In a word, yes.

But let's go back to the scenario; that is, MPAs set up on the premise that they will develop populations of fishes which have been overfished in adjoining waters and that those developing MPA populations will have a higher fecundity rate therefore being able to "seed" adjoining waters and do so at an increasing rate.

If, in fact, that experiment does not play out it calls the whole theory into question. To suggest that the next step is to expand MPAs thereby putting more fishing pressure on adjoining non-MPA areas is simply illogical unless the real goal is to ultimately cause all recreational fishing to cease.

So, rather than more square miles under MPA restrictions I am suggesting that dissolving MPAs and enacting other management tools may be a better approach all factors considered. I will also opine that MPAs presented to the public as being necessary for recovery need to clearly establish historical biomass, current biomass, and anticipated recovery over time with periodic evaluations of recovery status and a Sunset provision which in many cases would be the delisting from the ESA. If recovery is not occurring IAW the schedule or the agency having primary responsibility does not perform the periodic assessments then the Sunset clause kicks in and any MPA goes away without further action.