As we've heard from other witnesses, the main target of protection is fish populations that have been impacted, although other MPAs like the Gully have been designated to protect other entities, like the bottlenose whales, which also could be impacted by bycatch, for example, and cod, which could be impacted by bottom-touching gear. It often is about fishing, and many forms of fishing are incompatible with many of the uses and objectives of MPAs, like rebuilding fish populations and protecting sensitive bottom habitats.
There was a question about recreational fishing. A lot of the strongly protected MPAs have zones that allow for recreational fishing, but the evidence has shown, for example, in New Zealand, that even light recreational fishing—not catch-and-release fishing, this is fish and take—does roll back some of the benefits that MPAs otherwise can offer. I've studied this myself, and there are many papers on this particular example from New Zealand, where you have side-by-side areas that are fished by recreational anglers and others that are not. You can see that the fished areas often are not distinguishable from areas that are not protected, which is surprising, but that's what the data shows us.