Marine-protected areas: a good idea, as long as network is not too extensive

A few days ago, I published an item with critical commentary regarding a map revealing a frightening slate (to anglers) of proposed no-take reserves in Southern California, as part of the ongoing Marine Life Protection Act process.

Many on the environmental protection side of the issue responded angrily, saying the report was one-sided and biased. Guilty as charged. This is my blog, in which I'm free to editorialize.

I'm an angler. Anglers aren't villains and sportfishing is not largely responsible for a decline in certain fisheries. Commercial fishing, perhaps, but not sportfishing.

My recent post was merely to show the anglers their worst-case scenario: the map with the most proposed no-take reserves, strategically placed in most of their favorite fishing areas along the coast and at the islands.

That said, I'm not against establishing a responsible network of marine-protected areas, and hope that's what will result after this MLPA process is complete.

I'm certainly not against boosting fisheries that are suffering because of many factors, including loss of estuary habitat, pollution and global warming.

But no-take reserves can be effective. I've witnessed their benefits first-hand, at Cabo Pulmo National Marine Park in Baja California Sur on the Sea of Cortez.

The park, which stretches nine miles along the Baja coast and extends four miles to sea, was established in 1995. Since then, I've been scuba diving within the park every few years with Mark Rayor, owner of Vista Sea Sport.

Each time there were more resident species, such as groupers, and the last time I went, two years ago, those groupers were so large it was frightening.

Above a sea floor abounding with colorful live coral was an astonishing array of sea life. Enormous schools of rays and jacks would swim through occasionally and eclipse the sun.

Rayor, who is also an avid angler, theorized that some species know they're protected within park boundaries. That may be giving fish too much credit, but it's clear that the marauding jacks swim into the reserve to prey upon an abundant supply of sardines and other small fish.

Ironically, it's fishermen such as Rayor, and those from the East Cape hotel fleets, who police the reserve.

So reserves are effective, and Southern California fisheries probably would benefit from a strategic network. But that network should not be so extensive that it jeopardizes the viability of our billion-dollar sportfishing industry. Because it doesn't need to be.

-- Pete Thomas

Photos of Cabo Pulmo National Marine Park by Bob Carey/Los Angeles Times (top) and Abe Shrekenhamer

Comments

[fryguy]

I totally agree with Pete in implementing a carefully planned network of marine-protected areas that is not too extensive. The main problem I see is not having enough data or input from interested parties in developing a balanced map. There should be differentiation between sportfisherman, commercial, motorized, and unmotorized zones. There has to be a common ground.

And by the way, I find that sportfisherman are some of the most environmentally conscious people. After looking at many of the comments in the March 9th article, it seems that many of the avid proponents of the most extensive map of protected areas are generally baised against fisherman because they do not appreciate fishing in general, or feel that it is cruel in some way. As a fisherman, I am biased toward keeping areas that I love to fish in available, but extreme environmentalists should acknowlege that they can be equally biased. I'm not trying to throw stones - it's just the impression that I got.

Can't we all just get along? - Rodney King

[fisherman]

In all the shouting over the reserves a few years ago, I recall the reserve boosters claiming they were necessary "because species-based restrictions do not work". Not once did anyone answer that false claim by mentioning the calico and sand bass restrictions -- these slow-growing, non-migratory fish were extremely depleted by commercial fishing in the 1950's. Since then, a ban on commercial fishing and a minimum size and 10-fish sport limit has allowed these fish to come back to a healthy population level, even with millions of these fish taken by sport fishermen every year. Ironically, the calico bass is one of the most common fish taken out of the areas proposed for this round of closures -- but it doesn't need help.

[Bust Trusts]

Sure, as you write, "anglers aren't villains". And, "sportfishing is not largely responsible for a decline in certain fisheries".

But, sportfishing is definitely responsible for the decline in others. A party boat can clear out the rockfish on a reef in a few days. Spearfishing was responsible for the near-extinction of giant sea bass. Sport fishermen are responsible for fishing out California sheepshead off the coast. Party boats cleared out the blue sharks back in the 60's.

Okay, it's your blog. You can write that up is down, knowledge is ignorance. Think about it.

[MPAs make for fish]

MPAs make more fish for spearfishermen to shoot, the more MPAs the more fish we can harvest. I support MPAs as should all fishers!