Huguenot Park - Your access today!

[kitester]

To bucket....

You are correct that this is a pet project. I have always been a wildlife advocate. People should act responsibly in our natural environment. Terrorizing and harassing wildlife should never be allowed and .....oh you were talking about the other thing. Yes, that too.

to Spring,

People with dogs off the leash were not the ultimate target of the bird lobby, just the first, easy one. I guess that people who swim will be in trouble for leaving with some of the water and sand that belongs to the park. What will be the next reason for the next closure? And since you dont have a problem with areas of the beach being closed to driving just park along the road on Hecksher Dr. next time you want to go to the park. People need to see the big picture here. all of the access is in jeopardy and for no reason. Don't be apathetic now.   

[BridgeTroll]

Exactly.  The big picture shows that there is no parking at the park without parking at the beach.  I suppose they could bulldoze some dunes closer to the ranger station and fill in some wetlands but that is not a very good solution.  Parking along Hecksher is a non starter also.  You simply cannot park that many cars along the side of the road not to mention the extremely long walk from there.  (approximately 2 miles)

The solution for wildlife and humans is to close sections and areas to parking, humans and dogs, during nesting and migration periods and allow public access during the rest of the time.  Simple and equitable.

[kitester]

bridge...

You are correct. there is a way to do this right and the city has met all the needs of people and wildlife within the park. But its not enough for Audubon. I had tried to post information about this on other parts of the forum but the mediator merged all the posts back to this one. If any of you think that this has any relevance to any other sections of this forum please pass the info to those that might not see it under the public safety topics. For instance some people might only look at the "Mandrin" part of the forum or some might only look at the "sports page". That way I am not violating the rules of the forum and people who are unaware may still get the message. If you don't feel strongly about this then just read about it here. Also print out the flyer information and post in the window near the door of your favorite restaurant or bar. Put it any place where people might see it. You don't have togo out of your way just make sure it is seen in the places you already go.    If enough of the word is spread we might be able to send these over zealous idiots packing. Otherwise its us who will be looking for another beach to visit.

[Springfielder]

to Spring,

People with dogs off the leash were not the ultimate target of the bird lobby, just the first, easy one. I guess that people who swim will be in trouble for leaving with some of the water and sand that belongs to the park. What will be the next reason for the next closure? And since you dont have a problem with areas of the beach being closed to driving just park along the road on Hecksher Dr. next time you want to go to the park. People need to see the big picture here. all of the access is in jeopardy and for no reason.    

The ignorant and irresponsible people that walked their dogs off the leash, which some then created problems, are a concern of mine and clearly others. I never cared for someone else's dog running up to me, I don't care how friendly it may or may not be. And of course, the ridiculous comparison is just that...and requires no response.

Contrary to what you accuse me of, I do see the big picture and I don't have a problem with no vehicles on certain areas of the beach. Nor do I have a problem walking to the beach from where I park my vehicle.

"Don't be apathetic now." Not to worry, I'm not and won't be, not for those who feel this is such a major inconvenience and want to paint the Audubon as the bad guy.

[kitester]

In this case the Audubon is a BAD GUY. No matter how you cut it the ultimate goal will be to close all of the park to driving. Don t forget that is exactly what they tried to do in December. Doing it one section at a time is just the easy way. The less people that are allowed to go the park the fewer voices that will be there to speak against closures in the future. Did you see any dog owners at the last public meeting? Not a one was there because they had given up. I dont have a dog but I spoke for them in an effort to keep the park available in at least some form.  That one voice was over looked by everyone there because the pet owners were bargained away to appease the Audubon. If you read the original management plan you would see that all activities were to be eliminated from zones 11 through 14. No swimming, fishing, boating, etc.. In December they asked that even pedestrian access be eliminated from those areas too. They had to change that and ultimately had to settle for another review in the fall of this year. Dont kid yourself. The Audubon is supposed to have our backs not stick a knife in 'em.       

[Springfielder]

So you say and feel...I however, am not in this for business or personal gain. I see this as a means to protect the environment and wildlife. As a pet owner, I have no problem not taking my dog to the beach, I prefer the park.

It's not the intent of the Audubon to have our backs, they're looking out for the wildlife. I don't know what makes you think that their interest is with the people, when people are the ones who have destroyed and polluted habitats. Jacksonville and Florida has plenty of beaches, parks and recreational facilities to be used and enjoyed by people. I'm glad that the Audubon fights to protect wildlife and I support their efforts 100%. Therefore I don't mind if that means having to walk instead of drive, not taking a dog to the certain sections, certain beaches, etc. I don't mind being restricted during nesting season, because I don't mind doing my part to help preserve and protect what people in general could care less about.

So your whining about this, does not bother me in the least. As I said, Florida is surrounded by beach, there's plenty of it for everyone to enjoy.

[JettyDog]

Springfielder,
     I'm sorry. The Florida beaches you speak about that all can enjoy........are those the same ones about to be fouled by BP? We may have a chance to avoid what the rest of the State is about to experience. Only we may not have to clean the Royal Terns and Pelicans of oil . The Gulf Stream may take the oil away from us as it does hurricanes. And you want to deny folks, locals and tourists who will observe the birds, from coming to the park? This makes no sense.

[kitester]

Spring...

I am in this fight for the truth. It is great that you want to see the wildlife protected and preserved as we all do. You are correct that it is not the intent of the Audubon, Sierra Club, Defenders Of Wildlife or the Nature Conservancy to have our backs. It is clearly their intent to remove human influence on the natural environment where ever it happens. It is clear that their interests are not with the people. I too am glad that the Audubon fights to protect wildlife but in this case they have clearly overstepped that initiative. Let me address the issue of beach driving again.

               
                                                AT HUGUENOT PARK.....  let  us  review

For the past ten years at least this one mile stretch of sand has produced more successful turtle nests and hatchlings than any other one mile stretch of beach in Florida, perhaps in the south east.

For the last eight years this one mile stretch of beach has produced a huge super colony of nesting birds. I would guess that the numbers are now in the 20 thousand range.

The water in and around the park has been tested and found to be some of the cleanest, if not the cleanest open water in the whole state.

The fishing in the waters around the park produce a wide variety of sport and game fish including tarpon, bluefish, kingfish, trout, drum, redfish, snapper, flounder, shark, whiting and others.

The City of Jacksonville and its park management team have completed 90% of a ten year protection plan in less than one year. This plan was authored and audited by the Audubon and its sympathizers and given the green light as a comprehensive and suitable plan for the protection of wildlife and the public use of the park.

The FWC has repeatedly "signed off" on the plan saying that the city has met ALL the necessary requirements to protect wildlife in and around the park.

             
In spite of all this the Audubon and Sierra Club have pushed for greater and greater restrictions and closures. I suspect they they thought that the city would not implement the plan or would fail to provide the protections and are probably disappointed by the city's success. 
             
                                                      Lets review......
                                                       
They have strangled the city's efforts to get permits and leases from the state and federal governments.

They forced the city to pay for and adopt a management plan that cost the taxpayers of this community 6 million dollars.

They have out right lied about the wildlife, making such statements as
             "Red Knots fly from Argentina to Huguenot Park and from Huguenot Park to the Arctic" (untrue)
                                                         or
             " This is the last (or largest) nesting colony of nesting of terns on the east coast" (used the same argument in St Augustine to close beach driving there. If there is only one or the largest which place has it?)

They interpret information only in a way that suits the closure agenda. Last year on a single day 16 baby terns were found dead near the point in zone 12. The area had been closed to automotive traffic for over a month. I watched the Audubon reps insist that the only reason for the deaths was human intervention. BUT I was there and know what actually happened. The currents on the point formed a small sand bar that the fledgling birds could walk to at low tide. But when the tide came in they were stranded on the bar with water too deep to cross between them and the beach. Only a narrow strip of dry sand at one end was left when I left the park that night. There were about fifty fledglings on the bar. Had I realized I would have "herded" them to that dry sand so they would not be trapped and drown. Things like this happen all the time in nature but if it can be turned against the public the Audubon will jump on it. By the way more sand bars have formed again this year and it would be an easy thing to happen again.

They have opposed real tests that would prove that birds in nesting colonies die naturally. Last year Florida Open Beaches offered to back a proposal to close Huguenot Park completely during the busiest weekend of the year, the 4th of July weekend, as a test to see if there would still be dead birds each day. The Audubon reps were against this because they knew that there would still be dead birds and it would prove that human interaction was not the cause.

Florida Open Beaches continues to support the construction of off beach parking in the dune area between the "pond" and beach. How cool would it be to have nice parking where your car would not have to drive on salty sand and nice wooden board walks over the dune to the beach. The area is not a natural area and only the last 200 yds of the point contains nesting birds. What a great solution! The Audubon opposes this idea on the grounds that there might be nesting birds there sometime in the future.

Now Spring, I gotta say that I don't think that driving on the shoals is a smart thing to do. Just like the baby birds that were trapped and drown, cars can get stuck and be lost. On a more practical point salt water is a terrible thing to get on your car. And I am with you on the point about dogs off the leash. But here are times when both of those thing have ZERO impact on the environment or other park patrons. Fishermen often have coolers or kids and driving to the place where they fish is necessary for them. People who launch jet skis need the flat water and deep access. The ramp on the other side of the bridge is often full and swimming there is dangerous. The inside of the point is about the only option for people with multiple needs. In the Fall and Winter, about mid September to mid March, there is no critical bird or other wildlife activity taking place in the park. In the off season when the numbers of patrons are low why not allow pet owners to bring their dogs?

When I asked the Audubon representative how these people were going to access the water the response was "They will just have to find somewhere else" (direct quote) In short "you don't have to go home, but you cant stay here"!

When I asked the same rep to remove lies posted on the Audubon Web Page the response was "We feel that would be backing off from the message we want to say"(paraphrased)

If lies work to forward their agenda they use them.

The truth of the matter is simple.

The agenda to remove beach driving and user groups from the park has one goal. The permanent and complete closure of Huguenot Park. With each person that is removed from the park the voice for access is diminished until only a whisper will remain.

Yes that is my opinion but, the record backs it up. The facts back it up. The truth backs it up.

         
     

[BridgeTroll]

You cannot defeat... Big...Bird...  The Big Bird lobby will win over ordinary citizens every time.  Bow to Big Bird...

[Springfielder]

Springfielder,
     I'm sorry. The Florida beaches you speak about that all can enjoy........are those the same ones about to be fouled by BP? We may have a chance to avoid what the rest of the State is about to experience. Only we may not have to clean the Royal Terns and Pelicans of oil . The Gulf Stream may take the oil away from us as it does hurricanes. And you want to deny folks, locals and tourists who will observe the birds, from coming to the park? This makes no sense.

What makes no sense, is trying to tie in the situation in the gulf, with the issue being discussed. I happen to be an avid birder, and yet I don't need to drive onto the beach in order to do so...which is what the issue is...closing sections of the beach to vehicular traffic, not people. As for the situation in the gulf and the horrific oil spill, in all honesty, that has nothing to do with the issue being discussed. That's an entirely different issue. The oil isn't likely to wash up on our beaches, not like in the gulf...so that's pretty much mute.

[Springfielder]

Now Spring, I gotta say that I don't think that driving on the shoals is a smart thing to do. Just like the baby birds that were trapped and drown, cars can get stuck and be lost. On a more practical point salt water is a terrible thing to get on your car. And I am with you on the point about dogs off the leash. But here are times when both of those thing have ZERO impact on the environment or other park patrons. Fishermen often have coolers or kids and driving to the place where they fish is necessary for them. People who launch jet skis need the flat water and deep access. The ramp on the other side of the bridge is often full and swimming there is dangerous. The inside of the point is about the only option for people with multiple needs. In the Fall and Winter, about mid September to mid March, there is no critical bird or other wildlife activity taking place in the park. In the off season when the numbers of patrons are low why not allow pet owners to bring their dogs?

When I asked the Audubon representative how these people were going to access the water the response was "They will just have to find somewhere else" (direct quote) In short "you don't have to go home, but you cant stay here"!

When I asked the same rep to remove lies posted on the Audubon Web Page the response was "We feel that would be backing off from the message we want to say"(paraphrased)

If lies work to forward their agenda they use them.

The truth of the matter is simple.

The agenda to remove beach driving and user groups from the park has one goal. The permanent and complete closure of Huguenot Park. With each person that is removed from the park the voice for access is diminished until only a whisper will remain.

Yes that is my opinion but, the record backs it up. The facts back it up. The truth backs it up.

kitester, you need not bother trying to convince me about how it's oh so important to be able to drive on all of the beach area within Huguenot Park. I completely disagree with you on this and completely disagree with your stance about the Audubon and what they're efforts are. You see them as taking away all of your rights to the beach, when what is really the issue, is not being able to drive in certain sections...not all of it, just some areas. Again, I have absolutely no problem with that at all. I don't see this as leading to the complete closure of the park, and such hysterical rantings claiming that, is outlandish, at best.

You can make all the reviews and summations you want, and it will not change what I see or feel about it. We clearly have completely opposite views, and to be quite frank, nothing you say would change my views or stance. I don't feel panicked, I don't foresee the entire beach area being blocked off to vehicular traffic; whereas you, do. I've never liked the attempts to create a fear of losing all, when it's not true....and it all boils down to your opinion, and mine....neither of which is really all that important, except to ourselves.

[kitester]

Spring,

I truly hope you are right.....but as you said there is more than one way to look at it. I went to all the meetings and saw what they wanted the first go round.

[Springfielder]

The thing is, the Audubon society welcomes the public to become involved, to get out and enjoy nature and all the wildlife. There's just the matter of needing to take certain safety measures to ensure they're protected because not everyone cares and not everyone respects that there is more to the beaches, etc., then merely a place to park your vehicle and fish, swim, and whatever else. If people respected wildlife, then there wouldn't be the need to push for more stringent safety measures.

I truly do understand that people enjoy various activities at the beach, and I don't want them closed off to public access...but I also understand the need for closing certain areas to vehicular traffic. That does not mean that the public still cannot enjoy being there, it's just without the vehicles and it's not the entire park.

All too often, it's the idiots that ruin it for everyone else...the ones that aren't cautious of the wildlife, that aren't respectful that there's more than just their own pleasures. These are the ones that are to blame.

[JettyDog]

Springfielder,
    You said:
What makes no sense, is trying to tie in the situation in the gulf, with the issue being discussed.

And you also said:
As for the situation in the gulf and the horrific oil spill, in all honesty, that has nothing to do with the issue being discussed. That's an entirely different issue. The oil isn't likely to wash up on our beaches, not like in the gulf...

     Actually, the issues are linked, but you don't seem to be able to see that. And that's OK. I will show you how they are linked shortly. You may not accept or understand my perspective when I present it, but many reading this forum will. I am interested in one thing, 'tho.  What is your justification in shutting down the Point? Please enlighten me.

[cybertique]

Your responses are censored!