|
BassBabe - I agree that MPAs can be a good thing if applied based on science but they are not, they are applied based on policy and the policy makers are listening to those with clout that want to close entire areas.
For example, if an area has determined a significant deletion of say, ohh I dunno, spawning cod, by excessive trawling perhaps, then maybe shutting down that gear type to an area will work wonders. Maybe a combination of closing the gear type and the take of baitfish in the area is sicentifically smart to recover the stock in the area. But why shut out someone fishing the same area say for bass with hook & line? Or Tuna, or Porbeagles? Now the interesting thing is that marine management, if already doing their job, could make that happen under existing laws.
Now if it was truly scientifically necessary to close an area to all fishing (highly unlikely), there would need to be milestones incorporated at the time of closure that would automatically trigger the reopening, whether partial or complete.
That is what is wrong with the type of MPAs often proposed, a total and indefinite closure of an area as a policy as opposed scientifically met targets that would open or close an area based on scientific data.
The other scary stuff in this more recent documentation has the dreaded "L" word. These are prohibitive to many in the form of denying access to fishing.... AND giving the keys to control it to people that are not stakeholders...
|