Why WESPAC wants a Marianas Trench Marine National Monument

Let’s talk fish:

Sustainable commercial fishing is without a doubt a great idea—in theory; in practice, it does not work very well. The truth is that neither NOAA Fisheries, formerly the National Marine Fisheries Service, nor the Western Pacific Regional Fisheries Council has a stellar record of achievement in their performance in terms of managing fish stocks. Indeed, both NOAA Fisheries and WESPAC records are abysmally poor, which is not surprising, since the rules of management continue to follow industry-led, short-term economic benefits over resource oriented conservation efforts. Business interests above all else with a smattering of politics, more than science, is at issue here. There are numerous examples of both of their management failures online that document the worsening conditions. See: http://www.monachus-guardian.org/mguard12/1221covsto1.htm Here is a chronology of failure concerning the lobster fishery in Hawaii: http://www.monachus-guardian.org/library/kahea01a.pdf and The Lost Fish Coalition: http://www.lostfishcoalition.org/page4.html

Why would WESPAC want to support the creation of a marine monument? For the simple reason that it is incapable of basing its commercial fisheries management efforts on sound science, because politics and the fishing industry are so heavily involved in the decision making that goes into its management rules and policies. Why is it that there are no conservationists on WESPAC? Why is it that none of the three Pacific Ocean councils has had a conservationist in 27 years?

“Ever since they reopened the swordfish longline fishery in April 2004, the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council and NOAA Fisheries have been declaring they have figured out how to longline for swordfish without killing critically endangered leatherback and loggerhead sea turtles. Apparently, they were wrong. Let’s hope this time they have the wisdom to keep the fishery closed, ” said Paul Achitoff managing attorney of Earthjustice in Honolulu who represented sea turtle conservation groups in litigation that initially shut down the longline fleet in 1999 for killing federally-protected sea turtles.

WESPAC then voted to reopen the fishery. The science behind WESPAC’s management is also lagging, which is why it talks about experimental fisheries. Failures to develop methods to catch swordfish in Hawaii without also catching endangered sea turtles, like the loggerhead and leatherback, forced the closure of the fisheries, again, in 2006. This was only after the fishermen were allowed to catch the quota of turtles set by the federal government: http://www.earthjustice.org/news/press/006/hawaiian-swordfish-fishery-closes-over-high-sea-turtle-catch.html What WESPAC did then was move its long-line fisheries operations elsewhere.

A marine monument that would be co-managed by the CNMI and the NOAA Marine Sanctuaries program avoids all the pitfalls of business oriented, politically motivated fisheries management, by setting aside an area where no commercial fishing is allowed. If WESPAC truly had the interests of the fishermen at heart, then it would really want a marine monument. This no-take protected area would not only allow the fish to reproduce, but would also allow them to grow big. It is a well-known fact that large females produce the most eggs, which will produce offspring to provide fish to other areas through a spillover effect.

Who can blame the local CNMI government for bowing down and catering to WESPAC? Honestly, the Governor and the Legislature never had a chance! WESPAC had plenty of practice in Hawaii, honing its skills, before targeting our little government. Let’s look at what a government that is infiltrated by WESPAC, like a malignant virus, really looks like. Here is the April 2008 WESPAC directory listing all the members: http://www.wpcouncil.org/about/contact.pdf. Anybody see a conflict of interest? See also the meeting in March: http://www.mvariety.com/?module=displaystory&story_id=8508&format=html

For the definitive low-down on WESPAC, see The Plundering of the Pacific “The cats who run the fishhouse” by Paul Koberstein. In it, he describes how the personal business interests of federal fishery managers collide with their job to protect endangered wildlife: http://www.monachus-guardian.org/mguard12/1221covsto1.htm No wonder WESPAC is under two federal investigations for this kind of thing in Hawaii: http://belammc.com/wespac/

If they truly want to help the commercial fishermen, and not as they are doing, which is to overexploit the fisheries resources to the point of collapse, then WESPAC would embrace this concept of a marine national monument. The real reason it opposes this proposal is that WESPAC opposes all permanent closures of ocean waters to fishing, period.

Another reason WESPAC should like the marine monument proposal is that it compliments one of its own five planned Fishery Ecosystem Plans: http://www.wpcouncil.org/mariana/MarianasFEP/December12005MarianaFEP.pdf. This series of management plans, known as FEPs, includes the Marianas Archipelago. The Marianas Archipelago plan just happens to include the top three northern islands: Maug, Uracus, and Asuncion. This ecosystem vs. species-based fisheries was developed, because the species-based system was a complete and utter failure. See page V for a map of the five FEPs; however, before the table of contents there is a line on page “i” that says in effect: “The measures being considered would reorganize the current fishery regulations by geographic area, but would not result in substantive changes to the existing regulations.” Translated, this means: “Business as Usual.” In other words, to prevent WESPAC from allowing all the fish to be overfished, it needs the marine national monument to protect the fish from itself.

Finally, if WESPAC was truly interested in ecosystem management, then it would support creating some protected areas, like the proposed “Park of the Sea,” known also as “The Marianas Trench Marine National Monument.” The Park of the Sea would be insurance for mistakes in its management. A marine monument that protected the fish would be a way to ensure that commercial fishermen were not left without any fish at all! That is why WESPAC, in fact, should want and need a marine monument in the CNMI.