Huguenot Park - Your access today!

[BridgeTroll]

witnessed exactly the types that are clamoring for their right

Wow... That is a pretty stereotypical staement there forester!  Perhaps you mean the many families with small children... or the fishermen with their gear.  Perhaps you meant the surfers and kite flyers...

The dunes where the birds nest are roped off... and the beach can be closed during times when the hestlings venture out where the people are.

The point here... is people and wildlife should be able to co mingle with a little compromise.

[floridaforester]

Again, since when is it necessary to drive on a beach? I'm pretty sure that across the country and here in Jax even, families with small children and fishermen with gear (how much gear is needed exactly) find a way to access the water without driving directly to it.  And any surfer worth their salt can carry their board across the sand.  If you think my statement is off base, when was the last time you visited Huguenot park?

[BridgeTroll]

I probably go once a month or so... never once ran over a baby bird... I cant remember seeing a Hummer either tho I am sure a few have.  How many birds have you run over there?  Im guessing none.  Now that I think of it... I have never seen a squished baby bird on the beach.  In fact... birds by nature tend to "fly away" when approached by people or cars.  Have you ever tried to catch a seagull?  Drive out to Huguenot and give it a try...

[buckethead]

I like the idea of protecting species that have been placed at a disadvantage by technology, habitat distruction, and even human activity, to a degree.

What I don't like is small segments of the population seeking to assert power over the general population based on their own self generated hysteria.

[Springfielder]

Well, that's a contradiction in of itself, you're either for preservation or your not. Most times when people say they support it with limitations, that means people win, wildlife loses. People have invaded and destroyed so much of the habitats for wildlife, and it seems like every time there's an effort to either restore it or preserve it, people get all riled up...claiming it's their right...no it isn't.

I love the beach and visit it often, however, I just never felt it necessary to drive on it. Perhaps it's because where I grew up, you simply weren't allowed to drive on the beach...so it was never an option. I just don't feel there's the need to take the debate to extremes, that solves nothing and only inflames both sides.

I do agree that there can be an amicable compromise by both sides, but that takes both sides willing to compromise...that, seems to be the problem. It would be a matter of ensuring the nesting areas are well protected, and still allow people the use of the beach.

[buckethead]

Well, that's a contradiction in of itself, you're either for preservation or your not. Most times when people say they support it with limitations, that means people win, wildlife loses. People have invaded and destroyed so much of the habitats for wildlife, and it seems like every time there's an effort to either restore it or preserve it, people get all riled up...claiming it's their right...no it isn't.

I love the beach and visit it often, however, I just never felt it necessary to drive on it. Perhaps it's because where I grew up, you simply weren't allowed to drive on the beach...so it was never an option. I just don't feel there's the need to take the debate to extremes, that solves nothing and only inflames both sides.

I do agree that there can be an amicable compromise by both sides, but that takes both sides willing to compromise...that, seems to be the problem. It would be a matter of ensuring the nesting areas are well protected, and still allow people the use of the beach.

You had me at hello....

You lost me at "no it isn't".

[kitester]

To everyone here,

Thanks. Your interest may begin to shed light on the truth.

To floridaforester,


i respect your opinion but let me explain why driving at the park is necessary.

Lets be clear. Huguenot Park is a unique place. It exists as it does today only because of the jetty and the efforts of the Boy Scouts in the 70s and 80s collecting and stacking discarded Christmas trees out there to build up the dunes. Simply put, the park is a man made place. For over 30 years the city has funded and maintained the area, even before it was a city park generating revenue. Back then the whole area was a place to run 4X4s over the sand and race dirt bikes. The place was little more than a naked sandbar. Neither the state or the federal government wanted the responsibility of management. When the city stepped in and leased it almost 25 years ago they began to pour money into it to build the road, camp grounds and associated facilities. Everyone seemed to have found an answer to the problem of uncontrolled access and proper management. As the popularity of the park increased and the yearly attendance rose the city stepped in to provide greater and greater protections for both the wildlife and park patrons. The area where the dunes are now was set aside for protection from erosion by cars and people. That area we now call the CWA. Up until the last eight years or so the balance between public use and wildlife in the park and surrounding areas was just fine. Then several events took place that put the public and birds in closer proximity.

The primary nesting area for these birds was 4.5 miles north of the park. The areas along the north point of Big Talbot Island and the sand bars that extend out from there, including Bird Island had the largest nesting populations of terns and gulls in the area. Many still do nest there These areas are mostly inaccessible except by boat and are protected just like the CWA inside the park. But a series of tropical storms over a three year period  washed over the sandbars and the birds began looking for another place to nest. One of the closest places was Huguenot Park and because the CWA kept people away they began to nest there. At first there were only a few but as the birds learned that the higher dunes protected the nests they began to nest there in greater numbers. Then someone had the bright idea to burn off most of the vegetation in a large area of the CWA to increase breeding habitat for terns. The plan backfired and now there are huge numbers of Laughing Gulls swarming over the area. But natural events are taking a toll. Winter storms of the last five years have eaten away as much as 60 feet of dune line, and the area where the terns nest continues to shrink. Last week alone tides washed the foot of the dunes back ten feet in places. The terns now have less and less square footage to nest on surrounded by aggressive, predatory birds. Driving on the beach or people in the park are not the real hazards. The city has proven protection measures that keep them safe from cars. Signs along the temporary protection fences ask people to stay back from fledgling birds. Dogs did pose a threat since many people ignored the simple leash laws. Dogs are now COMPLETELY banned from the beach (per the latest management plan updates). Only pet owners who rent camp sites will be allowed to bring dogs into the park and they must be leashed and stay in the camp ground. Violators will continue to be removed by park management or JSO if necessary. Is it really necessary to ban dogs all year round? Not really. Only when birds are nesting should dogs be kept out of the park. And remember that it wasn't every dog owner that caused this ban. just a few who thought the rules didn't apply to them. This permanent, total year-round ban was pushed for by the Audubon 

But while driving on the beach at the park is not a real issue in terms of wildlife protections it is a real issue for the City Of Jacksonville. The very nature of the park and its layout prevent the installation of enough off beach parking. How cool would it be to have a road through the center of the park with a nice big parking lot located in part of the CWA. There would be no need to drive on the beach to access the water. Nice heavy duty boardwalks could provide plenty of access to any area of the park. It would almost be like a state park. But of course that CWA thing gets in the way of that. No way are they going to build a parking lot near a nesting bird colony. I don't think that would be a good thing either.

So what it comes down to is this. Huguenot Park is only able to stay in operation if it at least comes close to generating enough revenue to pay for itself. People come to the park because it is actually possible to get to the water. Driving on the beach is what keeps the park in the black (or close to it) If beach driving is taken away the park will close. They will lock the gates and the whole thing will become a giant CWA with no public access except by water. If that is what you want then fine. But please don't make unfounded claims about wildlife protection or conservation at the park the way Audubon did. When closely examined every point they brought up was either wildly false, a misrepresentation of fact or a complete abandonment of the science their organization is supposed to be based on. They cherry pick the data that supports an agenda for closing the park. Their Web sites appeal to the emotions of unsuspecting supporters with pictures of cute baby birds and pleas for help. At the ARC meeting they tried to use automated e-mails to bolster their position. It seems many of those e-mails came from people who have never visited the park. But before you make up your mind do your own research. Google the IUCN Red List. Check out Cornell University's bird information. Those sites will give you information about eh different species found in the park. Go the Facebook and check out Florida Open Beaches discussions. See if you can find one solid hard fact to support closing Huguenot Park beach driving.   

[Springfielder]

In all fairness, both sides usually blow facts out of proportion or sort through them to enhance their own agenda...so it's not just the Audubon society guilty of doing that. If there were no driving on the beach, I seriously doubt the park would be forced to close. There's still parking close enough to the actual beach, where people can easily access it...so that claim, IMO, is one of those 'cherry picked' and blown out of proportion. To me, it's like selling a house....you start with a really high asking price and the compromising begins...

I'm not only a member of the Duval Audubon society, but of Cornell's ornithology as well. Obviously I support preservation efforts, and yet I'm also supportive of finding that compromise to allow the two entities to coincide in  a mutually beneficial manner. I've never cared for being able to drive on the beach (any beach) and find that people will still use the beach when they cannot drive onto it. The main problem with having vehicles on the beach is because of the wildlife, such as the turtles and their nests...but as long as precautions can be set in place to protect them and other nests...then as I said, both sides can still come out winners.

[Dog Walker]

Driving on the beach is dangerous to the people as well as the birds.  Watch on the weekends and you will some real jerks out there.  It is only a matter of time before someone gets run over as happened on Anastasia a couple of years ago.

A big part of the problem there is simply that the park is overused.  There are too many vehicles there at peak times for safety and control.  A numbers limit would be a help.

But, it's a long way to lug fishing and surfing gear from the access road to the end of the park.

How about the parks dept. sets up a fat tire tractor pulling some fat tire trams that circulates from the parking lot around the island carrying people and their stuff.  Access for the people without the danger of hundreds of cars and trucks milling around.

More and more birds are using the nesting area because their other nesting areas have been overrun by development.  The wildlife area is also important during migration as a resting/feeding area also because there are so few areas left undisturbed to the north and south.

BTW, the effort by the Boy Scouts to put Christmas trees on the island was a disaster which is why it is no longer allowed.  The trees made nesting by the birds almost impossible as eggs and nestlings fell into voids made by the trees.  Beach nesting birds need bare sand and shell with very little, low growing vegetation on it.

[will]

Haven't we paved through enough forests and wetlands to give you car nutters some place to drive. Get off the beach.

[Dog Walker]

I probably go once a month or so... never once ran over a baby bird... I cant remember seeing a Hummer either tho I am sure a few have.  How many birds have you run over there?  Im guessing none.  Now that I think of it... I have never seen a squished baby bird on the beach.  In fact... birds by nature tend to "fly away" when approached by people or cars.  Have you ever tried to catch a seagull?  Drive out to Huguenot and give it a try...

BT, you can have no idea whether or not you have every run over a baby bird.  Baby shore birds are so well camouflaged and so small that you cannot see them from more than two feet away.  I have actually had to touch one before someone with me could see it at all.  They cannot fly away yet and freeze when they are frightened.  They not run away.

[Springfielder]

You're absolutely right, Dogwalker, in that most of the birds and wildlife that nest along the beaches, do so in the sand and not in the foliage. Which is why the Audubon requested the burn. You're also correct in that it's growing more and more difficult for wildlife to find suitable nesting/resting areas in which humans have not taken over and/or destroyed.

As for having to lug all that fishing gear so far....what, we're talking a cooler, rods and bait, right? What's so different than a family lugging chairs, kids and towels? There's so many areas in which to fish...and yet there's less and less natural habitats for wildlife...

[BridgeTroll]

A couple of things.  The baby bird "issue" was rather tongue in cheek.  The poster had some kind of issue with large SUVs and large dogs... which are not even allowed on the beach except for the camping area.  The nests are in the dunes which are off limits.  Kitester states that the beach is actually closed for periods when the hatchlings DO venture out to the beach area.  As you are well aware the area travelled by autos and people is NOT the area where the birds are.

Dogs are now COMPLETELY banned from the beach (per the latest management plan updates). Only pet owners who rent camp sites will be allowed to bring dogs into the park and they must be leashed and stay in the camp ground.

Where do you propose to put a parking lot to allow people to use the park?  There is none!  To create one would require destruction of the very dunes you are trying to protect.

The very nature of the park and its layout prevent the installation of enough off beach parking.

Kitester also mentioned that since the park opened the population of the birds has increased... not decreased.  Clearly the birds do not have much of a problem avoiding humans and vehicles.

[buckethead]

My issue is much less with the minutia and details of the question of which species should be more protected and how. My issue is with groups who litigate any given wildlife cause, (real, propagandized, or imagined) and insist that theirs is the only reasonable approach, while demanding that they and their ilk preside over the future development and management of public (in many cases, private) lands while exlcuding any who don't see the world in the same light.

Otherwise, they're a fine bunch of folks.

[Springfielder]

Which is why I totally support any amicable agreement....which is a compromise on all sides. It most certainly can be reached, if cooler heads would prevail.