It's great--don't get me wrong. I've spoken to wildlife biologists who've already seen endangered species of tropical fish begin to recover since the establishment of the monument in the Northwestern Hawaiian Archipelago. But as when Bush established that monument, I find myself wondering, Why this? Why the ocean? Some sense of legacy? A preference for an old-fashioned brand of conservationism in which we go about creating wilderness parks? Expediency--since there are few vested interests who oppose these monuments? With the last monument, I thought I caught a whiff of greenwashing. This time? He seems to have nothing to gain. Laura Bush allegedly cares about ocean conservation. Maybe she explains it.

I'm with Nippers.  

Since  the Bluefin tuna population is already devastated has commercial fishing already basically stopped around this area?

The press release trumpeted about how this will stop oil & gas exploitation;  are there any known reserves of oil or gas in the designated zone (or anywhere near it)?

If anyone believes that Bush did this out of some innate belief that we need to protect *this area* feel free to say so.  Otherwise this smells a bit like an attempt to green wash his legacy, e.g. "President Bush designated these HUGE areas in the Pacific as Marine Monuments.  No other president can match that legacy!".  Perhaps I do suffer from Bush derangement syndrome after all of these years of believing my views were evidenced-based, but does anyone else have a more plausible explanation?

Nari got to it first; are we basically talking about a place where there was nothing left to exploit?  If so that's only a very, very pale green...

I was going to suggest it was inspired by this week's special report on the perilous state of the sea in The Economist, but then I remembered it was in The Economist and not The Sporting News, so that's probably unlikely.