Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) are marine environments reserved to protect natural resources. Over 1,600 MPAs are located within the boundaries of the United States across a wide range of habitats. Management strategies for MPAs are not consistent and sometimes result in “no fishing zones” which are harmful to the recreational angling community. Due to their inconsistent nature and the availability of alternative management tools, restrictive MPAs should be a last resort for resource protection.
Some people interpret MPAs to mean areas closed to all human activities. Others interpret them as special areas set aside for cultural or natural resource purposes. In reality, “marine protected area” is a term that encompasses a variety of conservation and management methods in the United States.
The official federal definition of a “marine protected area” or MPA is: “any area of the marine environment that has been reserved by federal, state, tribal, territorial, or local laws or regulations to provide lasting protection for part or all of the natural and cultural resources therein,” as stated in Executive Order 13158 (May 2000).
In practice, MPAs are defined areas where natural and/or cultural resources are given greater protection than the surrounding waters. In the U.S., MPAs span a range of habitats including the open ocean, coastal areas, inter-tidal zones, estuaries and the Great Lakes. They also vary widely in purpose, legal authority, management approach, level of protection and restrictions on human uses.
An MPA is not necessarily a “no fishing zone,” though the two terms are often erroneously used as though they were interchangeable. For example, in an MPA commercial activities may be restricted, while sportfishing, boating and other forms of recreation are permitted. Some environmental groups are calling for highly restrictive MPAs where recreational activities are excluded such as “ocean wilderness areas” and marine reserves.
MPAs should be implemented only where they can be an effective management tool and should allow recreational fishing and boating access unless sound scientific evidence proves it is necessary for resource protection. In cases where recreational angling is restricted or closed, the areas should be reopened once fishery management goals are achieved.
Economic Impact of Angling
The American System of Conservation Funding funds fisheries (and wildlife) management through fishing license sales and excise taxes on fishing equipment and motorboat fuel. License sales in 2013 amounted to $638 million, while the excise taxes collected on the sale of fishing gear, boats and boat fuel added another $360 million in support of conservation efforts carried out in each state. It’s a model that virtually powers itself.
This important System must be protected to ensure the funding for fisheries conservation is maintained. The very success of this sport depends on angler participation and interest – the opportunity to go fishing. Closing areas to angling hurts both the local and national economies and limits funds available for fisheries management.
Recreational use of our public waters is compatible with – and in fact is essential to – sound conservation and natural resource stewardship, as is highlighted by contributions made to such successful conservation programs as the Sport Fish Restoration and Boating Trust Fund. Since 1950, recreational anglers and boaters have, through this unique user tax on motorboat fuel, fishing tackle, and other sportfishing equipment, generated nearly $8 billion in funding for fishery conservation and enhancement, habitat restoration, clean water programs, and boating safety programs.
The billions of dollars generated from the “user-pays, public-benefits” system is used to conserve our aquatic ecosystems. Because angling provides conservation funding, significant social and economic benefits, and is structured to support the sustainable management of resources with regulations already in place to prevent overuse, these activities warrant special consideration as priority uses of our nation’s waters. For this reason, recreational users of our nation’s waters should have the presumption of access unless otherwise restricted based on sound scientific data
On September 25, 2014, President Obama established the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument “for the care and management of the historic and scientific objects therein.” According the proclamation the Secretaries of the Interior and Commerce are responsible for the management of sustainable recreational fishing.
Leading up to the proclamation CSF and members of the recreational angling community met with White House staff to discuss what ramifications the expanded MPA might have for recreational angling and emphasized that any potential restrictions must be scientifically based. As a follow up to that meeting, the angling community sent a letter to the White House Council on Environmental Quality, the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA’s Undersecretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere, restating the importance of maintaining recreational angling access in the expanded MPA in the absence of any science-based justification for doing otherwise.
Share this page
Your opinion counts
Who do you think should have management authority over coastal fisheries out to 200-nautical miles?Vote Here
- The federal government (16.67%)
- The states that comprise the coastal areas that make up specific fisheries should co-manage the resource (58.33%)
- Maintain status quo of mixed state and federal management, depending on distance from shore (25.00%)