 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
Protecting Some Fish Within No-Take Areas Is Common Sense By Roger E. McManus One evening you go to dinner with several people, including a local wildlife manager. During dinner the manager tells you that she is setting up a new protected area where no wildlife will be killed. She explains that where people kill wild animals, their numbers and sizes have decreased. Moreover, where there has been heavy hunting and other types of human activities, wild places have fewer kinds of animals and plants. To help remedy these problems, the manager explains, her agency will fully protect wildlife in a few carefully chosen areas administered by the government. Where this has been done elsewhere she notes, the animals and plants are more abundant and larger, and their habitats look more like they have in the past before they were disturbed by humans. One of your reactions might be to say, "this doesn't sound like rocket science to me, it would be logical to assume that when you protect wildlife, they do better." Most people agree with that conclusion. All of the scientists that I know who study protected areas have concluded the same thing, for both terrestrial ecosystems and marine ecosystems. Of course, the degree such management regimes are successful depends on a variety of factors regarding how they are designed and implemented, and how well external threats to the species are controlled. Nevertheless, the basic hypothesis that if you protect them they do better seems to be common sense and it is supported by scientific evidence. Indeed the basic premise has proven so sound, I have wondered sometimes if Senator Proxmire might be inclined to give a golden fleece award to research being conducted by the Federal government to see if such "no take" areas really work. Of course it is more complicated than that, and more research really is needed to demonstrate how, where, and when this management tool should best be used. There is considerable experience in managing such areas for terrestrial ecosystems including as parks and wildlife refuges. The experience in managing marine no take areas is less extensive, but over 30 countries have established what we commonly now call marine reserves. In many of those areas where there has been scientific monitoring, the reserves provide for greater diversity, abundance and size of wildlife. Some people who express skepticism about the use of marine reserves include those who have financial or other reasons not to want fishing access limited. Their concern is understandable. Many questions need to be answered to ensure reserves are effective management tools, and no reserve can be a silver bullet to solve all management problems. When people who fish for a living are having financial difficulties, they may not welcome any additional obstacles in meeting their personal obligations. Nevertheless, with so many of our fish stocks depleted and coastal and marine ecosystems begin degraded, it seems logical that we expand our suite of management tools that work to help reverse these trends. While it may not be easy to cut back on fishing, neither we nor the fish are served by continuing to stress their stocks or habitats. You could compare mismanaging fish stocks to mismanaging your credit. Spending more money than you make as a regular practice is like regularly over-fishing to catch more fish and make more money than the fish stocks can normally produce. Sooner or later your standard of living will start to decline just as the number of fish caught will start to decline as you continue overfishing. In extreme examples one can go bankrupt and fish stocks can collapse. For many of the world's fisheries we are borrowing against the future, and while there may be social or economic pressures to continue to over fish, we will just be postponing the pain if we don't limit our killing of the fish to the amount of fish their stocks can sustain. Marine reserves are one of the answers to get back on track. To be sure we use this management tool wisely, we need to be clear about what we are trying to accomplish. What are our objectives? In thinking this through, we should recall that there are two basic reasons for establishing marine reserves. First, as discussed above, a prime reason is to use reserves as a fishery management tool to restore and maintain fish stocks. As such, marine reserves may be established on a temporary, seasonal or spatial basis, or they may essentially be permanent. Fishery managers in fact have used closures as part of their tool set for a long time, so marine reserves are not a new concept. Many fishery managers in the United States and around the world are increasing their reliance on marine reserves to help them do their jobs. A second major reason for establishing marine reserves is to conserve biological diversity, and to help best maintain a sample of a particular type of ecosystem. In such cases the intent is usually to establish a permanent protected site, perhaps associated with a marine park, sanctuary or other marine protected areas. Whatever the reason for establishing a marine reserve, there will be benefits to the ecosystem. And, in both cases it is important to remember that direct takes are not the only threat to marine wildlife. Usually it is necessary also to take steps to prevent pollution and otherwise protect environmental quality, and prevent habitat modification and damage. Most of us know that with each passing year the world has more people, many of whom want to live on the coast. We all want to enjoy the oceans and the resources they provide us. As our numbers increase, the amount of resources we need increases, and so does the amount of our waste and our impacts on the environment. Each year the threats to the wildness of the planet mount. If we want to have wild animals and plants, and their habitats in the future, we need to protect them. Marine reserves are one means by which we can do that. Roger McManus is Senior Advisor for Oceans to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior, and President Emeritus and Vice Chair for Ocean Policy of the Center for Marine Conservation, after serving the organization for 20 years -- the last 15 as President and CEO. He sits on CMC's Board of Directors and is also a member of numerous other national and international marine conservation organizations. |