STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DON YOUNG (ALASKA) AT THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION WILDLIFE AND OCEANS HEARING ON MARINE PROTECTED AREAS:

May 23, 2002.
                                                                                                                                                          
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate you holding this hearing today and hope that it will serve as the beginning of some rational thought on the issue of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs).

As all of you know, the Clinton Administration issued an Executive Order on Marine Protected Areas.  I had a number of problems with the Executive Order and have let my feelings be known to the new Administration.

I did not, as some of you may suspect, call for the elimination of the Executive Order; however, I do think it has some fatal flaws that will keep stakeholders from ever joining this effort.

Fishermen – both commercial and recreational – are one of the most affected and most important stakeholder groups that need to understand and support these MPAs if they are to work.  At this point, I see little if any attempt to bring them into the picture.  In fact, I see the opposite.  Let me give you a few examples:  

1) Proponents of the MPA idea have rallied around the idea that MPAs can be beneficial to fisheries conservation and management. Fishermen are told that MPAs will eventually result in more sustained, constant harvest levels.  At the same time they are told this, some in the environmental community are telling them that they cannot have any access to these areas and the areas need to be vast and connected in order to be effective.  We are also told that these areas must also be permanent.  I'm not sure I understand the need for these restrictions.

Regional Fishery Management Councils have used the current authority under the Magnuson-Stevens Act  to establish areas that are either no fishing areas, or seasonal time/area closures to protect habitat or to minimize bycatch during important times of the year.  These closures are being used to increase productivity of certain species and are the right step for Councils to take – in some cases – for fisheries conservation and management.  However, because they are not permanent and year-round, the Clinton Administration told us they were not considered marine protected areas – that only permanent closure could be considered good for fisheries conservation and management.

This is the same Administration that declared that the Klondike Gold Rush National Historic Park was a marine protected area.  I'd like to know how an inland National Park is a marine protected area.  This is one area of the Executive Order that needs some serious attention.  The definition of "marine" that was used when developing the Executive Order was ridiculous and needs to be fixed.  

2) The Dry Tortugas example – This example has been hailed as a wonderful example of the public process at work.  I disagree.

The draft plan for the reserve included a large "no-take" area that was labeled a "fishery replenishment zone."  Boy, that sounds good.  But when fishermen asked how the zone was developed and how the resulting "fish replenishment" would be monitored, the drafters of the plan realized they had made a mistake and couldn't answer the questions.  So what did they do?   They changed the name to "ecological research reserve".  Same result – no fishing – but the lesson of the exercise was that the drafters of the plan had a preconceived notion of what they wanted and it didn't include fishermen.  Is this a way to get stakeholder input and involvement?

3) A number of National Marine Sanctuaries have been established around the country with a public process that is required under statute and that included significant public input.  Now that some of these Sanctuaries are being reviewed, there is a move to close them to all extractive uses.  This seems to me, and to a number of fishing groups, as a type of bait-and-switch.  Let's get fishermen to be involved in the process to create a sanctuary which allows them continued access and then when we review the plan, lets kick them all out.  Why not?  We've got them on record supporting the Sanctuary, so we can kick them out and they can't fuss too much.  Maybe I'm being too cynical, but it certainly seems that people really feel that way.  Is this the way to get support for the National Marine Sanctuary Program?

4) What are MPAs?  This is a question that is the real cause of the frustration that fishermen have shown.  Are all MPAs no-take zones?  Do they allow limited access by fishermen?  What is their purpose?  How will we know if they are working?  If they are permanent, how can they be changed if conditions change?  Some in the environmental community want these areas to be a huge interconnected belt around the U.S. that prohibits access by fishermen permanently.  

Here is a quote from an e-mail that my staff received, "It seems logical, to some at least, that we should place no-take reserves in places where there historically has been fishing pressure (the theory being that if that area has supported fishing pressure for several years, it must be an important habitat for that species being targeted)."  

If you follow this train of thought to its conclusion, the idea is: to protect fisheries for fishermen, you need to protect the areas that are important to fish.  To protect the areas important to fish, find out what those areas are.  To find out where the fish are, follow the fishermen.  Then close the areas where fishermen fish and that will protect the fish and will benefit the fishermen.  Is that what we are doing?  Close the fishing grounds to help fishermen?  And people wonder why fishermen are reluctant to embrace the idea of MPAs?

If we are going to move forward with MPAs, we need to do a couple of things.  First, we need to agree on terminology.  If MPAs are not necessarily "no-take" zones, then people need to stop equating the two.

Secondly, we need to realize that all MPAs are not the same and should not be managed in the same manner.  The Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary was established to protect historical shipwrecks not protect fisheries.  It should not be managed in the same manner as the Red King Crab Savings Area in the Bering Sea.

Thirdly, we need to realize that there are existing statutory authorities for MPAs and they should be used.  We do not need a new set of laws, regulations, Executive Orders, etc.

If we are to use MPAs as a fisheries management tool, there needs to be significant participation by the fishing community in the development of the goals and design of the MPA.  The MPA needs to have achievable goals and the success in achieving the goals needs to be monitored and quantified.  If the goals aren't being met, then the stakeholders may want to rethink the MPA.  The MPAs may need to be fluid.  Ocean conditions and habitat conditions change.  If an MPA is established for fisheries management, it may need to change as those conditions change.  MPAs do not necessarily need to be permanent for fisheries management.  Depending on the goal of the MPA, a time/area closure or a seasonal restriction may be all that is needed.  Current law allows this type of closure and many Regional Fishery Management Councils are already using them.  Finally, the Councils are the appropriate place for these discussions to take place.  If MPAs are to be established to help fisheries and they are being done to restrict fishing in specific areas, the Councils are the appropriate, and only appropriate place, for these MPAs to be developed and implemented.

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for holding this hearing and look forward to working with the new Administration to redraft the Executive Order to make it workable and acceptable to the fishing community.