The idea behind MPAs is a good one -- save essential fish habitat, save fish. I'm sure they are science-based in the beginning, and only after protest from fishers and other stakeholders, are they shot down. If managers used only a science-based process for determining MPAs, there would probably be a whole heck of alot more.
But who provides millions, if not billions of dollars a year in revenue to coastal communities and other associated businesses? Who provides funding for sport fish restoration activities through the Dingell-Johnson amendment (read: pays some managers' salaries)? Yep, it's us. We as anglers are so economically important, if not socially and politically, that I don't believe anyone would cut off our fishing rights unless it was a dire emergency for one or more species. Even then, it may not happen. And on a side note, can you imagine the nonexistent EPO in SoCo and the one EPO at the Cape trying to enforce saltwater fishing licenses?
There's gotta be only a handful of them in New England, I swear.