Posted by msblucow on October 29, 2002 at 07:36:57:
In Reply to: finfan, you'd be shocked about how much we agree about.... posted by msblucow on October 28, 2002 at 23:13:37:
You wrote: "You like Bradley keep throwing out reserves in warm waters like Florida and Austrailia. What makes you think for one minute shallow water, cold water, rockfish which by their very nature are not pelegic will migrate and re-populate all over."
I also mentioned New Zealand, a country that has an ocean ecosystem nearly identical to ours - temperate waters, kelp forests, rocky rather than coral reefs, resident fish populations, etc.... They've had a number of marine protected areas in effect for a generation now and I can tell you from personal experience the abundance of marine life in those sanctuaries are breath-taking. So yes, I do believe their experience is applicable to us.
In addition, your argument about warm water vs. cold and pelagic vs. resident shallow water fish makes no sense. Most of the marine protected areas in warm-water locations like Florida and Australia are shallow coral reefs with non-migratory, non pelagic species.
Maybe you just don't understand how protecting a percentage of the near shore fisheries is supposed to work. The idea is simply that these areas will act as nurseries. The fish in these areas will have a chance to mature, grow bigger than F&G size limits and begin to reproduce at a greater rate. The increasing population will begin to migrate out into the surrounding areas (and no, the fish don't have to be pelagic to do this - pelagic fish by their very nature do not primarily live in the nearshore waters anyway). How do you think rockfish reproduce and claim new habitat anyway? Why do you think they inhabit so many areas of the California coast? Because they reproduce and migrate as fry. All the Marina protected areas do is set aside some places so that nature can take it's course by letting the resident fish grow big enough to be more effective breeders.