There's a very interesting article in the April edition of Modern Fishing, summarising recent research that suggest marine parks may actually be degrading fish stocks:
Conventional wisdom dictates that Marine Park Protected Areas should be nothing but beneficial for fish stocks. However, research being gathered since 1999 by the Fisheries Research and Development Coporation (FRDC) now shows that there are several side-effects of marine park establishment which are potentially devastating to the very fish-stocks (sic) which marine protected areas aim to nurture.
Studies on some Tasmanian marine protected areas have indicated areas adjacent to the sanctuaries faced significant pressure as a result of displaced fishing efforts. If this extensive, displaced effort was not brought back through structural adjustment, the management practice of stock rebuilding could be slowed or reversed. This significantly damages the adjacent areas and can eventually lead to stock collapse. Problems with the predator/prey relationships have also been evolving, as increased numbers of large predatory species have resulted in low populations of smaller marine species in protected areas.
Principal investigator Colin Buxton, director of the Tasmanian Aquaculture and Fisheries Institute at the University of Tasmania feels that while the motivation for establishing marine protected areas is not in question [who's he been speaking to? ], the science doesn't always back the claim.
"If fisheries are a key threat to biodiversity then we need to address the problem head-on through good fisheries management. Marine protected areas might not be the best option and could even lead to a network of pristine areas in a sea of degraded habitat", he said.
Seems those arguments we've been repeating ad nauseum might finally be finding some acceptance in more 'reputable' circles. Here's hoping someone sits up and takes notice.
Tight lines all.
Qwyj.