|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
 |
Conservationists and Fishers Face Off Over Hawaii’s Marine Riches July 19th , 2007 | SCIENCE | By: Christopher Pala See PDF HANAUMA BAY, HAWAII—The school of bigeye jacks was right where Alan Friedlander of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s biogeography branch said it would be, circling slowly at the mouth of Hanauma Bay, a protected area just 15 kilometers from the skyscrapers of downtown Honolulu. There must have been close to 200 fish, each about 50 centimeters long and utterly unafraid as Friedlander, a marine biologist, glided through them. “You hardly ever see this anymore in Hawaii,” Friedlander said after surfacing. Jacks are prized by anglers, and such large schools have become rare in inhabited parts of the archipelago, he says. Friedlander knows the bay better than most. He published a study in the April issue of Ecological Applications showing that total fish biomass in Hanauma and 11 other protected areas was 2.7 times greater than the biomass in comparable unprotected areas. And in the uninhabited 2000-kilometerlong Northwestern Hawaiian Islands chain, a national monument since 2006, there is 6.7 times more fish biomass on average than in comparable habitats—an indication that humans have reduced fish stocks in the main Hawaiian islands to about 15% of what they once were. To Friedlander, the message is simple: The main Hawaiian Islands’ reserves, which protect only 0.3% of the coastline, are too small. “If you want to rebuild fish stocks, you need to stop fishing in at least 20% of Hawaii’s waters and regulate fishing in the rest,” Friedlander says. Increasing the protected areas, therefore, would result in a larger fish catch. The appeal for new conservation areas prompted a reaction. In March, the state’s House of Representatives approved a “rightto- fish” bill that would require the state to provide unattainable data, such as stock assessments throughout species’ entire ranges, before any new protected area is created. The bill “would tie up all fishing regulations, not just marine reserves, in endless studies and red tape, making it impossible for the state to properly manage the public’s marine assets,” says William Chandler, director of ocean policy at the Marine Conservation Biology Institute in Bellevue, Washington. To his relief, Hawaii’s Senate significantly modified the bill. But scientists and state officials expect the fight to continue in the next legislative session, which starts in January. Although similar right-to-fish bills have been approved in Rhode Island and Maryland, they have not impeded the creation of protected areas in those states, says Sarah Clark Stuart of the Coastal Ocean Coalition in Atlantic Highlands, New Jersey. Because the Hawaii legislation would effectively end all fishing restrictions, she says it “is far more anticonservation than any of the other bills that were introduced in the U.S.” Hawaii’s right-to-fish bill got further than a conservation bill in the House. In 2003, Friedlander helped draft legislation that would have set aside 20% of state waters for conservation. Like other states, Hawaii controls the first 3 nautical miles (6 kilometers) off its coasts, and the federal government controls the rest, up to 200 miles (370 kilometers). The Marine Reserve Network Act would have made Hawaii the leader in marine conservation in the United States, where less than 1% of coastal waters are protected. But the bill drew the ire of Hawaii’s fishing lobby and was scuttled. The loss, conservationists say, is a cautionary tale of how science sometimes is no match for a powerful bureaucracy tied to fishing interests. As Hawaii’s tourism grew, and cost of living skyrocketed—the state has the nation’s highest average rents—fishing became an important supplement for poorer residents. The use of gillnets, which snare turtles, seals, and nonfood fish in addition to target species, is widespread. Trolling, shore casting, and spearfishing are unregulated, and the state’s estimated 260,000 anglers are not licensed. Only this year were restrictions put on gillnets, including a ban on their use on Maui Island and overnight elsewhere. Opponents of the Marine Reserve Network Act gained momemtum earlier this year in a series of meetings designed to increase input from native Hawaiian communities. The meetings were organized by the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council (Wespac), one of eight such regional councils that advise the U.S. Commerce Department. Wespac’s chair is Sean Martin, president of the Hawaii Longliners Association. State officials and environmentalists have long accused Wespac of defending narrow fishing industry interests. Wespac’s influence is supposed to be limited to federal waters, but activists and state officials contend that the organization lobbied illegally for the right-to-fish bill. “Numerous times during the process that produced the bill, I saw Wespac employees openly talking to legislators about it,” asserts Keiko Bonk of the Northwest Hawaiian Islands Network, which campaigns for marine conservation. The billpassed the House, but a Senate draft now awaiting action would encourage community- led protection efforts. In May, Bonk filed a complaint with the Commerce Department’s Inspector General, claiming that Wespac had violated statutes that prohibit federal employees from lobbying state legislatures. Bonk called for an investigation and congressional hearings. Wespac denies it engaged in lobbying. The right-to-fish bill “has nothing to do with us,” says Paul Dalzell, Wespac’s senior scientist, adding, “All I know is that it was drafted by fishermen.” “The scary thing is that the bill could pass next year,” says Peter Young, who recently completed a term as director of Hawaii’s Department of Land and Natural Resources, which manages the state’s waters. “If it passes,” adds William Aila, an active Hawaiian fisher and harbormaster, “it’s going to further deplete our marine resources. That’s unacceptable for our future generations.” –CHRISTOPHER PALA
See PDF Source: Science
|
|