Quote:
Originally Posted by BasicPatrick
Flap and others have it correct. To just say that the ESA is wrong will get us nowhere. The current strategy to "adjust" the Piping Plover Recovery Plan to allow CCNS & the two local towns to manage both birds and access was based on just that theory. Federal officials continue to push those working on this issue to go for a section 10 permit which would allow for "take" of a bird and this is not what the "pro access" reps want to happen. Unfortunately, it may come down to that being our only option, however we feel that because the Northeast Flyway has been above the "Recovery Goal" of nesting pairs for over ten years, then we should have some relief in the plan. If the whole coast was at the "Recovery Goal", then the whole plan would trigger an automatic shift from protection to management of the species. It gets worse because the actual data on these birds is turning out to be dead wrong with regard to where they will and will not nest. When the interdunal roat to the lighthouse closed becsuse there were two (I think) nest on it, the long held belief that Plovers would not nest anywhere but between the Dunes and the shoreline was shatterred. The scientists can not admit to the theory that the CCNS is actually becoming overcrwded as far as the Plover Population because this would give ammunition to those that beleive we should move into the management phase on CCNS. I get baffled because I would think the Plover Advocates would want to herald this info and would want to use CCNS as a model for other areas. A declaration of recovery, even in the one state, would give them some clout to force protections in other areas on the coast, however it would trigger management here at CCNS. I for one beleive both Man and Plover can co exist on the beach, but we have a lot of work to prove that and then get a couple of competeing government agencies to agree.
|
I agree and disagree with this statement.
I for one feel that yes, the majority of people, ones who appreciate nature and will look out for the birds can co-exist with them. The problem I forsee, and I imagine the managers is that your average person who uses the beach wouldn't know where to look or even what a plover is.
How can someone who doesn't know what the bird is pick one out of the sand when they are barely visible, and then avoid them?
For me, knowing the area where the birds are and where the nest is, often times I can't see the birds.
I have heard solutions of allowing a "spotter" to walk in front of the car looking for chicks in tracks to allowing rangers to walk in front of vehicles. I don't know but it doesn't seem economically feasable. Plus what good is a spotter if he doesn't know what he is looking for or doesn't care if there is a bird in the way? Then what do you do if there is a bird in the track? run after it and chase it away?
I think it is going to be very difficult for the birds and people to coexist on the beach. I sure hope it is possible, but i think the bigger issue is that not everyone who uses the beach uses it for fishing and many of the peolpe driving on the beaches couldn't give 2 s hits about the birds at all. Unfortunately just like in the cases of losing access due to trash and noise, the actions of few are hurting us as fishermen. in this instance i think that your average beach goer is hurting us more than the fisherman. generally fisherman are conservation minded and fully support the rebuilding of a species, look no furthur than our striped bass. but its the guy from new york city who wants to run his BMW on the beach that is the problem. Can the park service allow "fisherman access only?"
I don't think there is any easy solution, its a national park, how can it be open for a select group and not for others?
Its a shame that we are losing access left and right, nothing beats a nice
on the beach looking for fish. hopefully we won't lose the access that we all seem to be working so hard to maintain.