|
November 14, 2002 Not long ago the California Fish and Game Commission permanently banned fishing from 175 square miles of ocean around the Channel Islands off Santa Barbara, creating one of the largest fully protected marine reserves in United States waters. Though the announcement received little notice outside California, it signaled an important step forward in the uncertain campaign to arrest the decline of commercial fish populations here and abroad. Marine biologists are increasingly coming to believe that short of taking boats out of the water — a step that may in time become necessary — the only way to rebuild fish stocks and guarantee food for a growing global population is to create "no take" zones to give fish a chance to reproduce. California's decision gives that idea a big boost. The next step would be for President Bush, who has been largely indifferent to marine issues, to expand the network of reserves into adjoining federal waters, which begin three miles out to sea. The combined state and federal system would then cover 426 square miles. That would be the largest marine reserve in the continental United States. It would do wonders for California's once-abundant coastal species, including Pacific red snapper and abalone. It would also give high-level credibility to the sanctuary strategy just when the world's fish populations need all the help they can get. The recent numbers are disturbing. Perhaps two-thirds of the world's fish populations are being harvested at or beyond sustainable levels. Some are actually declining and a few have crashed altogether. This is true not only in third-world countries that depend on fish for protein but in wealthier nations as well. The collapse of the cod fisheries of Canada and New England has been well documented. A similar implosion now seems possible in the North Sea, whose codfish have long been a dietary staple in Britain and much of Scandinavia. There are many reasons for this — pollution, for one, as well as the loss of wetlands that nurture early marine life. But by far the biggest factor is overfishing, especially by large and often heavily subsidized industrial fleets. It follows that the only sure path to revival is a deliberate reduction in commercial fishing, including the creation of sanctuaries like the one in California. Commercial fishermen, of course, don't much like the idea of no-take zones, despite the fact that their future may depend upon them. Recent studies of three smaller reserves — one near Cape Canaveral, another in the Caribbean and a third off the Florida Keys — show that they boost fish populations quickly and dramatically, not only within the zones but in adjoining waters as well. The key to extending these protections and taking other steps to protect the fish is political will. As a rule, governments tend to listen to the commercial fishermen, even when they're pressing for action that is against their own long-term interests. Recently, for example, scientists declared that a campaign to reduce commercial catches of swordfish had produced a dramatic increase in swordfish numbers. But within days of this happy news, the international commission that governs swordfish catches in the Atlantic authorized a 40 percent increase in the annual swordfish quota — an irresponsible and deeply demoralizing decision that could stall a promising but still incomplete recovery. The crisis in the world's fisheries will not be solved without active government help. By endorsing and extending California's action, Mr. Bush could not only do the right thing but also set an enlightened example for the rest of the world. |