RFA POSITION PAPER

Marine Protected Areas (MPAs)

 The recreational fishing community needs to be aware and concerned about the environmental/conservation community's newest attempt to have fishing severely curtailed in the marine environment! Recently, Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) have emerged as their solution to provide a workable management tool that helps correct the perceived mismanagement by State and Federal fishery managers. On the surface this may not appear as a threat to recreational fishing but, in many cases, this may preclude all recreational fishing.

Background
 Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) have been in existence for nearly 30 years. More than 300 such areas with restricted activities exist in the United States, including federally designated National Seashores, Estuarine Reserves, National Parks, Sanctuaries and others. What has newly emerged in the past two years and is of considerable importance to marine anglers, however, is the designation of large expanses of oceans specifically designed for fishery management purposes through the application of "no take" zones. With the issuance of Presidential Executive Order 13158 by President Clinton in 2000, and reaffirmation of that order by President Bush in 2001, MPAs as a fishery management tool are here whether we like it or not.

Recommendations
 The RFA believes that MPAs can benefit the recreational fisheries and fishery resources if:
the participation of all stakeholders is enjoined;
effective planning and design are provided, and:
regular monitoring, assessment, enforcement, and community education are assured.

 Designed correctly, MPAs can be useful for fishery conservation/management purposes as a part of a fishery management plan and could be implemented with the endorsement of the recreational fishing community if they accommodate the following:

A) There must be a clear identification of the conservation problem. Traditional management practices (gear restrictions, quotas, bag limits, closed seasons etc.) have been evaluated and do not provide sufficient conservation and management remedies to the affected stocks of fish;

(B) The proposal for a specifically-identified MPA must include measurable criteria to determine the conservation benefit to the affected stocks of fish and contain economic impact information on how the proposed actions would affect fishermen;

(C) The proposal also should allow for other types of recreational fishing, such as trolling for pelagic species, that would not have an impact on demersal stocks of concern, as an example.

(D) Any closed areas within a MPA should be established with a sunset provision. On that date-certain, the zones will automatically reopen unless there is scientific proof that the closure should remain in effect and those findings are communicated to the public through a process integrating substantial public review and comment;

(E) The plan provides a timetable for periodic review of the continued need for any closed area at least once every three years and an estimated time-line for removing the closure;

(F) The closed area is no larger than that which is supported by the best available scientific information;

(G) The fishery management measures are part of a fishery management plan as required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act as amended by the proposed Freedom to Fish Act.

 In summary, the RFA believes that Marine Protected Areas can only be successfully implemented with the support of all stakeholders including the recreational fishing community. The MPAs must be justified, warranted, and the recreational fishing community must be an integral part of the process that establishes them. See the Save the Fish Foundation's "A Template for the Application of Marine Protected Areas in Recreational Fisheries Management."
 
Click on the link above to view that document. (Requires Adobe's Acrobat Reader - available FREE on line at  www.adobe.com ).