rp_0103_6b.html
Marine Sanctuaries Hold Promise for NW Salmon
Are marine refuges part of a workable salmon-saving plan? Papers presented at the recent annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science imply it's at least a question worth asking.
The papers reported the results of a survey of 100 "no-take" marine reserves around the world. The survey was coordinated by the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis in Santa Barbara. The reserves monitored showed post-protection increases of 91% in the total number of fish, 31% in the average size of fish, and 23% in the variety of fish species present. And these kinds of increases occurred within only a couple of years when protection from fishing was granted to an area.
Equally important, the benefits extended beyond the reserves themselves and applied to fishermen, as well as fish. A striking example was in St. Lucia where one-third of the country's fishing areas were declared off-limits in 1995. Three years later, stocks of commercial interest had doubled in areas adjacent to the sanctuaries.
An important advantage of no-fishing reserves over other fisheries management tools lies in the ease of enforcement. No patrols need board fishing boats to examine their gear or their take. It's simple; if you're inside the sanctuary, you're fishing illegally.
The studies also have some implications for the design of reserves. Networks of sanctuaries of various sizes seem to work better than one big reserve of equal total size. The studies also point to the importance of timely establishment of reserves, i.e., before stocks are totally depleted in an area. Once a species has been eliminated, even with reserve status re-colonization can take a long time.
Marc Sullivan