The ABCs of Marine Protected Areas
Part II of II
By Charles Witek III

A Question of Trust

On the issue of nMPAs, recreational anglers are suspicious of the environmental community. The lack of consultation and the failure to seek common ground with recreational fishermen before the nMPA issue was put on the table have strained what was a fairly reliable relationship. Assurances that the creation of nMPAs will be based on the best available science do not engender much trust when proponents are on record stating that:

“the first fully protected areas in a region do not need to be based on any scientific inquiry as any area is representative of something and can have value when protected…Only after some distinct areas are protected is it necessary to determine what was missed and apply such knowledge for future decision-making. Scientific analyses will be critical for filling the gaps.”

Statements like this make it difficult to dispel the belief that the creation of nMPAs will be arbitrary. Additionally, environmental organizations seem intentionally vague about the size and location of nMPAs. It is always easier to argue against a specific closure than against the mere concept of an nMPA, and many anglers suspect that nMPA advocates avoid identifying areas for closures in order to minimize angler opposition.

In 2001, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) released a document which identified 22 percent of the Mid-Atlantic region as “priority areas” justifying special attention. Angler reaction bordered on horror as the priority areas that could form the basis for nMPAs would have closed nearly every fishing area between the beach and the edge of the continental shelf. Environmental organizations were quick to assert that the “priority areas” were merely a “wish list” and not the proposed basis for a network of nMPAs. However, anglers noted the congruity between the 20 percent of the ocean that nMPA advocates have often endorsed closing and the 22 percent identified by NRDC and remain unconvinced.

The apparent disconnect between what nMPA advocates tell anglers and what nMPA advocates say in other arenas is a justifiable cause for concern. Despite anglers’ long history of involvement in marine conservation issues, environmental organizations did not regard them as peers and bring them into the earliest stages of the discussion process. Instead, they developed their political agenda without meaningful angler input, and then presented it as something approaching a fait accompli.

It may well be that the recent advocacy for nMPAs undertaken by some groups and the opposition by angler-oriented organizations reflects a basic dichotomy in how the two groups of citizens view their place in the ecosystem. nMPA advocates do not seem to comprehend that Homo sapiens are an integral part of the coastal marine ecosystem and have been since some time around the retreat of the last glacier. They approach the marine ecosystem as observer rather than participant. As a result, nMPA advocates seek to create ecosystems that intentionally exclude a mammalian predator that has been present there for at least 10,000 years.

A Workable Solution

The majority of anglers, especially serious anglers, are firmly committed to the concept of conservation. Most would probably even label themselves “environmentalists.” However, nMPAs threaten to remove anglers from the very environment that they have cherished and protected for so long, and that has repercussions for the relationship that existed between the angling mainstream and the environmental community.

If environmental organizations wish to recreate the atmosphere of cooperation and support with recreational anglers, they must reassess their position on nMPAs. That means revising the “all-or-nothing attitude” that has surrounded the debate, where solutions short of nMPAs are not seriously considered. While nMPAs are anathema to most anglers, MPAs are a viable and readily accepted solution to address a specific problem.

Anglers, in turn, must accept the fact that there can be specific circumstances in which an nMPA is the management measure of choice. Somewhere, at some time, a combination of, perhaps, shallow water, fragile habitat and a threatened population may make alternate management measures untenable. However, it is the responsibility of fishery managers to make that decision with the input of all interested parties. Arbitrarily creating a network of citizen-exclusion zones is not an acceptable approach.

When all the rhetoric has quieted, we are left with this: nMPAs are just another tool in the box available to fishery managers, no more, no less. They are not a panacea; neither is their use unthinkable. Because creation of an nMPA can cause substantial harm, they should only be used in extreme cases. This logical approach is embodied in the Freedom to Fish Act currently before Congress. Tenets of the bill state that nMPAs are permitted, but the angling public can only be excluded if there is scientific evidence that they are part of the problem, and that their exclusion is part of the solution. The area closed off to the public can’t be any larger than necessary to address the problem and once the problem is solved, the public can reclaim their waters.

The Freedom to Fish Act would ensure that those responsible for the problem bear the burdens of solving it, while innocent parties are not made to bear a disproportionate price. When public sacrifice provides a remedy, the public is then permitted to reap some of the benefits.

Conclusion

As active participants in the natural world, anglers feel that our place in the marine ecosystem is no less “natural” than that of the shark, the skua or the seal. Some would argue that advances in technology have so enhanced our species’ food-harvesting abilities that its impact on the ecosystem can no longer be called “natural.” However, in contrast to the aboriginal hunter-gather, who was restricted only by technology and did not turn away from destructive harvesting practices when the opportunity arose, current harvest by humans is governed by a web of regulations that are generally growing more effective and, at least among anglers, a constantly strengthening conservation ethic.