Ocean science and conservation, like any human enterprise, is subject to its fair share of internal messiness from time to time. As someone whose expertise and experience intersects several discrete domains (coral reefs, sharks, marine protected areas, and policy), I’ve witnessed plenty of dust-ups, arguments, and spats over the years. And this week’s flurry of discussion instigated by a New York Times editorial on ocean protected areas is just the latest kerfuffle. In his op-ed, Bigger Is Not Better for Conservation, coral reef scientist and California Academy of Sciences curator, Dr Luiz Rocha, argues that large-scale, remote marine reserves are a disservice to ocean conservation. It’s Dr Rocha’s perspectives, however, that seem more damaging.
Rocha’s argument hinges on four key points:
The current tally of big, remote marine reserves is in low-conflict, easy to protect (ie, low-hanging fruit) areas of the ocean where human reliance upon them is negligible
Original Title: Embracing Yes/Also: Marine Protected Areas Are Not An Either/Or Proposition
Full Text of the Original Article: http://www.deepseanews.com/2018/03/embracing-yes-also-marine-protected-areas-are-not-an-either-or-proposition/