Comment from Keith McIntyre

A third of the sanctuary is an excessive area to set aside for academic studies. You are aware of the historic opinions that the reef offers no significant academic value because its too far north. And the results of such studies, and taxpayer expenditures, include "ground-breaking" findings such as "fish prefer a hard bottom". What a waste of time and money. The sanctuary is for public use and the highest and best use is recreational, not academic. The sanctuary should be set aside for recreational use and academic research areas minimized according to their relatively minimal value. Yes, study areas may have some value, but that value should not impose so pervasively on the highest and best use of the sanctuary. Asking for a third of the sanctuary to be set aside is pure blasphemy and greed and outright ignores the primary purpose of creating a sanctuary.