, trade agreements with Mexico and South American countries assure the supply of fresh fruit and vegetables during the winter months.

The people will vote to modify the state Constitution according to who spends the most money on the campaign. The most money will be spent by corporate interests and not the people who want to fish for subsistance.

We have fish populations that have rebounded to the limit, the carrying capacity that the environment will support in its current condition. That amount of abundance is not enough to satisfy the demands or desires of the people. At 8 million there are just too many people for the number of wild steelhead the existing environment can produce. That makes conservation regulations necessary or functional extinction is assured.

The people who sought to exterminate the Indians are the ones responsible for nearly exterminating the buffalo. Seems like that was more of a political move than a central banking one, but likely would have been supported by large banks. Was there central banking in the 1860s?