MNN - Mother Nature Network

Sharks are used as markers of recovery for a simple reason. Sharks are at the top of the food chain (apex predators). Their existence is supported by large reef fish which are supported in turn by smaller reef fish which are in turn supported by crustaceans, coral, and other invertebrates, down to smaller forms of life such as plankton. This food chain is a complex association of which the removal of one or more species or the introduction to foreign species, pollution etc. will disrupt it. The presence of sharks COULD mean the presence of an intact food chain. An increase in their population size COULD be the reestablishment of the food chain. There are other reasons though that a previously depleted species increases in population size. Most relationships in nature ARE indirect and complex. One would have to take into account myriad variables in a well designed study and use data gatherers (i.e. human vs. unmanned camera). Human data gatherers are subject to inherent bias and tend to make direct links between data points based on what they want the expected outcome to be. There is a large body of scientific, peer reviewed studies to support this statement. Have you ever seen the famous Old Woman vs. Young Woman picture? Depending on the observers own biases he will see one or the other face in the picture. It usually takes someone pointing out the fact that there are two ways to see the picture before the second image is seen by the observer. This is why it is so important to use a variety of data gatherers and for for studies to be repeated (replicated) and for the data to be peer reviewed. For this news article many variables were not mentioned: time of year, season, location from resort, depth, species, moon phase, water quality, who collected the data,? Who interpreted it,? Time of data collection, lighting conditions, sampling method, sampling area and size, null data collection, tidal activity, was sampling done over multiple days/locations to see trends or normalize the observations...and on and on. Furthermore, information from an open source site such as a blog, even one with a real science foundation or a famously unscientific source, e.g. Wikipedia for pure scientific research is absurd. Blogs are wonderful ways to engage people, however, they are not peer reviewed scientific journals; I hope and assume there is data to back up the claims of the sucess of this MPA. However, the limited "news blog" does not provide it. And, one should only take information in a news story as a point to start an investigation as they never provide sufficient details. As a scientist I am by nature skeptical of everything I read or hear (this really annoys my husband). Before commenting on whether the research quoted in this article you should do your own homework to find out the facts. In my opinion, (please note the use of the word opinion, it means based upon my own investigation and is my interpretation of the data), MPAs as no take zones work...but what does the word "work" mean? If the goal is only to protect aquatic species...then goal achieved. However, if "work" means, "does the MPA addess the needs of all stake holders,?" I would say no, not always. There must be balance for success. I personally would like to investigate a concept of “rotating MPAs.” These MPAs allow an area to "rest" for a period of time before rotating the location of the MPA. I hypothesize that after several years, recovery of a larger area may be achieved. I have been to Misool resort and know a bit about its mission, location and stewardship of the environment. Shark feeding is not offered, nor is dumping chemicals or waste into the water. Waste is treated, effluent minimal, plastic discouraged, guests briefed on eco-practices and the resort is constructed from locally sourced fallen trees and recycled materials. There is no air conditioning. It is one of the best examples of minimizing impact on the enviroment I have ever seen and it suggests that man CAN live harmoniously with nature in a sustainable, mutually beneficial way. The area directly surrounding the resort is a sandy, still lagoon. It teems with different species of fish including juvenile sharks...as is typical of an aquatic nursery. This environment is very different from the other reef areas surrounding the resort: fringing and sloping reefs, shallow, mid, deep depth benthic communities, etc. In which of these environments were data collected? All? Some? Again, you need to look at the data. As I looked down into the lagoon, I was stunned by how many species I could see from land. My first impression was not that this was the result of the existence of an MPA, but rather in my mind I compared it to areas of California where severe human pressure (Long Beach harbor in CA for example) and neglect have sadly destroyed ecosystems. Some of which I know will never recover (you can’t bring back extinct species). I wished that California’s waters were this pristine. I would not however, jump into the water at Misool and assume that the sighting of sharks is a directly related to the establishment of an MPA. 2 years is a very short period of time for an area to "recover." I would want to review the data for myself. I assume the researchers considered the most basic of questions: Given the small size of the human population in the Raja Ampat archipelago why are the fish populations depleted? I suspect the answer to this question is much more complicated than it seems. Are local fishing practices contributing SIGNIFICANTLY to the loss of species? Or, are fishing vessels, both Indonesian and foreign, taking species for commercial purposes (shark finning, etc)? Or, is there some other reason for loss of species (change in temperature, food resources, salinity etc.). I would encourage anyone reading scientific studies to read them with the same scientific scrutiny and skepticism as the author should have used in conducting them…including, taking into account some rather unpalateable, unscientific, yet equally important variables such as power, politics, arrogance, ignorance, posturing, recalitrance, deliberately hidden or skewed truths. The research performed in areas such as Raja Ampat are critically important for us to understand the state of the enviroment, formulate what can be done to protect it and raise awareness of the few remaining wild places on earth. Raja Ampat has a dizzying amount of species. As an underwater photographer it was hard to take it all in. It is truly one of the last remaining gems on the planet. Of course when I talk about it in California no one knows where it is located, and sadly more than a few don’t even know where Indonesia is on a map. Even more sadly, there is little interest in my own backyard from gluttonous consumers to protect our own environment. Getting MPAs (MPLAs) passed has been a very long battle. My favorite saying is…If you don’t measure it you can’t manage it. I wholeheartedly support the development of MPAs and the education and involvement of ALL stakeholders in the process. However, one must give the local fisherman the same voice as the biologist in the development of the MPA or it will only be seen as a negative by this group of stakeholders. Also, when anti fishing or shark finning legislation is passed by a government but not enforced, the message is clear. Money or power of the few is more important than the livelyhood of the local. Time to go diving….