Hardin’s famous Tragedy of the Commons ideology is widely accepted doctrine among environmentalists. Private access to natural resources leads to an optimal outcome for some but a negative outcome for others. Open access to natural resources leads to suboptimal outcomes for all, but this form of access can be environmentally unsustainable. Berkes (et al) argues that in some circumstances, community-based control policies provide sustainable regulation of natural resources. Berkes highlights several specific case studies to support his claim. The beaver population in James Bay, Canada was on the brink of extinction but conservation efforts and new community-regulated control institutions led to a resurgence of the population. Lobster harvesting in Maine has been proven to be more bountiful if territories are established and there is no competition for specific areas. In New York’s Bright region, a co-op approach to fishing leads to more equitable and reliable fish supply. Fisherman have to meet quotas and entry prices are high to satisfy a sustainable supply-demand equilibrium. In Thailand and elsewhere in East Asia, the nationalization of forests has led unsuccessful control efforts. Often, by nationalizing acccess to resources, it ends up being pseudo-controlled and more akin to open access. Efforts in Thailand to manage the forests at a national level instead of localized, community control led to a degradation of the resource. In summary, Berkes argument goes against Hardin’s convention. Commons access is an important discussion and localized, community-access control is a sustainable cultural institution to manage natural resources.