On second thought I'll pass on the borax and ivermectin. I guess I was sorta' hoping you'd say mushrooms and LSD.

If wild natural resources belong to the people and not commercial enterprize, does that also apply to fish resources in the ocean as well? Like sardines and tuna? I don't fish in the ocean for those fish species. Should they not be available to me via commercial enterprize? How would all groups have equal access and opportunity since most people don't have the gear or time to harvest subsistence amounts of ocean fish species?

It looks like you're saying that regional stocks of fish, like salmon and steelhead should be available for subsistence use by the people who live in that region. I see a problem with that. The natural abundance of wild steelhead could support subsistence fishing when the population of people in WA was 2.6 million. The population is now 7.8 million, and even restored populations of steelhead could not meet the subsistence fishing needs of that number. And in a few years, when the population reaches 15 million, any notion that subsistence fishing is practical melts away. And then when the human population increases to 30 million, subsistence fishing for both salmon and steelhead evaporates because the natural environment will necessarily be compromised by the sheer presence of so many humans.

Your subsistence fishing concept needs some serious homework.