What Part Of "Protected" In "Marine Protected Area" Don't You Get?

Marine protected areas (MPAs) work as a conservation tool. No take MPAs have demonstrated their success in allowing previously over-fished species of fish to recover. The consensus of coral reef scientists who gathered in Florida last month for the 11th International Coral Reef Symposium was that MPAs are still our best defense against global coral threats. But we need more of them, and those already in existence need strengthening.

But tell that to decision makers on Guam.

Bill 327, introduced by Sens. Judith Guthertz and Rory Respicio on July 2, seeks to grant Chamorros (indigenous residents of Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana islands) "special rights to off-shore fishing and harvesting of resources in order to redress historical discriminatory policies," according to the proposed legislation. But a pesky little problem has arisen surrounding this bill. Who is Chamorro and how, precisely, does one decide what indigenous means?

As Dave Davis of the Marianas Variety writes,

Most of those who claim Chamorro ethnicity would probably have a tough time proving it through bloodline tracings. After truly indigenous Chamorros were virtually exterminated by the Spaniards in the 1600s, vestiges of original bloodlines were diluted by intermarriage and other less formal domestic relationships with Spaniards; Filipinos; Mexicans (many of whom were ethnic Native Americans); Chinese; Japanese; several varieties of European Caucasian (British, Portuguese, Italian, Scottish, etc.); and who-knows - what else over the ensuing four hundred years, and it continues today. Modern Chamorros can likely trace bloodlines only part way back through that maze, so it's probably not the most reliable proof of origin. Even local law acknowledges that uncertainty by alluding to bloodline qualification "to the remotest degree," but makes no attempt to address any bloodline criteria prior to 1898. That's pretty thin.

If Bill 327 is passed it will open open Guam's MPAs for fishing, claiming that such conservation areas are causing the loss of tradition and culture. So once again, arguments for tradition apparently trump sound resource management. But why do I get the feeling that tradition has very little to do with Bill 327? Color me skeptical, but this smacks more of profit and greed as motivators. And it has all the markings of a certain fisheries lobbying group written all over it.