The research conducted there, some of which goes back to the refuge's creation 66 years ago, establishes important baseline data for monitoring the environmental health of the kelp forest community. Even a completely no-take mandate for the Ricketts Park would not affect collecting within the Hopkins Refuge. But some research projects require access to areas within the Ricketts Park boundaries as well, says Baxter. Indeed, much important biological research has come out of Hopkins, some of it directly relevant to the questions at hand. A recent study of the conservation value of the Hopkins boundaries suggests a greater abundance of fish inside the refuge, and the fish there are significantly larger than those outside the refuge.
Bigger fish have a greater reproductive potential than smaller ones.
This and other studies at Hopkins, and on reserves elsewhere, show that protected areas probably act as both fish stock protection zones and recruitment sources. So, reserves such as the proposed park could bolster the fish populations beyond the park's boundaries, a substantial consolation to fishermen, should they be locked out of the park. It also suggests that sea lions and seals aren't solely responsible for the fish declines witnessed in the area. Fishermen, defending their right to continue working here, have deflected the blame of diminishing stocks to the recovery of local marine mammals since protective legislation was enacted in 1972. But sea mammals don't recognize the Hopkins boundary, and so that can't explain the difference in the number and size of fish inside the refuge.