Huguenot Park - Your access today!

[Springfielder]

As for taking photos of bird people....That might be a great idea. I was told as long as they were not used in an offensive way or sold they could even be published on the net. That could be a very good deterrent. Thank you for the suggestion.

So then you already knew that this wasnt illegal?

+1000

[Springfielder]

Well Spring I dont know your qualifications. your statements about photos in public could be just off the top of your head. Since I do know for a fact that one of the bird people was warned about harassing people by taking photos and recording plate numbers it made sense that there must be some sort of control of such activities.

As for taking photos of bird people....That might be a great idea. I was told as long as they were not used in an offensive way or sold they could even be published on the net. That could be a very good deterrent. Thank you for the suggestion.

And once again you have given me more credit than you should. I did not say that it was my opinion. I found it on a conservation web site. I will see if I can find the link for you. Birding and kayaking were listed as the two most  invasive disturbances of wildlife. Even if birders are very careful it disturbs bird populations. I have watched some of the most enthusiastic and concerned birders just last year at the park disturb Red Knots over and over just trying to get close enough to take a picture. I saw the same person as well as others leaning over the ropes at the CWA only a few yards from Black Skimmers. I have had to ask birders to stay out of the CWA. In one case a birder walked right through the nesting colony of Terns on the point all the way across the CWA from the pond side to the ocean. When warned to stay out and asked to go around he walked right back through. So yes birding is one of the most invasive human activities directed deliberately at bird populations. Not just my opinion but observed fact and the opinion of other as well. 

My qualifications about stating what isn't illegal or a violation of privacy comes from my knowing the law, via law enforcement and through courses taken. I didn't just pull it out off the top of my head, as you said. As for the person who was 'warned' that sounds, like I stated earlier, an officer or guard being nice to whomever made the complaint. Unless there was just cause to potentially make an arrest, the person giving the warning was just trying to squash the situation. As it is, someone taking photos of another, and/or that persons vehicle is not illegal and there would be no grounds for an arrest. Of course, I'm going by what you stated happened, and am not privy to whether there was something else that transpired to change the actual chain of events.

Oh, and for your information...it's also NOT illegal to photograph someone out in public, or their vehicle and post it on the web. As I've tried to explain to you before, there's no expectation of privacy, so no law is violated. I'm not sure what you justify as being offensive.

Unless you state your source, what's posted on a forum, is in fact, opinion. Sorry...but I wasn't giving you credit for anything other than that.

As for whom you saw leaning over a roped area to take photos would NOT be considered as someone who respects and is a true birder, and could not be considered as concerned birders either...amateurs, with good intentions perhaps, but not a true birder; for they do NOT disturb wildlife.

Your comparison can also be attached to those who want to fish or whatever, and want to fight the efforts to protect wildlife. So there's argument and accusations on on both sides. Again, when you can quote from a reliable source, the statements you've made, then they are perhaps fact and not assumptions or opinions.

[kitester]

There is another development looming on the horizon. There were people in the park yesterday in the CWA. These were official people not just birders. I have heard that there is another effort to encourage the bird populations to increase at the park.  Apparently there is discussion of yet another controlled burn in the works. WHY in the world would anyone want to bring birds and people into closer conflict? It just does not make any sense. The first controlled burn was done in the first place to increase the suitable nesting area for Terns. Now the FWC is thinking about another one. Did they not learn the lesson the first time around? The end result was the huge increase in Gulls. Why would anyone try to attract more birds to a designated recreational park where people are? And if the area is burned off to make a bare area for nesting Terns where will the gulls go? They will probably just move further south down the beach and fledge their young in areas that previously were not in conflict with the human use of the park. The Audubon and Sierra Club will scream for greater closures and and restrictions. Imagine 30 or 40 baby birds running around the cut through in the dunes where people drive out to the ocean! Because the management plan has a provision for protection measures anywhere in the park the entire park could close.  Why try to do anything that changes the natural progression of the plant and animal habitation at the park? That is just stupid. The FWC should allow the vegetation to grow in. Eventually the gulls will completely force the Terns back four miles north to Bird Island and the north end of Big Talbot where they were before and where some of the colony already exists. The coverage of denser plant growth will speed up as the gulls take over and their droppings fertilize the dunes. As time passes the area will become so dense that suitable nesting for gulls would be limited by that natural process. Denser foliage and underbrush could bring natural predators that disappeared after the first controlled burn back to the park and further stabilize the a natural balance. I think its time to quit trying to turn the park into something it is not, a bird preserve. I say let nature take its course in the CWA and let the people of Jacksonville have their last one mile of true access to the beautiful waters of the Atlantic.       

[PeeJayEss]

There is simply no place to build a large enough parking lot outside the park. That fact and the fact that it is a state designated public recreation area are the main reasons that beach driving is still allowed inside the park. We have told them time and again that it would be fine to turn the park into a more state park like facility by building three large parking areas inside the dune area between the pond and the ocean. Wide board walks could be set over the dune both to the east toward the ocean and to the west toward the "pond" They could be placed so they did not interfere with the CWA on the point and yet allow plenty of close access to most of the beach. I would not mind a walk of that distance especially if the lots had decent bath facilities. That park is a huge asset and could be even better for the people of jacksonville if the bird lobby would let it happen. But they are only against easy public access of any kind. So the battle goes on. Its too bad. They had a golden nugget of
PR opportunity that could have brought them huge rewards. But they choose to push an agenda of lies instead in their efforts to reduce public access. They do it a step at a time bit by bit, user group by user group until we all just have to stay at home and watch discovery channel to get our "outdoor" fix.   

As one who is not particularly fond of driving on the beach, I see this as a very good point. If the alternative to driving on the beach is clearing habitat further back behind the dunes for parking lots, then I vote for beach driving. While it would be politically incorrect for me to say the safety concern is not that significant, the environmental concern is really relatively minor (this from an environmentalist!). As long as you're steering clear of nesting, mating, and other habitat, there's really not a whole lot of harm done (excepting maybe minor erosion). Whether you drive over it or not, the beach below the dunes will continue to be a flat, sandy, plant-free area. I don't think taking those cars off the beach and putting them in a parking lot (where there otherwise would be plants and habitat) is the way to go.

And please drive SLOOOOOW. Not sure what the law is, but there should be pretty harsh penalties for hitting someone on the beach. You've got to expect people will be laying out and kids will be running around like mad, so there's no excuse for not driving as such.

[BridgeTroll]

There is simply no place to build a large enough parking lot outside the park. That fact and the fact that it is a state designated public recreation area are the main reasons that beach driving is still allowed inside the park. We have told them time and again that it would be fine to turn the park into a more state park like facility by building three large parking areas inside the dune area between the pond and the ocean. Wide board walks could be set over the dune both to the east toward the ocean and to the west toward the "pond" They could be placed so they did not interfere with the CWA on the point and yet allow plenty of close access to most of the beach. I would not mind a walk of that distance especially if the lots had decent bath facilities. That park is a huge asset and could be even better for the people of jacksonville if the bird lobby would let it happen. But they are only against easy public access of any kind. So the battle goes on. Its too bad. They had a golden nugget of
PR opportunity that could have brought them huge rewards. But they choose to push an agenda of lies instead in their efforts to reduce public access. They do it a step at a time bit by bit, user group by user group until we all just have to stay at home and watch discovery channel to get our "outdoor" fix.   

As one who is not particularly fond of driving on the beach, I see this as a very good point. If the alternative to driving on the beach is clearing habitat further back behind the dunes for parking lots, then I vote for beach driving. While it would be politically incorrect for me to say the safety concern is not that significant, the environmental concern is really relatively minor (this from an environmentalist!). As long as you're steering clear of nesting, mating, and other habitat, there's really not a whole lot of harm done (excepting maybe minor erosion). Whether you drive over it or not, the beach below the dunes will continue to be a flat, sandy, plant-free area. I don't think taking those cars off the beach and putting them in a parking lot (where there otherwise would be plants and habitat) is the way to go.

And please drive SLOOOOOW. Not sure what the law is, but there should be pretty harsh penalties for hitting someone on the beach. You've got to expect people will be laying out and kids will be running around like mad, so there's no excuse for not driving as such.

+100 PJS!

[kitester]

I just looked at the candidates web pages and found that one lists the Sierra Club as a contributor. DONT VOTE FOR HER! If you get the chance to ask about how the others feel about your access to Huguenot Park do so. We need people in control who will fight for your access. With all the other issues the candidates are about the same. The crime rate has to come down, the taxes are too high, not enough jobs etc., etc., etc. They all say basically the same thing. SO vote for the one that can make a real difference in your quality of life. Vote for the one that will stand up to the bird lobby and take back the park for the people of this community. That is where your families will want to go to the beach and enjoy the ocean. If you fish, surf, jet ski or just like picking up shells choose the one that will fight to keep Huguenot Park open for all of us. 

[PeeJayEss]

I just looked at the candidates web pages and found that one lists the Sierra Club as a contributor. DONT VOTE FOR HER! If you get the chance to ask about how the others feel about your access to Huguenot Park do so. We need people in control who will fight for your access. With all the other issues the candidates are about the same. The crime rate has to come down, the taxes are too high, not enough jobs etc., etc., etc. They all say basically the same thing. SO vote for the one that can make a real difference in your quality of life. Vote for the one that will stand up to the bird lobby and take back the park for the people of this community. That is where your families will want to go to the beach and enjoy the ocean. If you fish, surf, jet ski or just like picking up shells choose the one that will fight to keep Huguenot Park open for all of us. 

Do you even know what Sierra Club does? And have they even been involved in this issue? If you'd vote against someone solely because they support Sierra Club, there is seriously something wrong with your outlook.

[BridgeTroll]

PJ... if you had read the entire thread... you would learn... the Sierra club in Kitesters estimation is heavily involved in the effort to close the park to vehicular traffic.  Why would his outlook in this matter be any worse than your outlook?

[kitester]

PeeJayEss,

Well, yes I do know what Sierra Club says they stand for and what goals they profess to push for and Audubon as well. I have spent most of my life involved in some way with one or both of these organizations as well as others. I have well over ten thousand hours in Huguenot park alone. I have spent hundreds of hours in the surrounding area and the rest of the state participating in bird censuses. I sit on the Huguenot Park Shorebird Advisory Committee. I became involved with this issue after I attended many public meetings. During those meetings Audubon members made fantastic statements which after an easy and very brief internet search I found to be either very twisted or just plain outright incorrect. Real data compiled by long term, serious university sponsored projects like the Cornell Lab of Ornithology and international organizations such as the IUCN indicated large discrepancies in the Audubon statements. Statements made specifically about certain species seemed to be so incorrect that I questioned local Audubon members and other people who were making them. That is when I realized that the real issue was not at all about birds or wildlife. At the time I had no idea that the Sierra Club was also strongly pushing for closure of the park. As the controversy was brought into the open  it became clear that this was a political push for control. With the city's lease expired and awaiting approval for renewal by the ARC (an advisory board in Talahassee) the Audubon jumped at the chance to grab control of the park by lobbying to prevent the city from getting the lease. Their goal was to block the lease until they could dictate to the city how it wanted the city to operate the park. The false claims made to city officials, ARC members and the people of this community were intended to scare by distorting the truth. It worked. You may not realize it but only the efforts of Florida Open Beaches and a few pro-access activists got the park re-opened. In fact for one 24 hour period the ARC voted to  ban beach driving at the park. It is interesting to note that at that time none of the ARC members had ever been to the park. They only relied on the word of Audubon representatives. Without any opposition present ARC took that word at face value.

Today we have ugly PVC posts connected by yellow poly rope lining the "pond". Another line of posts extend from the Fort George River to the ocean across the point. The same argument of beach driving was used to close both of those areas. Audubon and Sierra Club continue to lobby for greater restrictions and closures at the park. Their bird stewards are instructed to take pictures of anyone who walks past the posts in an attempt to build "evidence" for the next attack on access. They have staked out the areas on the other side of the posts and begun to call them wildlife areas. Already they have complained about people being in these "wildlife areas".

So you see what is happening here? The goal is still to close the park. In fact wildlife, birds, fish habitat and public safety and now wildlife areas are all just smoke designed to hide the real truth. They want your man made park to be crowning jewel in the huge preserve already in place. It offends them that people can actually  go out onto this mile of sand and every time they take a bite out of your access we all lose.

PeeJayEss, I suggest that you go back and read the thread like Bridgetroll said. You might find the truth interesting. Please, in the future, look at the facts before you make statements like   " there is seriously something wrong with your outlook."  Put your boots on the ground and go the extra mile to uncover the facts.
Unless you do you are just another blind, mindless minion in the service of lies.

                         

[PeeJayEss]

Bridgetroll: my outlook is not judging a person by a single facet of their personality.

Unless you do you are just another blind, mindless minion in the service of lies.

Let's not get too overly dramatic.
I simply took issue with your statement that you would not (ever, no matter what the other issues) vote for someone that supported the Sierra Club. A candidate can support the Sierra Club as well as beach access. What if one candidate supports the Sierra Club, civil rights, and laws protecting children from abuse and their opponent opposes all three? Does your hatred of the Sierra Club go far enough that you'd support the opponent? If that's the case, then I will reiterate that something is wrong with your outlook. Beach access is not THE most important thing in the world. Your blanket statement is the only issue I have, not whether what Sierra or Audubon are doing is right.

Aside from the fact that all the "facts" you mentioned deal with Audubon and not Sierra Club, you are still selling the issue short by making both organizations out to be some kind of evil conspiracy groups bent on eliminating your rights. I assure you neither group is making a power play to take over the city and turn the whole First Coast into a park. And if they are, they are pretty horrible at it: as you might notice that development (shitty development, by the way) is far outpacing land preservation.

In fact wildlife, birds, fish habitat and public safety and now wildlife areas are all just smoke designed to hide the real truth.

Do you actually believe this? Do you think there is no other worthy cause but your own? Can you not at least see the value in the position of these groups? Maybe they want too much with closing the beach to vehicles, or maybe their zeal for the issue is misguided, but is preservation of wildlife and habitat really such a horrible cause? Does your position require you to demonize them? Instead of me putting my boots on, maybe you should try on the boots of one of these environmental advocates. I'm not saying they're right, but they're not invalid. Also, look around at the city (substitute state, country, world...). I'd feel much more threatened if I were an environmental advocate than if I were an access advocate.

I haven't confused any facts. In fact, I didn't dispute anything you've said. I simply think you've taken this issue and your opposition to these groups far too personally.

[Garden guy]

Bridgetroll: my outlook is not judging a person by a single facet of their personality.

Unless you do you are just another blind, mindless minion in the service of lies.

Let's not get too overly dramatic.
I simply took issue with your statement that you would not (ever, no matter what the other issues) vote for someone that supported the Sierra Club. A candidate can support the Sierra Club as well as beach access. What if one candidate supports the Sierra Club, civil rights, and laws protecting children from abuse and their opponent opposes all three? Does your hatred of the Sierra Club go far enough that you'd support the opponent? If that's the case, then I will reiterate that something is wrong with your outlook. Beach access is not THE most important thing in the world. Your blanket statement is the only issue I have, not whether what Sierra or Audubon are doing is right.

Aside from the fact that all the "facts" you mentioned deal with Audubon and not Sierra Club, you are still selling the issue short by making both organizations out to be some kind of evil conspiracy groups bent on eliminating your rights. I assure you neither group is making a power play to take over the city and turn the whole First Coast into a park. And if they are, they are pretty horrible at it: as you might notice that development (shitty development, by the way) is far outpacing land preservation.

In fact wildlife, birds, fish habitat and public safety and now wildlife areas are all just smoke designed to hide the real truth.

Do you actually believe this? Do you think there is no other worthy cause but your own? Can you not at least see the value in the position of these groups? Maybe they want too much with closing the beach to vehicles, or maybe their zeal for the issue is misguided, but is preservation of wildlife and habitat really such a horrible cause? Does your position require you to demonize them? Instead of me putting my boots on, maybe you should try on the boots of one of these environmental advocates. I'm not saying they're right, but they're not invalid. Also, look around at the city (substitute state, country, world...). I'd feel much more threatened if I were an environmental advocate than if I were an access advocate.

I haven't confused any facts. In fact, I didn't dispute anything you've said. I simply think you've taken this issue and your opposition to these groups far too personally.

Funny this talk of someone taking over the control of certain lands in this area....and now we have a candidate willing to sell protected lands to the highest bidder...our land is precious and the leaders need to keep thier hands off it

[kitester]

PJE

Well now that you mention it (and of course out of context) There is good solid logic in examining the possibility of the city generating VERY MUCE NEEDED revenue by disposing of lands that have little ecological or historical value. That is especially true if the alternative is to shut down important government functions such as school programs or to reduce services like fire/rescue and police.  So lets have the whole quote........

"I think everything is on the table, It depends on where we are at that particular point in time. If it's pristine (land) or if it has some significant ecological significance, then of course that would not be on the table. If it's not encumbered, if it's uplands, then it could be."

He is talking about lands that have useful commercial value and little else. 99% of the city's population have not nor ever will visit these lands. So why not allow them to generate some boost of income and future tax revenue. That revenue could then be used to create better access for the park system or anywhere that the city might need the funds.   

So by taking only the part of the quote that suits your needs and twisting the real message you are just like Audubon or Sierra Club. That is what they do and they ARE good at it. It has many people buffaloed into think that the controversy at the park is about wildlife and bird protections. IT IS NOT. all of those issues have been well answered by the city. They were even approved by the Audubon reps that have badgered the city for years. Each time the city met the requirements they came back with more demands for restrictions and closures at this man made beach. Their continued efforts demonstrate their resolve. I see them every time
I visit the park taking pictures of people walking, fishing, swimming, kitesurfing, kayaking or surfing on or near the shoals. They complain that people are accessing the shoals, not by car, but on foot! And the "trained " bird stewards from Audubon are sent out to gather the photo "evidence". When some stranger runs up to you and snaps your picture and then takes a picture of your car (parked in the proper area) it is clearly harassment. 

Bridge,

You are right that I would support the candidate who will reasonably examine all the possibilities and not support the candidate who without consideration rejects those possibilities. I think any candidate who accepts support from an organization who's representatives have openly stated that they wish to see Huguenot Park turned into part of the very inaccessible preserve should be clear about the issue. Does she support the closure of the park or will she stand behind the people of this community to maintain access for all of us?

You would support Moran, Audubon and Sierra Club if they wished to close the park? This effort is clearly driven by both organizations. I hear it every time I go to the committee meetings. Aslo I never said anything about "taking over the whole city". There is however a very real effort all over this country to close access to public land from both these groups. Its real and undeniable. Look at what they are responsible for in Hatterass N.C. Up there they are considered persona non grata. Many long standing family business that were already having trouble because of the economy could not stand the strain beach closures had on business there. They are gone. The people that own homes there are prevented from access to the beach and water by huge unnecessary, restrictions. In some cases they are not even allowed to walk to the dunes on their own land across boardwalks they built and paid for. Some business even hang signs telling Audubon to go home. Most area business will not serve anyone associated with them or the Fish and Wildlife Service. I am sure that in many instances Both the Audubon and Sierra Club have done good works. But that is not the case here and in many other places. They are not saints and should not be given any status beyond "special interest group".

Our battle here is much smaller but it still carries huge implications for the people of this town. Going to the beach is not a "right", its a privilege and I want the candidate that will make sure that privilege remains intact.                 

   

[cline]

He is talking about lands that have useful commercial value and little else. 99% of the city's population have not nor ever will visit these lands. So why not allow them to generate some boost of income and future tax revenue. That revenue could then be used to create better access for the park system or anywhere that the city might need the funds.    

Sorry but the fact that "99%" of the city's population has not visited preservation lands is not grounds for that piece of land to be sold off to the highest bidder.  There is an intrinsic ecological value of putting lands into conservation that has nothing to do with who or how many people will visit that land.  The goal of preservation is not necessarily to create lands that will be visited by millions.  99% of the population will not ever kayak all of the Bays of the Everglades but does that mean we should just sell off that resource to the first developer in line?  Perhaps we should just drain the Everglades.  Oh wait we already tried that, realized it was a stupid idea, and now we're spending billions to restore it.  There is plenty of land in Jacksonville that is ripe for redevelopment that will not require selling off our preservation lands.  Once they are gone we will never get them back.

[fieldafm]

There is plenty of land in Jacksonville that is ripe for redevelopment that will not require sell off our preservation lands.

+1,000,000!!!!!!!!!

[BridgeTroll]

There is plenty of land in Jacksonville that is ripe for redevelopment that will not require sell off our preservation lands.

+1,000,000!!!!!!!!!

Agreed!