Another analysis of despair against MPAs?

Blog series logo

Another analysis of despair by a fisheries scientist (Kenchington T, in press*) questioning whether we should have MPAs: fishing removes top predators which are migratory, therefore fishing still impacts MPAs through fish migrations and trophic cascade effects, therefore we need to choose between pristine MPAs & seafood production! Maybe address wider ecosystem impacts of fishing, e.g. through increased selectivity, maximum size limits? Also, MPAs can still achieve a lot if not pristine and not large enough to match the wide range of top-predators?

The divide between fisheries scientists as advocates of wider fisheries management approaches and marine ecologists as advocates of MPAs still appears to be there, despite talk of a détente in the fisheries war (Stokstad 2009). Brings this to mind.... "These contrasting perspectives between fisheries scientists and marine ecologists indicate that this common ground is being eroded by the eddying currents of these different views as fast as it is being established. Given that it is unlikely to be consolidated in the near future, scientific consensus on the need for extensive networks of no-take MPAs seems likely to remain elusive" (Jones 2014 Governing Marine Protected Areas: resilience through diversity, pp. 52-53, www.tinyurl.com/GoverningMPAs)

*Kenchington T (in press) Implications of fish migration and fishing mortality for marine protected area design, Fish and Fisheries [clue is in the journal title!], http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/faf.12144/abstract

Add new comment

Sign-in with your OpenChannels Member Account and sign-up for email notifications of new blogs. Simply visit any blog post and click the "Subscribe to updates of new content of this type" link just above the comments section.