In order to prevent squandering and other abuses, regulations may be imposed to limit or prohibit certain uses of "public property." Since there are no true property owners with a personal interest in preserving its full value, however, such rules are apt to be laxly enforced and circumvented where possible. For example, ordinances against disposing trash on "public" land are ubiquitous, yet casual observation reveals that public parks are frequently strewn with rubbish. In any case, such rules will not be calibrated to maximize the value of the property to human beings, taking into account all value considerations, as in the free market.

The relationship between private property ownership and conservation has many other real-world illustrations, many of which may at first seem baffling to those unfamiliar with praxeological thinking. For instance, the elephant population in many African countries, where the African elephant is seen as an endangered species and therefore a protected "public" resource, has plummeted in recent decades, primarily because of illegal poaching. In Zimbabwe, in contrast, elephants are regarded as the private property of landowners and may therefore be hunted or used for other private purposes; as a consequence, the elephant population has more than doubled during this same period (source). Similar policies of private wildlife ownership in Zimbabwe, Namibia, and South Africa have yielded teeming populations of elands, kudus, giraffes, and other precious indigenous species (more information). In each case, private property rights proved the most effective method of protecting a valuable natural resource.