Marketing MPA’s

"Oh no," he said. "You won't be able to fish." I inquired about no-kill fishing for pelagics that don't stay in MPAs anyway. "Not that either," he said. "You can dive it; you can surf it; but there's no catch-and-release fishing. You can't do that with native fish in national parks or wilderness areas." "You can't?" I intoned, scarcely believing my ears.

"No," he said. "Generally speaking, you can fish for fish that are placed there using user fees for the specific purpose of fishing them. But you can't harm an indigenous natural resource." That, of course, is incorrect. Non-indigenous fish are not stocked in national parks or wilderness areas, and catch-and-release fishing as well as catch-and-kill fishing is legal in both.

The Ocean Conservancy (by redefining wilderness) and NRDC (by redefining MPAs) have undone a generation of conservation education and propped up wobbling wise-use lies. Sportsmen, a naive and paranoid lot even under the best of circumstances, freak out when they encounter real or imagined threats to access. They have not reacted well to the MPA initiative, but they have acted predictably. If the enviros had bothered to communicate with sportsmen, they could have avoided a war, gained allies and learned what kinds of MPAs are genuinely beneficial to fish.

Anyone whose head wasn't in the sand or clouds could see the conflict coming. Mike Nussman, president of the American Sportfishing Association, told me this: "I went around for two years saying, 'Guys we're going to have a hell of a fight about this because there's nothing we value more than the public's ability to get on the water. And you're going to tell us we can't fish. Unless that's the only way to solve a fishery problem most anglers aren't going to be terribly receptive.' I preached and preached that, and basically everyone blew me off."

Nussman and his predecessor, Mike Hayden, have managed to convince the tackle industry that the best way to improve sales is to preserve and restore fish stocks; it was an idea that hadn't previously occurred to it. ASA is better and smarter than other trade associations, so I hate to see it coming out with press releases that have titles like: "Extreme Environmentalists Offer Misleading Statements on MPAs." "Extreme environmentalists" is the euphemism polluters and habitat-destroyers use for people who successfully disrupt their exploitation. The Earth Liberation Front is "extreme." The Ocean Conservancy and NRDC are just stupid.

Mostly, though, the ASA has maintained its cool. Not so the otherwise savvy, effective CCA (Coastal Conservation Association). For example, my fellow members and I received the following communication from President David Cummins: "Recreational fishing is under attack as never before . . . attack by the feds and the radical environmentalists. . . . Environmental extremists are conspiring with federal bureaucrats to take away our freedom to fish. . . . These No Fishing Zones are a power grab; they're all about control of the citizens, not protection of anything. . . . Now picture this: the fish-no-more map proposed by these well-funded environmentalists. I've seen it and I can tell you what it looks like. You'll be stunned. All along the Atlantic, from Maine on south, wherever there are aggregations of fish, they're proposing to ban fishing. . . . If you ever dreamed of fishing in the blue waters surrounding our fiftieth state, take your swimming gear but leave your fishing tackle home." With that Cummins launched into a come-on for the CCA Legal Defense Fund: "Will you help? Unless we are financially ready to defend against this insidious attack, we are not ready at all. P.S. These proposed No Fishing Zones are the most serious threat to sport fishing in my lifetime. The CCA Legal Defense Fund exists to beat back just these kinds of challenges."

CCA's reaction to the MPA initiative hurt it more than the MPAs would have. For example, Cummins' letter alienated the Norcross Wildlife Foundation, which disburses major grants to groups working on behalf of fish and wildlife and on which I serve as a board member. Our president, Richard Reagan, responded as follows: "Dear Mr. Cummins: On reading your letter I find that Norcross apparently falls into the odious classification of being 'radical environmentalists' and 'environmental extremists,' simply because we support conservation of marine fisheries and fish habitat. . . . Your letter is a poor imitation of the type of hysterical screed broadcast by the NRA and its president, Charlton Heston. In it, you have insulted the work of yeomen in fisheries conservation who focus on the environmental long view. . . . For the foreseeable this suspends Norcross's support of CCA and its state and local chapters."

More unfortunate fallout of the ill-conceived, ill-executed MPA initiative comes in the form of the Freedom to Fish Act, written by ASA and now before the US Senate. (Note: I used the word "unfortunate," not "unnecessary.") Basically, the bill would amend the Magnuson Act so that if a site is closed to recreational fishing, the managing agency would have to produce science showing that recreational fishing contributed to the problem. Once fish populations are restored the area would have to be reopened to recreational fishing. All that's fine, and ASA deserves credit for hatching the bill, if only to get the attention of the environmental community and force some kind of compromise.

But the danger of this kind of legislation is that it attracts the ugliest opportunists from the wise-use camp such as Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R-TX), one of the bill's two major sponsors and among the most vicious enemies of fish and wildlife in the Senate. Sportsmen prop up legislators like Hutchinson at their extreme peril. During the Clinton administration she pushed through a lengthy suspension of new listings under the Endangered Species Act. The voting criteria established by the non-partisan League of Conservation Voters shows her voting for the interests of fish and wildlife zero percent of the time for each of the last five years.

Environmentalists alienate sportsmen not just because they don't take the time to get to know them but because they don't take the time to get to know fish and fishing. Nowhere is an MPA more desperately needed than in the Channel Islands off Los Angeles. This is because the indigenous and mostly sedentary groundfish live long and therefore reproduce slowly. A cowcod, for instance, can make it to 100 years. The dark-blotched rockfish probably lives for 150 years. The groundfish resource around the islands has been essentially destroyed. Fishing should be banned for these species, and in a lot more than 25 percent of the sanctuary. Catch-and-release is not an option because when you haul up these fish their air bladders pop out of their mouths. Mortality is 100 percent.