Government Affairs
Current Issue
Marine Protected Areas
The Issue
Our Goal
Our Position
Background
Science
Economics
Sportfishing Quick Facts
The Issue
Marine protected area (MPA) proposals in California and elsewhere are unnecessarily restricting the public’s ability to fish along our nation’s coasts.
MPAs are loosely defined as an area of the ocean set aside for special protections based on biological, social or cultural reasons. An MPA is not necessarily a no-fishing zone, though the two terms are often erroneously used as though they were interchangeable. Although some types of MPAs may prohibit sportfishing, others may restrict commercial activities, while sportfishing, boating and other forms of recreation are permitted.
Our Goal
Protect fish and fishing. Anglers need healthy fish and clean waters, but they also need access to these resources in order to pursue their sport. These two goals are not mutually exclusive.
Our Position
There is a fundamental difference between a family fishing on the weekend and a factory trawler sweeping the ocean floor for months at a time. This point is often overlooked by those advocating no-fishing zones. ASA strongly supports protecting the public’s ability to fish and scientific-based management of our ocean resources. These two concepts are very compatible in practice. The following official position statement was approved by ASA’s Board of Directors at the October 2007 Sportfishing Summit:
ASA Position Statement
Marine Protected Areas
ASA strongly supports scientifically-based management of our marine and freshwater resources. Anglers are conservationists first and foremost and have a long history of making sacrifices for the betterment of the resources. These have occasionally included targeted closures where the science has clearly indicated they are the best solutions to protect fish and sensitive habitat. Marine protected areas (MPA’s) should be just one tool among the suite of resources available for effective fisheries management. Because they can be the most draconian device, use of MPA’s should be considered only after conventional ocean resource management measures have failed.
As with any good fishery management decision, discussions about measures that restrict public access to public resources must involve an open public process, a solid scientific basis, and specific guidelines on implementation and follow-up. The establishment of any MPA, regardless of its level of restrictions, should:
- Be based on the best scientific information available;
- Include criteria to assess the conservation benefits of the closed area;
- Establish a timetable for review of the closed area’s performance that is consistent with the purposes of the closed area; and
- Be based on an assessment of the benefits and impacts of the closure, including its size, in relation to other management measures (either alone or in combinations with such measures), including the benefits and impacts of limiting access to: users of the area, overall fishing activity, fishery science, and fishery and marine conservation.
It is a long-standing policy of the federal government to allow public access to public lands and waters for recreational purposes consistent with sound conservation. This policy is reflected in the principles of our wildlife refuges, national forests, national parks, and wilderness areas, and should be reflected in any decision to implement MPA’s—especially no-take areas. The ability of recreational anglers to use public marine resources should be as strong as the ability of hunters and anglers to use public lands.
Background
One of the first real pushes for designation of MPA’s that prohibit sportfishing came from the California legislature as part of the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary. A final network of MPAs surrounding the Channel Islands was finalized in 2007. This included 323 nautical miles closed to sportfishing. In addition and under a separate action, in 1999 California passed the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) that called for the state to create a network of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in state waters. The MLPA specifically called for the use of “marine reserves” which are equivalent to “no-fishing zones”.
This state initiative was echoed on a federal level in 2000, when President Clinton signed an Executive Order on Marine Protected Areas. Currently, President Bush supports the Clinton initiative. This federal order, and California’s state law, both set forth general principles for MPAs. The size, location and level of protection are decided by the state Department of Fish and Game and appropriate federal agencies. Under both, these decisions are to be made after substantial public input.
In 2001, California’s implementation of the MLPA was being fast-tracked by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), effectively eliminating much of the public comment process. Agency officials aggressively pushed for large area bans on sportfishing, interpreting the goal of MPAs as always prohibiting all fishing. In January 2002, pubic outcry forced CDFG to pull back their concept maps and reformulate their public scoping progress. Since then, a process has been established to construct a network of MPAs using a broader focus and definition. A Blue Ribbon Task Force, Scientific Advisory Team, and Regional Stakeholder Group were established and a more open and public process established.
However, as part of the process described above, in April 2007 the CDGF still closed 8 percent, or 85 square miles, of California’s Central Coast to sportfishing. ASA is leading a coordinated effort to minimize sportfishing closures along CA’s North Central Coast, the area of the next phase of MPA designations. This second phase is expected to be completed in May 2008. The process will then move to southern California.
To learn more about the ASA’s efforts regarding the California MLPA, visit www.KeepAmericaFishing.org/California.asp.
Science
The current movement from the non-consumptive environmental community is to promote no-take MPAs as a fishery management tool. However, in the spring of 2002, Robert Shipp, Ph.D., chair of the marine sciences department at the University of South Alabama, undertook an evaluation of marine fish stocks and the possible benefits to these species of no-take MPAs. Using the most recent data from the National Marine Fisheries Service, Dr. Shipp discovered that no-take MPAs are ineffective as a fishery management tool.
As a tool for fisheries management, where optimal and/or maximum sustainable yield is the objective, no-take MPAs (where sportfishing is permanently banned) are not as effective as traditional management measures such as size and catch limits, gear restrictions or even closed seasons (a temporary MPA).No-take MPAs are not appropriate for the vast majority of marine species. Having examined the life histories of over 350 marine fish on all three US coasts, Dr. Shipp determined that 98 percent of species would not benefit from the creation of such restrictive MPAs. Therefore, permanently banning sportfishing does not follow sound science.
According to Dr. Shipp, no-take MPAs are ineffective because 1) fish routinely range outside the borders of most proposed protected areas and 2) many species are not being overfished and therefore are in no need of this highest level of protection.
According to the National Marine Fisheries Service’s latest Report to Congress, 8% of marine fish stocks in US waters are being overfished. Management has improved since passage of the Sustainable Fisheries Act in 1996 and many species are rebounding or have management plans in place to rebuild them within a reasonable period of time.
Some in the environmental community promote the “spillover” benefits of MPAs, saying they will produce more and bigger fish for anglers fishing at the perimeter of MPAs. However, the number of fish that spillover from a no-take MPA will always be less than those available from a well-managed fishery. Therefore, "spillover" benefits are nonexistent.
Dr. Shipp’s research* did find that MPAs may be appropriate in some cases. MPAs may provide benefits for a small number of fish species that are sedentary or for temporary congregations of spawning fish.
Dr. Shipp’s report (pdf) was made possible, in part, by a grant from the FishAmerica Foundation. For nearly 20 years, FishAmerica has supported grassroots efforts to protect and improve fisheries habitat.
Economics
The Channel Islands example of the impact of sportfishing closures in MPAs is startling. As part of the process of proposing new no-take MPAs in the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary (CINMS), the CINMS Marine Reserve Working Group’s Socioeconomic Panel (the Panel) undertook an economic impact assessment. The Panel’s analysis vastly underestimated the economic impact of banning sportfishing in parts of the sanctuary. The American Sportfishing Association and United Anglers of Southern California commissioned Southwick Associates, Inc. of Fernandina Beach, Fla. to evaluate the Panel’s findings.
Southwick found the Panel’s analysis to be sound with the exception of two critical points:
- Outdated economic data was used.
- Anglers’ equipment purchases were missing.
Utilizing the same methods as the Panel, Southwick reanalyzed the data correcting for the two discrepancies:
- Old data was replaced by recently released expenditure data from the National Marine Fisheries Service.
- Anglers’ equipment expenditures were included.
Key Findings:
- By significantly reducing an angler’s access to fishing opportunities with CINMS, many equipment purchases will not be made and coastal business, hotels and restaurants will suffer losses.
- Sportfishing bans in the Channel Islands could result in annual losses to California’s economy of over $100 million in retail sales alone. Potentially twice this amount could be lost to due to the ripple effect of those lost purchases on other sectors of the economy.
- To replace the economic losses due to sportfishing bans, other activities outside of sportfishing (such as whale watching, sailing and sightseeing) would have to increase by at least 350 percent.
- Businesses directly supporting fishing will loose 163 jobs. Boating businesses will lose an additional 726 jobs. A total of 2,700 jobs could be lost from all sectors of the economy.
- The previous economic evaluation left out nearly 90 percent of potential economic losses.
- The previous evaluation is flawed as it uses 20-year old data and does not account for angler equipment expenditures.
- Sportfishing is the preferred recreational activity in the CINMS. It is estimated that CINMS provides roughly 10% of all marine sportfishing opportunities in Southern California. There are over one million recreational saltwater anglers in California.
Sportfishing Quick Facts
- 95 percent of Americans support legal recreational fishing.
- Signed in 1995, Presidential Executive Order 12962 directs federal agencies to promote and protect sportfishing opportunities.
- There are 12 million saltwater anglers.
- Florida, California and Texas are the most popular saltwater fishing states.
- Saltwater anglers spend over $20 BILLION annually on their sport.
- The recent implementation of no-take marine protected areas in the Channel Islands could cost California’s economy over $100 million in direct expenditures and up to 2,700 jobs.
- Commercial fishing operations are responsible for 97 percent of all marine fish landed; recreational anglers land only 3 percent.
- According to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), only 8 percent of marine fish stocks are actively being overfished. Most other species are on the road to recovery.
- Many environmental groups are pushing to restrict public access in anywhere from 5-20 percent of all ocean areas. Some extreme groups are calling for 80 percent closures.
For more information on no-take marine protected areas, contact Patricia Doerr, Ocean Resource Policy director, 703.519.9691 x244.
