A Fish Tale: California’s New Marine Protected Areas Not Protected from the Next Cosco Busan

An added footnote to this story regarding the far-reaching effects of ship strikes and oil spills off the California Coast: on Oct. 30th, approximately 1 week before the Cosco Busan spill, 9 members of L pod, part of the endangered Southern Resident orcas (just 87 whales total) from the Pacific NW were photographed off Bodega Bay, inshore of Cordell Banks.
There were no sightings after this date, so we aren't sure exactly where they were when the spill occurred, but this brings home the fact that what happens along ANY coast of the Pacific affects marine life far beyond the boundaries of our individual states. We applaud California's efforts to create additional marine protected areas, and encourage them to continue the struggle to add the protections needed for ALL marine life, from the smallest plankton to the largest blue whale - and may Oregon and Washington work to protect our marine resources as well, before there is nothing left to protect.

It is reassuring that someone else actually sees the "blinders on" approach that is being used to create MPAs in California. A coalition of recreational and commercial fishing organizations have been working with the MLPA implementation efforts for nearly four years and have been addressing this limited focus the entire time. But apparently people are in such a hurry to put something into place that they are unable to see that major threats to the ocean are being ignored.

Dr. Ovetz points out that the MLPA is to protect diversity and ecosystems from activities that threaten the marine environment. No place in the law does the Legislature suggest that the only threat to be concerned with is a threat from fishing. Yet MPAs are being created presumably because fishing presents the only threat worth worrying about - it is the only activity regulated.

Even when the Administration, the Blue Ribbon Task Force (BRTF), and the Fish & Game Commission is presented with unmistakable evidence that pollution is destroying marine life they have chosen to focus the power of MLPA only on fishing. [Harming or injuring marine life within a reserve by any means is prohibited.] In fact the BRTF staff says they identify polluted areas and then avoid those areas when designing MPAs. So polluters get a free pass while recreational anglers and family fishing business get shut down.

Even though the Legislature meant for the MLPA to bring together diverse programs into a more effective system of MPAs that address fishing, water quality, coastal development and even shipping, there has never been a hint of interest to do so from the Administration or the proponents of MPAs.

Fishing interests have argued that new regulations attached to MPAs need to be placed on activities in proportion to threats. But this would be hard to do when there has been no analysis of comparative threats.

While I agree with Dr. Ovetz on the narrow focus of the implementation of the MLPA, I disagree that this is good for fish. Fishing has long been regulated in the State and these regulations have taken on a greater precautionary tone in recent years. The MLPA process has not even attempted to evaluate the value of these regulations and instead presumes nothing of value is happening. The presumption is that expansive MPAs, further regulating fishing, are necessary to protect the ocean.

Needlessly closing expansive areas to fishing will concentrate fishing in the remaining areas potentially harming species diversity and ecosystems in those areas. [Closing 30-40% of the prime fishing areas is excessive.]

As Dr. Ovetz says a more comprehensive balanced approach to marine conservation and protection is needed. It will be interesting when citizens in Southern California discover that MLPA will do nothing to address their ocean water quality problems.

Unfortunately, the author's thesis rests on misplaced assumptions and expectations. Many people assume that MPAs are intended to address all the ills that affect the marine environment. Of course this isn't true. There is no way that MPAs in California or anywhere else can guard against the effects of a major oil spill. Likewise, MPAs cannot solve water quality problems, most of which originate on land. To expect them to do so is absurd.

Fortunately, we have other ways of reducing the risk of catastrophic oil spills and addressing land-based sources of water pollution. MPAs should be viewed as part of a suite of protections for the oceans, not as a panacea. Perhaps then we can stop focusing on what the MLPA cannot do and start figuring out how it can work with the other tools in our toolbox, including anti-pollution laws and coastal zone management regulations. Only through such a comprehensive approach will we address the decline of our oceans.

Post a comment