Protecting Eco-System of the Lundy Marine Nature Reserve - Case Study Example

ECO-TOURISM Protecting eco-system is very important because eco-system has all the ingredients to sustain human as well as other lives. Invariably eco-system can be used for eco-tourism that brings the required revenue for its sustainability. Lets look at the Lundy Marine Nature Reserve for example. In 1969 the divers discovered the existence of warm water marine species and the idea of a marine nature reserve came into being and was discussed. After this discussion, a stimulated interest in protecting the area grew and in 1971 Lundy Field Society proposed to establish a marine reserve. According to lundy.org.uk (1999) provision for the establishment of statutory Marine Nature Reserves was included in the 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Act. After public consultation, on 21st November 1986 the Secretary of State for Environment declared a statutory reserve at Lundy. The Management of Marine Nature Reserve was given to English Nature by "the statutory advisor to Government on nature conservation in England" (lundy.org.uk, 1999) i.e. the English Nature is responsible to look after the Marine Nature Reserve. Landmark Trust employed a Warden for funding who lease the island in association with the Devon Sea Fisheries Committee that regulates and manage fisheries in the area. Devon Sea Fisheries Committee and English Nature jointly proposed the first statutory No Take Zone which is a 3.3 square kilometer of sea on east side of the Lundy Marine Nature Reserve in the UK. According to this proposal of No Take Zone none of the marine life including lobsters, fish and crabs of the sea should be taken and if any one does he/she is punishable under Marine Life Act. The No Take Zone has received support from every quarter of life i.e. from local fishermen to Lundy management, Advisory Groups and Devon Sea Fisheries. http://www.lundy.org.uk/inf/zone.html The main purpose of the No Take Zone proposal and according to bbc.co.uk (2006) was introduced to try to reverse the problems caused by over-fishing, which has depleted stocks in the oceans. This step was taken to protect and restore marine life, which dipped a new low because of over fishing that depleted the marine stocks in the ocean. The above figure shows how the Marine Nature Reserve was divided into zones. The following are the zones of Lundy Marine Nature Reserve: Red area: It is a highly restricted area and is protected 24/7 all through the year. Fishing or collecting or catching of sea life of any kind is not permitted and if any one does they would certainly face heavy legal penalties. The No Take Zone that was proposed by Devon Sea Fisheries Committee and English Nature and according to lundy.org.uk (1999) stretches north to Lat 51 12.04N, south to Lat 51 10.07N and east from Lundy's shores to Long 004 39.00W. There are restrictions to divers also. There is no permission of any kind for anchoring or diver shot lines. Yellow area: In this fishing is not allowed except potting or angling. This zone is known as Refuge Zone. Green area: This zone is known as Recreational Zone and is strictly restricted as for the Yellow Zone and it is a protected area. No fishing is allowed except potting and angling. The Black Circles are the legally protected wrecks. Strictly no diving or fishing, only those will be allowed fishing who are having license permission from English Heritage. General User Zone: Any severe laws do not restrict the Blue area as it is in the case of other zones that are heavily guarded zones. It covers the remaining part of the Marine Nature Reserve and is generally termed as General User Zone. In this zone everything is allowed i.e. from fishing or catching any marine life including lobsters, fish, etc., to sailing. Only spear fishing is not allowed. Some of the long term benefits of No Take Zone are as following: Considerable increase in populations of fish and shellfish stock in and outside No Take Zone. Establishment of refuge for fish and shellfish stock effectively in the restricted No Take Zone. Fishermen around the closed area will benefit by the No Take Zone area as the increased populations of fish and shellfish stock migrate outside the closed area. Considerable increase in Marine life. Local economy will be benefited from tourism, fishing, diving and research. Marine Nature Reserve at Lundy was first of its kind in UK and was a huge success. According to bbc.co.uk (2006) the draft report by conservation scientists shows there are now three times as many lobsters inside the 'no catch zone' compared to other areas where fishing continues. They also predict that the full effects will be known only after two years. This increase in population is not only healthier for marine life but also when they migrate outside of the zone, they benefit the local fisherman. And accordingly there was considerable increase in the stocks outside the No Take Zone. Another example is Yellowstone National Park. The last wolf of Yellowstone National Park was shot in the year 1926 and by 1940s slowly due to over-hunting, habitat loss and system eradication programs that are aimed at top predators like wolves resulted in the elimination of their population from most of the contiguous United States. In 1967 timber wolves subspecies were listed as an endangered species under the Endangered Specie Preservation Act of 1966. This bolstered in the passage of Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) by which the Secretary of the Interior was forced to list all other species of wolves including the gray wolves and the red wolves as an endangered species. In 1975, to develop a long-term plan in order to regional recovery and finally de-listing of the gray wolves as an endangered species the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) appointed the Northern Rocky Mountain Recovery team. In 1978, central Idaho, North-western Montana and the Yellowstone National Park were identified as the three regions that were suitable for wolves' recovery plan as these areas have habitat characteristics that were suitable to sustain their population. In 1987, the efforts of Northern Rocky Mountain Recovery team resulted in the approval of their plan, stipulated that for the next three consecutive years each of the three should be able to maintain a minimum of 10 breeding pairs so that FWS be able to de-list the wolves as an endangered species. The expected population was approximately 300 wolves. According to the plan recovery should be natural that wolves should be emigrated from the neighboring country Canada. The natural recovery plan was for Idaho and Montana, Yellowstone National Park was chosen for reintroduction by applying the experimental-population authority of ' 10(j) of the ESA. In the outcome of a failure of planned establishment of two wolf packs in central Idaho within five years, reintroduction should be considered for these areas. In January 1995, 29 wolves were transported from Canada to the reintroduction areas in the Northern Rocky Mountains. Of the 29 wolves 15 were released into central Idaho and the remaining 14 were released into Yellowstone National Park. Again in January 1996 37 wolves were transported from Canada to the same reintroduction areas in the Northern Rocky Mountains. Of these 20 were released into central Idaho and the remaining 17 were released into Yellowstone National Park. Ten wolf pups were moved to Yellowstone National Park from North-western Montana. The reason for this movement was due to the repeated depredation of livestock by wolves that force the authorities to kill the adults. FWS has successfully reintroduced a total of 41 wolves into the Yellowstone National Park and 35 wolves into the central Idaho (Robert J. Noecker). In the spring nine packs of wolves were able to successfully produce 13 litters of 64 pups, this was the wolf restoration project's third year. The Northern Rocky Mountain Recovery plan was a huge success and exceeded the expectations of FWS and has forced Secretary Babbitt to announce the cancellation of further reintroduction of wolves into the Northern Rocky Mountain area. It is estimated that after the reintroduction in 1995 100,000 people visited the Yellowstone National Park. Despite the controversy the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) was able to successfully reintroduce the gray wolves into central Idaho and in the areas of Yellowstone National Park. The FWS also successfully reintroduced the red wolves in the Southeast and has several plans of reintroduction of Mexican gray wolves into the Southeast; Olympic National Park was chosen to habitat the gray wolf and the eastern timber wolf in the Northeast. Reference bbc.co.uk. (2006) Lundy marine life booms after fishing ban. [online]. Available from: < http://www.bbc.co.uk/devon/outdoors/nature/2004/lundy_ban.shtml>. [Accessed 13 Feb. 2007]. lundy.org.uk. (1999) Lundy Island Marine Nature Reserve. [online]. Available from: . [Accessed 13 Feb. 2007]. English Nature. (2002) First 'No Take Zone' in UK established at Lundy. [online]. Available from:< http://www.english-nature.org.uk/news/story.asp'ID=397>. [Accessed 13 Feb. 2007]. Robert J. Noecker. (1997) Reintroduction of Wolves. [online]. Available from: < http://www.ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/Biodiversity/biodv-13.cfm'&CFID=6622718&CFTOKEN>. [Accessed 13 Feb. 2007]. Read More