Many environmental policies can affect the harvesting of resources from the sea. The protection and enhancement of habitat can improve production. On the other hand, the promotion of large marine mammal populations or failures in fishery management will inhibit growth.

Resource management cannot be a "pick and choose game" determined by the ever-changing opinions of the industrialized world. Society must set priorities for ocean management that are realistic, productive, and respective of this world’s diverse cultures.

More and more people depend on wildlife as vital resources, and they deserve the right to benefit from those resources. It makes no sense to dispossess people of their land and waters. Why take the risk to turn people into enemies of the environment by alienating them from their land, waters, and living resources?

Animal activists and others caught up in the movement of "totemizing" certain animals are raising their opposition to the sustainable use of wild resources on the basis of personal ethics. Even government officials are involved in this movement and believe that some animals deserve more rights than others.

Conservation must be the overriding principle in all resource decisions. The word "Conservation" means to utilize and manage resources in such a way as to provide for their long-term viability, while the word "Preservation" is a policy of "no-use" selectively applied to resources on the basis of personal ethics and values.

Therefore, Conservation and Preservation will never be – nor can they be – interchangeable principles.

Given the public’s general lack of scientific knowledge and the scientific community’s tendency to remain silent when faced with charges by green activists, who freely claim a moral imperative to their activities, more people side with environmentalists than with resource producers. But all activities in life involve some degree of uncertainty, and all risks are culturally selected.

Effective risk models acknowledge that while mistakes have been and will be made, environmentalists and regulators responding to their political pressure are just as likely to make them as scientists laboring to craft viable management plans. Such models should identify the genuine, not mere hypothetical risks by utilizing the best scientific knowledge and avoid only those activities that pose clearly unacceptable dangers.

Because sustainability is essentially defined by continued use over a period of time, there is no way to prove with certainty that any particular use is sustainable. It is only possible to prove unsustainability. The only plausible course of action, then, is to allow ongoing, adaptive management.