The endangered species act, among other things, forbids the sale of any sea turtle products (as sea turtles are endangered). In doing so, it did one thing really well: it helped prevent companies from producing more sea turtles than they need, and releasing the extra ones.[1] How do we know this? Because there was a farm, producing sea turtles, killing and selling turtle meat (apparently very healthy as well as tasting good) and turtle leather. As sea turtles produce incredible amounts of eggs (fewer than 1 in 1000 of which would, in nature, reach two years of age), the farm was able to turn a profit and release "substantial quantities of 2-year-old turtles into the sea to replenish wild stocks. (If turtle eggs are incubated and the hatchlings are raised to 2 or 3 years of age, mortality rates are very low.)"[2]
Unable to sell their products after the passage of the endangered species act and similar laws in other countries, the farm eventually because a government research institute, rather than an idea that could be duplicated to give jobs to unemployed islanders in other places. Similarly the turtle remains endangered, while chickens, certainly not one of the world's brightest birds, continue to be quite common.
The lesson here should be obvious, but is, I suspect, likely to be overlooked. The endangered species act was certainly well intentioned. It even seems to make sense at the surface: if we destroy the market for products made from endangered species, we can destroy the incentive to kill them.
It missed some key facts. There is an inherent incentive to kill an animal that can be used for food, and is in fact a good food source. This incentive increases as the difficulty in making ends meet increases. And turtles, which know no boundaries, are certain to be near tropical islands populated by poor subsistence level water men who are as happy to eat them as their governments are unable to stop them.
Good intentions are not enough. We need laws that do real, tangible good in the real world. This is not about being mean, cruel or uncaring. This is, like so many other issues, a debate about what works. Sometimes, I would argue often, more government is quite simply the wrong solution.
Though not a conclusive survey, this story does illustrate that point. Were sea turtle products not forbidden, there would quite likely be more of them.