Monument-al fallacies

If we peel away some of the layers of thoughts and ideas that surround the monument, the base ideas reveal themselves and become a bit more clear. These ideas may be a bit different than what you think, regardless of your pro/against stance.

Let’s look at the first and foremost of the ideas: the environment. Monuments and other MPAs’ main driving force is the thought of protection of the natural world by restricting human interaction. Others and I have covered this: human beings rarely visit the proposed area and have very, very little impact on the environment there. The monument will not change this, period. Almost no U.S.-flagged vessels fish there, and no U.S.-flagged mining activity takes place. Foreign fishing vessels coming into U.S. waters to fish in the CNMI are not a priority for the USCG, for the armed forces or Homeland Security. The monument will not do any environmental healing.

The next idea is this: Pollution, overfishing and runoff around the world are killing the oceans, and we need to protect the natural gems that still remain. I agree that human activity is destroying the ocean’s life. The key question is this: How does the monument protect the natural gem? It’s the same question as the first one and the answer is it will not in any way shape or form. It comes down to this: show everyone what is destroying what, and how the monument will stop this from taking place.

Another idea is the positive economic effect. It will create jobs and inject money that will flow around the island. Great. I hope those jobs will go to people of the CNMI—but guess what—that is very unlikely. Just how many unemployed marine scientists are in the CNMI? How many of these new businesses will employ citizens for jobs that could easily go to contract workers? What changes with the enactment of the monument that will make a business profitable that would otherwise fail? Scientists and others can do all the business they want now but how many are? None. Why are there none? Why would they suddenly flock here? Would the feds do any better up there than they have at American Memorial Park? Studies that conclude there would be increased money flowing and jobs are fine but if those jobs do not go to local citizens, what is the point?

Another base idea is that perhaps there is not activity now, but a monument will become a no-take zone and stop future fishing or extraction. Wait one of two news flashes: James Connaughton said President Bush’s bid to establish a national marine monument in the waters around the CNMI’s northern islands could let some economic activity like undersea mining take place there and restore much of the local government’s control over near-shore ocean resources. Uh, what? We can mine now, and we can mine if there is a monument? What’s the point of the monument then? Is he really telling the truth or just what it takes to get the monument passed? Remember he and his department will benefit with the passing of the monument—it’s a clear conflict of interest. How about fishing? Recreational and subsistence fishing most likely will increase as the result of the monument. There is little to no legal fishing there now, but as the islands become a focal point of attention, people will want to go there. They will want to fish there, and it will become much easier to convince someone to go there just to do so. Think of it: “I fished the marine monument!” versus “I fished up north of Saipan.” Which has a greater sound to you? Anglers would be more likely to want to fish the monument. Great for me if I’m the guy driving the boat that takes them there, but how is it better for those that wish for an MPA with a no-take zone? Ken Kramer even writes how a no-take zone is important. You may be correct Ken, but read my previous letters and you will see your point is moot. Even worse is that fishing may increase inside the monument, so if no-take is best and a monument may increase fishing, then you should be against the monument.

Oh, how does fishing take place inside a no-take MPA like the monument? News flash No. 2: Washington, DC (September 29, 2008)—President George W. Bush signed an amendment to Executive Order 12962 which allows for the most significant extension of recreational fishing on federal lands and waters in the last 30 years. President Bush’s order states that “recreational fishing shall be managed as a sustainable activity in national wildlife refuges, national parks, national monuments, marine sanctuaries, marine protected areas or any other relevant conservation or management area.” Fishing must be allowed inside Fed monuments—but this order does not include local or state monuments. Perhaps we should be looking at a CNMI monument instead of a Fed monument.

So there are a few of the base ideas of the monument. Please refute my major points in this and other letters, supporters. I’d love to be driving the 100 footer for a business that employs dozens of locals—on the boat and on land. I’d hate to see the monument come into being and more contract workers are hired for the low paying jobs, off-islanders get the upper jobs, and the CNMI gets nothing concrete.

I am not against monuments or curtailing commercial fishing to help restore the oceans, near and far. I think commercial fishing around the planet needs major reform. I believe the oceans need our help. I was one of the first recreational fishing captains on Saipan who practiced catch and release of both inshore and offshore fishes. I do so today—just last week we caught more than a dozen sharks up to 300 pounds, all released. In the last four years I have caught more than 300 sharks. We have killed four of them—and we ate them. Responsible stewardship of the oceans is my job as a big game sportfishing captain. I am on the front lines, I am on the water, I deal with multiple local, state and federal laws and regulations daily. Change is needed, and I hope an idea that will actually do something good will come out of this. I do not believe in its current form the monument solves anything, or does any good.