One thing I have not considered before is the idea of a moving park, or parks with flexible boundaries. Often species that many parks seek to protect do not stay within the boundaries that we humans have established. On a small scale this might be an Eastern Fox Snake (Pantherophis gloydi) swimming from Georgian Bay Islands National Park to an unprotected area on the mainland. A larger example could be the migrations of Monarch Butterflies (Danaus plexippus) or shorebirds. Not only is it possible for these animals to cross park boundaries, but they can also traverse the borders of nations.
Velasquez-Manoff's article (see below) focuses on marine protected areas. Sea birds and aquatic animals are certainly not likely to stay within prescribed boundaries. As a result, flexible boundaries should be considered when planning future Marine Reserve, for example, or revisiting a management plan. This of course will not be an easy, or even possible, task in some cases. The article and accompanying audio clip provide a number of solutions. Boundaries can be made larger than originally intended. This would create a buffer zone that anticipates species movement. A system of protected areas could be established that related to the movement of species or certain key areas, such as spawning grounds, could be protected. Lastly, and perhaps the most beneficial method would be to focus on alternative species preservation methods alongside marine protected areas. A more extreme example of this would be altering shipping lanes to accomodate migrations or restricting fishing.
What the article does not mention is the necessity of protecting aquatic ecosystems. Protected areas are, in most cases, not merely set aside to protect one species. Usually there are other resources benefitting from this protection. Marine protected areas should not be ruled out of the equasion even when planning to protect just one species.
I think what is even more interesting to consider is the idea of flexible boundaries for land-based protected areas. Perhaps the easiest method would be to simply map out the migration patterns of a specific species and ensure that points A, B, and the line in between were protected. Of course this is much easier said than done. Taking a cue from the "extreme examples" above, hunting and travel could be restricted when a particular species is migrating in and near the area of its migration.
I will sign off at this point, but will continue to ponder this idea and post any further conclusions.
Please see:
Velasquez-Manoff, Moises. "Parks that can move when the animals do." The Christian Science Monitor, 4 March 2009.
Velasquez-Manoff's article (see below) focuses on marine protected areas. Sea birds and aquatic animals are certainly not likely to stay within prescribed boundaries. As a result, flexible boundaries should be considered when planning future Marine Reserve, for example, or revisiting a management plan. This of course will not be an easy, or even possible, task in some cases. The article and accompanying audio clip provide a number of solutions. Boundaries can be made larger than originally intended. This would create a buffer zone that anticipates species movement. A system of protected areas could be established that related to the movement of species or certain key areas, such as spawning grounds, could be protected. Lastly, and perhaps the most beneficial method would be to focus on alternative species preservation methods alongside marine protected areas. A more extreme example of this would be altering shipping lanes to accomodate migrations or restricting fishing.
What the article does not mention is the necessity of protecting aquatic ecosystems. Protected areas are, in most cases, not merely set aside to protect one species. Usually there are other resources benefitting from this protection. Marine protected areas should not be ruled out of the equasion even when planning to protect just one species.
I think what is even more interesting to consider is the idea of flexible boundaries for land-based protected areas. Perhaps the easiest method would be to simply map out the migration patterns of a specific species and ensure that points A, B, and the line in between were protected. Of course this is much easier said than done. Taking a cue from the "extreme examples" above, hunting and travel could be restricted when a particular species is migrating in and near the area of its migration.
I will sign off at this point, but will continue to ponder this idea and post any further conclusions.
Please see:
Velasquez-Manoff, Moises. "Parks that can move when the animals do." The Christian Science Monitor, 4 March 2009.
No comments:
Post a Comment