marine protected areas/fisheries question?

Question

Below is from a list of cons for MPAs, dont understand first bit no benefit for fisheries, missing rules outside MPAs whats that mean?

Economics
• Missing rules outside the MPA:
- No benefit for fisheries
- A MPA in one area can lead to greater fishing activities in other areas

Answer 1

You may have difficulty with the 'no benefit for fisheries' argument because some of the protected areas are designated to stop harmful fishing practices in places that are being destroyed, and monitoring shows almost immediate benefits to fisheries, so the argument is obviously false. However, many of the MPAs in the US are designated to protect cultural sites like shipwrecks, or scenic values, and MPAs set aside for these purposes sometimes have little fisheries benefit--but this is an odd perspective since no fisheries benefits are claimed for sites that aren't intended to benefit fish.

Someone might be able to argue that benefits of MPA are limited only to those species found within protected areas and which also have critical life stages (like spawning and nursery areas) that depend on the protected areas. But even this argument is weak because fish that swim in the open ocean--well outside of protected areas--depend on food webs supported by coastal areas.

Missing rules outside the MPA means that only a small area is protected by MPAs, so how much benefit can you get from a small areas? This would be a valid criticism if MPAs were not strategically placed in estuaries and coastal zones that provide the vast majority of nutrients and productivity for the oceans. The way oceans work, nearly all of the productivity of the oceans, and a majority of the species would be protected by setting aside the majority of coastal areas and estuaries, and leaving the remaining 95% of the ocean unprotected.


The shifting of fishing activities does occur because the Japanese or other fishing nations might increase their catch to meet the market demand opened up by reduced US fisheries in MPAs. This is true only for highly migratory species like tuna and swordfish because these and similar fish are highly dispersed in the ocean, and price competition is the only reason people don't catch more fish. However, international treaties are used to fill this gap.

Answer 2

OK, I see your point.
But don't worry the list has been 'made-up' by an idiot. If you are going to be tested on this, you have my sympathies.

MPA's become hatcheries and safe havens for fish, which re-populate surrounding areas.
In many cases where an MPA has been set up, the benefits for fishermen become so self-evident that they enforce the protection themselves, when originally they violently protested it's setting up.
I know of a large marine fishing area that was almost devoid of fish. Fishing was banned for one year, violence resulted. The next year catches were so good, the fishermen pressed for a year long ban every few years.
Marine Parks near me are patrolled by nearby fishermen, who regularly take matters into their own hands even with coral collectors. Creating a bigger problem for the authorities who are supposed to be patrolling the waters.