REPORT: No-Take MPAs Ineffective as Fishery Management Tool
Traditional regulations work best for 98% of species.
by Forbes Darby
Alexandria, VA—No-take marine protected areas (MPAs) are a poor fishery management tool. This according to a report released today by Dr. Robert Shipp, chair of the marine sciences department at the University of South Alabama.
Shipp examined over three hundred and fifty fish stocks and found that MPAs offer no fishery management benefit for 98 percent of those stocks. "As a tool for fisheries management, where the goal is maximum sustainable yield, no-take MPAs are generally not as effective as traditional management measures such as size limits, catch limits and seasons."
According to Shipp, no-take MPAs don’t work because fish move. Of the many fish species Shipp examined, nearly all ranged over large distances, greater than any proposed no-fishing zone. As fish range outside of the restricted area, they become available to catch and the benefits of the closure disappear.
Countering a popular misconception regarding MPAs, Shipp points out that the fishery management benefits of the so-called "spillover" effect don’t exist. "The number of fish that spillover from a reserve is always going to be less than that available from a well managed fishery," says Shipp. "It’s wrong to say that commercial and recreational anglers are going to benefit by catching more, larger fish as a result of an MPA because they won’t."
Further, Shipp points out that many species don’t need the severe restrictions put in place by no-take MPAs. According to the National Marine Fisheries Service, 8 percent of marine fish are overfished. "If a fish stock is well managed and healthy, then the need for a no-take MPA is nil."
"In most cases, traditional measures are a much more effective method for managing a fishery, even an overfished one," said Shipp. Anglers are governed by rules and regulations that determine minimum size requirements, strict catch limits and even seasonal closures.
Shipp points out that MPAs can be useful tools in some cases, such as seasonal closures for particular fish. Some fish species congregate for a short period during spawning and it is during this time that extra protection may make sense. In addition, he notes that there are many positive uses for MPAs other than as a management tool, such as protection of critical habitat, study of ecosystem function and biodiversity, and promotion of ecotourism. Shipp chaired the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council when the Council voted to declare part of the Tortugas sanctuary an MPA, a decision he actively supported.
However, Shipp noted that for management purposes, to close down a fishery for all species on a permanent basis is unnecessary. "The suggestion, for example, that as much as 40% of the Channel Islands should be designated a permanent no-take MPA is totally without merit from a fisheries management perspective," said Shipp.
"I applaud the work of Dr. Shipp and other respected scientists that are helping to elevate the debate on MPAs," stated Mike Nussman, president of the American Sportfishing Association. "Anglers and the sportfishing industry have embraced science-based management for over 50 years. We strongly oppose any efforts to ban the conservation-minded angler from our public waters when there is no scientifically justifiable reason to do so."
To download a pdf version of the report click here.
Dr. Shipp’s report was made possible, in part, by a grant from the non-profit FishAmerica Foundation. For nearly 20 years, FishAmerica has supported grassroots efforts to protect and improve fisheries habitat.
