American Fisheries Society Symposium 42:185-193,2004@ 2004 by the American Fisheries Society

Why Have No-Take Marine Protected Areas?

JAMES A. BOHNSACKlSoutheast Fisheries Science Centel; NOAA Fisheries,75 Virginia Beach Drive, Miami, Florida 33149, USA

JERALD S. AULTUniversity of Miami, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science,

Division of Marine Biology and Fisheries, 4600 Rickenbacker Causeway, Miami, Florida 33149, USA

BILLY CAUSEY

Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary,Post Office Box 500368, Marathon, Florida 33050, USA

Abstract.-Although the title of this symposium implied a focus on fully protected marineareas, most presentations actually dealt with a range of traditional "marine protected areas"or "marine managed areas" that offer less than "full" resource protection. Some presentationsnoted a backlash against establishing no-take reserves. Here we provide 17 reasons whythere is a strong scientific, management, and public interest in using no-take marine reservesto build sustainable fisheries and protect marine ecosystems. We also discuss some underlyingtechnical and philosophical issues involved in the opposition to their usage.

Introduction ing and other extractive uses with limited exceptionsfor research and education by permit (Ballantine 1997).Because of the many different terms that have beenused to describe marine reserves, the terminology isoften confusing to both scientists and the public. Com-mon term~ used to describe marine reserves includeno-take areas, nonconsumptive areas, fishery reserves(PDT 1990), marine ecological reserves, sanctuarypreservation areas (USDOC 1996), research naturalareas (Brock and Culhane 2004, this volume), fullyprotected areas (Roberts and Hawkins 2000), and sanc-tuary, outside the USA.

Closing areas to fishing has long been widelypracticed in fishery management in historical andmodem times to protect critical habitat, restore depletedspecies, and protect vulnerable stocks at spawningaggregation sites (e.g., Beverton and Holt 1957). Mostclosures, however, have been either seasonal, appliedonly to specific species, or have been limited to re-strict certain destructive or wasteful fishing methods.Rarely have areas been permanently closed to all typesof fishing. Modem fisheries interest in marine reservesbegan in the 1980s as a way to both protect marineecosystem biodiversity and build sustainable fisheries(PDT 1990; Bohnsack 1996; Bohnsack and Ault

Marine protected areas are used increasingly to man-age marine resources, but they often mean differentthings to different people, based primarily on the levelof protection they provide. The World ConservationUnion defined marine protected areas (MPAs) as "anyarea of the intertidal or subtidal terrain, together withits overlying water and associated flora, fauna, his-torical and cultural features, which has been reservedby law or other effective means to protect part or allof the enclosed environment" (IUCN 1994; Kelleher1999). In the USA, Presidential Executive Order13158 provided a similar definition: "any area of themarine environment that has been reserved by Fed-eral, State, territorial, tribal or local laws or regula-tions to provide lasting protection for part or all of thenatural and cultural resources therein." Under thesebroad definitions, a wide variety of sites could be con-sidered as MPAs.

We focus on "marine reserves," here defined asmarine protected areas permanently closed to all fish-

186

BOHNSACKET AL.

fishing "rights" of recreational anglers as expressedin the proposed Freedom to Fish Act (Lydecker 2004,this volume).

Here, we present reasons why there is a highdegree of scientific, management, and public interestin using permanent no-take protection compared tousing "multiple-use" zoning or other traditional fish-ery management measures. Our intent is to clarify theissues in the continuing debate on appropriate use ofmarine reserves and spatial management in marine fish-ery and conservation management.

1996). This interest has accelerated after failures oftraditional fishery effort and size control measures tosupport sustainable fisheries and prevent collapses offisheries and coastal ecosystems (Ludwig et al. 1993;Russ 1996; Botsford et a1. 1997; Jackson 1997;Guenette et al. 1998; Pauly et al. 1998,2002; Jacksonet al. 2001; Christensen et al. 2003; Myers and Worm2003; Rosenberg 2003).

Marine reserve implementation remains a rareand controversial measure despite support from nu-merous theoretical and empirical studies (Johnson eta1. 1999; Murray et al. 1999; Fogarty et al. 2000;Roberts et a1. 2001; Halpern and Warner 2002;Halpern 2003) and reviews that call for their ex-panded application in resource management (PDT1990; NRC 1999,2001; Roberts and Hawkins 2000;Ward et al. 2001; Pew Oceans Commission 2003;Pauly 2004, this volume). In response to the rare useof marine reserves, 161 academic scientists took theunusual step of issuing a signed consensus statementsupporting the specific use of no-take marine reservesat the 2001 annual meeting of the American Asso-ciation of Science (NCEAS 2001). Widespread con-cerns over marine resource protection in the USAresulted in Presidential Executive Order 13158,which seeks to inventory and assess existing MPAs(U.S. Office of the Federal Register 2000), and theadoption of a goal to protect 20% of U.S. coral reefswith marine reserves by 2010 by the U.S. Coral ReefTask Force (USCRTF 2000). The two largest U.S.marine reserve networks were established only re-cently in Florida and California. Two ecological re-serves covering 280 km2 (151 nautical mi2) in theTortugas region of the Florida Keys National Ma-rine Sanctuary were established in 2001 (USDOC2000).

A contiguous 87-km2 (47-nautical-mi2) no-take research natural area was also approved for DryTortugas National Park but has not yet been imple-mented (Brock and Culhane 2004, this volume).Most recently, 10 reserves covering 244.5 km2 (132nautical mi2) in the Channel Islands, California, wereestablished in 2002 (McArdle et al. 2003).

Application of marine reserves has been con-troversial and has generated a backlash at times bythose who favor continued use of other traditional fish-ery management actions (Shipp 2003) or multiple-useMPAs with only limited restrictions (Agardy et al.2003; Clark 2003). Some concerns are that marinereserves may not be effective for biological (Carr andReed 1993) or other reasons (Jameson et al. 2002);could be counter productive to conservation for so-cial reasons (Agardy et al. 2003); and could threaten

Results

PefDlanent, no-take marine reserves have certainunique qualities with potential benefits that are notnecessarily provided by other types of marine pro-tected or managed areas. Below we describe 17 uniqueattributes of marine reserves roughly organized intocategories under fundamental, scientific, and manage-ment considerations.

Fundamental Considerations

(1) High Level of Ecosystem ProtectionFishing is a known major threat to marine popula-tions and ecosystems (Dayton et al. 1995; Pauly et al.1998,2002,2003). By removing fishing, no-take re-serves potentially provide a high level of resource pro-tection by eliminating threats from directed take oftargeted organisms, bycatch mortality of nontargetorganisms, and habitat damage from fishing activi-ties.1n an endless gradation between totally open andcompletely closed, marine reserves provide a high levelof protection but not total protection. They do not, for

example, directly protect against regional pollution,climate change, natural disturbance, or human disas-ters (Jameson et al. 2002). Other provisions can beadded that provide higher levels of resource protec-tion, such as prohibiting touching, diving, research,or even human entry, but with potential social andeconomic costs in terms of reduced benefits fromnonextractive activities.

(2) Potential Ecological IntegrityBecause no-take marine reserves protect all species,habitats and populations impacted by previous fish-ing

can eventually recover and restore ecological in-tegrity to reflect "natural" ecosystem structure andfunction.

Permanent protection allows ecological in-tegrity to ultimately persist in reserves.

WHY HA VB No- T AKE MARINE PROI'ECI'ED AREAs ? 187

(3) Precautionary ApproachThe precautionary approach can be stated simply:when in doubt, be cautious. In practice, if you don'thave a complete understanding about the function-ing and dynamics of natural systems or their man-agement, then some resources should be withheldfrom exploitation until a complete understanding isobtained (Bohnsack 1999a). Lauck et al. (1998)demonstrated how marine reserves can mitigate theeffects of uncertainty associated with fishery ex-

ploitation.

(7) Enhanced Nonextractive Human UsesBy separating incompatible activities and protectingsome areas from fishing and depletion, no-take reservescan support nonextractive uses that have ecological,social, genetic, economic, educational, scientific, rec-reational, aesthetic, spiritual, and wilderness impor-tance (Bohnsack 1998). They can diversify theeconomy by providing new social and economic op-portunities. This is especially important for activitiesthat require high resource quality. Otherwise, onlythose activities that depend on depleted or low qualityresources can persist.

(8) Better Resource ProtectionUnlike many other measures, there are no legal waysto avoid or circumvent the no-take provision whichoffers the possibility of better overall resource protec-tion than do other measures. Trip limits and bag limitsfor a recreational fishery, for example, are popularconservation measures, but their effectiveness can becircumvented by making more fishing trips. Similarly,the effectiveness of gear restrictions and minimum sizelimits can be negated by increased fishing effort. Ma-rine reserves also offer better resource protection be-cause they buffer against changes in total effort or fish-ing practices in surrounding areas.

Scientific Considerations

(9) Objective CriterionThe no-extraction criterion prohibiting any activity thatintentionally removes organisms or habitat is objec-tive and easy to determine as compared to many othercriteria that are subjective or difficult to define. Al-lowing "limited extraction" in a multiple-use MPA,for example, is problematic because there is no cleardefinition of what "limited" means. Accurately deter-mining a level of extraction that is "not hannful" to apopulation or an ecosystem is difficult and mostlyunknown. Also, monitoring or controlling the amountof take is not practical in most cases.

(4) Shifted Burden of ProofCompared to other types of managed areas, marinereserves shift the burden of proof from proving thatfishing causes an adverse impact to proving that it doesnot (Dayton 1998). The result is that, in reserves,management focus shifts from a risk -prone approach,in which actions are taken only after resource impactsare demonstrated, to a more risk-averse approach, inwhich resources are protected until it can be demon-strated that an activity is not harmful.

(5) Existence and Future ValueMarine reserves help protect existence value for peoplewho do not directly use resources and for future gen-erations. Aldo Leopold (1949) noted that we cannotprevent the alteration, management, and use of re-sources, but we need to affirm their right to continuedexistence, and in some places, their continued exist-ence in a natural state. His biotic ethic requires humanobligation, responsibility, and self-sacrifice to preserveecosystems for present and future generations. Thismantra needs to be adopted for effective managementof marine ecosystems.

(6) I~reased Public Understanding and AppreciationMarine reserves provide opportunities for quality for-mal education at the primary, secondary, and gradu-ate levels. With public access, they also provide betterpublic understanding and appreciation of marine eco-systems and marine reserves and the importance ofeffective resource management. Pauly (1995) de-scribed the shifting baseline problem in which eachgeneration develops lower expectations about naturalresources based on its own direct experience withdepleted resources. Marine reserves with public ac-cess offer an opportunity to reverse this trend by re-storing areas with more natural and healthy ecosys-tems. They also provide citizens an opportunity to di-rectly observe the effectiveness of resource manage-ment and understand its importance by comparing re-serves to surrounding areas.

(10) SimplicityCompared to other criteria, it is easy to determinewhether an activity is extractive or not and fundamen-tally simpler to explain than why some users are al-lowed to remove resources and not others. Note,nonextractive, is not the same as, nor should it be con-fused with, nonconsumptive. Nonextractive recre-ational diving, for example, could be considered con-sumptive as the result of repeated contact and damageto the benthos. Allowing diving and other

188 BOHNSACK ET AL.

nonextractive uses within marine reserves assumes thattheir impacts are either controllable or have much lesssignificant impact than fishing. If not, additional protec-tive measures may be necessary to confine, reduce,eliminate, or mitigate those nonextractive impacts. Inthe Florida Keys, for example, divers are also prohib-ited from touching coral as an added protection. Onesuggestion is to call these "kapu zones," after the Ha-waiian word "kapu" (meaning "do not touch" or "for-bidden"; Bohnsack 2000a). Kapu was historicallyused in Hawaii to protect marine areas.

Management Considerations

(14) Public Acceptance .Although large land areas in the United States havebeen protected from hunting and other extraction forwell over a century, few aquatic areas have receivedsimilar protection. This fact that protected areas arewidely used and accepted on land suggests that simi-lar protections could be applied and accepted in thesea. The fact that they have not yet been widely ap-plied in the ocean can be attributed in part to a histori-callack of understanding and awareness of marineecosystems, mistaken beliefs that marine resources areunlimited and impervious to human impacts, and whatsome consider inalienable rights to fish anywhere.

When high levels of protection are necessary,marine reserves may cause less social and economicdisruption and receive better public acceptance thanother measures thatprovide a similar level of resourceprotection (unless the closed area happens to be a pre-dominantly favorite fishing area). Marine reserves, forexample, become an attractive alternative when com-pared to closing down a fishery entirely or severelyreducing bag limits, increasing minimum size limits,and restricting the number of participants. Potentially,reserves could allow more people to participate in afishery than would otherwise be possible because to-tal fishing mortality is less if some areas are highlyprotected (Bohnsack 2000b).

(15) Simplified EnforcementAs a management tool, reserves can potentially sim-plify enforcement by making violations easier to de-tect. Since the act of fishing is a violation, it is notnecessary to obtain, identify, or measure catch. Viola-tions can be detected by surface, aerial, or satellitesurveillance, using a variety of technology and vesselmonitoring systems. Because permanent no-take pro-visions apply to all species, there may be less publicconfusion and better compliance than if different closedareas were established for individual species in mul-tiple-species fisheries. Establishing different seasonsor closed areas with overlapping or conflicting bound-aries for each species could be much more confusingand impractical.

The legal authority to close significant areas tofishing and technological means to monitor compli-ance and ensure enforcement have advanced in re-cent decades. The legal authority changed with thewidespread expansion of national exclusive economiczones in 1977 (Bohnsack 1996). Technological ad-vances in navigation, surveillance, and vessel track-ing, as well as a new emphasis on homeland security,

(11) Control SitesOne of the most important tools in science is the ex-perimental control, in which the influence of a vari-able is either controlled for or eliminated. By elimi-nating fishing, marine reserves provide control sitesto objectively evaluate the effects of extractive im-pacts on marine ecosystems. They also provide a com-parative basis for assessing the effectiveness of vari-ous fishery management measures in surrounding ar-eas. Without control sites, it is almost impossible toscientifically address larger questions about how muchresource can be removed from a marine ecosystemand still maintain the biological productivity, persis-tence, and ecological integrity.

(12) Distinguish between Natural andAnthropogenicDisturbanceScientists and managers often need to distinguish be-tween changes caused by natural versus anthropogenicevents. Without marine reserves, environmental sig-nals can become hopelessly confounded with fishingimpacts. Observed higher abundance of exploited spe-cies in no-take reserves compared to similar habitatsin surrounding areas, for example, indicates that fish-ing is the primary factor influencing the observed dif-ferences and has more impact on those species thanother anthropogenic forcing factors such as regionalpollution. In contrast, data showing no differencesbetween reserves and surrounding areas may indicatethat regional factors (either natural or anthropogenic)are more important influences on populations.

( 13) Increased Scientific Knowledge and Under-standingMarine reserves can facilitate the elucidation of natu-ral processes and enhance scientific knowledge andunderstanding of marine ecosystems by providingcomparative areas with minimal human disturbances.Certain scientific experiments and observations involv-ing biodiversity, behavior, and ecosystem processescan only be conducted in reserves.

WHY HA VB No-TAKE MARINE PROI'ECI'ED AREAs? 189

make monitoring and enforcement of marine reservesmore practical.

(16) Direct Fishery BenefitsMarine reserves potentially can provide many directfishery benefits (Bohnsack 1998). The five most im-portant benefits follow. Reserves can reduce thechances of overfishing by providing refuges frompopulation exploitation. Compared to having all ar-eas exploited under one set of regulations, reservespotentially can provide greater fishery yields in thelong-term by having a larger and more dependablesupply of eggs and larvae dispersed to fishing grounds.Reserves can also potentially increase yield fromspillover, where animal emigration exports biomassfrom reserves through to surrounding fishing grounds(PDT 1990; Roberts et al. 2001). Reserves also canprovide insurance to sustainable stocks by potentiallyaccelerating stock recovery following natural distur-bance, human accidents, management errors, or yearsof poor stock-recruitment (PDT 1990). Finally, theymay be the only measure that can effectively preservestock genetic structure from detrimental effects of se-lective fishing practices (Conover and Munch 2002).

(17) 1ndirect Fishery BenefitsFishery stock assessment and management modelsdepend on obtaining accurate estimates of critical popu-lation parameters of growth, natural mortality, and fe-cundity. If all areas are subjected to fishing, measur-ing these parameters and gaining an essential under-standing of trophic and habitat relationships, recruit-ment variations, behavior, and population response toenvironmental variability are difficult, if not impos-sible, to obtain. Marine reserves can potentially ben-efit fisheries indirectly by allowing some critical popu-lation dynamic and fishery parameters to be estimatedindependent of fishery influences with a rigorous sam-pling design (Ault et al. 2002).

be examined using marine reserves. From a manage-ment perspective, marine reserves are attractive be-cause they potentially provide a win-win conserva-tion alternative that offers a high level of ecosystemprotection while providing fishery benefits and en-hancing and diversifying nonextractive human uses.

Much, however, remains to be learned becausethe science of marine reserves is new and most exist-ing reserves are rare, small, recently established, lim-

"ited to few habitats, or cover only very small porti9nsof the total managed area (Pauly 2004, this volume).Because they are rare, more need to be implementedif they are to provide anything more than a token rolein protecting marine biodiversity. Because marine re-serves are rare and recently established, few scientificstudies exist (Halpern and Warner 2002; Halpern2003), leaving many questions and uncertainty con-cerning their application to biodiversity and fisheryprotection. More research is needed to address ques-tions concerning individual reserve size, total num-ber, location, total area, and habitats that need to beincluded to be truly effective. In addition, more repli-cated research is needed, especially at larger and moreecologically relevant spatial and temporal scales, toaddress questions of costs and benefits, effectiveness,and necessary design features for reserve networks.Many questions remain unresolved concerning socialand ecological impacts of fishing displacement, ap-plications to highly migratory species, and social ac-ceptance, compliance, and enforcement. Thus, con-siderable scientific interest exists in establishing re-serves in di,fferent regions and habitats and under dif-ferent biological, oceanographic, and physical envi-ronments as well as in different social and economicenvironments.

Even though they prohibit fishing, marine re-serves do not conflict with "multiple-use MPAs" be-cause they create or enhance many kinds of activitieswithin and outside their boundaries that conflict withfishing. When embedded in larger MPAs such as theFlorida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, for example,they also support multiple human uses by separatingincompatible activities and increasing total resourceprotection. A belief that fishing and other human ac-tivities can be practiced simultaneously in all areaswithout conflict is becoming far less realistic consid-ering growing human population demands and theintensity of resource usage. Likewise, allowing allareas to be exploited with "limited restrictions" de-mands a high level of knowledge and human controlthat at present is essentially nonexistent.

Discussion and Conclusions

The main priority of pennanent no-take marine re-serves is to protect biodiversity: ecological structureand function at the genetic, species, community, sea-scape, and ecosystems levels (NRC 2001). Their usehas generated considerable scientific, management, andpublic interest because the no-extraction provision issimple and objective and offers a high level of resourceprotection that can potentially restore and maintainecological integrity in areas with minimum humandisturbance. Many scientific questions can best or only

190 BOHNSACK ET AL.

Despite offering many potential benefits, marinereserves have generated considerable opposition(Norse et al. 2003; Shipp 2003). Most opposition hasfocused on technical issues about the applicability ofreserves to different species and habitats, proof of fish-ery benefits, and the quantifying of design features(number, size, location, spacing, boundary configu-rations, and total area covered) for individual reservesand networks (Carr and Reed 1993; Botsford et al.2001). Other issues involve enforcement, impacts ofdisplacing fishing on people and resources outside ofreserves (Bohnsack 2000b), and how to incorporatereserves into comprehensive management programs(Jameson et al. 2002). Some opposition simply re-flects resistence to changing the status quo because itcreates winners and losers. Fishers, who effectivelyhave had historical access to the entire ocean, can beexpected to aggressively oppose any changes that re-strict that access (Lydecker 2004, this volume). Al-though this is not a scientific issue, such shifts arecommon and routinely handled by political and gov-ernment institutions.

Philosophical opposition has received less atten-tion but ultimately may be more important than thetechnical issues. While much attention has focusedon economic costs and benefits, for example, rela-tively little attention has been paid to conflicts causedby wide differences in conservation ethics (Callicott1992; Bohnsack 2003). As Leopold (1949) recog-nized, economics is not an ethic, and basing manage-ment decisions solely on economic self-interest isunwise. Inevitably, it leads to failure because elementswithout economic value eventually will be eliminatedto the detriment of the economic parts. Leopold's bi-otic ethic led to a shift in management emphasis from"sustained production of resources or commodities,to a recognition that true sustained yield requires pres-ervation of the health of the entire system" (Leopold1949). Much of the current controversy over marinereserves appears to be a result of philosophical fail-ures to recognize that people are part of marine eco-systems, that limits to human usage exist, and thathuman well-being is dependent on maintaining eco-system health. Protecting marine biodiversity andmaintaining sustainable fisheries are not mutually ex-clusive problems.

A key philosophical issue involves human domi-nance. Can marine ecosystems be manipulated andcontrolled at will and, if so, should all areas be ex-ploited? Marine reserve application is based, in part,on a simple premise that if protected from human in-terference, nature has evolved to take care of itself.

This premise conflicts with the top-down "commandand control" engineering approaches that attempt tocontrol complex human and ecological systems(Holling and Meffe 1996). This human control viewis reflected in concerns that some resources may beunderutilized in terms of total yield and, therefore,wasted by using marine reserves. An extreme exampleof this thinking is the position that marine reserves arenot "management" tools because they do not involveactive human manipulation.

Another issue is the philosophical dichotomy be-tween fisheries and ecosystem management perspec-tives. In fisheries, marine reserves are usually consid-ered a "tool" to be used independently of other fisherymanagement options (Norse et al. 2003; Shipp 2003)and not as part of an integrated management system(Norse et al. 2003). The assumption is that fisheries areindependent of biodiversity and ecosystem manage-ment. In an ecosystem perspective, fishery productivityis directly derived from ecosystem biodiversity, and thetwo must be managed together. Thus, much of the con-flict between ecosystem and fishery management is anartifact of separating these two functions. We give threeexamples that elucidate this philosophical conflict: theamount of area needed for marine reserve networks,the displacement of fishing effort by marine reserves,and the current efforts to shift fisheries from single-spe-cies to ecosystem-based management.

First, considerable angst has been generated overquestions concerning how much area should be in-cluded in marine reserve networks. Proponents ofmarine reserves usage argue that substantial portionsof marine environments need reserve protection(Bohnsack et al. 2002; Pauly et al. 2003; Pew OceansCommission 2003), but they generate considerablecriticism when attempting to apply principals as guide-lines using area percentages (Agardy et al. 2003; Norseet al. 2003; Shipp 2003). The critics are correct in thatno one percentage will apply to all ecosystems or ar-eas. However, the same critics ignore the fact that thereis a need for a minimum percentage and that no bio-logical, social, or economic theory exists showing thatall areas should be exploited. Thus, while there shouldbe agreement that fixed percentages of reserve areawill not apply to all marine ecosystems, there shouldalso be agreement that there is no support for zero as apercentage either. Ideally, adaptive managementshould be used to [me-tune protection to specific habi-tats and areas (Walters 1986; Murray et al. 1999).

Second, marine reserves are often criticized for notdirectly addressing human and environmental impactsof fishing effort displacement to areas outside reserve

WHY HA VB No-TAKE MARINE PROrECrED AREAs? 191

boundaries (Norse et al. 2003). This problem is not a ments. This research was partially supported by the

failure of marine reserves per se but a failure to include National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

marine reserves as part of comprehensive resource man- (NOAA) Coastal Ocean Program South Floiida Pro-

agementstrategies.Despiteclaimsbysomeopponents, gram Grant NA17RJ1226, the NOAA Caribbean

we know of no statements that marine reserves alone Reef Ecosystem Study Grant NA170P2919, the Na-

will solve all fishery problems. If overfishing is a prob- tional Park Service Cooperative Ecosystem Studies

lem, effort controls and other traditional fishery mea- Unit Grant H500000B494, the National Undersea

sures are also needed, including size limits, bag limits, Reserach Center, and the NOAA Coral Reef Program.

quotas, limited entry, closed seasons, gear restrictions,

and closed areas for specific fisheries (Bohnsack 2000b).If these other fishery measures are not effective, larger References

proportions of habitats may need to be closed. Relyingsolely on no-take protection, however, may reduce op- Agardy, T., P. Bridgewater,. M. P. Cro~by, J. Day, P. K.

tions and flexibility for optimizing social andeconornic Dayton, R. Kenchrngton, D. Laffoley, P.benefits (Murra et al. 1999). McConney, P. A. Murray, J. E. Parks, an,d L. Peau.

.y ..2003. Dangerous targets? Unresolved Issues and~d,.use of m.anne reser:ves represe~ts a philo- ideological clashes around marine protected ar-

sophical shift from sIngle-species and reactive fishery eas. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwa-

management to a more precautionary approach using ter Ecosystems 13:353-367.

proactive spatial and ecosystem-based management Ault, J. S., S. G. Smith, G. A. Meester, J. Luo, J. A.

(Bohnsack 1999b). Although many practical details Bohnsack, and S. L. Miller. 2002. Baseline

still need to be worked out to make this shift opera- multispecies coral reef fish st?ck assessment fortional, at the theoretical level it requires integrating Dry Tortugas. NOAA TechnIcal Memorandum

fi h d .d .NMFS-SEFSC-487. IS ery an ecosystem consl erations.Ballanti . W J 1997 " N take". t...ne, ...0- marIne reserve ne -

..In conclusIon, no-take marIne re~er:es ~e pnma- works support fisheries. Pages 702-706 in D. A.

nly mtended to protect ecosystem bIodiversIty. They Hancock, D. C. Smith, A. Grant, and J. P. Beumer,

offer qualitative and quantitative qualities that are more editors. Developing and sustaining world fisher-

than simply sequestering populations in no-take areas ies resources: the state and management, 2nd world

(Norse et al. 2003) or providing just another fishery fisheries congress proceedings. CSIRO Publish-

management tool (Norse et al. 2003). Fundamentally, ing, Collingwood, Australia.marine reserves use a simple, ecosystem-based, and Beverto~, R. J. H., ~d S. J. Holt. 1,957. O~ ~e dy-

..naInlCS of exploIted fish populations. MinIstry ofprecautionary approach to offer a high level of resource Agn .culture F.sh ' d F--.J F. h I ti.

..'. , 1 enes an uuu, IS ery nves -

protection that benefits present human actiVIties and gation,s Series II, volume XIX, London.

future generations. Marine reserves increase human Bohnsack, J. 2000a. Kapu zones. MPA News

knowledge, understanding, and appreciation of marine 1(5):5-6.

ecosystems and their management by offering a high Bohnsack, J. A. 1996. Maintenance and recovery of

and objective level of protection and a scientific basis fishery productivity. Pages 283-313 in N. V. C.for assessing human impacts and management effec- Polunin and C. M, Roberts, editors. Tropical reef

tiveness. Reserves potentially can simplify enforcement, fis~eries. Chapman and Hall, Fish and Fisheriesbe fi fi h . d all hi .d bli Senes 20, London.

ne t IS enes, an eventu y ac. eve WI ~ pu c Bohnsack, J. A. 1998. Application of marine reserves

acceptance. We suggest that advancmg the SCIence of to reef fisheries management. Australian Journal

resource management requires considering people a of Science 23:298-304.

fundamental part of marine ecosystems, shifting the Bohnsack, J. A. 1999a. Incorporating no-take ma-

focus of fishery management from resources as mere rine reserves into precautionary management and

commodities to sustaining functional ecosystems, and st~ck assess.m~nt. P~ges. 8-16 i~ V. R.o Restrepo,incorporating marine reserve concepts and networks edItor. ProvIdmg scIentific advIce to Implement

into comprehensive marine resource management. thSte preca Fu~ohnary capprOach .under d the M MagnUSOn-evens IS ery onservation an anagement

Act. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/

Acknowledgments SPO-40.

Bohnsack, J. A. 1999b. Ecosystem management, ma-...rine reserves, and the art of airplane maintenance.

We thank W. J. Ballantine, W. J. Richards, R. L. Shipp, Proceedings of the Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries

and an anonymous reviewer for providing critical com- Institute 50:304-311.

192 BOHNSACK ET AL.

Bohnsack, J. A. 2000b. A comparison of the short termimpacts of no-take marine reserves and minimumsize limits. Bulletin of Marine Science 66:615-650.

Bohnsack, J. A. 2003. Shifting baselines, marine re-serves, and Leopold's biotic ethic. Gulf and Car-ibbean Science 14(2):1-7.

Bohnsack, J. A., and J. S. Ault. 1996. Managementstrategies to conserve marine biodiversity. Ocean-ography 9:73-82.

Bohnsack, J. A., B. Causey, M. P. Crosby, R. G.Griffis, M. A. Hixon, T. F. Hourigan, K. H. Koltes,J. E. Maragos, A. Simons, and J. T. Tilmant.2002. A rationale for minimum 20-30% no-takeprotection. Pages 615-619 in Proceedings of the9th International Coral Reef Symposium. Indo-nesian Institute of Sciences, Society for ReefStudies, Indonesia.

Botsford, L. W., J. C. Castilla, and C. H. Petersen.1997. The management of fisheries and marineecosystems. Science 177:509-515.

Botsford, L. W., A. Hastings, and S. D. Gaines. 2001.Dependence of sustainability on the configurationof marine reserves and larval dispersal distance.Ecology Letters 4:144-150.

Brock, R., and B. Culhane. 2004. The no-take researchnatural area of Dry Tortugas National Park(Florida): wishful thinking or responsible plan-ning? Pages 67-74 in J. B. Shipley, editor. Aquaticprotected areas as fisheries management tools.American Fisheries Society, Symposium 42,Bethesda, Maryland.

Callicott, J. B. 1992. Principal traditions in Americanenvironmental ethics: a survey of moral values forframing an American ocean policy. Ocean andCoastal Management 17:299-325.

Carr, M. H., and D. C. Reed. 1993. Conceptual issuesrelevant to marine harvest refuges: Examples fromtemperate reef fishes. Canadian Journal of Fish-eries and Aquatic Sciences 50:2019-2028.

Christensen, V., S. Guenette, J. J. Heymans, C. J.Walters, R. Watson, D. Zeller, and D. Pauly. 2003.Hundred-year decline of North Atlantic predatoryfishes. Fish and Fisheries 4:1-14.

Clark, J. R. 2003. Letter to the editor. MPA News5(1):6.

Conover, D.O., and S. B. Munch. 2002. Sustainingfisheries yields over evolutionary time scales. Sci-ence 297:94-96.

Dayton, P. K. 1998. Reversal of the burden of proof infisheries management. Science 279:821-822.

Dayton, P. K., S. F. Thrush, M. T. Agardy, and R. J.Hofman. 1995. Environmental effects of marinefishing. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Fresh-water Ecosystems 5:205-232.

Fogarty, M. J., J. A. Bohnsack, and P. K. Dayton. 2000.Marine reserves and resource management. Pages283-300 in C. Sheppard, editor. Seas at the mil-lennium: an environmental evaluation. Pergamon,Elsevier, New York.

Guenette, S., T. Lauck, and C. Clark. 1998. Marinereserves: from Beverton and Holt to the present.Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 8:1-:-21.

Halpern, B. 2003. The impact of marine reserves: doreserves work and does reserve size matter? Eco-logical Applications 13:Sll7-137.

Halpern, B. S., and R. R. Warner. 2002. Marine re-serves have rapid and lasting effects Ecology Let-ters 5:361-366.

Holling, C. S., and G. K. Meffe. 1996. Commandand control and the pathology of natural re-source management. Conservation Biology10:328-337.

IUCN (International Union for the Conservation ofNature and Natural Resources). 1994. Guidelinesfor protected area management categories. IUCN,Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.

Jackson, J. B. C. 1997. Reefs since Columbus. CoralReefs 16:S23-S32.

Jackson, J. B. C., M. X. Kirby, W. H. Berger, K. A.Bjorndal, L. W. Botsford, B. J. Bourque, R. H.Bradbury, R. Cooke, J. Erlandson, J. A. Estes, T.P. Hughes, S. Kidwell, C. B. Lang, H. S. Lenihan,J. M. Pandolfi, C. H. Peterson, R. S. Steneck, M.J. Tegner, and R. R. Warner. 2001. Historical over-fishing and the recent collapse of coastal ecosys-tems. Science 293:629-638.

Jameson, S. C., M. H. Thpper, and J. M. Ridley. 2002.The three screen doors: can marine "protected"areas be effective? Marine Pollution Bulletin44:1177-1183.

Johnson, D. R., N. A. Funicelli, and J. A. Bohnsack.1999. The effectiveness of an existing estuarineno-take fish sanctuary within the Kennedy SpaceCenter, Florida. North American Journal of Fish-eries Management 19:436--453.

Kelleher, G. 1999. Guidelines for marine protectedareas. International Union for the Conservationof Nature and Natural Resources, Gland, Switzer-land, and Cambridge, UK.

Lauck, T., C. W. Clark, M. Mangel, G. R. Munro. 1998.Implementing the precautionary principle in fish-eries management through marine reserves. Eco-

logical Applications 8(Supplement 1):S72-S78.Leopold, A. 1949. A Sand County almanac. Oxford

University Press, London.Ludwig, D., R. Hilborn, and C. Walters. 1993. Uncer-

tainty, resource exploitation, and conservation:lessons from history. Science 260:17-18.

Lydecker, R. 2004. How the organized recreationalfishing community views aquatic protected areas.Pages 15-19 in J. B. Shipley, editor. Aquatic pro-tected areas as fisheries management tools. Ameri-can Fisheries Society, Symposium 42, Bethesda,

Maryland.McArdle, D., S. Hastings, and J. Ugoretz. 2003. Cali-

fornia marine protected area update. California SeaGrant College Program, University of CaliforniaPublication T-051, La Jolla.

WHY HA VB No-TAKE MARINE PROI'ECI:ED AREAS ? 193

ment in the U.S. southern Atlantic. Snapper-grou-per plan development team report for the SouthAtlantic Fishery Management Council. NOAATechnical Memorandum NMFS-SEFC-261.

Pew Oceans Commission. 2003. America's livingoceans: chartering a course for sea change. PewOceans Commission, Arlington, Virginia.

Roberts, C. M., J. A. Bohnsack, F. Gell, J. P. Hawkins,and R. Goodridge. 2001. Effects of marine re-serves on adjacent fisheries. Science 294:1920-1923.

Roberts, C. M., and J. P. Hawkins. 2000. Fully pro-tected marine reserves: a guide. Endangered SeasCampaign, World Wildlife Fund, Washington,D.C., and University of York, ~K.

Rosenberg, A. A. 2003. Managing to the margins: theoverexploiation of fisheries. Frontiers in Ecologyand the Environment 1(2):102-106.

Russ, G. R. 1996. Fisheries management: what chanceon coral reefs? NAGA, the ICLARM QuarterlyJuly 1996:5-9.

Shipp, R. L. 2003. A perspective on marine reservesas a fishery management tool. Fisheries28(12):10-21.

USCRTF (U.S. Coral Reef Task Force). 2000. The na-tional action plan to conserve coral reefs. USCRTF,Washington, D.C.

USDOC. (U.S. Department of Commerce). 2000.Strategy for stewardship: Tortugas ecologicalreserve final supplemental environmental impactstatement/final supplemental management plan.National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra-tion, National Ocean Service, Office of NationalMarine Sanctuaries, Silver Spring, Maryland.Available: www.fknms.nos.noaa.gov/regs/FinalFSEIS.pdf (March 2004).

U.S. Office of the Federal Register. 2000. ExecutiveOrder 13158 of May 26, 2000 on marine pro-tected areas. Federal Register 65(105):34909-34911.

Walters, C. J. 1986. Adaptive management of renew-able resources. MacMillan Publishing Company,New York.

Ward, T. J., D. Heinemann, and N. Evans. 2001. Therole of marine reserves as fisheries managementtools: a review of concepts, evidence and interna-tional experience. Bureau of Rural Sciences,Canberra, Australia.

Murray, S. N., R. F. Ambrose, J. A. Bohnsack, L. W.Botsford, M. H. Carr, G. E. Davis, P. K. Dayton, D.Gotshall, D. R. Gunderson, M. A. Hixon, J.Lubchenco, M. Mangel,A. MacCall, D.A. McArdle,J. C. Ogden, J. Roughgarden, R. M. Starr, M. J.Tegner, and M. M. Yoklavich. 1999. No-take re-serve networks: protection for fishery populationsand marine ecosystems. Fisheries 24(11):11-25.

Myers, R. A., and B. Worm. 2003. Rapid worldwidedepletion of predatory fish communities. Nature(London) 423:280-283.

NCEAS (National Center for Ecological Analysis andSynthesis). 2001. Scientific consensus statementon marine reserves and marine protected areas.American Association for the Advancement of Sci-ence. Available: www.nceas.ucsb.eduiconsensus(March 2004).

Norse, E. A., C. B. Grimes, S. R. Ralston, R. Hilborn,J. C. Castilla, S. R. Palumbi, D. Fraser, and P.Karieva. 2003. Marine reserves: the best optionfor our oceans? Frontiers in Ecology and the En-vironment 1(9):495-502.NRC

(National Research Council). 1999. Sustainingmarine fisheries. National Academy Press, Wash-ington, D.C.NRC (National Research Council). 2001. Marine pro-

tected areas: tools for sustaining ocean ecosys-tems. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

Pauly, D. 1995. Anecdotes and the shifting baselinesyndrome of fisheries. Trends in Ecology andEvolution 10:430.

Pauly, D. 2004. On the need for a global network oflarge marine reserves. Abstract only. Page 63 in J.B. Shipley, editor. Aquatic protected areas as fish-eries management tools. American Fisheries So-ciety, Symposium 42, Bethesda, Maryland.

Pauly, D., J. Alder, E. Bennett, V. Christensen, P.1Yedmers, and R. Watson. 2003. The future forfisheries. Science 302:1359-1361.

Pauly, D., V. Christensen, J. Dalsgaard, R. Froese, andF. Torres. 1998. Fishing down marine food webs.Science 279:860-863.

Pauly, D., V. Christensen, S. Guenette, T. J. Pitcher, U.R. Surnaila, C. J. Walters, R. Watson, and D. Zeller.2002. Towards sustainability in world fisheries.Nature (London) 418:689-695.

PDT (Plan Development Team). 1990. The potentialof marine fishery reserves for reef fish manage-