Many traditions of coastal peoples may be viewed as traditional forms of marine conservation because, like modern fisheries management, they restrict fishing gear, fishing times, and places, but their effects are little studied in practice. A study was undertaken of human culture and fisheries resources in an area of southern Kenya, designated as a national marine reserve, to determine the effect of the existing 'traditional management' on fisheries yields and on the ecological condition of the fished reefs. This area has one of the oldest and most elaborate cultural traditions concerning sacred sites and rituals of sacrifice along the Kenyan coast. The purpose of the customs is, however, to appease spirits rather than to regulate fish stocks which are traditionally seen to fluctuate independently of fishing effort. Many of these traditions have decayed in recent times as Islamization of the culture has occurred, and authority has shifted towards national organizations, weakening the effectiveness of the traditional leaders. Coincidentally, fishers have adopted new or foreign gear, colleagues, and traditions. Two adjacent landing sites (Mvuleni and Mwanyaza) have, however, successfully stopped pull seiners from landing their catch at their sites for over 20 years through passive means. Other landing sites have adopted pull seining. Both landing areas use arguments based on tradition to justify their use of gear. The two landings that restrict pull seining have higher per capita fish catches than those that do not. Nonetheless, there were no obvious differences in the ecological condition of the reefs at these two management areas; both areas were amongst the most degraded reefs reported in East Africa. Biological diversity and coral cover were reduced greatly in all these areas compared to other fished or fully-protected marine park or reserve sites established by the national government. Presently, traditional management is not effective in protecting species diversity or ecological functions, which was probably never the intention of the customs. The conflict between national organizations and local fishers arises because some resource users are concerned that the management proposed by the national organizations will eventually lead to the total loss of access to, and control of the resource by local fishers. There is, therefore, a need to resolve conflicts concerning gear use and regulation, and a need to increase awareness of the expectations and management programmes among the national and local organizations. Many of the traditional forms of management are compatible with the policies of national organizations, but confusion and conflict occur concerning enforcement and its benefits. To solve these conflicts discussions are required between traditional and national fisheries leaders to develop mutually-acceptable policies that augment and share the power of management.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Since the beginning of Elon College’s study-abroad program 30 years ago, it has been an ever-expanding part of the Elon academic program. Indeed, 46 percent of May 1999 Elon graduates participated in study abroad, ranking Elon second in the country among comprehensive colleges and universities for the percentage of students who study abroad. This short article summarizes some recent activities undertaken at Elon College that support its strong study-abroad program. Cost and time commitment vary by activity.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.. African Studies Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to African Studies Review.The historians Jane Carruthers and Thomas P. Ofcansky focus on the late nineteenth-to mid-twentieth-century protection of wild animals as game in South and East Africa, respectively. Both authors use the accounts of British colonial park wardens, rangers, and big game hunters as key sources, have an interest in military issues, and extensive in-country experience. Beyond these basics, however, the two books under review share little. Whereas Wildlife and Warfare is a detailed, well-written and well-researched work, Paradise Lost suffers from multiple shortcomings.Paradise Lost is unusual in that it was more than twenty years in the making yet is far from being a monumental work. While it may be viewed as a personal triumph for Ofcansky to have belatedly published a work derived from his dissertation with his alma mater's press, there are very few reasons to recommend Paradise Lost to any reader. Ofcansky left academia in the late 1980s to join the Department of Defense; the move is reflected in the fact that the author cites no book more recent than the 1980s or article less than twelve years old. Although published in 2002, the book is dated in other ways as well. Ofcansky ignores present-day conventions and uses the generic he throughout his work, and he does not distinguish between preservation and conservation of wildlife as is currently the norm-using preservation so broadly that it includes off-take of wildlife through sport hunting and culling. Similarly he uses the term game at times when referring to animals legally unavailable for sport hunting and does not make clear that some game was valued while other game animals were considered to be vermin. In his discussions of ecology, Ofcansky relies solely on notions of a "balance of nature" and makes no reference to the possibility of nonequilibrium systems. The foreword was written in 1990.The author undertook a small number of interviews for Paradise Lost in 1979, most of them in London. All appear to be with people of European descent. He does not describe his research methods or theoretical framework. The writing is clumsy at times, with poor transitions between paragraphs. There is a factual error on the first page: The author states that by 1945 it was clear to politicians that Kenya's fauna was in need of protection. This may have been true for much of Kenya's terrestrial fauna, but it was not the case for the marine context where plans were still being devised to This content downloaded from 62.122.72.186 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 05:01:24 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions