I think characterizing the rock fish recovery plan as runaway science that has to be stopped is disingenous. One could say the same about climate change, ocean acidification, pollution, cancer, or any number of other potential problems that have been studied. Science, something we humans are better at than most life forms, provides information based on verifiable facts. Scientists may use those facts to recommend potential solutions to problems but the adoption of those recommendations is always a political choice.

The focus on MPA’s in this discussion is a perfect example. There is an extensive body of science addressing MPA’s worldwide. In the USA with the exception of the large MPA in Hawaii only about 3% of the MPA’s are no take areas. The MPA in Hawaii is based on cultural and species protection. We have more than 20 federally recognized MPA’s in Puget Sound. Agencies responsible for rockfish recovery have limited options, they can work to improve fish populations or they can restrict fisheries. In both cases they can only regulate how humans interact with the fish and their habitat. There many examples of MPA’s that have improved recreational and commercial fisheries.

The Ray Hilborn argument does not apply to most coastal marine waters. He is talking about managing for food sustainability. Another way to say it is managing to for long term commerical fisheries. The salmon, halibut, and other bycatch in the Alaska trawl fisheries is justified by ecosystem management. One could say the same thing about logging on the Olympic Peninsula. If logging was allowed in Olympic National Park on some basis the economy would improve.