|
|
|
|
|
|
Drastic Decline in Marine Life May Lead to No Fishing Zones
David McAlary, Voice of America Excessive fishing has led to a drastic decline in marine life in many parts of the world and the collapse of many fisheries. Some scientists believe that a global network of no fishing zones is the best way to replenish stocks and improve economic prospects for the industry. As Oregon State University zoologist Jane Lubchenco sees it, our oceans are in serious trouble. She points to dying coral reefs, layers of poison algae, massive fish deaths and the loss of fisheries as signs of the decline of our seas partly caused by excess fishing. "Oceans are more valuable and more vulnerable than is commonly realized," she explains. " Our current management practices are insufficient to prevent further serious decline." Ms. Lubchenko and 160 other scientists from around the world issued a report at the science convention, urging creation of a network of marine reserves, where all sea animals and plants would be protected. "Marine reserves are one very powerful tool for protecting oceans and recovering fisheries. We now have sufficient scientific information to begin using this tool in a serious fashion," Ms. Lubchenko says. The new information is the result of a two-and-a half-year research effort in which members of the international scientific team gathered data from 89 marine reserves, worldwide. In heavily exploited waters, fish cannot reproduce fast enough to keep up with the harvest. But in sanctuaries off limits to commercial and sport fishing, the researchers found that marine life recovers in only two to four years. "On average, population density inside reserves is twice as high. Where once there were 10 fish, now there are 20," explains University of California marine biologist Robert Warner. He adds that reserve species seem to be healthier. "Those organisms are larger 30 percent larger on average than organisms outside of reserves. Those organisms produce on average three times as many offspring per area as do areas outside of the reserves." Furthermore, the study shows that offspring migrate 50 to 100 kilometers away, starting new populations in distant waters and re-seeding fishing zones. To the scientists, this suggests reserves should be 50 to 100 kilometers square. They say a network of them should span 500 to 1,000 kilometers, to sustain marine species. Understandably, many people who fish oppose marine reserves. This may be one of the reasons why far less than one percent of the world's oceans is protected. Bruce Steele is a Santa Barbara, California, fisherman who reluctantly supports marine sanctuaries. "It's a new idea, but it's definitely not painless," he says. "Fisherman will be displaced when you implement larger reserves. There will be a number of fishermen that go out of business. It's sad, but the reality is there are some fish stocks that have been fished to the point that they need some special considerations." Conservation biologist Callum Roberts of England's University of York says commercial fishers need not worry. He cites the example of the Caribbean island Saint Lucia, where four marine reserves have been interspersed with fishing grounds since 1995. "After only three years, the densities of commercially important fish species had tripled inside the fully protected zones and, more importantly, they've doubled in the adjacent fishing grounds. A recent survey we've done of fisher attitudes towards the reserve has shown that the fishers now think that they are better off with the reserve than they were a few years ago without it," he says. Last May, President Clinton issued an executive order calling for a system of marine protected areas in the United States. The fishing industry and many lawmakers oppose the decision and argue there is little scientific evidence showing the value of such sanctuaries. They want President Bush to reverse the order. But scientists at the San Francisco convention say their report provides the necessary facts supporting it.
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
|
|
