ML 138481


Interview :04 - 55:45 Play :04 - More
Audio »
Video »
species »
Elliott Norse  







Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary; National Marine Sanctuary history and politics  

NPR/NGS Radio Expeditions
19 Jul 1997

  • United States
    King County
  • Bellevue
  • 47.5975   -122.15917
  • Stereo
    Sampling Rate
  • 48kHz
    Bit Depth
  • 16-bit
    Equipment Note
  • Stereo=1; Decoded MS stereo

DAT #14 - DAY 5

1:06 EA -what is your knowledge of the whole beginning of this -when it was a kernel of an idea -when it just started

EN -first of all the idea sounded ridiculous to me -the idea of protected areas in the sea made no sense -I mean -the sea is so vast and it is so lacking in boundaries and to be perfectly honest it is so healthy compared to the land why would one need protected areas -how could you do it on one hand and why would you need it on the other. And -you might say that the most important things that I have learned in the 25 years since the sanctuary program has existed is that the sea is a lot smaller than we think -or at least the world is a lot smaller than we think and the sea is most of the world. There is no place where we have not felt the hand of humankind. The deep sea -when Bill Broad wrote his new book, In the Deep Sea, he describes going down in the Alvin and seeing a Nike sneaker sitting on the sea bed on a place a thousand miles -or thousands of miles from the nearest land. So there is no place where our influence hasn't been felt. And it not just that we throw garbage overboard, it is that we throw polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and DDT and vast numbers of discarded fishnets and we fish. And we change the climate. And we introduce alien species. And we have profoundly changed the sea. And yes, there are borders in the sea. And the borders aren't the same borders that we are used to on land. We are not attuned to those borders and so we have to learn what they are -but they are there. As a matter of fact there are 2 kinds of borders in the sea in a sense -there 3 kinds of borders in the sea! I won't go above 3. There are 3 kinds of borders in the sea. One is you can see that a coral reef has boundaries just in the same way a patch of forest has boundaries. That is the easiest kind of boundaries to see. More subtle are the vertical boundaries because sea water is often layered. You know on top there is a layer -well the upper most layer, and it is warmer and it is better lighted than any of the others. And then that sits on top of slightly heavier water that is cooler and it is much much darker and that sits on cooler water still. So the sea is stratified like a layer cake. And so that is the second kind of structure. But the 3rd kind of structure is that much of the sea consists of water masses. And the idea of a water mass is bizarre but a water mass is an identifiable piece of water with in which conditions are pretty much the same. But as soon as you go across the border to the next water mass the conditions are much different. And the funny thing is these water masses change on a hourly and daily basis. They wiggle as the winds change, as currents change, etc. so that a marine ecosystem might be in one place on one day, and the next day its boundary might have moved a hundred miles. 4:48 so the sea is really different for those reasons and for many many other reasons. And one of the things I have learned in 25 years is wow, we really need to have marine protected areas. The Sanctuary program is for better or for worse is the best we have got right now and I think it needs to be bigger and stronger and better. 5:10

5:11 EA -what was your understanding of what the ideas was at the outset?

5:19 EN -I can give you a cynical view. I think the idea was we have protected areas on land, we should do it on the sea too. It was a sort of me too after the thought exercise. You know what happened -the Marine
Sanctuary program began one hundred years after the National parks program began. One hundred years exactly, 1972. And the first National Marine Sanctuary gives you an idea about the aggressiveness of the program was a one mile square area around the USS Monitor, the Civil War ship that fought the Virginia to a standstill and then later sank off of Cape Hatteras -or Hampton Roads (Rhodes?) rather, it is someplace in North Carolina anyway. 6:19 There is a one square mile around this cultural feature that was protected. And I think that was the level of ambitiousness of this program.

6:29 EA is that because of the political climate at this time?

EN -Well, because of the political climate that has prevailed throughout our history. We have tended to see the sea as invulnerable, inexhaustible, limitless, and it is an important thing that kept America safe because the British couldn't invade us and the Nazis couldn't invade us, but it wasn't important in its own right and only with the invention of scuba, only with the development of marine science, only as we began to understand more about the living sea and oceanography{helicopter ? in bg} did we that. I mean, every time you brush your teeth you are using marine organisms or products of marine organisms every time because the bulk of tooth paste is made up from sea weed, an extract from sea weed -and the uses for

EA -it is?

EN -yeah. I mean along with the flavoring stuff and the abrasive stuff that keeps you white and the stuff that keeps the tartar away -the bulk of it, the stuff that gives it its texture is an extract of giant kelp. 8:00 we don't realize the vast numbers of uses that marine organisms serve in our life. And that is not even the most important thing about them to us. We don't realize that every time we take a breath we should thank a seaweed because marine creatures created our modern atmosphere and they did this a very long time ago, more than a billion years ago, and that step was essential for the evolution of complex multi-cellular life, meaning trees, and insects and mice and you and me. 8:38

EA -but 25 years ago when they came up with this idea it wasn't because of that it was more about the wreck at the bottom of the sea.

EN -yeah, or somebody knew an especially pretty place that deserved to be protected. But by enlarge it was a program that had very limited goals. And limited means to achieve those limited goals. The goals were further limited by a problem. The Marine Sanctuaries program lays within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, part of which is the National marine Fisheries Service and National Marine Fisheries Service is a very important part of NOAA and the Marine Sanctuaries program is a very unimportant part of NOAA. And as a result, when NOAA regulates activities within the marine protected areas the thing it is least likely to regulate is fishing. And that doesn't make a whole lot of sense because as scientists are realizing fishing is the greatest form of impact that human beings have on the sea and yet fishing is virtually exempt from regulations in Marine Sanctuaries. So, in our National Parks you can't go to Grand Teton and shoot buffalo or elk. You can't go to Grand Canyon and shoot mountain lion, but you can do that -or the equivalent of that in any of our Marine Sanctuaries. 10:30

EA - even as scientists who are in those Sanctuaries are studying more and more about the effects of overfishing in those particular areas.

10:40 EN -yes. And it is not only overfishing because I said that the effects of fishing coasts are broader than that.
It is not only taking more fish than the fish can replace. It is also the effects of the fishing activities on the habitat of fishes. The effects of fishing on marine ecosystem. When you draw trawl nets and dredges across the sea bed to catch shrimp or oysters you're altering the structure of the sea bed. The sea bed isn't flat and featureless. It is in many cases filled with structure, on it and in it. The structures that are on it aren't as big as redwood forests. They aren't even as big as lawns. Sometimes the organisms that make up the structure only poke their nose out a half an inch, an inch or two inches. But that structure is extremely important to the marine ecosystems. And when you destroy that structure, when you eliminate it, you dramatically change the marine habitat. And some places it is probably no big thing because those places are where nature alters the sea bed naturally through storm waves, currents and surge and things like that. But the vast majority of the sea bed is very very seldom disturbed by anything, or it least it was before we started trawling on the sea bed. 12:05

12:06 EA -25 years is relatively new when you think about all of the programs that have been in existence in this country, and if you look at the park system and you think about what happened -what the idea was in the beginning of the sanctuary program and where they have gotten to know anyway -that has certainly changed. But -I don't know what your knowledge is of the park system but do you see any -can does it stack up? Can you look at the sanctuary program and say -25 years here compared to 25 years in Yosemite.

12:39 EN -well, within 25 years after Yosemite -w/in a few decades after Yosemite we had Theodore Roosevelt as president, and Roosevelt presided over a dramatic expansion of our National park system. And that went on through the administration of Franklin Roosevelt. Franklin Roosevelt designated Olympic National Park, he designated Great Smokies National Park. That processed happened because there were people who really believed in it and who made it happen. We haven't yet got a president who said it is essential for us to have marine protected areas. I want to leave as my legacy a string of diamonds, the jewels of the crown, in our coastal waters that people will say during my administration people protected this and this, and this, and this. For all time, for the benefit of all Americans. We haven't had that happen yet. 13:50

13:51 EA -after 25 years we haven't -there hasn't been enough public awareness. There isn't a constituency for these places.

EN -no, not really. There are constituencies that are mobilized to oppose them, but the constituencies for them are pretty small and pretty scattered. I mean even the idea of marine conservation is one that's way behind terrestrial conservation. And I will give you an example: when I was a kid I remember seeing pictures of a man with a big gun in his hand standing with his head on a tiger, and with a really proud expression on his face. And those pictures were perfectly acceptable when I was a child. Now a picture like that would evoke only revulsion. We -decent people don't kill tigers for fun any more because we have realized that they are rare, that they are very important and that we can't afford to loose them. And yet we are still killing the marine equivalents of tigers and bears and wolves in huge numbers in the sea. We are persecuting huge number sin the sea. We are persecuting sharks because we are scared of them. We kill huge numbers of swordfish and marlin and tunas which are the marine equivalents of these large carnivores on land. And you can still see on any pier at any time a person proudly showing a giant tuna or a giant marlin holding a rod in this case not a gun and that person's buttons are just about bursting from pride.
15:30 our marine ethic is not as well developed as our terrestrial conservation ethic. And our marine science is not as well developed as our terrestrial conservation biology. We need to catch up. And I think that is one of the problems. The scientific community has only begun to realize how important marine protected areas are. The decision makers aren't driven by what scientists think, they are driven by what the general public thinks. And the public hasn't yet figured out that if conserving the land is good, conserving the sea is good too. 16:11

EA -should that be the role of the sanctuaries? I mean is it up to the sanctuaries? Should it part of what the sanctuaries mission is? Or is it out of their control?

16:22 EN -Well, if it isn't the role of the sanctuaries then maybe what we need to do is have the National Park system extend its reach from the land into the sea. And we need "marine national parks". There are a few of them. Channel Island National Park has a significant marine component. There are some others that do as well. Maybe what we need is to have the kind of leadership on protecting marine areas that has been practiced in National Parks. Leadership that says we want to keep these in a condition that is as close as possible to the original condition. Now we don't necessarily know what that is but we will try to fake it. We will try to bring it back. Because this is something of enduring value and what ever happens to America in 1997 and '98, and 2010 and 2100 we know we are going to want to protect the best marine ecosystems. I think the sanctuaries program could do it. But if they can't do it then we need somebody else to do it. I will give you an example. In the 25 years since the National Marine Sanctuaries program began we have gone from protecting 0% of our coastal waters in our sanctuaries to protecting 6/10ths of one percent -less than one percent. At that rate it would take a lot of hundreds of years for us to protect any significant portion of our coastal waters and that is not fast enough. Eminent scientists such as James Bonesack and Jane Lubchenko who was most recently president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science have called for a dramatic increase in marine protected areas world wide. They have said what we need is to have 20% of our oceans and coastal waters protected from everything we can protect them from by year 2020. That means protect them from pollution, protect them from fishing -protect them from anything that would harm them so that they can provide their benefits to all Americans. Tourists, and divers and fishermen and women -all Americans for all time. 19:01

EN -is there a vicious circle here because I think there is a funding problem obviously. The funding problem is probably driven by the lack of public awareness, and the Sanctuary is sort of out there -that is one of the reasons why we have been pushing in congress for the first evaluation, fundamental evaluation, of the marine sanctuaries program and marine protected areas in general in the US.

19:38 EA -aren't they supposed to be looked at every 5 years?

EN -well, yes. But they are looked at by the people who designate them and I used to be a teacher and when I would ask my student 'how well have you done this quarter? Most of them would say I am doing A work. And I think it would be good to have an objective outside body doing so, and so we are hoping that the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences will conduct a comprehensive examination of the importance of and the effectiveness of marine protected areas in US waters. We want to see how good a job we have done, what if anything we can do to do it better.

20:28 EA -what do you think these places should be? No take zones? Don't bite my head off! What do you think they should be?

20:40 EN-I think that there are many different kinds of protected areas. And there is nothing wrong with there being different kinds of protected areas. On land we have protected areas where people are allowed to hunt (noise in bg) START OVER:

21:13 EA -what do you think these places should be -I have read the mission statement and it is pretty broad actually -we are 25 years in -

21:30 EN -I think that there is not a need for just one kind of marine protected area, we can have many. We can have areas that allow most any uses except the most damaging ones. We can have other areas that are set aside solely for tourism. Other areas that are set aside only for scientific research. Other areas set aside for pure protection. To serve as a reserve sort of (baby in the bg) a genetic bank account for other organisms. Indeed, places that can serve as fish replenishment areas. So that even if we don't manage fish well outside these areas we know that w/in nobody is killing the fish, and as a result they will reproduce and there eggs and their larvae will be spread over a much larger area and they will provide the next generation of fish. That is what the Australians do in the Great Barrier Reef marine park. The most successful marine protected area on earth. And I think that is what we should be doing in the United States. Some areas should be rigorously protected and some of them should be multiply use areas and we should do a good job of figuring out where they should be and we should see whether these protected areas are achieving what we want them to and if they don't we should fiddle with them, and fiddle with them until we get it right. And that will benefit all the American people. 23:10

EA -so there shouldn't necessarily be a mold for each park.

EN -no. no reason -(people in bg) 23:30 there is no reason to make all marine -there is no reason to make all marine protected areas the same. As if you were using a cookie cutter. The marine ecosystems and species in different areas have different needs. The people who live in different areas have different needs. And I think that our protective areas should be responsive to those differences. I think we can accommodate them without any difficulty. So, if the most important thing in say the Florida Keys is tourism, then we should make sure that we give special protection to those areas that people want to visit and see. If in other areas the most important resources we protect are marine mammals, well then we will use a different strategy. If they are fish, and we want to make sure that those fish keep reproducing and replenishing other areas then we use a different strategy. There is no reason why we can't do that. There is no reason why scientists shouldn't be allowed to do experimental research in marine protected areas if that was what the area was set aside for. That's a very legitimate need. These can be our monitoring stations, our listening posts on the health of the sea, our fingers on the sea's pulse. 24:59

25:00 EA -and they are not now?

25:02 EN -no they are not right now. In part because scientists for example can't find any areas that haven't been drastically affected by people. I mean there is virtually no place that has that aren't worth taking that hasn't been fished to death by sports and commercial fishers in US waters. There are virtually no places that are protected from that activity. And so, since fish are so important to marine ecosystems how can you understand how those ecosystems work if there are no fish any more. Or if there are only a small number of tiny fish. All the big ones are gone. And that is the way it is. 25:51
I mean -

EA -can you start over some place?

EN -can you start over? I think we can start over. I think we still -one of the reasons it is so important to have these marine protected areas is there is still a chance. We still have a chance to bring them back. Nature is wonderfully resilient. And if you give her half a chance she can rebuild the structure. She can replenish the populations. Sometimes she might need a little more help than others - it might not just require regulation, it might have to actually lend a helping hand. To help a population. But once we have done that nature should be able to maintain the things we value most in these marine systems. If we don't keep fishing, polluting, adding alien species, changing the climate, etc. 26:47

26:48 EA -aren't these Sanctuaries a step toward that? Because without these Sanctuaries you can have all these folks in there looking at multiple use and coming up with the data that says that we should have what your idea of what the sanctuaries should be. We should have places like this.

27:10 EN -that is like saying isn't spousal abuse a good thing, because the only way we can get legislation to protect people from being beaten is if we have a lot of them being beaten. And I would say, well yeah, but on the other hand we should have figured it out ahead of time that there are some places in the sea that are so precious that we should protect them and be done with it.

EA -all right. What are these places -what is right about this program?

27:40 EN -what is right about this program -there are a lot of hard working dedicated people who believe in the idea of marine protected areas and who work very hard considering that they have one hand and one leg tied behind their back. That they are chronicled starved for funding. That they don't have a strong legislative mandate. That they don't feel that they have a strong constituency. They belong to an agency that is very sensitive to fishing interests and not very sensitive to the rest of the American people who are after all the owners of our coastal waters just as they are the owners of our National Parks and Forests. I admire the people who work for the Sanctuary program. They work hard, and they do it under less than perfect circumstances. But I think that we need stronger leadership from them and from the administration whether it is republican or democratic. And from congress whether it is headed by republicans or democrats. That is irrelevant. Living things are not important at some times and not important at others. They are not important in some administrations and not others. They need to continue existing forever. And if we stop their existence for only the briefest moment we have lost them for good. and what I am saying is that there is a fundamental asymmetry
here. If you want to destroy something you only have to do it once. But if you want to protect it you have to be vigilant and do it forever. And I would love to see the people in the Sanctuary program and the higher ups in NOAA and the higher ups in the Commerce Dept. and the higher ups in this -and all other administrations and in
Congress. Vigorously, backing this program, improving this program, strengthening it so that it accomplishes the objectives that our National Park system, our National Forest system, our national Wildlife Refuge system have attempted to do on land. They haven't done all that we need. But they have hundreds of times more money. Our National Parks are starving. But our National Park system in the Clinton Admin. Budget this year -the budget request was 121 times more for National Parks than it was for Marine Sanctuaries. It was 235 times more for National Forests than it was for Marine Sanctuaries. I mean, that is as if somebody said here, go out and get yourself a hamburger, here is a penny. You can't be expected to do the same thing when you don't have the resources to do it. 30:28

EA -and the way to create that political will that starts that funding going is through leadership in terms of the Sanctuary managers and Congress and the Admin.
Again, it is a vicious cycle.

30:44 EN -It is a vicious cycle. If the Sanctuary managers and the sanctuaries program took a strong leadership role and weren't flinching all the time and weren't ducking because they are being constantly criticized and assailed that would help. If congress said this is important, and in good times and in bad we are going to support this program that would help. If conservation groups -the many conservation groups that have little or no involvement in the marine environment would say, this is important. That would help. I mean, wonderful organizations like the Wilderness Society and the National Park and Conservation Association don't work on Marine Sanctuaries. I don't understand. The Wilderness Society, for which I used to work, is dedicated to protection of Federal lands. Well, the largest Federal
Lands we have are not National Parks, are not BLM lands, not Forest Service lands. They are outer continental shelf lands. And, the Wilderness Society doesn't work on those lands. So, everybody needs to pull together. And the people who visit them need to pull together. The people who never will see a Marine Sanctuary but will sit in their apt. on the south side of Chicago need to be advocates of marine protected areas the same way they are advocates for Zion National Park and Everglades National Park and Glacier National Park.

32:25 EA -what has the program accomplished after 25 years in your assessment?

32:31 EN -the most important thing it has done is has introduced the concept that we can protect places in the sea and it has survived through times that were less than friendly and even sometimes that were down right hostile. It has survived the assaults by people like Mel Fisher, the treasure hunter in the Florida Keys who wants to be able, understandably, to suck up gold where ever it is and is willing to churn up the sea bottom with his gigantic devices to do it. And that is understandable. If I thought there were several hundred millions of dollars of gold out there, and I could get a good piece of that I would feel that way too. But, churning up the seabed destroys marine life. And you don't want to do that in your marine protected areas including the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. And we need for people to understand that there are certain places that are too precious, that are too important for us to continue doing certain things. We don't do nuclear testing there. We don't mine the seabed there, we don't fish there, we don't pollute there, we protect them. We watch, we study, we have the pleasure of learning from, but we don't destroy. And I would love to see the fishing community become the strongest protectors and advocates for this program. Because they are the people that are going to benefit more than anyone else. You probably know, but our fisheries in the US have gone from incredibly rich to showing signs of trouble to increasingly troubled now, devastated in many cases. The symbol of the state of MA is the cod. Well, cod became so rare due to overfishing, and possible destruction of their habitat as well, that fishers weren't allowed to fish for cod on much of Georges Bank, which was the best cod fishing area in US Atlantic waters. How did we get there? Well, I think one of things we can do in the future to avoid repeating the situation is to have areas w/in which we don't fish for cod, we protect them. And those areas, will help us to understand how cod work so we can become better managers. Those areas will provide surplus cod for surrounding areas so that we can fish in those surrounding areas in perpetuity. 35:32

35:40 EA -again though -in terms of looking at this program over the last 25 years what have they done? What have they accomplished? They have withstood treasure
hunters -what?

35:53 EN -they have withstood treasure hunters, they have withstood fishers who don't believe that govt has any role in regulating the sea. It is a free country and
the freest part of the country is the sea and we aren't going to let any govt bureaucrats tell us what to do. That is an attitude that might have been appropriate if we lived in an empty continent. In the good old days you could plunk your house down where you wanted. You could even dump your wastes in a stream and it wasn't a problem because nature would clean it up and take care of them. But that was when the population was small. Now, the population of America is pushing -what? -270 million people. When there are 270 million people in an area that is as small as the US what everybody does effects a lot of other people. And that is true in the sea as well as on land. It may not look like it, but it is true. All the marine scientists know it -see it everyday. And most of us are appalled by it. The Sanctuary program has
survived -and that is the most important thing -it is done. And its -and you know the first rule -I am evolutionarily oriented biologist -the first rule of evolution is to survive. To stay in the game. And once you have done that see what they have accomplished. And what they have accomplished is pulling together roughly a dozen National Marine Sanctuaries some of them very small and dedicated to protecting cultural ah -objects that we venerate, such as the Monitor. Some of them quite a lot bigger, like Monterey National Marine Sanctuary, that are dedicated to protecting the extraordinarily rich: marine mammals, birds and fishes. They have stayed in the game, and I admire them for that, but now as the sport casters that do the basketball games say 'now it is time to take it to another level.' Now we need to go from protecting 6/10 % of our coastal waters to protecting 20% of our coastal waters. Now, the notion of marine protected areas shouldn't just mean an area that is protected in name only -paper park -but areas that have real protection from the things that threaten their values most. Not just areas that are good for the people in the local region but good for all Americans because as Woody Guthrie said: THIS LAND IS YOUR LAND. The sea is your sea as well. 38:55

EA -As the father of biological diversity I can understand why staying in the game is enough

39:06 EN -I am 50 years old and when I started diving in the early '60s and early 1970s I could still go places and see gigantic fish. I could see groupers that weighed 300 lbs living in bays along inhabited shore lines. They are not there any more. They are gone. They have been hooked, they have been shot. Their habitats have been wasted. They are gone. 39:42 In my lifetime I have seen the most profound transformation of the marine realm that has happened in the history of humankind. It is frightening to me because we don't see in most cases the consequences of what we do. Sure scientists see it -the older ones, the ones that have been in the water for 10,
20, 30 years. But most people go someplace and they don't realize that there should be more than just little tiny fish. Most people go the Florida Keys and don't know that the coral cover has dropped by a factor of 2 or 5 or even 10 in some places of what it used to be. They don't know how rich it once was. People go to the Caribbean and the Florida Keys and they don't know that sea turtles, which are so rare now, you can be there for years and never see one -were once numbered in the millions in the Caribbean. Once sea turtles were so abundant that scientist believed that they kept the sea grasses mowed like golf greens. Now the sea grasses -where they still exist -are a foot or two feet tall because their mowers have been driven to the edge of existence. 41:11 that is why I am concerned. If we knew and made a conscious decision yeah, the sea is really important, the sea provides the food we need to survive, the medicine we need to survive, the oxygen we need, it stabilizes our climate it is our larder and our life support system but we are going to destroy it anyway. If we made that decision consciously I would fight against it with all of my strength but I could live with that. It would be idiotic. But I could live with that. But that is not what is happening. What is happening is that we have a lot of people that say -hey -don't worry, it is fine, there are plenty of fish out there -the problem we have is over zealous govt regulation. Hey, the problem is alarmist environmentalists, the problem is you scientists don't realize that nature is a lot tougher than you believe and things have always changed, and extinction is just a natural process. It has always happened, and we are just continuing now. We are just the agents instead of an asteroid smashing into the earth. 42:17 when people say that it says to me you don't care about creation. You don't care about evolution. You don't care. You don't know. You don't understand that you are a living thing and your survival and well being depends on your ability to sustain your brothers and sisters.
The sea weeds and the corals and the little worms in the sea bed, and the clams and the whales and the fish that frolic in the waves are all your brothers. They shared a
common origin with you and their survival is essential to see your survival. And as a scientist I am telling you something -they are disappearing and their disappearance is a loud clear message. Your life, your well being is in jeopardy. Don't do this. 43:20
EA -and here we have, after 25 years of this program being in existence and we have sanctuary managers and people who are involved in them who are very timid about even talking about future plans or looking and assessing what Sanctuaries could be because they are petrified of folks who are worried about vision creep ..

43:50 EN -I -my mother was a Depression kid. She grew up in FDR's administration. Roosevelt not only dramatically extended our National Parks he also brought our country out of the Great Depression. That kind of leadership doesn't happen very often. It hasn't happened for quite a while. I didn't grow up believing the govt was the enemy. I didn't grow up believing that a decision by the American people to protect something precious to all of us that our govt made on our behalf was a nefarious plot to violate the Constitution and steal the property rights of hard working people. Rather I believed that there was a role. And that role was too big or too small... (EN TALKING ABOUT THE ROLE OF GOVT) 46:08 AND OUR Sanctuaries program is a govt program it suffers, I suspect, from very understandable timidity. The hard working people in the program are doing the best they can, but they spend most of their time ducking, flinching, because somebody -whether it is treasure hunter Mel Fisher or the Texas shrimp Association, is always coming after them and saying you have no right to take what is mine and to declare it off limits. It doesn't belong to the treasure hunters alone. It doesn't belong ot the fishermen and women alone. It belongs to Elizabeth Arnold in WDC and EN in Redmond, WA and all 260 plus million American people. Not only the ones who live now, but the ones who live a thousand yrs from now. And if we don't protect their interests they are not going to have anything in a hundred years -in a thousand years or even when my step sons are making little boys and girls and taking them to the shore. That is a very sad thought for me. I want to see the US resume the leadership we had in protecting life that we had under Teddy Roosevelt's admin., FDR's admin., even Jimmy Carter's admin. Jimmy Carter tripled the number of NMS. After that program had languished for a number of years. I had the pleasure of having something to do with that and I am intensely proud of that. And since that time the number of sanctuaries has doubled again. I would like to see it grow a lot more. 48:27

EA -would you give me this much?? giving that these things are dynamic and not static is it moving in the right direction after 25 years?

48:41 EN -it's not. The excessively modest ambitions of the programs are not taking it in the right direction. There are little germs, little crumbs, of signs that are good. public/private partnerships are good. doing scientific research in the Sanctuaries is good. educating the kids is good. taking the decision makers such as coastal congress members to the Sanctuaries and showing them is good. but, it is happening much too slowly. It needs to be more ambitious, more aggressive, we need to make some more risks because the reward is great. And if we don't we are going to loose so much of what we love in a very short time. And we won't even know it. It will be gone in almost the blink of an eye. It has been gone in my lifetime. It has been eliminated in my lifetime. 49:50

EN -talking about the examples he used.

51:19 EN -As our technologies have evolved, our ethics need to evolve with them ... 51:55 we have invented fishing technologies that are vastly more powerful than ever before. In the old days you can imagine what it was like to fish. One or 2 or 3 lone people in a little tiny heaving boat on the surface of the water lowering down the net or lowering down hooks. Now you have boats driven by fossil fuel, they are air conditioned, they are heated, they have satellite navigation systems so that they know exactly where they are at all times. They have fish finding systems that they can find the schools of fish, surround every single one and scoop them up. And yet the ethic we have and the rules we have are the ones we developed in the ages of the single man going out in the dory. We have to change. We have to change to reflect the current circumstances. Just because I am strong enough to take something to take something doesn't mean I have the right to take something. 52:56 we have as a nation celebrated gree~.53:21 I am in this for the long haul .. I want to know that our grandchildren and their grandchildren -the 7th generation and many more generations will be able to see the beautiful mating dance of a pair of butterfly fish. I want them to enjoy the taste of abalone because abalone are abundant instead of extinct. I want people to able to learn from and savor the benefit from life. 54:04

ambi at place of interview 56:04 -58:40

END 58:39

Close Title