Aliance of Communities for Sustainable Fisheries
P O Box 1309, Carmel Valley, CA 93924 (831) 659-2838

3. We think that the best arguments FOR marine reserves lie in the scientific value of creating baseline data, and we acknowledge that a section of society sees intrinsic value (biodiversity) in having some wild areas set aside, just to know that they are there. However, the value of marine reserves becomes muddy when used as a fishery management tool, and not just any tool, but one proposed to dominate the toolbag. It is even less clear when the marine reserve is proposed to stop fishing for pelagic fish. Scientific study has shown that the benefits of marine reserves decrease in ratio to the degree to which external areas are regulated - and in fact marine reserves can have a negative environmental effect if 100% of the fishing effort is displaced to neighboring areas. There are enough tried and true, flexible, traditional fishery management tools in the toolbag, tools that can have the benefit of increased science, as described above. We respectfully suggest that the conservation community, who represent concerns for bio-diversity, intrinsic value, and for the benefits of creating a scientific baseline, should stay with those principles, and not try to sell marine reserves as a fishery management tool, at least on the West Coast. We feel strongly that the conservation community would benefit from this tactic and have an easier time convincing both fishermen and the general public of the value of their mission. If this would occur, one of the primary roles of the fishing community would be to help place the reserves so that they can meet science and conservation goals, but not harm our fisheries.

4. Fishers are more than dubious about the use of marine reserves as a fishery management tool on the West Coast, because our fisheries are already aggressively managed. Although we had no opportunity to hear from them at the Forum, an increasing number of respected fishery biologists are poking holes in the premises and conclusions drawn by other scientists who support marine reserves. We would have liked to hear from them at the Forum, perhaps as a debate between "pro and con". There has generally been a lack of critical thinking and studies regarding what role a marine reserve might play in an already highly regulated fishery and/or for pelagic fishes. The success of marine reserves in third world nations where there are no other management tools does not relate to our situation. Nor does the theory hold true that you will only have large, fecund fish if you have marine reserves.
Why is there a lack of critical thinking regarding marine reserves as a fishery management tool? We think it's mostly about money! We observe that some fishermen feel that very large foundations are pushing an agenda that says: you will "save" the ocean if you institute severe limits on how humans can use it. We don't know if this is true or not, but we do ask: What would happen if, during the next year, $10 million dollars or so was made available to marine fisheries research institutions to explore critical questions, such as: Are marine reserves needed to assure sustainable fisheries? If not a single new marine reserve is placed off the West Coast, what is the probability of continuing to have sustainable fisheries? Are there gear and or regulatory modifications that are needed to assure that a population of large, fecund groundfish continues to survive? Can the placement of marine reserves within the context of a highly regulated fishery actually be counter-productive? How can the knowledge that experienced fishermen have be used to improve scientific collection and the evaluation of fishery data? What are the implications for fishery managers when natural regime shifts occur, changing the resident fish populations? How will natural predation affect marine reserves? What can our existing marine reserves tell us - and why haven't they been more thoroughly studied? What kinds of regulatory reform and/or gear modifications can be made to reduce by-catch? Why is it that so many marine reserves, even in tropical climates, are failing to meet their stated objectives?

5. We think both the science and conservation communities have lessons to learn about the social implications of the marine reserve movement. "Social" meaning in part, human relationships. As a social implication, there is a very basic point that the fishing community would like to make to the science community. In all the touting of the benefits of marine reserves, nowhere is it mentioned that there is and will be a powerful, influential benefit directly to the science community in the form of increased funding for research projects specific to marine reserves. Because of the private foundations described earlier, marine reserves offer a funding opportunity for the science community that is not necessarily related to developing broad knowledge about sustainable fisheries. In this regard they may actually divert funding the real work of fishery science that needs to be done. We would like to see funding stay focused on real fishery management issues, of which marine reserves play only a part. As fishermen's concerns are often dismissed as stemming only from concerns for financial loss, we suggest that many scientists be more forthright in stating their economic interest. You should be aware that some fishermen believe that the push for marine reserves is really about taking a public resource away from one set of users and instead turning it over to another set (scientists), as their near-exclusive laboratory. We suggest that the science community be more forthcoming with the fact that they have economic gain at stake, just like us.
We believe that the conservation community also needs to be more forthright in dealing with the social and economic implications of marine reserves. The fact that large scale marine reserves will put a lot of Americans out of business and will change forever the culture of many communities, needs to be addressed head-on by the conservation community. If the conservation community doesn't understand or believe that fact, then the need for formal social and economic science is underscored. As a related point, please remember that according to the Federal Economic Development Administration, every one-dollar of fish value brought across the docks generates nine more dollars as it moves through our economy. The conservation community needs to fully address this. The loss of American jobs and the likelihood of increased reliance on foreign fish imports are real. CONTINUED