Loss Of Protections For Marine Sanctuaries Could Threaten Oceanic Environment And Fisheries, Stanford Experts Say

2017-11-17T10:19:05+00:00 November 17, 2017|
(Click to enlarge). Stanford biology graduate student Tim White and and Kosta Stamoulis of the University of Hawaii track a gray reef shark within the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument. (Photo credit: Palmyra Atoll Research Consortium)

(Click to enlarge). Stanford biology graduate student Tim White and and Kosta Stamoulis of the University of Hawaii track a gray reef shark within the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument. (Photo credit: Palmyra Atoll Research Consortium)

The Trump administration is considering rolling back federal protections for a number of national monuments. While most are on land and relatively accessible, three are deep below the ocean’s surface and many miles from the mainland: the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument and the Rose Atoll Marine National Monument, both in the central Pacific Ocean, and the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument off the coast of New England. While most people will never explore the canyons and reefs of these watery realms, their value is hard to overestimate, according to Stanford scientists with years of experience exploring and studying these and adjacent areas.

(From Stanford News / by Rob Jordan) — The Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment spoke with marine experts Rob DunbarFiorenza MicheliStephen Palumbi and Tim White about potential impacts from a loss of protections, including the resumption of commercial fishing in currently off-limits areas.

Why are protected ocean areas such as these so important?

Micheli: These are the only protected areas that are large enough to effectively protect highly mobile species, including sharks and seabirds. Within protected areas, fish and invertebrates can also attain large size. These large animals are ecologically important, but also support fisheries productivity and value through their high reproductive output and replenishment of fishing grounds, and their high value when they leave the protected areas and are caught.

Dunbar: These areas are home to large and very long-lived animals such as deep-sea corals and sponges. They provide habitat space for all kinds of smaller and mobile animals like fish and seem to be important nursery grounds for a number of key fish species. The shallow water areas are often important coral reef ecosystems that provide space and complexity that all other reef organisms depend on.

What short- and long-term impacts would the resumption of commercial fishing have on these areas?

Dunbar: If a trawl fisherman runs a net along the bottom, the destruction can be near total. Ecosystems may not return to a pre-disturbance state for many thousands of years. Fish recruitment declines, and the fisherman has killed the goose that lays golden eggs. It’s short-term gain and long-term disaster.

Palumbi: A major problem is the bycatch of species such as sharks, turtles and birds that fishermen do not want and cannot sell – sharks especially.

White: It’s not just fishing. If marine monuments are axed we could also see oil drilling and deep-sea mining happening just a 20-minute boat ride away from our nation’s healthiest coral reefs. This totally contradicts a bipartisan conservation legacy in the central Pacific: President George W. Bush created the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument in 2009 and President Obama expanded this protection in 2014.

Read the full story here: https://news.stanford.edu/2017/11/09/ocean-sanctuaries-face-possible-loss-protection/