However, the term Marine Protected Area used in the current debate has come to connote a "Type 1," or no-take Marine Protected Area (nMPA), in which all fishing is prohibited. Thus, when the angling community states its categorical opposition to the creation of MPAs, its opposition is to nMPAs, and not to less draconian alternatives that fall under the MPA umbrella.

Fish stocks are a public resource, and prohibiting public access to that resource is an extreme step that should only be undertaken when other measures have proven inadequate. Even if one accepts that all of the fisheries and marine-related problems cited by environmental organizations exist, it is still necessary to determine whether nMPAs provide a viable solution, and one that cannot be accomplished by less extreme measures.

The pro-nMPA organization Oceana has stated that "today, there is no equivalent to commercial fishing on land. Fishermen are highly sophisticated hunter-gatherers, capturing large numbers of wild animals. One would have to look back to the vast flocks of game birds or the buffalo, pursued by market hunters in the last century, to find a terrestrial alternative." Oceana’s statement deserves serious analysis, for it is completely accurate and provides one of the most coherent arguments against nMPAs.

The conservation movement that brought some species of game birds and the buffalo back from the brink did not originate with so-called "environmentalists" operating out of an urban high-rise. Theodore Roosevelt and Aldo Leopold were outdoorsmen who avidly harvested game. George Bird Grinnel, founder of the National Audubon Society, was an avid waterfowler and author of American Duck Hunting. It is probably safe to say that no organization has done as much to preserve critical wetlands and restore North American waterfowl populations as Ducks Unlimited, an organization founded by hunters. Without the prospect of better hunting, it is unlikely that so many people would have worked for conservation.

In the same way, if people feel no strong connection with fish populations they will be indifferent to their fate and the political clout of those who would overexploit those resources for financial gain will grow more influential. Just as hunters organized to outlaw market hunting in the previous century, anglers are the largest segment of the population willing to donate money and time to promote fishery conservation, although commercial fisheries conducted on a conscientious sustainable basis also promote conservation. A large angling public that grows ever more steeped in the ethic of conservation is the best hope for healthy and restored fisheries.

When the striped bass population collapsed in the 1970s and early 1980s, fishermen demanded that strict regulations, including regulations on angling, be put in place. They kept pushing until legislators agreed to measures that would rebuild the stock. Even as recently as 2002 anglers unsuccessfully petitioned the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) to reduce their own harvest in order to restore a more natural population structure. Throughout the debate, the environmental community was prominently absent, even though anglers’ most recent effort to use traditional management measures to expand the age and size structure of the stock is an objective often cited in support of nMPAs.

In the 1970s, when the blackened redfish craze created a commercial fishery that caused a precipitous drop in the red drum population, anglers again rose to the occasion. They demanded size and bag limits for themselves and an end to commercial exploitation. They accepted restrictions by insisting on a closure of federal waters to assure the health of the stock. Red drum numbers are increasing and, once again, the environmental organizations played no major role.

In the early 1980s, when "charismatic marine megafauna" were just appearing on the radar screens of environmental groups, anglers closed ranks to successfully demand an end to the commercial targeting and sale of marlin, sailfish and spearfish. This action arose directly out of the evolving conservation ethic within the angling community, with no outside influence required.

It would appear that recreational anglers have a long history of putting the health of a fishery ahead of their own short-term interests. With a few exceptions, the environmental community as a whole is a relative newcomer on the scene. Yet instead of seeing anglers as natural allies and working with them to craft meaningful measures that address the real problems underlying fisheries management, environmental groups seem to view anglers as merely another problem to be "solved" with nMPAs. Anglers, on the other hand, see themselves as part of the solution.

If one only listened to the proponents of nMPAs, it would be very easy to believe that nMPAs are the last, best hope of restoring and conserving fish and invertebrate populations. There is scientific proof, after all, that nMPAs are the best way to enhance fisheries and benefit all concerned. Fortunately, science encourages skeptics, and a close reading of the "proof" supporting nMPAs quickly discloses that they are not the panaceas that their proponents suggest, but rather one tool in the kit of fishery managers. In demonstrating this fact, the best place to start may be the document that nMPA proponents so often use to justify their position, "The Effectiveness of an Existing Estuarine No-take Fish Sanctuary within the Kennedy Space Center, Florida," by Darlene R. Johnson, Nicholas A. Funicelli and James A. Bahnsack.

The area of the study was three interconnected lagoons separated from the Atlantic Ocean by narrow barrier beaches and the more extensive Cape Canaveral and Merritt Island land masses. The study area was a fairly self-contained body of water, with only distant access to the open ocean. In structure, it probably had a greater resemblance to a series of ponds or lakes connected by a slow-moving river than the open sea. The five fish species used to illustrate the purported benefits of the Kennedy nMPA were spotted seatrout, red drum, black drum, common snook and striped mullet, all typical inhabitants of Florida lagoons. Tagging data indicated that the fish generally stayed in or near the study area.

The most important element of the study is the fact that it took place before Floridians amended their state Constitution to outlaw the use of gill nets and other "entanglement nets" in state waters. As a result, it contrasted two extremes - a citizen-exclusion zone on one side versus open waters plagued with a commercial fishery so egregious that more than 70 percent of the state’s residents joined with the angling and environmental communities to outlaw the most destructive gear. It does not reflect the situation that exists in the state today.

So what does the Kennedy study really tell us? Only that there will be more fish in an area entirely closed to citizen access than in an area open not only to recreational fishing, but also heavy and abusive commercial exploitation. It certainly does not form the basis of a broad policy statement endorsing nMPAs. It has no application to the establishment of nMPAs in more open waters or to the effect of nMPAs on species that engage in lengthier migrations. This study does not even establish whether nMPAs provide results different from those obtainable by implementing appropriate traditional management measures. Good science is based on good facts. That being the case, it cannot be stated that this study is good science.

As Oceana has pointed out, overfishing, particularly that which leads to a stock collapse, is almost exclusively a product of the commercial fishing industry. However, whether the problem is caused by recreational fishing, commercial fishing or a combination of the two, the remedy should require the greatest price from the sector which caused the greatest damage.

That sort of analysis leaves anglers in a good position. When things like pollution and climate change, which are beyond an nMPA’s scope, are left off the table, the remaining issues are commercial overfishing, habitat alteration, bycatch, and recreational threats such as sport diving and angling harvest. Recreational anglers sometimes contribute to overfishing, but previous examples demonstrate that recreational anglers not only adhere to regulations, they are usually proponents of them. Habitat alteration is also not a problem generally attributable to anglers. Most habitat problems can be traced to bottom trawls, dredges and similar commercial gear. Bycatch is also primarily a commercial problem as well, with non-selective and "ghost" gear accounting for great quantities of dead discards.

How, then, can those problems be controlled without creating an nMPA? The solutions would appear self-evident. Establish seasons, bag and size limits that compel commercial and recreational fishermen to stay within their Total Allowable Catch (TAC), regardless of economic consequences. Create gear-restricted areas in sensitive habitat. Control bycatch by outlawing the use of excessively "dirty" gear, and place restrictions on how other gear such as bycatch reduction devices in trawls may be used. Putting such measures in place would not be easy, but the legal structure that now exists is probably sufficient to get the job done. Ending overharvest, whether commercial or recreational, is a simple question of political will. The Sustainable Fisheries Act requires that it be remedied. If the fishery management councils and NMFS fail to take action, the courts have proved more than willing to construct solutions.

If an analysis of the issue begins to suggest that nMPAs are not the panacea that their proponents seem to believe, the next question is, can they do harm? The answer is clearly ‘yes’. nMPAs reduce the amount of fishable water without reducing the number of fishermen. There is also independent scientific evidence of MPAs causing effort to shift, and that such effort shift is not merely resource-neutral, but actually causes significant damage. If a large percentage of the public is excluded from traditional angling areas, those anglers will either concentrate in outlying areas and likely create new conservation issues or leave the fishery altogether. Neither of these scenarios is a positive conclusion.

However, the greatest danger presented by nMPAs remains the potential for severing the ties between the public and the sea, and for fomenting angler resentment against the environmental community.

Part II of Charles Witek's investigation of Marine Protected Areas will be posted in August