Remember when President Bush declared a massive undersea area near Hawaii as a protected marine monument? That action was startling to many environmentalists who believed the President’s record on environmental issues was significantly less than stellar. But it happened, and now it may happen again.
Maybe.
A Proposed New Marine Monument off the Northern Marianas
A new marine monument in U.S. territorial waters off the Northern Marianas is currently under consideration, but too many chefs may be spoiling the soup, and the end result may be the failure to preserve and protect the full scope of the originally proposed monument.
If the land we know today as Yellowstone National Park is still understood to be the crown jewel that William Henry Jackson and Ferdinand Vandiveer Hayden convinced Washington to preserve as a National Park, than the area north of Guam is certainly its underwater counterpart. This is, after all, home to the Mariana Trench—the ocean’s deepest canyon. The undersea ecosystems here are unique and largely untouched. They provide an opportunity to observe sea life in its true natural state.
President Bush’s Environmental Legacy in Jeopardy?
Preserving this area for future generations, not to mention for its intrinsic value, would certainly seal the deal in terms of establishing Mr. Bush’s environmental legacy. In fact, it would, at least on paper, make him the United States President who has officially done the most for marine ecosystems.
Democracy in all its glory is at work, however, and the White House, intent on giving all constituencies their moment to speak, is, according to sources close to the issue, reconsidering the extent of the originally proposed marine monument. For one, local officials are against the marine monument as it is viewed as yet another federal incursion (the Feds recently upped the ante on immigration policy and the minimum wage in the Islands).
Other opponents include recreational fishing groups such as the American Sportfishing Association, the military and those with an eye to the areas potential for energy development and even mining. These groups worry that a marine monument such as the one initially under consideration at the White House would preclude activities and endeavors which ought not to be precluded in an area that, after all, belongs to the taxpayers.
James Connaughton, who is taking the lead on the proposed marine monument at the White House, recently told NPR, “What we're trying to do is sort out where there are, in fact, some conflicting uses and sort out where those concerns don't actually exist.”
The reality is that the more voices that are heard, the less likely we are to see this proposed marine monument come to fruition.
Marine Aquarists and Marine Monuments; What Do We Want?
As a marine aquarist, I would like to see this area preserved.
Of course it’s easy for me to say that because, at present, this area is relatively unimportant in terms of supplying the marine aquarium industry with marine animals and organisms that cannot be collected elsewhere; it’s not like shutting down Tonga for live rock or the Revillagigedo Islands for clarion angelfishes.
But the reality is that there is currently no recreational fishing industry there. There are no military installations, no planned energy development and no mines. Yet these groups are opposing the marine monument because of either 1) what they may want to do there one day or 2) on principle.
When it comes to preserving the potential to fish recreationally, test a military invention, develop an energy source, or establish a mine in the area, I just don’t see the argument. With as much of the world’s oceans as we have already impacted through a variety of anthropogenic stressors, I cannot see how we should not leap at the opportunity to put a relatively small slice of pristine ocean off limits.
A Matter of Principle
Regarding the principle, this is a little more challenging for me. The area belongs to the government and, in turn, to every United States citizen, so shouldn’t every citizen have the right to make their case for how they want to use it? In theory, I agree, but I also believe there are times when the intrinsic value of a place should trump individual rights. It’s the same reason I adhere to a bevy of regulations that limit what I may do in National Forests where I both work and recreate frequently.
In short, as a marine aquarist, I want to see portions of the ocean preserved in as pristine a state as possible for future generations. Why? Because, as a matter of principle, I want the generations to come to not have to go to an aquarium or a natural history museum to be able to experience the majesty and wonder of the Seas.
Comments