Metro Jacksonville

Almost a year after the many of the new Huguenot Park Management Plan's changes were implemented the park and its patrons have settled into a routine. People who visit the park realize that the increase in the admission fee was not too hard a pill to swallow and the park remains a fantastic value for families, fishermen, surfers and sunbathers. Beach goers of all types can spend a day at the beach without having to pay for expensive parking or the need for a long walk across hot pavement in city traffic. Older or disabled patrons can easily access the water in and around the park. The natural environment provides a better beach experience than the high-rise buildings that border most of the “accessible” beach along Jacksonville, Atlantic or Neptune beaches. Huguenot Park provides the last truly accessible beach in Duval County    

The park is city operated but is located on land owned in part by the federal government and in part by the State of Florida. The city must obtain leases from the federal and state governments to use this stretch of sand along and north of the jetty. In the past this was not a problem and for over 25 years this city park has been a favorite place for the people of Jacksonville and surrounding areas to visit the beach. During that time the park has grown both in physical size and in popularity. The north point of the park is expanding because the southward flow of sand is stopped by the jetty. Larger dunes have grown to almost 30 feet in height in places. The yearly attendance at the park seems to be between 400,000 and 500,000. That number varies each year as the park's beach access changes due to the constant forces of tide, current and weather. At times high tide occurs mid-morning to mid afternoon. The beach can be very narrow with waves sometimes washing along the foot of the dunes. On busy summer days with no access to drive during the high tide the park will often need to close for several hours. During extremely high tides there may not be any access or parking available. Most of the regular patrons are aware of these daily changes and make their beach plans accordingly.  

The dune and plant covered areas of the park have been off limits and posted for years and are considered to be a critical wildlife management area or CWA. The city has maintained the signs, posts and ropes that separate the CWA from the accessible areas of the park. But in the past eight years or so parts of the CWA have become nesting sights for various gull and tern species. Now during the months of July and August young, flightless birds leave their nests and move out onto the beach. They follow the waterline as the tides ebb and flow. This often placed them directly in the path of vehicles. The flightless, slow moving baby birds are unable to get out of the way and some were actually killed by unaware drivers as they motored up and down the beach. The city and the park management team were faced with a new problem. How could they protect the fledgling birds and still provide access to the water for park patrons? The park manager developed a solution as elegant as it was simple. Since young flightless birds were vulnerable on the beach in only a small area that area was closed to car traffic. The closed area could be increased, decreased or moved to accommodate the flightless birds. The closure is put in place and in effect as long as needed. Three days after the last flightless bird is seen on the beach the area is opened back up to driving. Local Fish and Wildlife officials were very satisfied with the results and for several years this balance seemed to work for every one especially the birds. The gull and tern nesting colonies increased and the birds flourished. Now thousands of birds nest in the park every year.

But there is still a dark cloud hovering over the park and its future is still in jeopardy. When the city tried to apply for new leases its efforts were blocked by environmental lobbyists primarily from the Audubon Society. The Audubon Society wanted to shut down most or all of the park to people, essentially turning the whole park into a giant CWA.  They lobbied the Acquisition and Recreational Lands Committee, ARC, in Tallahassee to block the city from obtaining leases and permits. Many members of this unelected committee were pro Audubon and so the city was forced to spend over 6 million dollars for the development of a "Management Plan". This plan was supposed to be authored by an unbiased source. In fact it was authored by people sympathetic to the Audubon. This certainly looks as like a conflict of interest. Through a series of public meetings and various recommendations from both the bird lobby and citizen access rights groups the plan was "tweaked" to provide both protections for the birds and access for the public. At every turn the Audubon sought to restrict or remove access to larger and larger areas of the park or to limit access by selected groups. Access groups sought to find solutions to balanced management.  When the management plan was nearly agreed upon by both sides the city went into action putting in place nearly all of the protection measures indicated in the plan. The plan called for these protections to be implemented over the next ten years during the course of the new lease. The city accomplished it in less than six months. New posts and ropes called bollards were installed around the existing CWA and the CWA area was increased. Bollards were also placed along the inside shoreline preventing driving on the mud flats inside the park. Access to the north point along this line is maintained but there is no longer any parking allowed along 90% of the inside shore. More bollards are placed seasonally on the Atlantic side of the park to designate no driving/parking zones during high visitation months. In 2009 closed areas amounted to over 50% of the park for nearly three months and a significant loss of revenue for the park. During the Spring and fall migrations of certain bird species, primarily Red Knots, The Audubon fields volunteers with support from the city and park management. These volunteers patrol a line of cones and signs asking people not to approach feeding birds on sand bars north of the park. In 2009 this line of flexible protection prevented both cars and pedestrians in the park from accessing the shoals and sandbars near the point. Many people still accessed the shoals by boat. But the city was challenged on the legality of preventing pedestrian access to the sovereign submerged lands around the park. It was determined that the city could control vehicular access within the park but not pedestrian access to the water. Upon hearing this Audubon claimed that the city was abandoning the wildlife protection measures at the park. However, there are also rumors that the Audubon will be removing their volunteer efforts even though those efforts were very successful in protecting feeding Red Knots. The city still welcomes the volunteers who can prevent automotive access but only suggest and encourage pedestrians to stay clear of Red Knots. If the volunteer program was so successful why would the Audubon terminate it? The answer may be that the program required effort and time and that even among the volunteers there was no agreement on how to place or patrol the line. Audubon may also be attempting to make a statement to gain support for their agenda. In December the city and Audubon met the ARC in Tallahassee to vote on final approval of the management plan. In a last minute effort to close the park the Audubon proposed changes to the plan that would permanently close more than 50% of the park to both automotive and pedestrian access. They claimed that it was necessary because the city was abandoning efforts to protect birds. Because the ARC committee was seated by mostly Audubon sympathizers the motion passed 6 to 4 in sub committee. Fortunately the full ARC met the next day and because of an effort to alert our Jacksonville City council members, state representatives and the general public a flood of e-mail and phone calls led to tabling the motion for another year.

There is still an Audubon backed effort to ban beach driving at the park and elsewhere. The loss of driving privileges At Matanzas inlet in St. Augustine is another close to home example of the Audubon’s inflexible approach to wildlife management. For them there seems to be no common ground between the protection of wildlife and the public’s access to recreation in our natural environment. As public awareness and understanding  increase other environmental groups like the Nature Conservancy seem to be distancing themselves from the Audubon. Access rights groups like Florida Open Beaches are beginning to get the word out that there is a middle ground. The needs of the environment can be well served  while still  providing excellent public access to recreation in and around Florida waterways and beaches.

If you have questions or want to know more about Huguenot Park and the access issues please join this forum thread. There is also the Face Book Page for Florida Open Beaches â€" Friends of Huguenot Park. More details of these issues can be found there including direct quotes, links and discussions. We encourage you to become involved. Find out why we need the park and learn about the wildlife there. We look forward to hearing from you.                

The average human male breaths in 400-600 cc's of air per breath, aka about a pint. Seagulls breath in much less. Since we therefore use far more air then all those Seagulls, we should immediately go on a system of air rationing. People with names ending in A-M will breath on odd days, the people with names ending in N-Z will breath only on even days.

Problem Solved!

OCKLAWAHA

It's pretty obvious by the original post, that they aren't at all thrilled with the Audubons efforts to preserve a habitat for the wildlife. People want to claim it as theirs, but the wildlife was here first. There's plenty of beach area in this county, and securing an area to protect wildlife...especially knowing how ignorantly a majority of people are and lack the respect of wildlife and their right to live, is why people fight for them.

Is there a compromise to be found...likely...but somehow when it comes to such things, wildlife usually ends up on the losing end. 

Springfielder, I too love animals, but where I think it gets crazy is when the government strong arms the public, jails, taser's, nightsticks, and other tools can be used just to keep us off a piece of ground that WE OWN? Sure there has to be some common sense applied, nobody should be molesting nesting sites and someone drunk and stupid SHOULD go to jail. On the other hand, restricting access to a young father and his 3 year old daughter, to "see the baby birds," and snap a photo, is also crazy. This is rarely an issue (bears, big cats, gators, wolves, and bison excepted, and bison being the MOST deadly in North America) of safety, or of animals that pose harm to humans. Maybe we need a Seagull cookbook? People protect the animals they eat, then again you have the "Road Kill Cafe".


OCKLAWAHA

So where is this strong arming coming in to protect the wildlife in this situation? It's not...it's just a matter of restricting where it's open to the public and traffic. I also said that there's room for compromise, which I fee there is...but just as I said, the wildlife is often on the losing end of such compromises.

As for the father wanting to take his 3 year old daughter to see the baby birds and take photos...I'm an avid birder, and I know that nobody should be getting close to nests with nestlings in it. This is where a compromise can and should be reasonably made...respect and restrict during nesting times. If that means that this father and daughter will not be able to walk up on a nest, then so be it. There's nature preserves in which they could visit and do so safely.

QuoteIs there a compromise to be found...likely

Then that compromise should be found.  The article also states...

QuoteThe park manager developed a solution as elegant as it was simple. Since young flightless birds were vulnerable on the beach in only a small area that area was closed to car traffic. The closed area could be increased, decreased or moved to accommodate the flightless birds. The closure is put in place and in effect as long as needed. Three days after the last flightless bird is seen on the beach the area is opened back up to driving. Local Fish and Wildlife officials were very satisfied with the results and for several years this balance seemed to work for every one especially the birds. The gull and tern nesting colonies increased and the birds flourished. Now thousands of birds nest in the park every year.

This shows it can work without draconian measures...

exactly....and that's what I'm talking about...it's a win-win.

A win-win seems to require some compromise by our friendly Audobon Society...

QuoteThere is still an Audubon backed effort to ban beach driving at the park and elsewhere. The loss of driving privileges At Matanzas inlet in St. Augustine is another close to home example of the Audubon’s inflexible approach to wildlife management. For them there seems to be no common ground between the protection of wildlife and the public’s access to recreation in our natural environment.

Agreed, they probably can give in some...as long as the driving on the beach doesn't interfere with nesting.

Thank you for your time reading this thread. Its true that there are very good ways to compromise. The solution need not be a them or us proposition.

There are basically two reasons for the huge increase in breeding gull and tern populations at the park. one was that the protections the city set in place have been very effective in providing a safe haven for them. The second is more complicated.  Four years ago the Audubon pushed for the Fish and Wildlife service to conduct a controlled burn of the vegetation inside the CWA. The idea was to increase the nesting areas for terns. Terns need bare sand to build nests called scrapes. But the plan was not fully thought through. There were two very important consequences that the Audubon did not consider.

One was that the area was surrounded by grass and was full of grass seeds. Every wildlife biologist knows that the first vegetation to return to any burned area are grasses. But gulls nest in grasses not on bare sand. By far the breeding colony that increased the most are Laughing Gulls. Laughing Gulls are everywhere. They are highly aggressive, extremely adaptive and very predatory. You can see them by the thousands at any city landfill eating garbage. You can find them in parking lots and around dumpsters behind many restaurants. They are the ones that surround you when you open a bag of chips at the park. In short they eat almost anything including eggs and baby birds, even their own. In 2009 there were an estimated 5000 thousand adult, breeding Laughing Gulls in the colony. The Audubon representatives when asked privately what they thought about Laughing Gulls said that they were a pest and destructive of other bird species. In public they touted the gull colony as one of their great successes at the park. But, Laughing Gulls attack and kill baby terns every day during the nesting season. Before the eggs hatch you can walk the beach and pick up 20 or 30 egg shells every morning. At least one bird species, American Oystercatchers, that nested in the park for years has not returned the last two years. The Audubon claims that human traffic caused these birds to leave. However, the place where they nest has never had much traffic (last year none at all) and the gulls put such pressure on all the other species that its far more likely that the Oystercatchers could not handle the increased predation.   

That brings up the second obvious consequence of the controlled burn. What happened to the other predators that used to live in the CWA? All the things that might feed on Laughing Gulls were chased out by the burn. There were raccoons, foxes, possums, armadillos, rats and snakes living in the CWA. By burning back dense vegetation the Audubon effectively eliminated the any threat from natural predation. Because the Nesting colony is isolated from the mainland by water everywhere except for a thin, highly traveled  area where people access the beach every day, these predators will not return. They need more dense natural growth to hide in during the day.

I think it is unfortunate that the Audubon has abandoned scientific fact in favor of a biased, narrow minded emotional position that has cost the City of Jacksonville millions of dollars and may ultimately cost our community the last open beach access. The Audubon is supposed to have our back not stick a knife in it. The park is a man made place. But we can share. Driving on the beach is not dangerous to the wildlife if its done properly and with respect. Of the over 30 miles of beaches in Duval County only this one mile allows beach driving.  As one of the Florida Open Beaches founders said in a recent interview on NPR's First Coast Connect ....."If you dont want to drive on the beach go anywhere else..."   

By the way that is a very telling interview. Carol Adams, the local Audubon representative has no clue and  continues to spread Audubon lies and misinformation.  There is a link on the Florida Open Beaches Facebook page.             

So much for Dawrinism.

Are you saying it is "natural selection" for the gulls to kill the other birds?  I could buy that if the conditions were "natural" - but as posted earlier, the conditions were brought about by human intervention (burning off the undergrowth).

Are you  saying that humans, therefore human activity are not natural?

Is nuclear fusion unnatural?

Death to the Laughing Gulls!!!  ;)

Since when is driving a car on the beach one of our inalienable rights along with life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?  If you've ever been to Hugenot and witnessed exactly the types that are clamoring for their right to drive their Hummer wherever they please you would realize that the argument about the elderly needing access is NOT the case here.  I've never seen so many pit bulls with chains around their neck that weigh almost as much as the dog...and I'm a Jax native :)

I don't think it is a draconian measure to protect the little bit of natural Florida that we have left.

Quotewitnessed 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.

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?

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...

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.

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.

Quote from: Springfielder on January 02, 2010, 04:26:10 PM
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".

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.   

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.

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.

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

Quote from: BridgeTroll on January 02, 2010, 03:33:36 PM
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.

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...

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.

QuoteDogs 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.

QuoteThe 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.

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. ;)

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.

Springfielder,

I understand what you are saying and I have to tell you that I felt the same at the beginning. At the first public meeting when the Audubon passionately stated that he park was home to many highly endangered species of birds I started to believe that. When they said that greater protections needed to be set in place I believed that. And when they showed the photo of a small child on the beach and gulls in the air and said that It represented a violation of the International Migratory Bird Treaty Act I accepted that because that there many laws I am unfamiliar with. After all they are the experts right? But when they said Those violations represented  potential fines for the City and the family of the child of over 400 thousand dollars each I was stunned. That would mean that every person walking down the beach that caused a bird to fly up was harming the birds risking huge fines. This would apply to  anyone on any beach every everywhere. But, when I read the IMBTA I found that statement to be completely false.

When they began to tell us of the plight of the diminishing Red Knot and how it is on the brink of extinction I was amazed. How could this bird species go from almost a million strong to less than ten thousand in five years? Could human influence at Huguenot Park be causing the extinction of this bird? What had we done and how had we missed this?!? At first I began to think the park must need to close completely whenever the Red Knots came to its shores. I realized that I needed to become better educated about Red Knots. The first claim the Audubon representatives  made about the bird was that it flew from Argentina on the southern tip of South America to Huguenot Park. And then after feeding they said it flew to Arctic breeding grounds. They said it had done this for thousands of years. But  the park has only existed since the installation of the jetty. A few minutes of internet research revealed the truth. Cornell's studies were one of the first I found but there were many others from many sources. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife service and even the Audubon's own information clearly do not support the statements made to the city and the people of this community by the Audubon. That was when I  became really suspicious.  What was really going on with Red Knots and why was the Audubon lying about it? As it turns out the local Audubon may have been duped by a small group of individuals who don't really care about the birds but have made it a personal goal to ban beach driving where ever they find it. The Duval Audubon Society could have been just the tool to make an attempt at shutting down the park. Its possible that Duval Audubon did not do the simple work needed to check the facts before jumping on the "ban beach driving bandwagon". But I suspect that they knew that they were telling lies and ignoring the truth. It could be that they were shooting for the stars hoping to land on the moon. However, when they had achieved the necessary goals of protection they continued to push for greater and greater restrictions that were clearly unnecessary. The latest attempt to permanently close over half of the park to any access revealed their true intention.

The fact is that Beach driving at Huguenot Park (and I suspect elsewhere) is not necessarily a hazard to Wildlife. If proper protections are put in place a ban on beach driving at the park does not make any sense and cant be supported by any rational scientific information.

I think its awesome that you are a member of Audubon and Part of Cornell's ornithology department. Did you do research or teach there? That would mean that you know better than most where to find the facts. 

But it is possible to be a member of an organization supporting its efforts and still be in the dark. History is full of examples.   I Think its far more important to be in the trenches doing the work with real understanding and passion than to support and accept blindly statements from others because they have a reputation or produce a glossy magazine. This situation proves that one individual with a PhD can tell lies that are accepted as truth while other people with fact based knowledge are disregarded.   

Don't get me wrong. I believe that Audubon in general has been a great champion of the environment and a force of preservation and conservation and still can be. But they need to come clean and quit misrepresenting the facts. I doubt they will. The facts don't support their agenda. The only group cherry picking the information here is them.

You say that there is plenty of off beach parking. I would like to know where it is. There are currently less than  thirty parking spaces inside the park. Those are located between the new and old restroom facilities near the campground. On a busy day the park receives as many as 800 visitors. It is very clear that the only place to park is on the beach. The park revenues have come up short of supporting the cost of maintenance and operations almost every year. Beach driving patrons provide most of the money the park needs to operate.  How much money do you think the city will be willing to lose before deciding that its just not worth it? Do you think the Audubon will provide funds needed to build the required off beach parking, road improvements or continued upkeep of the bollards, ropes and signs? Who pays for the patrolling JSO officers?  So far the only money they have spent in this shootin' match is what they have paid their professional lobbyists. The city has had to pay for everything else including a seasonal on staff bird biologist. When you connect the dots you can see that the city cant continue to support greater and greater costs of keeping the park open. You can see that the Audubon wants the city to fail and wash its hands of the problem. I even suspect that they would graciously offer to manage the area (read lock the gates). To think that the park will survive the loss beach driving is foolish. Even the temporary closures in 2009 were costly for the city. 

By the way Huguenot Park has had the highest number of turtle nests in any one mile stretch of beach with the greatest number of successful hatchlings anywhere in Florida.           

QuoteAs it turns out the local Audubon may have been duped by a small group of individuals who don't really care about the birds but have made it a personal goal to ban beach driving where ever they find it.

BINGO!

BTW... Outstanding first topic and posts kitester!  Welcome to MetroJax!

Dog walker,

Driving on the beach at the Park is far less dangerous than crossing the street down town or driving on regular roads. Statistics prove it. The girls run over in the sand in St Augustine were covered by sand and asleep when the truck rolled over them. During high use months park management sets up no parking/driving zones to separate people and cars. The park also has in place a flexible management plan that allows the number of cars to vary as the available space on the beach changes due to tides. Have you ever gone to the park and not been able to get in? It happens a lot in the summer. If the tide is going to be high in the middle of the day you better go early or go home. It has always been like that. It is common sense. When they run out of room people either have to leave or wait for the tide to drop. But on a busy day in the middle of summer when the tide is out the park often has room left over. On extremely low tides there might be enough room for ten thousand cars! In winter months, more than 50% of the year, there is never an issue with beach driving. I have been to the park on days when I was the only one there.

When we talk about baby birds on the beach we are not talking about newly hatched birds. By the time they can cross the dune to the beach they are highly visible and anywhere from about 8 inches to about a foot across. They can move out of the way and usually do if people or cars approach. They just cant fly yet. At this stage of development they sometimes even approach people. One of the first memories I have of baby birds on the beach at the park was of a woman sitting in a chair reading a book with a fledgling bird standing under the chair.

The efforts of the Scouts was indeed stopped. But the goal of increasing the dune areas was hugely successful. Most of what we see in the center of the CWA began with that simple program.    

Will,

The area that has become Huguenot Park has had beach driving for almost 60 years. Hatteras in North Carolina has cars on the beach as long as there have been cars and horses before that. There is simply no way with out a long hot walk to reach the Atlantic shore with access to the water. You don't seem to have a desire to have access to the beach. Perhaps you don't surf or fish or wish to take your family to the beach. So the only argument you can bring to the table is an emotional and indefensible one. Please try to stick to the facts and avoid name calling.


Buckethead,

You are so right about the narrow minded agenda of a few being imposed upon the rest of our community.          

In one breath you're boasting at how on a busy day, the park has as many as 800 visitors...which happens to be revenue for the city....so how is it then, that the city cannot afford to maintain the upkeep? If the city can't afford to pay the "greater and greater costs of keeping the park open"...whom are you blaming? Because the city has to employ a seasonal staff bird biologist, well that's part of being in the business.

As for who is paying for JSO to patrol, we as taxpayers pay...always have and to my knowledge there hasn't been an increase in JSO to support added patrols. Perhaps the park would be better suited if it fell under the state forestry department, where park rangers would handle everything...they do at Little Talbot, etc.

Are you saying that the Audubon didn't tell the truth when they stated that the Red Knots migrate from South America to the Northeast coast? It's true, they do...and the problem that had caused a drop in their population, is the loss of food...mainly the horseshoe crabs. I don't know if the Duval Audubon was dupped, as you say...I didn't attend the meetings, nor have I seen the reports that you reference (which you could post a link for people to read)...do I believe that they're trying to push their agenda of preservation, yes, they are. Do I feel those on the opposing side are doing the same, yes, I do.

I've stated that I believe there can and should be an amicable solution so both sides can come out on a winning side.

I think the passage in question regarding the migration of the birds is...

Quoteit flew from Argentina on the southern tip of South America to Huguenot Park. And then after feeding they said it flew to Arctic breeding grounds. They said it had done this for thousands of years. But  the park has only existed since the installation of the jetty.

The migration has lasted for many thousands of years.  Huguenot Park is one of the diminishing number of places they have to rest and feed. 

Kite, a baby Piping Plover weighs less than 1/2 ounce, is about 1 1/2" long, can run like crazy and is damn near invisible when it stops and crouches in a tire track.  You haven't seen them because you CAN'T see them.

FWC says we have 8,400 miles of shore line in Florida. I'm sure that is not straight line measurement.  Beach driving is limited to only a hand full of places. There is less than 100 miles of beach driving. Are the birds that limited that they can't find another place in 8,000 miles?

Pedestrians, dogs, kids, sunbathers, deep water all keep most of our beaches unsuitable for nesting or undisturbed feeding.  Driving on Atlantic beach wouldn't disturb the birds at all.

As for the Red Knots, they feed on the horseshoe crabs, so where they are, the Red Knots will stop during their migration.

Springfielder,

Please let me apologize. I don’t mean to be so confusing. The park does have some days that attendance is huge. Labor Day, Memorial Day, The Fourth of July and some perfect days in the middle of summer weekends. But the total amount of yearly revenue the park generates is usually less than what it takes to keep the park running. As a result it operates at a loss most years. ALL of the revenue the park generates goes into a special trust that is then used to fund its operations. When the park comes up short the city covers the rest. I think it would be an incorrect statement to say that the cost of materials and payroll is decreasing.  The increased cost of building, installing and maintaining the additional bollards and signs is an expense that the city has to cover.  They have been extremely fast in accepting that cost and responsibility. Do you think its fair to place an additional and unnecessary strain on an already thin budget? 

You are correct that the tax payers cover the cost for JSO officers in the park. I might add that they are damn good at the task too. They deserve every penny. The city has increased patrols within the park There is even an officer living at the park .  When the issue of how to protect the fledgling birds was raised and the city placed the temporary protection fence across the beach and the U.S. Fish and wildlife  service  approved it with only minor adjustments. I have a question though. Are state forestry officers the same as Fish and Wildlife officers?  Do all state parks fall under the jurisdiction of state forestry? Where do the Florida Wildlife officers have jurisdiction? 

Concerning Red Knots  ….The statement made at the public meetings was that Red Knots migrate from Argentina to Huguenot Park and from there to the Arctic. I was there when they said it. They stated that the bird had feed at the park to build up body weight to make the long migration. They also said that the bird was on the brink of extinction. They did not say that the birds stop at many points along the way to feed. They did not say that many of them fly past Florida before stopping on the east coast. They did not even mention how important the horseshoe crab breeding season in to this particular population of birds or how crab fishing in Delaware Bay has indeed removed the one vital link along the Knots migration. They did not mention that many of these bird fly up the west coast of Florida or that a considerable number don’t migrate beyond the southern tip of Florida.  They denied that the Red Knots came to shore anywhere south of Jacksonville. The facts they left out would not support their claims that the fate of the Red Knot rested on the protections provided at the park. But most of this information is available from many sources world wide. Even the National Audubon studies focus on the connection between Red Knots, horseshoe crabs and climate change. Of course the local Audubon did not mention that Red Knots are found on every continent. They did not say that some populations of the bird migrate up the west coast of the Americas.  That is why the bird is not on the endangered species list. This population may disappear because the small amount of crab eggs cant support a large enough population of Red Knots to continue to maintain its numbers. In 2009 none of the east coast birds were seen in the Arctic breeding grounds. If there is not enough food they simply don’t try to migrate. Some of these birds die every year and its estimated that the last of the east coast Red Knots will vanish in 2010. They may just stop migrating or they may combine with other populations that travel different routes.  To some it all up not one thing that happens at Huguenot Park will affect the outcome. I believe that we have done what we can to allow them to feed unmolested. In the end it may actually speed their passing.


The city has been doing their part. They have kept their word and responded quickly to every protection and safety issue at the park. They continue to install and enforce the protection measures both sides have agreed to in the management plan. And still the Audubon attempts to end run around the accepted and legal reviews. This has been a situation of all give and no take.  The Audubon needs to stand up in the light, admit the lies and work with the city to develop workable solutions.               

Dogwalker.

You may be correct about the Piping Plover chicks size. However they nest in much more northern latitudes. The few Piping Plovers seen in our area are adult birds wintering not nesting. The same bird might be seen in Fernandina one day and Nassau Sound the next. It might show up at the park or you might see it along the "little jetty" in the St Johns River. They move around a lot. They are not at risk by anything that takes place at the park and therefore are not an issue with regard to protection within the park. By the way. If you are close enough to see a PP chick and you do cause it to run that might be considered a violation of State, Federal and International laws. It is listed as an endangered species.       

Brain fade on the Piping Plovers, however, same thing about size and invisibility applies to Least Terns, Gull-Billed Terns, Ruddy Turnstones, and Semi-palmated Plovers which do nest there.  You do know when you are near a Least Turn nest or chick because the adults will dive bomb you from behind, squawk, and shit on you to try to drive you away.  Works too!  LOL!

Dogwalker,

Actually Least Tern and Gull Billed Terns fledglings are just as visible on the beach as Royals or Laughing Gull fledglings. I was a little concerned by your statement that the TernStone and Simi-palmated Plovers nest along the eastern seaboard. I know in almost 40 years as a birder that I have never heard of them doing that. I checked it out and, like the Red knot they go to much more northern latitudes to breed. At the park none of these things are issues. Of the the birds that do nest there none will be found on the beach until hey are big enough to travel up and over the duns and out to the water everyday. When the first baby bird shows up at the top of the last dune the park management puts up the temporary automotive fence. As I said before this has been wildly successful for the protection of fledglings. Also if you are close enough see a tiny, newly hatched baby bird at the park it means you are either using a good pair of binoculars while standing on a ladder or you are in the CWA. Being in the CWA is a serious violation. You will be removed from the park and you can be fined $500.00.

And although it really should not matter, and I think we should take the necessary steps to protect the wildlife, all of the of the species you mention are considered to be birds of "least concern". Which means that their numbers are either growing or have sufficiently large and stable populations (worldwide) that they are not in danger of becoming endangered or even threatened. I invite you to visit the Cornell University's web page "all about birds" There you can find data on life-cycle, distribution and food source for various species. Its good to have someone check my work. Look through anything you can find and let us know about it and how it affects the protection measures at the park. Thanks for taking the time to rread these posts.     

Wow, lots of rich discussion.

First, the incidence of bird fatalities from vehicle strikes in HMP is significantly below that typically encountered in other places with bird/vehicle interactions.  Next, vehicle accidents (pedestrian or other vehicle) in HMP are profoundly below normative data for general vehicle use.  The senior Florida Fish and Wildlife Bird Biologist supports the city of Jacksonville's management plan.  I think these are important facts to start with in this discussion.

As for your right to drive on the beach, Florida Statue 161.58 grants the power to determine if vehicles should be allowed on a beach to the local municipal government. And, recent case law, Trapanier vs. Volusia County, vehicles were ruled by the court to have "Customary Use" rights of the beach just as pedestrians do, where driving on the beach is allowed under FS 161.58.   But in the case of HMP, the issue is beach parking.  There simply is no other place to park the vehicles that bring people to the beach.  I do not support beach driving, per se.  But I support being able to get to the beach and having a place to park.  In the case of HMP, the only practical way to do that is to drive to the beach, on the beach and park. 

As for the notion of parking at the gate or on the jetty spine and walking to the beach, it is about two miles from the gate to the point at Ft. George Inlet.  For the typical person, this would mean a one hour walk in and one hour return -- hauling kids, fishing gear, kite surfing gear or whatever else.

There are about 17 miles of public beach on the coast of Duval County.  Only one mile of 17, HMP allows vehicles and that is due to the unique nature of the property. 

Some people may feel that there is a lot of information concerning the issues that surround the park. I hope that they will take the time to read about them. If you use the park or enjoy the beach dont let its access be taken away. Lack of understanding the truth and apathy about the issues are the most potent weapons any special interest group can use to gain control. 

Kite:  I still think there are creative ways to have access to the park without allowing hundreds of cars on the beach at the same time.  I suggest a tram system with a tractor pulling trailers with some of the trailers devoted to equipment, fishing gear, boards, sails, etc.  Access and automobile access are not the same thing so we should not conflate them.

There is a similar system in place at the Itchituknee (sp?) State Park.  If you've never been tubing on the River there you've missed some great fun on a hot day.  (The water is COLD!)  You load your tubes, floats, etc. in a trailer and get into a passenger trailer.  A tractor pulls the whole train a couple of miles up a trail upstream and you float from there back to the landing which is within walking distance of the parking lot.

A similar tram system could circulate continually around Huguenot Park, dropping off and picking up people, kids, dogs and equipment.  No danger to the people on the beach, no danger of getting stuck in the sand or trapped by the tide and no danger to the birds.

If the trucks can run over the bird so can the tram.

If you want to turn Huguenot into Ichetucknee you might as well go to Ichetucknee.

If they park at the gate and take the tram you will need to make parking lots the size of the beach in the dunes and marsh to serve the same numbers of people.

QuoteIf they park at the gate and take the tram you will need to make parking lots the size of the beach in the dunes and marsh to serve the same numbers of people.

Good point

Quote from: BridgeTroll on January 08, 2010, 12:09:44 PM

QuoteIf they park at the gate and take the tram you will need to make parking lots the size of the beach in the dunes and marsh to serve the same numbers of people.

Good point

I imagine that the parking areas could be placed where a lot of the camp ground is.JYes- we lose some camping areas.The camping facility is not greatly utilized.Seperate the public from their vehicles- even a tiny bit,and expect uproar....and an effective resource mangement tool benefiting both the resource and human recreation experience.

Consider the changes that happened with Anastasia.

I drive Hugenot because it is convenient,and there are many positives with direct vehicle access.But in my heart I know that the best times are at Talbot..........

QuoteI imagine that the parking areas could be placed where a lot of the camp ground is.

A)  Not nearly enough room.  Unless of course you bulldoze the dunes seperating the camping spots.
B)  So now you want to remove beachside camping there also?
C)  You are right about one thing... There ARE many positives associated with direct vehicle access...

I think its great that people are willing to think of other solutions. I like the Tram idea except that to meet the minimum you would need to find over 700 spaces to completely replace parking lost on the beach. Much of the area that we now consider the CWA would have to be turned into parking and migh need boardwalks as well. I have been to Ithcituknee many times and the tram system works great there. Some thing to remember is that there is a lot of paved area for those trams to run on, there is a huge amount of parking and the cost of the tram maintenance and operations might be very expensive. I wonder if anyone has the cost figures for that or knows where to get them?
                                        But we are losing sight of the most important facts.

Here is the truth. There is no need for further changes or protections at the park. All of the concerns have been reviewed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife service and they were ready two years ago to sign off on the plan as it was. All of the protections and safety issues have been answered fully. The Audubon lobby and sympathizers on the ARC decided that they know better than all the other agencies or scientists. Their roll in this has been to misguide, misinform, and push for the very narrow minded and unsupportable agenda that beach driving is a threat to the environment everywhere it happens. I think it would be a mistake to open all beaches everywhere to driving. But this one mile of manmade beach is not the critically environmentally sensitive area that they would have you believe it is. The acid test would be to ask what would happen if a big storm or storms submerged and flattened the CWA so that all the nesting areas were washed away? What would be the real cost to those few bird species that have started nesting there in the past eight years or so? Certainly not much if you look at the big picture. Not a single species out there hangs in the balance or is even threatened. Locally what would happen to them if the park ceased to exist? They would do what they did before. They would begin to nest at the next available place which would most likely be the North end of Little Talbot Island and bird Island. I remember when you could drive out there too. Now the walk is so far the only real way to access it is by boat. Huguenot Park should be a done deal. There are simply no other outstanding issues that need to be addressed with the possible exception of the removal of the Naval debris near the jetty. In fact I think dogs could be allowed back into the park except during the Red Knot migrations and nesting season since they are only a threat during those times. You see how easy a solution that would be and how we need not completely disenfranchise  one user group because of a narrow minded agenda? The park is there for everybody and the birds and neither needs to be the loser.                 

It seems what is needed is an elevated monorail from downtown to Heugenot. ;D

http://jaxpoliticsonline.com/2009/12/21/beach-access-closure-proposal-catches-local-officials-by-surprise/

QuoteBeach Access Closure Proposal Catches Local Officials by Surprise
By Nick Callahan
In a recent letter to the Duval County Legislative Delegation, Scott Shine, a local Political Consultant and sitting member of the Jacksonville Ethics Commission, highlighted recent actions taken by Florida Officials to limit beach access at Huguenot Park. Spurred on by the Duval Audubon Society’s President, Carole Adams, the Florida Division of Lands Acquisition and Restoration Council (ARC) unilaterally acted to close a large section of Huguenot Park’s Beach to vehicular traffic in order to protect several species of birds that are neither endangered nor threatened.

Local leaders successfully lobbied to have the ban temporarily lifted, but ARC’s decision illustrates how slippery a slope conservation efforts can become. Conservation of natural resources is a tremendously important policy issue that cannot become politicized or unduly influenced by one group, no matter how noble the cause may be. When this happens, due process becomes an endangered species and our environment becomes stripped of a precious resource we all cherish.

The recent action of the Florida ARC illustrates how fragile representative democracy can become in the face of lopsidedly zealous debate. Ignoring opposing viewpoints, shirking proper notification protocols and threatening park officials with draconian measures does absolutely nothing to promote the duties the ARC is charged with. If anything, the manner in which they acted, when considering this proposal, erodes their efficacy and standing with reasonable individuals.

Natural resources certainly need to be protected, but not at the cost of due process. The Florida Division of Land and ARC do some very important work, but when duplicitous measures are used to promote their agendas we all suffer. Proposals, such as the Huguenot Park closures, need to be judiciously reviewed before being hastily implemented. Detached reflection is what is expected of a policy making body when faced with difficult decisions; anything less amounts to a toxic mix of politics and passions.

To learn more about the proposed Huguenot Park Closures, read Scott Shine’s letter to the Duval County Legislative Delegation, reprinted in its entirety below:

To: Duval County Legislative Delegation

December 14, 2009

Subject: Beach Access Closure Proposal Catches Local Officials by Surprise.

Vehicle access to Florida Beaches is an area of responsibility delegated by the Florida Legislature to local municipal government (FS 161.58).

On December 10th 2009, the City of Jacksonville (COJ) Parks Management met with the Florida Division of Lands to review changes to the city’s management plan for Huguenot Memorial Park (HMP). The changes were offered by COJ on its own initiative, in an effort to facilitate wildlife and habitat protection at HMP. These actions included closing the emergent inlet shoals at Ft. George Inlet to vehicles and a plan to manage pedestrian activity in the Rufa Red Knot feeding areas along the shoals. Neither of these actions is required by federal or state law â€" Red Knots are not a “listed” species protected as threatened or endangered.

Audubon of Florida has been a member of COJ HMP Advisory Board and Shorebird Management Team for the past two years. Audubon has consistently said they are not for closing beach driving and have presented no such request to the COJ. As is noted in this quote last week from Audubon:

“Duval Audubon Society President Carole Adams said … the group isn't seeking to prohibit vehicle driving at Huguenot beach,” Florida Times Union 12/4/2009

However, on December 10th, the Florida Division of Lands Acquisition and Restoration Council (ARC) were presented with a proposal from Audubon to close approximately half of the beach at HMP managed under a lease from the state. The ARC took up the recommendation in its meeting on the 10th, acted unilaterally, affirmed it, and moved it for a vote of the full ARC on the following day.

While Audubon had been telling COJ officials and parks management that it did not support general beach closure to vehicles prior to the meeting, an email surfaced from Audubon’s Executive Director stating the following while the closure issue was pending in the ARC:

“In a fund-raising e-mail to supporters Friday, Draper [Audubon of Florida Executive Director] wrote he was on his way to hearing joining another staffer “in asking that one of the last refuges for shorebirds in Northeast Florida be closed to beach driving.” Florida Times Union 12/12/2009

In this same article, the leader of a statewide beach access advocacy organization, Florida Open Beaches Foundation expresses alarm. “It was an ambush, pure and simple,” said Robert Taylor, the group’s president.

Continued concern resulted from the fact that the closure proposal was not up for consideration and was not on the ARC agenda. It was not known to, or supported by the COJ Parks Department. No member of the Duval County Legislative Delegation, or the Jacksonville City Council were aware of the pending closure action by the ARC and had little opportunity to react to it. Vehicle access to Florida Beaches is one of the few areas of responsibility delegated by the Florida Legislature to local municipal government regarding beach management. Under Florida Statute 161.58 vehicle access limitations are the jurisdiction of the Jacksonville City Council and, by law, can only be eliminated with a 3/5ths majority vote of the City Council.

Quick actions by local elected officials persuaded the ARC not to act on the beach closure proposal in its full meeting on the Dec. 11th. This gave our leadership approximately one hour to react on the morning of the final meeting. Still, the ARC is withholding final approval of the COJ lease for the third time, now requesting a 100 year environmental impact study. Huguenot Park has existed as a landmass in its current configuration for only about 70 years. The ARC is also requiring the city to produce a “carrying capacity” anticipated to be used as mechanism to place a numerical cap on park access. The plan will be reviewed again by the ARC in one year.

Over 90% of the Florida state land in the upland at HMP’s beach front is designated as a Critical Wildlife Area by FWC and there is no public access of any kind allowed in that area. This Critical Wildlife Area makes up the vast majority of the city’s lease. It is ironic that COJ primarily provides beach access on the sovereign submerge lands areas of the beach (section Xs11 Florida Constitution, FS 161.58), while providing law enforcement and environmental protection to state lands the city and public have no recreational access to. Providing beach access is a mandate for COJ/Duval County under Florida’s Growth Management Act.

The COJ has successfully managed HMP for more than 25 years. Its management plan is supported by many organizations and individuals including the regional biologist for Florida Fish and Wildlife. The COJ has never been cited or deemed to be in volition of any wildlife protection as mandated under the Federal Endangered Species Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, or any other law mandating the protection of wildlife at HMP.

Scott Shine
HMP Advisory Board
HMP Shorebird Management Team

Bridgetroll,

Thanks for finding that letter and posting it. It is good to have greater and greater public review. It is important to understand that this one small group of people almost did and still wants to impose their agenda on the rest of us. Not to give the city its lease, to force them to battle over an already properly decided issue is unfair to this community. The letter demonstrates the true intentions of the Audubon and how entrenched their following is. Doesn't it seem like a conflict of interest to allow people to sit on a committee who have  biased agendas regarding the decisions they make? Doesn't it seem like a conflict of interest to for that committee to force the city to pay for a management plan (6 million$$$) that is authored by Audubon sympathizers, reviewed by Audubon sympathizers and ultimately manipulated by Audubon members?

Damn good letter, IMO.

;-)

To all those who have been following this thread,

At this time there is a small flock, about 50, Red Knots feeding at the park. The city is proceeding with its plans to place posts across the point from into the surf zone on the Atlantic side to into the water on the inlet side as per the management plan. When installed the point will be completely closed to automotive traffic during low tides while these birds are in the park. When the birds migrate out of the park driving access to the point will be restored during all tide levels. Driving/parking lanes will be provided for behind the line of posts. At higher tide levels the shoals are flooded and the birds move off the point. Driving on the shoals at high tide is also impossible. During this time the driving/parking lanes will be open and accessible above the mean high tide line. This will allow fishermen or people with small boats and PWC's access to the deep water, non surf launch areas on the north point during parts of the day from the Atlantic side and as tides permit on the pond side of the park.   
Signs will be mounted on the posts instructing drivers not to drive beyond that line. In other words from that time forward there will be no driving on the shoals allowed. To begin with the city will place the posts about 100 feet apart for most of that distance. This is an attempt to lessen the eyesore, danger and maintenance  associated with of a string of posts. People should make every effort to stay behind that line. Drivers that want to use the excuse that that they did not see the signs or posts (they will be brightly colored) can be cited and or removed from the park. Additionally if there are a significant number of violations more posts will be installed to shorten the distance between posts to 50 feet. Please remember that these restrictions are a compromise the city has worked hard for. The Audubon wanted to and was almost successful in achieving full time year round closure of more than 50% of the park which included the all of the north point and most of the pond area to automotive and pedestrian traffic. As it stands people may still walk out on the shoals at any time of the year. Audubon member volunteers will be in place to educate people about Red Knots and encourage them to maintain a reasonable distance from them if they choose walk on the shoals.   Please help the park maintain as much access as possible by abiding by these new restrictions.

Later in the year when the fledgling birds begin to emerge from the dunes certain areas may be closed as needed. Further posts on this subject will  follow new information.       
     

Kite,  Thanks for the information.  Good that there are volunteers there to help people understand the restrictions and the reason for them.  Honey vs. vinegar is always better.

Well here is the official position of the Sierra Club straight from the spokesperson.

"Because the areas of Talbot Island State Park and the Timuquan Preserve are so lovely we support the closure of Huguenot Memorial Park.  We want to close the entire park to all vehicular traffic in all areas of the park". We want the city to consider the possibility of complete vehicle restrictions because we want the area to be a world class natural area. 

That position has been denied by both the Audubon and the Sierra Club from the beginning. But time after time they push for increased restrictions that disenfranchise the Jacksonville community and threaten the last truly remaining access to areas along the St. Johns River, Ft. George River and the Atlantic coastal beaches within any reasonable driving distance. They are pushing for this so that the permanent lesser closure of the North Point will seem like a workable compromise. The question is why?  When asked why they wanted the seasonal closures to become permanent and year round  the response was "Well since you close it for the fledgling birds for a large part of the high use popular months why not just make full time and permanent? Only a relatively few users will have to give up the access."

That is how the Audubon  and the Sierra Club view the park and your access. Those relative few. Fishermen, jet skiers, wind/kiteboarders, surfers and the handicapped.       

There is no reason for these extended closures. No additional bird protections are necessary. No endangered or even remotely threaten species are at risk by any human activity at the park. Unless of course you include the controlled burn pushed for by Audubon and administered by the FWC. What a poorly thought out plan that was. 

Here is the acid test.....If the park disappeared  into the sea tomorrow what species would truly be affected? The answer is us! Every bird species in the park would simply move a few miles north or a few miles south. Don't believe it? Why do you think the birds are there in the first place? Bird Island and the shoals on the north end of Talbot Island in Nassau Sound, 4.5 miles north, were washed over two years straight by storm water and rough seas. What did the birds begin to do? Look for other places to nest. That happened about 8 years ago and that is when the colony began to develop at the park. Since then they have been in the habit of returning to the park to nest. But look at google satellite images of Bird Island and the north tip of Talbot Island now. There is much more suitable nesting area there.

Its time to ask your selves when will we speak up and stand up for the park? When will it be too late? Anyone who has an interest in continued access to Huguenot Park  needs to contact the city councilmen and ask them to take a stand. If you wait till they close parts of the park permanently the rest will be close behind. So unless you are a bird watcher who doesn't mind a two mile walk you better send those e-mails and demand public herrings. For those who say we already had public hearings you need to know that those were not for the changes about to be sneaked by from a narrow minded special interest group.           

This is how it works... the slippery slope in full display.  They want to close the beach to vehicles permanently... so they get a consession for temporary closure... a compromise... then turn around and and try to close it permanently anyway.

This is precisely the reason gun owners and backers of firearms rights refuse to give in to "gun control".  It is not gun control... it is simply the first step to banning them.

Our current healthcare reform bill is simply the first step to total control of health services.

QuoteAudubon of Florida has been a member of COJ HMP Advisory Board and Shorebird Management Team for the past two years. Audubon has consistently said they are not for closing beach driving and have presented no such request to the COJ. As is noted in this quote last week from Audubon:

“Duval Audubon Society President Carole Adams said … the group isn't seeking to prohibit vehicle driving at Huguenot beach,” Florida Times Union 12/4/2009
However, on December 10th, the Florida Division of Lands Acquisition and Restoration Council (ARC) were presented with a proposal from Audubon to close approximately half of the beach at HMP managed under a lease from the state. The ARC took up the recommendation in its meeting on the 10th, acted unilaterally, affirmed it, and moved it for a vote of the full ARC on the following day.

While Audubon had been telling COJ officials and parks management that it did not support general beach closure to vehicles prior to the meeting, an email surfaced from Audubon’s Executive Director stating the following while the closure issue was pending in the ARC:

“In a fund-raising e-mail to supporters Friday, Draper [Audubon of Florida Executive Director] wrote he was on his way to hearing joining another staffer “in asking that one of the last refuges for shorebirds in Northeast Florida be closed to beach driving.” Florida Times Union 12/12/2009

In this same article, the leader of a statewide beach access advocacy organization, Florida Open Beaches Foundation expresses alarm. “It was an ambush, pure and simple,” said Robert Taylor, the group’s president.

The Auduban Society are apparently liars...

Liar, liar pants on fire!!!

Well, well Kitester if the facts don't work you just lie!

Guess you didn't think that another person connected with MetroJax would be at that meeting where Audubon and Sierra spoke and that you could get away with making up quotes out of thin air.

Maybe you were upset that the people running the meeting got tired of your rambling, inaccurate statements and the representative of the National Parks Dept. verbally spanked your ass.  Good for her!

The representative of the Sierra club did not say what you quoted.  She spoke of the possibility of combining all three ecological areas, Huguenot, the Talbots and the Timuquan Preserve into a wonderful attraction.  She praised the planning process that allowed all points of view to be heard and said that their were a lot of different ideas out there to be heard.  She said that we should quit fighting about this little area and look at a bigger possibility including the possibility that there would be a way to provide access to all of these areas without requiring beach driving.

Everyone on this forum should now know that you are a liar and deliberately misrepresent what other people say to attempt to push your own agenda.  Shame on you.

How does this...

Quote"Because the areas of Talbot Island State Park and the Timuquan Preserve are so lovely we support the closure of Huguenot Memorial Park.  We want to close the entire park to all vehicular traffic in all areas of the park". We want the city to consider the possibility of complete vehicle restrictions because we want the area to be a world class natural area.

and this...

QuoteShe said that we should quit fighting about this little area and look at a bigger possibility including the possibility that there would be a way to provide access to all of these areas without requiring beach driving.

Make kitester a liar?

Quote"Because the areas of Talbot Island State Park and the Timuquan Preserve are so lovely we support the closure of Huguenot Memorial Park.

Yes.  A typical lawyer's trick of omitting context and selectively quoting stuff to distort a full position.

Audubon and Sierra have made no secret of their wish to close PARTS of the park to cars at certain TIMES of the year to protect the wildlife.  It is a lie to say that they want ALL of the park closed or for the park to be completely closed as he tried to inply.

Kitester and Scott Shine just don't want to be inconvenienced in their hobbies by having to restrict their activities in any way.  Spoiled brats!  So they are just trying to create a big, bad boogeyman, "They want to CLOSE the park!", so that they won't have to walk to where they want to play.

The Parks people, National and City, the State people and the Corps people, who are all involved in this privately think that they are both buffoons and laugh at them in private.

Dog walker,
I understand that you are upset but please don't call names. The facts do speak for themselves. It is the ultimate agenda of these groups to limit the access of the park until there will be no reason for the city to support or maintain the park. That is established fact supported over and over again by the continued efforts of the Audubon and, now it seams, the Sierra Club. If you support these permanent closures that is fine. I do not. There is no real reason for it and nothing to be gained by removing 95% of the people that enjoy the park. That is exactly what the Sierra Club member advocated at this meeting. To be completely correct she said that she wanted the city to consider the possibility of closing the park to all vehicle access year round. That is a fact. That is what they want and there is no denying it. Further more the National Parks Representative did not "spank my ass" (personally I think you should adopt a more civil attitude) about anything. I saw and felt no directed animosity from anyone in the room. To which question do you refer? Also, I did not get a satisfactory answer to my question. When she proposed that the city consider complete closure to all cars I asked how and where the the 400,000 or so patrons park and how they would be able to access the beach areas. Do you have any ideas or do you just want to call names and blow smoke? This is not a pissing match and I stand by what I said. The question still stands too. Either you answer the question with a real solution or the only other alternative is to be emotional and irrational. We would think it great to have a paved road all the way to the north point with a large parking lot there. Or take some of the preserve on the other side and convert it to parking and provide a carrier service to the beach. None of us mind a walk and having a place without cars would be fine. But explain why we need to close areas of the park permanently again 'cause I just don't get it.   

It has been said from the beginning that Florida Open Beaches would be happy to support the ban on beach driving at Huguenot Park if appropriate access could be provided and sustained without it. Where would you build the 5000 parking space lot and who will fund the trams to the beach front? All of this should be a compromise but even after the city complied with nearly all the Huguenot Park Management Plans requirements (completed in six months instead of 10 years) the environmental lobby still pushes forward with an agenda that disenfranchises the people of this city. You clearly want to make the park a wildlife refuge instead of what it is, a man made place for human recreation. There is no reason that the birds and people can't coexist in close proximity and in huge numbers. I have yet to see any instance of real fact that suggests that we must turn the park over to the birds only. Furthermore the tried and proven protections are already in place and extremely effective. Believe me I know. Who do you think was the first person to alert the park management to the fledgling birds spilling onto the beach?

And as to the "trick" of omission..... Let me remind you that the Audubon has systematically omitted, misstated and misrepresented  the facts concerning not only their own agenda but also about the birds they claim to represent. Not one single species commonly found within the park is endangered or even threatened. That is a fact that is consistently over looked. I suggest you check your facts.Ii suggest you backup and take a deep breath, calm down and try to find a solution that does not involve further restrictions or closures or lost access. I submit that every thing that needs to be done has been. Stick to the plan don't try to make deals to swap out or bargain for more. Also since you have named Scott tell us who you are.

Your last point doesn't deserve comment.       
       

After filtering through all the name calling I would prefer to see Huguenot Memorial Park continue exactly as it is now.

Quote from: Dog Walker on March 26, 2010, 02:41:14 PM

Quote"Because the areas of Talbot Island State Park and the Timuquan Preserve are so lovely we support the closure of Huguenot Memorial Park.

Kitester and Scott Shine just don't want to be inconvenienced in their hobbies by having to restrict their activities in any way.  Spoiled brats!  So they are just trying to create a big, bad boogeyman, "They want to CLOSE the park!", so that they won't have to walk to where they want to play.

The Parks people, National and City, the State people and the Corps people, who are all involved in this privately think that they are both buffoons and laugh at them in private.

For the record, a person indicating they represented "Sierra Club" did make a comment to the effect that they wanted to see "all vehicles removed from Huguenot Park."  Next, I make no apology that I want to preserve public access to lands owned by the people of Florida.  Huguenot Memorial Park, was deeded to the state for the written, expressed purpose of providing a recreation area for the public.  Yes, I do want to preserve access to this park so I can use the beach and waters as I have for recreation for more than 20 years.  Last year, more than 400,000 people visited this park.  That's more than attended regular season home games of the Jacksonville Jaguars.  This is an important recreational outlet for beach access, where that access around the state has been constantly reduced over the years.

As for the insults, its easy to be brave when you can hurl stones when no one knows who you are.  If all these people you claim have a negative view of who I am, or what I do, so be it.  I am neither afraid or ashamed to put my name on what I do or what I stand for.

Step,

There are plenty of web sites with factual information about the bird species found at the park. Try Cornell University's "all about birds" also the International union for the conservation of wildlife has hard fact about many species.

The Audubon has touted over and over again the following species as either endangered, threatened or at risk from human activity in the park.

Red Knot
Royal Tern
Least Tern
Willson's Plover
Simiplamated Plover
American Oystercatcher
Piping Plover

hum....I wonder if there is a comprehensive history of the area. I have seen original pre jetty maps. the area did not exist as a sand bar but was more like area behind the bridge in those surveys. Where the park is now was water at that time. I have heard that the center of the park had a resort and housing at one time and that the area was used for marine commerce by the areas plantations like the one located on Ft. George Island. After the jetty was placed the southward flow of sand was stopped and began to build up. The low lying sand bars were  used for all sorts of activities including horse back riding, dune buggies fishing and swimming. At some point the Army Corps performed a compaction process to stop the water from passing through the area now known as the camp ground. This further slowed the flow of sand southward.  I think the city leased the land about 30 years ago. In the 70's the Boy Scouts had a campaign to collect discarded Christmas  trees and place them on the center of the sand bar to accelerate the accretion of sand. I was one of those scouts. After a time the program was discontinued. Some of the sand bars are almost 30 feet high now. Sand continues to build on the north point and the eddy current has pulled much of that sand back to the west eating much of the dune line back almost 80 feet in places over the last seven years or so. The process of accretion continues to build the north point and over the last 10 years the shoals have filled and formed to a level that dries out almost every day during low tide. Prior to that the shoal area was almost always wet even at  low tide and a deep channel separated the shoal area from the area we call Huguenot Park.   I remember watching as the pond filled with sediment and the grass beds formed and grew inside the park. I was very tuned into this because of my environmental interest growing up and my interest in kiteboarding in the pond. As the area fills in it is likely that the sediment will choke nearly all of the current and that the process will result in a large marsh bed. I am told that the shoal area is one of the fastest growing areas of land along the east coast. Anyone who has spent as many hours, days, weeks there as I have can tell you that the area is always changing shape. In general though the build up of sand seems to be creating larger shoals further out in the ocean and slowing the flow of water in the Ft. George river.  Channels that flow through the shoals have become narrower and moved hundreds of yards or filled in. It seems that the park is growing in general and eventually might even connect to the Talbot Island side. Of course any close pass of a tropical storm might change all that in a few days and the whole park might become just one big shoal or disappear. In the space of one week I watched the sand build up the point several  feet in hight while eating to face of the dune back 20 or 30 feet. Some people have suggested the sand might close off the ft George River which could lead to flooding in the areas to the west of the park. The only things for sure is that there is rapid change in and around the park. The natural ecosystem which was water will never exist there again and the efforts of man, jetties, compaction etc. are the reason the park even exists at all.           

Little Talbot on the inlet side, and the configuration of the sand bars in Ft. George inlet, has changed dramatically in my lifetime.

Billy,
your are correct.
In fact It changes on every tide and dramatic changes can happen in the space of a few days. Over the last few months a small slough has formed on the eastern side of the north point and has begun to extend around to the west. If it grows and remains deep enough the need for posts across the point to keep cars from accessing the shoal could be a moot point. The very rate of change is why trying to place quantitative rules or restrictions on the park is so difficult. One of the things that the environmental lobby has been pushing for is, now get this, a 100 year environmental environmental impact study! No one in their right mind who had ever even been to the park would make such a preposterous suggestion. The jetty has only been in existence for about 115 years. When my family moved to Jacksonville in 1969 (41 years ago) we used to go to Talbot Island because we did not have a 4X4 and you really needed one to get out to the jetty then. I remember seeing the area we now call the park and it was almost nothing, just a few thin strips of un-vegetated sand, compared to what it is now. Most of the area was washed over by tides everyday and the FT. George River channel ran more East/West than it does today. Another preposterous demand made by the bird lobby is that the city come up with a carrying capacity for the park. This idea is one pushed for mostly by people who have never even been to the park and is fueled by a few pictures that show an extremely high tide on a very busy day. Cars are crowded into a small area making it a perfect photo op for the environmental extremists. In fact that picture is at least several years old and represents a rare occurrence. That is not to say that it can't happen but what are the real consequences. I have been caught out there many times by the rising water unable to drive down the front of the beach. So what! wait 45 minutes and the tide drops (yes its that fast). The sand is exposed again and access restored. The park manager has proven that the city can operate the park during all conditions and all tides. So a set carrying capacity simply does not apply. If you have low tide in the middle of the day with thousands of square yards of beach why restrict the park to a small number of patrons. When you have a high tide the park cant accept more than a few during that time. There have been about 25+ days last year that the manager has had to refuse entry for a time because of the high water. The common sense play by play way of doing things out there has been very successful for so long so why change it? It has been suggested that a high low carrying cap be written into the park management plan. What would happen if the beach side of the park expanded in size again and the profile of the beach changed to allow full time access even at high tide. That is how it was about seven years ago. Suppose that the large sand bars forming almost a half mile north-east from the point became large enough to remain dry and connected to the park. All of a sudden the park would be huge. And what if a series of strong northeast storms flooded the park and washed away most of the dunes and the CWA? It could go either way or it might just continue to slowly build the park and make it an even better place for the people of Jacksonville to truly access the ocean with out long walks through traffic over hot asphalt to a narrow beach where the view is one of building and houses. Here is an excerpt from the Captain Vic web site with some interesting jetty facts.

with permission....

St. Johns River Jetty Facts

Our St. Johns River/Mayport Jetties, (actual name Jacksonville Harbor) was designed in 1879. The North jetty was completed in 1892 to a length of 10,930 feet & the South was extended in 1893 to a length of 11,300 feet. Both are considered completed in 1895.

Maintained Channel Depth : 12.80M - 42 Ft
Latitude : 30.40° Longitude : -81.38°
Maintained Channel Width : 243.84M - 800 Ft
Width Between Jetties : 487.70M - 1600.1 Ft

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers originally used 1 to 6 ton granite stone to construct the massive breakwater. The principal method of construction was, placement of one to several courses (layers) of log and brush mattresses. Each layer was sunk and weighted down by placing one 12 to 15 inch thick layer of rip-rap stone. Once a firm foundation of mattresses was created, the remainder of the section geometry was built up with the larger sized stones. The original channel depth was maintained at 15' deep. Between 1897 & 1928 both jetties were raised 4.9' above mhw, repaired and the North was extended 2,070 seaward and the channel depth increased to 30' deep. 4 to 7 ton stones were used during this period. In 1930 repairs were made again and the height raised to 8' above mlw this time using stones averaging 6 to 8 tons with some weighing 10 tons. In 1934 the monolithic concrete cap was poured on top of the North jetty between stations 50+30 and 85+85 to keep the breakers close to shore from damaging on bad Noreasters. In 1938 the cap was widened. Repairs were made again in 1940 to 1941 by placing 1 to 6 ton stones. In 1961 and 1969 repairs were made and a study conducted in 1985 showed they are presently in need of rehabilitation to bring them up to previous designs. The Navy maintains a 42' channel depth to provide deep-water access to it's base at Mayport. Federal project depth was 38'.

I don't fish much myself but this web site has other interesting facts on it and deserves a few minutes of looking at.

                     

The image below shows Ft. Inlet and the original land mass crossed by the Jetty, a sand island known as "Wards Bank."   This is drawn from 1917 records, you can see the inlet was about a mile of navigable waters at low tide.  The area open from the river to the pond through the jetty was "sand packed" in the 1930s making for a land bridge to the Wards Bank.  The uplands of HMP were privately titled and subdivided around 1880. You can find this map in the Architecture of Jacksonville book (or some title to that effect) available at most library branches.  This private title was conveyed to the state with a deed restriction that it be used as a public recreation area.

(http://home.comcast.net/~scottshine/Ftgeorge1917.jpg)

From 1880s

(http://home.comcast.net/~scottshine/Ft%20George%20map%20low%20res.jpg)

Those are great maps! It is amazing how the area has changed by the installation of the jetty.

To all that have been following this forum thread,

If you enjoy the access you have to the park please be aware that there are now signs of Red Knots migrating through the park. I have seen several flocks of between ten and twenty feeding on the shoals. In one instance I actually did not see them until I was almost on top of them. They did not seen to mind me but it is better to keep a greater distance when possible. If you google Red Knot you can find a good picture of them. They may be found along any waterline where the coquina are. Coquina, also called donax, are small bivalve clams. As the warmer weather arrives its possible to dip your hands into the sand and find them. This is what the Red Knots feed on during the migration. Flocks will migrate through for a period of time as they head for the main feeding stop in the Delaware Bay area. They must arrive there in time for the horseshoe crab spawn because the horseshoe crab eggs provide the high fat and protein content necessary for the last part of the migration to the arctic breeding grounds. So this is time sensitive. When you arrive at the park there may be volunteers from the Audubon that might ask you to avoid approaching these feeding birds. They will also be directing cars away from the shoal until the permanent signs are in place. While the shoals are still accessible to pedestrians please listen to the volunteers and give the birds a chance to feed.  When they have migrated out of the park and the area clear of Red Knots the shoals will be fine to run and play on. It is only for a few weeks each year and your patience is appreciated.         

This type of reasonable and measured effort is exactly what is needed rather than the over the top and politically motivated effort to ban vehicles from this stretch of beach.

Are BB Guns allowed in the park? ;D

Another update....

The park has gotten one of those flashing traffic signs. It is telling people before they enter the park drive that dogs will no longer be allowed into the park. If you used to bring your dog please leave him at home. If you "smuggle" a dog in you will be asked to leave the park and you could be fined.

also there are 38 counted Red Knots in the park so far. The trigger for volunteer protection efforts is 50. Still, if you see them or you walk out onto the shoal area be careful to keep a  respectful distance.....100 feet should do it.

Car restrictions on the shoals should go into effect as soon as the permit for the posts is confirmed. However please dont drive out onto the shoals even if the signs are not up. Thanks.

I know you are just kidding about the BB gun. But here is how stupid some people are......Some years ago some politician, a small FL. town mayor I think, was in a fishing comp down south. Terns and gulls were diving on top of his bait so he got a shotgun and began shooting the birds. What an idiot! But it goes to show how some people just don't get it. Just like the Ga. guys who drove through the baby birds on purpose when they first started showing up on the park beach about 8 years ago. There is no accounting for brains. Be careful what you post even in fun.

Thanks again to all the readers of this post and pass the word. It is appreciated and the access you save may be your own.         

I just realized that I forgot to post that the park will be closed today and tomorrow while the road is repaved.

Thanks for the update, and I hope that people will respect the birds and other wildlife.

I got the chance to visit the park yesterday. The new road is very nice. The city is committed to concerted effort in keeping the park a place for all the people of Jacksonville. However the pet owners are still excluded year round after May 1st. They are also committed to preserve the CWA and dunes. The following information is third hand.....  Apparently one person is challenging the effort of the city to remove him permanently from the park. He has been asked to leave because he thinks the rules dont apply to him and has been four wheeling in the dunes. I was told that this was not his first time doing this.  I was also told he was charged with destruction of public property. Just a reminder, The dunes are off limits. There is no need to go into them at all and all dune vegetation, especially sea oats, are protected by law. The CWA has special  consideration and protections. The gulls and terns are beginning to nest for the season so any infraction is carefully recorded by the environmental lobby to be used as evidence to remove people from the park or at least large parts of it. Dont give them the justification they want. Enjoy the park responsibly.     

I guess the guy in question was in the paper too. Seems he had more than one citation.   

I was also told that there was an incident where underage guys were displaying beer while driving down the beach! I guess there is no accounting for brains. They were arrested. To all that visit the park remember that the beach there is considered the same as a city road and all the normal traffic laws apply. They can even get you for not wearing a seat belt. The patrolmen in the park are very cool and will not press the issue if you are driving in a safe responsible manner. But if you feel the need to show off and spin the tires or do doughnuts when they write that ticket they could write the other one too.   

I avoid Huguenot at all costs anymore. It's become a breeding ground for rednecks and sand-pirates. It's a shame, too. Because it used to be a nice park. While I'm glad that the park patrol are doing their job, the idiots that amass there just wait until patrol is out of sight and continue their B.S..

It actually has improved since the new entrance fee has been put in place. There are fewer cars and the city has unmarked patrols out more. The onsite officer is extremely good. It is true that there is the occasional rowdy group of high-school or collage kids. Not allowing the pets on the beach during the high use times has also had the effect of limiting some of the owners as well. For the most part the people that use the park are well behaved. Also concerned citizens can call the park office to report unsafe driving practices or other disturbances just like they would if people were drag racing or driving crazy on the road in front of their homes. 

Riversidelok,

I know what a "redneck" is but I dont understand the term "sand-pirate". Please explain. How long ago did you go to the park when you thought it was a nice place? what do you like to do on the beach and what beach do you go to now?       

I would think it's wanting to enjoy the park without groups of loud, obnoxious drunks...which can kill a nice time for anyone else. It's those clowns that ruin a nice afternoon on the beach.

The truth is that there are not many instances of loud obnoxious drunks out there. I think the the only loud obnoxious thing out there is the ice cream van that plays either rap or foreign language music very loud. I know he needs to advertise but I wish he could turn it down a bit and find some Beach Boys or Jimmy Buffet.

Here is an update about the Red Knot protection being set in place during the seasonal migration within the park.

On Saturday this past weekend there were over 1500 cars and over 4000 patrons enjoying the park. The volunteers along with the park interns set up a line of posts as the tide dropped and exposed the sand bars in the shoal area. About 75 Red Knots were seen feeding in several groups about 100 to 400 yards north of the line. In spite of the high attendance there were no automotive violations and people are still allowed to access the shoals on foot. The volunteers and interns talked to those who did and pointed out the knots, asking people to walk around the birds where ever they might be feeding. The focus is on education and awareness. This method has been incredibly effective and there were only a few instances of people  approaching too closely to feeding knots. On Sunday there was a much smaller attendance due to cool temps, overcast and some rain. Most of the knots remained in the area undisturbed for most of the day and then flew into the "pond" area.

The Audubon and the Sierra Club have forced the city to put in place a series of permanent posts along the waterline. These will be set in place soon to take the place of the volunteer line. The reason for this is because the Audubon does not want to continue to field volunteers or take responsibility for the daily needs of protection even though those protections have worked extremely well. These ugly posts will stretch from the low tide waterline on the Atlantic side all the way across the point to the waterline at the Ft. George River. They will have signs on them that say "no parking or driving beyond this point." While I think it is silly to drive a car onto the shoals, it will destroy your car in less than  a year,  it only becomes a concern when Red Knots are feeding in the park. If the seasonal line manned by volunteers is so successful why is it necessary to place a permanent line of signs? The answer is its not. Of course It's a small jump to imagine that the next sign to be added to the posts might be "NO access beyond this point."  Your access is being eroded away one small step at a time. Your park is being taken away from you a bit at a time and the only real reason is because a small group decided that beach driving was bad.    They have stated that they want this one mile stretch of sand to be included in the hundreds and hundreds of acres of preserved lands already surrounding the park.

So when you see a volunteer or intern out there don't be angry with them. They are proving that it is possible to manage a seasonal situation with a seasonal solution. That is the right way. And when you see the city installing the posts don't be upset with those guys. They don't want to have to put up an eye sore they will have to maintain from then on.

But when you see the stark white posts cutting across the white sandy beach separating you from your access think of the Audubon and Sierra Club.           

Here is an update on the bird populations and protections ongoing at the park.

This year most of the migrating Red Knots skipped the park area and flew north. This may have been due to the effects of cold on the primary food source this winter. Only about 100 birds at a time were seen feeding on the shoals at low tide. Some 2000 were reported on the shores in south Georgia. Volunteers at the park were very successful in educating the public and there were only a few disturbances even during times of high attendance. During weekdays volunteers were almost unnecessary as very few people accessed the shoal areas. The protections continued even when the number of Red Knots dropped to two.

The RK migration is over and the fledgling bird season has begun. New protections have been set up on the front, Atlantic, side of the park for the baby birds that will be emerging from the dunes. At this time there will be no car access to the point from the beach side and a no drive zone will be in place from the last trash can to about 500 feet north. Pedestrian access is still allowed. Please be aware of the baby birds as you walk through this area. If they are clustered near the dune line walk close to the waterline. If they are near the water walk up by the dunes. This protection will remain in place through about late August or until the last of the young birds can fly. So far the backside, Pond and shoreline along the inlet are still accessible by car so jet skies, small sailboats and fishermen can still trailer to the best place to launch or fish in the park. There may be soft sand between the large piling post and the point shoreline. Frequent rain will help pack down loose sand but wind will cause drifts that can be too deep for all but 4X4s to get through. High tides have been closing off access on both the inside and the beach side. So, if you are inclined to visit the point be aware that the water may rise to a point that you may have to wait (45 min. to an hour) before you can drive back. Its no big deal. just plan ahead.

This just in ....

The Audubon and Sierra Club have gotten the city to have another public meeting in its continued efforts to close large parts of the park. The next meeting will be held at the Oceanway Community Center at 6 pm on June 21. Dont let this happen. Let the city know you want to be able to go to the park. All the necessary protections have already been put in place and work just fine. Tell your public representative that permanent closures are not wanted or needed. Tell them to draw the line and protect your access.

I just received call confirming that the target of the permanent closure will be zone 12 through 14. That is the whole point. It will mean the loss of the best fishing, the best boat launching and some of the very best water access for all those people who want to wade or swim. It will be a small step to close off the rest of the inside access since there is no parking there already. Their argument will be why have a driving lane if there is no where to park at the other end? Thus access will be lost to over 75 percent of the park. I said it before. The goal is to restrict access until the park is unable to fund its operations at all and the gates will close. That is what they want. They are trying to turn the park into a bird sanctuary. Its not necessary for the continued existence of any species out there but your access is about to be sacrificed for this non-existent need. Put the date on your calendar and make a commitment to be there. The director of Fl. State Lands, Deborah Popell, will be there to here your voice. Pack the room and make it loud!         

I've never been there but I certainly rather take my dog to the beach than my car.

cant take your don either   Audubon saw to that

Well there you have it. Its official and they are coming to take your park away from you. Represented as a done deal that the park will have large portions closed was the story on the evening news. No longer are the bird lobby standing in the shadows Its an all out effort to steal the access to Huguenot Park from this community. Under the guise of wildlife protection the Audubon and Sierra Club have orchestrated the removal of what will be the last place for the common man to enjoy the water front and area beaches. The birds dont and never did need permanent year round protections. All that is necessary was the temporary, adaptable, seasonal closures for the fledgling birds. But if you thought that was enough you were wrong! They want all of you out! The fishermen, the jet skis the swimmers and the surfers are all going to lose. The plan all along has been to eliminate the beach driving (read you) on this one mile stretch of sand. They know that this will cause the park to close and they will step in and offer to manage it as a bird preserve. To all those who say the birds were there first ...BS The thousands of birds did not nest there until about 8 years ago. I watched the colony grow from a few to the massive Laughing gull flocks that nest there now.   In fact the Audubon and the FWC are responsible for the loss of biodiversity that existed there before their controlled burn. The city had it handled just fine before the Audubon and Sierra Club lobbied the ARC and the Army Corps of Engineers to not let the city have its lease to this man made beach. If they close any part of the beach permanently to driving it will be the beginning of the end for park patrons. I urge all of you who enjoy the park to raise your voice at the public meeting on    June 21st at the OceanWay community Center. This will be you last chance to keep the park open and maintain your access. Tell your city councilmen to kick the Audubon to the curb and tell Sierra Club to take a hike (somewhere else). Dont let them steal the park from you with misinformation and lies. The park belongs to you (literally) so stand up and say enough is enough!       

Well there you have it. Its official and they are coming to take your park away from you. Represented as a done deal that the park will have large portions closed was the story on the evening news. No longer are the bird lobby standing in the shadows Its an all out effort to steal the access to Huguenot Park from this community. Under the guise of wildlife protection the Audubon and Sierra Club have orchestrated the removal of what will be the last place for the common man to enjoy the water front and area beaches. The birds dont and never did need permanent year round protections. All that is necessary was the temporary, adaptable, seasonal closures for the fledgling birds. But if you thought that was enough you were wrong! They want all of you out! The fishermen, the jet skis the swimmers and the surfers are all going to lose. The plan all along has been to eliminate the beach driving (read you) on this one mile stretch of sand. They know that this will cause the park to close and they will step in and offer to manage it as a bird preserve. To all those who say the birds were there first ...BS The thousands of birds did not nest there until about 8 years ago. I watched the colony grow from a few to the massive Laughing gull flocks that nest there now.   In fact the Audubon and the FWC are responsible for the loss of biodiversity that existed there before their controlled burn. The city had it handled just fine before the Audubon and Sierra Club lobbied the ARC and the Army Corps of Engineers to not let the city have its lease to this man made beach. If they close any part of the beach permanently to driving it will be the beginning of the end for park patrons. I urge all of you who enjoy the park to raise your voice at the public meeting on    June 21st at the OceanWay community Center. This will be you last chance to keep the park open and maintain your access. Tell your city councilmen to kick the Audubon to the curb and tell Sierra Club to take a hike (somewhere else). Dont let them steal the park from you with misinformation and lies. The park belongs to you (literally) so stand up and say enough is enough!       

The following is a flyer that is being passed out at the beach. Please print a copy of it for yourself and give one to anyone you know who enjoys the beach at Huguenot Park.

                                                              Front page

YOU ARE GOING TO LOSE YOUR      BEACH ACCESS!!!!!!  The local Audubon Society and the Sierra Club want your beach.  They have publicly stated they wish to eliminate all vehicles from the beach. They have already been successful removing dogs and dog owners. They are responsible for the unnecessary, ugly ropes and posts around the “pond”. They forced the City to spend 6 Million Dollars of your taxpayer money and now they want you kicked off the beach! Will you be next? Their plan is close off the beach a section at a time until the beach is closed to all vehicular traffic. But, you CAN stop it.  There will be a Public Meeting concerning plans to close off the first section of the beach. Here are the details:

                                   6 PM Monday June 21, 2010
                                  Oceanway Community Center
                                  12215 Sago Ave. Jax, Fl. 32218

                               GOOGLE IT OR ASK A FRIEND!

Further closures and restrictions will result in lost revenue used to keep this park open and available to the people of this community. Beach driving is what sustains this park’s public access. Without it your park will be closed and turned into a bird preserve with no off beach parking. 


PERMENENT CLOSURES are unnecessary for wildlife protections and Huguenot Park is not the environmentally sensitive place the bird lobby wants you to believe it is. No endangered or even threatened species nest in he park. If you did not see it on channel 4 news pay attention to it here. This could be the beginning of the end of your ability to enjoy the beach and the ocean. Don’t let this happen raise your voice and oppose more restrictions or closures. Tell your councilman that you want the Audubon and sierra Club bird lobby to quit attempting  “end run plays” around the people of Jacksonville and our elected officials.
                            BE HEARD AT THIS MEETING!

SERVE NOTICE TO YOUR COUNCILMEN THAT YOU WILL BE WATCHING ! TELL THEM YOUR VOTE WILL DECIDE IF THEY STAY IN OFFICE OR NOT.

For a history of this issue go to Florida Open Beaches on Facebook
                        Or
Visit  the forum page at metrojacksonville.com. Look for “Huguenot Park , your access today” on the public safety page of that forum. 

                                                              Back page

District1                                                                   District 8                                         At Large Council:   Clay Yarborough                                          E. Denise Lee                                  Ronnie Fussell
630-1389                                                     630-1385                                         630-1393
Clay@coj.net                                               EDLee@coj.net                               RonnieF@coj.net

District 2                                                      District 9                                         John R. Crescimbeni
William Bishop                                             Warren A Jones                               630-1381
630-1392                                                      630-1395                                        JRC@coj.net
WBishop@coj.net                                         WAJones@coj.net

District 3                                                       District 10                                       Stephen C. Joost
Richard Clark                                                Reginald L. Brown                            630-1396
630-1386                                                      630-1684                                         Joost@coj.net
RClark@coj.net                                             RBrown@coj.net

District 4                                                      District 11                                         Kevin Hyde
Don Redman                                                Ray Holt                                            630-1398
630-1394                                                      630-1383                                           KHyde@coj.net
Redman@coj.net                                           Holt@coj.net


District 5                                                      District 12                                          Glorious J. Johnson
Art Shad                                                      Daniel Davis                                        630-1387
630-1382                                                      630-1380                                            GloriousJ@coj.net
AShad@coj.net                                             DDavis@coj.net

District 6                                                      District 13
Jack Webb                                                   Art Graham
630-1388                                                      630-1397
Webb@coj.net                                              ArtG@coj.net

District 7                                                       District 14
Dr. Johnny Gaffney                                        Michael Corrigan
630-1384                                                       630-1390
Gaffney@coj.net                                            Corrigan@coj.net


Go to     http://www.coj.net/City+Council/Council+District+Maps.htm  to find your councilman and tell them you are tired of  small  environmental groups and lobbies dictating to you how you can enjoy our natural resources. Tell them to stand up and take back the beach and the water you love and use. Tell then you know the difference between responsible environmental protection and unnecessary permanent restrictions and closures.  Do it before its too late because once it’s gone, it’s gone forever!



YOU KNOW THE DIFFERENCE. YOU KNOW WHAT IS AT STAKE. DO THEY?

The Oceanway Community center link.... copy and paste it into our browser or just hit google maps for directions

http://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&q=oceanway+community+center&fb=1&gl=us&hq=oceanway+community+center&hnear=Jacksonville,+FL&hl=en&view=map&f=d&daddr=12215+Sago+Ave,+Jacksonville,+FL+32218-2658&geocode=CZfaaMBYmazSFWPD0AEdsmYi-yFEy-SRU0IIdA&ved=0CCIQ_wY&ei=PfUVTO-yJZXKzASMuZHMAQ&z=16 
The following is a flyer that is being passed out at the beach. Please print a copy of it for yourself and give one to anyone you know who enjoys the beach at Huguenot Park.

                                                              Front page

YOU ARE GOING TO LOSE YOUR      BEACH ACCESS!!!!!!  The local Audubon Society and the Sierra Club want your beach.  They have publicly stated they wish to eliminate all vehicles from the beach. They have already been successful removing dogs and dog owners. They are responsible for the unnecessary, ugly ropes and posts around the “pond”. They forced the City to spend 6 Million Dollars of your taxpayer money and now they want you kicked off the beach! Will you be next? Their plan is close off the beach a section at a time until the beach is closed to all vehicular traffic. But, you CAN stop it.  There will be a Public Meeting concerning plans to close off the first section of the beach. Here are the details:

                                   6 PM Monday June 21, 2010
                                  Oceanway Community Center
                                  12215 Sago Ave. Jax, Fl. 32218

                               GOOGLE IT OR ASK A FRIEND!

Further closures and restrictions will result in lost revenue used to keep this park open and available to the people of this community. Beach driving is what sustains this park’s public access. Without it your park will be closed and turned into a bird preserve with no off beach parking. 


PERMENENT CLOSURES are unnecessary for wildlife protections and Huguenot Park is not the environmentally sensitive place the bird lobby wants you to believe it is. No endangered or even threatened species nest in he park. If you did not see it on channel 4 news pay attention to it here. This could be the beginning of the end of your ability to enjoy the beach and the ocean. Don’t let this happen raise your voice and oppose more restrictions or closures. Tell your councilman that you want the Audubon and sierra Club bird lobby to quit attempting  “end run plays” around the people of Jacksonville and our elected officials.
                            BE HEARD AT THIS MEETING!

SERVE NOTICE TO YOUR COUNCILMEN THAT YOU WILL BE WATCHING ! TELL THEM YOUR VOTE WILL DECIDE IF THEY STAY IN OFFICE OR NOT.

For a history of this issue go to Florida Open Beaches on Facebook
                        Or
Visit  the forum page at metrojacksonville.com. Look for “Huguenot Park , your access today” on the public safety page of that forum. 

                                                              Back page

District1                                                                   District 8                                         At Large Council:   Clay Yarborough                                          E. Denise Lee                                  Ronnie Fussell
630-1389                                                     630-1385                                         630-1393
Clay@coj.net                                               EDLee@coj.net                               RonnieF@coj.net

District 2                                                      District 9                                         John R. Crescimbeni
William Bishop                                             Warren A Jones                               630-1381
630-1392                                                      630-1395                                        JRC@coj.net
WBishop@coj.net                                         WAJones@coj.net

District 3                                                       District 10                                       Stephen C. Joost
Richard Clark                                                Reginald L. Brown                            630-1396
630-1386                                                      630-1684                                         Joost@coj.net
RClark@coj.net                                             RBrown@coj.net

District 4                                                      District 11                                         Kevin Hyde
Don Redman                                                Ray Holt                                            630-1398
630-1394                                                      630-1383                                           KHyde@coj.net
Redman@coj.net                                           Holt@coj.net


District 5                                                      District 12                                          Glorious J. Johnson
Art Shad                                                      Daniel Davis                                        630-1387
630-1382                                                      630-1380                                            GloriousJ@coj.net
AShad@coj.net                                             DDavis@coj.net

District 6                                                      District 13
Jack Webb                                                   Art Graham
630-1388                                                      630-1397
Webb@coj.net                                              ArtG@coj.net

District 7                                                       District 14
Dr. Johnny Gaffney                                        Michael Corrigan
630-1384                                                       630-1390
Gaffney@coj.net                                            Corrigan@coj.net


Go to     http://www.coj.net/City+Council/Council+District+Maps.htm  to find your councilman and tell them you are tired of  small  environmental groups and lobbies dictating to you how you can enjoy our natural resources. Tell them to stand up and take back the beach and the water you love and use. Tell then you know the difference between responsible environmental protection and unnecessary permanent restrictions and closures.  Do it before its too late because once it’s gone, it’s gone forever!



YOU KNOW THE DIFFERENCE. YOU KNOW WHAT IS AT STAKE. DO THEY?

The Oceanway Community center link.... copy and paste it into our browser or just hit google maps for directions

http://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&q=oceanway+community+center&fb=1&gl=us&hq=oceanway+community+center&hnear=Jacksonville,+FL&hl=en&view=map&f=d&daddr=12215+Sago+Ave,+Jacksonville,+FL+32218-2658&geocode=CZfaaMBYmazSFWPD0AEdsmYi-yFEy-SRU0IIdA&ved=0CCIQ_wY&ei=PfUVTO-yJZXKzASMuZHMAQ&z=16 

The following is a flyer that is being passed out at the beach. Please print a copy of it for yourself and give one to anyone you know who enjoys the beach at Huguenot Park.

                                                              Front page

YOU ARE GOING TO LOSE YOUR      BEACH ACCESS!!!!!!  The local Audubon Society and the Sierra Club want your beach.  They have publicly stated they wish to eliminate all vehicles from the beach. They have already been successful removing dogs and dog owners. They are responsible for the unnecessary, ugly ropes and posts around the “pond”. They forced the City to spend 6 Million Dollars of your taxpayer money and now they want you kicked off the beach! Will you be next? Their plan is close off the beach a section at a time until the beach is closed to all vehicular traffic. But, you CAN stop it.  There will be a Public Meeting concerning plans to close off the first section of the beach. Here are the details:

                                   6 PM Monday June 21, 2010
                                  Oceanway Community Center
                                  12215 Sago Ave. Jax, Fl. 32218

                               GOOGLE IT OR ASK A FRIEND!

Further closures and restrictions will result in lost revenue used to keep this park open and available to the people of this community. Beach driving is what sustains this park’s public access. Without it your park will be closed and turned into a bird preserve with no off beach parking. 


PERMENENT CLOSURES are unnecessary for wildlife protections and Huguenot Park is not the environmentally sensitive place the bird lobby wants you to believe it is. No endangered or even threatened species nest in he park. If you did not see it on channel 4 news pay attention to it here. This could be the beginning of the end of your ability to enjoy the beach and the ocean. Don’t let this happen raise your voice and oppose more restrictions or closures. Tell your councilman that you want the Audubon and sierra Club bird lobby to quit attempting  “end run plays” around the people of Jacksonville and our elected officials.
                            BE HEARD AT THIS MEETING!

SERVE NOTICE TO YOUR COUNCILMEN THAT YOU WILL BE WATCHING ! TELL THEM YOUR VOTE WILL DECIDE IF THEY STAY IN OFFICE OR NOT.

For a history of this issue go to Florida Open Beaches on Facebook
                        Or
Visit  the forum page at metrojacksonville.com. Look for “Huguenot Park , your access today” on the public safety page of that forum. 

                                                              Back page

District1                                                                   District 8                                         At Large Council:   Clay Yarborough                                          E. Denise Lee                                  Ronnie Fussell
630-1389                                                     630-1385                                         630-1393
Clay@coj.net                                               EDLee@coj.net                               RonnieF@coj.net

District 2                                                      District 9                                         John R. Crescimbeni
William Bishop                                             Warren A Jones                               630-1381
630-1392                                                      630-1395                                        JRC@coj.net
WBishop@coj.net                                         WAJones@coj.net

District 3                                                       District 10                                       Stephen C. Joost
Richard Clark                                                Reginald L. Brown                            630-1396
630-1386                                                      630-1684                                         Joost@coj.net
RClark@coj.net                                             RBrown@coj.net

District 4                                                      District 11                                         Kevin Hyde
Don Redman                                                Ray Holt                                            630-1398
630-1394                                                      630-1383                                           KHyde@coj.net
Redman@coj.net                                           Holt@coj.net


District 5                                                      District 12                                          Glorious J. Johnson
Art Shad                                                      Daniel Davis                                        630-1387
630-1382                                                      630-1380                                            GloriousJ@coj.net
AShad@coj.net                                             DDavis@coj.net

District 6                                                      District 13
Jack Webb                                                   Art Graham
630-1388                                                      630-1397
Webb@coj.net                                              ArtG@coj.net

District 7                                                       District 14
Dr. Johnny Gaffney                                        Michael Corrigan
630-1384                                                       630-1390
Gaffney@coj.net                                            Corrigan@coj.net


Go to     http://www.coj.net/City+Council/Council+District+Maps.htm  to find your councilman and tell them you are tired of  small  environmental groups and lobbies dictating to you how you can enjoy our natural resources. Tell them to stand up and take back the beach and the water you love and use. Tell then you know the difference between responsible environmental protection and unnecessary permanent restrictions and closures.  Do it before its too late because once it’s gone, it’s gone forever!



YOU KNOW THE DIFFERENCE. YOU KNOW WHAT IS AT STAKE. DO THEY?

The Oceanway Community center link.... copy and paste it into our browser or just hit google maps for directions

http://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&q=oceanway+community+center&fb=1&gl=us&hq=oceanway+community+center&hnear=Jacksonville,+FL&hl=en&view=map&f=d&daddr=12215+Sago+Ave,+Jacksonville,+FL+32218-2658&geocode=CZfaaMBYmazSFWPD0AEdsmYi-yFEy-SRU0IIdA&ved=0CCIQ_wY&ei=PfUVTO-yJZXKzASMuZHMAQ&z=16 

The following is a flyer that is being passed out at the beach. Please print a copy of it for yourself and give one to anyone you know who enjoys the beach at Huguenot Park.

                                                              Front page

YOU ARE GOING TO LOSE YOUR      BEACH ACCESS!!!!!!  The local Audubon Society and the Sierra Club want your beach.  They have publicly stated they wish to eliminate all vehicles from the beach. They have already been successful removing dogs and dog owners. They are responsible for the unnecessary, ugly ropes and posts around the “pond”. They forced the City to spend 6 Million Dollars of your taxpayer money and now they want you kicked off the beach! Will you be next? Their plan is close off the beach a section at a time until the beach is closed to all vehicular traffic. But, you CAN stop it.  There will be a Public Meeting concerning plans to close off the first section of the beach. Here are the details:

                                   6 PM Monday June 21, 2010
                                  Oceanway Community Center
                                  12215 Sago Ave. Jax, Fl. 32218

                               GOOGLE IT OR ASK A FRIEND!

Further closures and restrictions will result in lost revenue used to keep this park open and available to the people of this community. Beach driving is what sustains this park’s public access. Without it your park will be closed and turned into a bird preserve with no off beach parking. 


PERMENENT CLOSURES are unnecessary for wildlife protections and Huguenot Park is not the environmentally sensitive place the bird lobby wants you to believe it is. No endangered or even threatened species nest in he park. If you did not see it on channel 4 news pay attention to it here. This could be the beginning of the end of your ability to enjoy the beach and the ocean. Don’t let this happen raise your voice and oppose more restrictions or closures. Tell your councilman that you want the Audubon and sierra Club bird lobby to quit attempting  “end run plays” around the people of Jacksonville and our elected officials.
                            BE HEARD AT THIS MEETING!

SERVE NOTICE TO YOUR COUNCILMEN THAT YOU WILL BE WATCHING ! TELL THEM YOUR VOTE WILL DECIDE IF THEY STAY IN OFFICE OR NOT.

For a history of this issue go to Florida Open Beaches on Facebook
                        Or
Visit  the forum page at metrojacksonville.com. Look for “Huguenot Park , your access today” on the public safety page of that forum. 

                                                              Back page

District1                                                                   District 8                                         At Large Council:   Clay Yarborough                                          E. Denise Lee                                  Ronnie Fussell
630-1389                                                     630-1385                                         630-1393
Clay@coj.net                                               EDLee@coj.net                               RonnieF@coj.net

District 2                                                      District 9                                         John R. Crescimbeni
William Bishop                                             Warren A Jones                               630-1381
630-1392                                                      630-1395                                        JRC@coj.net
WBishop@coj.net                                         WAJones@coj.net

District 3                                                       District 10                                       Stephen C. Joost
Richard Clark                                                Reginald L. Brown                            630-1396
630-1386                                                      630-1684                                         Joost@coj.net
RClark@coj.net                                             RBrown@coj.net

District 4                                                      District 11                                         Kevin Hyde
Don Redman                                                Ray Holt                                            630-1398
630-1394                                                      630-1383                                           KHyde@coj.net
Redman@coj.net                                           Holt@coj.net


District 5                                                      District 12                                          Glorious J. Johnson
Art Shad                                                      Daniel Davis                                        630-1387
630-1382                                                      630-1380                                            GloriousJ@coj.net
AShad@coj.net                                             DDavis@coj.net

District 6                                                      District 13
Jack Webb                                                   Art Graham
630-1388                                                      630-1397
Webb@coj.net                                              ArtG@coj.net

District 7                                                       District 14
Dr. Johnny Gaffney                                        Michael Corrigan
630-1384                                                       630-1390
Gaffney@coj.net                                            Corrigan@coj.net


Go to     http://www.coj.net/City+Council/Council+District+Maps.htm  to find your councilman and tell them you are tired of  small  environmental groups and lobbies dictating to you how you can enjoy our natural resources. Tell them to stand up and take back the beach and the water you love and use. Tell then you know the difference between responsible environmental protection and unnecessary permanent restrictions and closures.  Do it before its too late because once it’s gone, it’s gone forever!



YOU KNOW THE DIFFERENCE. YOU KNOW WHAT IS AT STAKE. DO THEY?

The Oceanway Community center link.... copy and paste it into our browser or just hit google maps for directions

http://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&q=oceanway+community+center&fb=1&gl=us&hq=oceanway+community+center&hnear=Jacksonville,+FL&hl=en&view=map&f=d&daddr=12215+Sago+Ave,+Jacksonville,+FL+32218-2658&geocode=CZfaaMBYmazSFWPD0AEdsmYi-yFEy-SRU0IIdA&ved=0CCIQ_wY&ei=PfUVTO-yJZXKzASMuZHMAQ&z=16 

When people think about sports they think of football, soccer, golf or baseball. Fishing, swimming, sailing, surfing, kitesurfing and kayaking are sports too. Unfortunately on of the best places to enjoy all those sports is about to be taken away. The people of Jacksonville are about to be sacrificed for FALSE environmental reasons. Read below and find out how you can stop it. To put it in perspective more people go to Huguenot Park, the north jetty, than go to Jaguar games.   

The following is a flyer that is being passed out at the beach. Please print a copy of it for yourself and give one to anyone you know who enjoys the beach at Huguenot Park.

                                                              Front page

YOU ARE GOING TO LOSE YOUR      BEACH ACCESS!!!!!!  The local Audubon Society and the Sierra Club want your beach.  They have publicly stated they wish to eliminate all vehicles from the beach. They have already been successful removing dogs and dog owners. They are responsible for the unnecessary, ugly ropes and posts around the “pond”. They forced the City to spend 6 Million Dollars of your taxpayer money and now they want you kicked off the beach! Will you be next? Their plan is close off the beach a section at a time until the beach is closed to all vehicular traffic. But, you CAN stop it.  There will be a Public Meeting concerning plans to close off the first section of the beach. Here are the details:

                                   6 PM Monday June 21, 2010
                                  Oceanway Community Center
                                  12215 Sago Ave. Jax, Fl. 32218

                               GOOGLE IT OR ASK A FRIEND!

Further closures and restrictions will result in lost revenue used to keep this park open and available to the people of this community. Beach driving is what sustains this park’s public access. Without it your park will be closed and turned into a bird preserve with no off beach parking. 


PERMENENT CLOSURES are unnecessary for wildlife protections and Huguenot Park is not the environmentally sensitive place the bird lobby wants you to believe it is. No endangered or even threatened species nest in he park. If you did not see it on channel 4 news pay attention to it here. This could be the beginning of the end of your ability to enjoy the beach and the ocean. Don’t let this happen raise your voice and oppose more restrictions or closures. Tell your councilman that you want the Audubon and sierra Club bird lobby to quit attempting  “end run plays” around the people of Jacksonville and our elected officials.
                            BE HEARD AT THIS MEETING!

SERVE NOTICE TO YOUR COUNCILMEN THAT YOU WILL BE WATCHING ! TELL THEM YOUR VOTE WILL DECIDE IF THEY STAY IN OFFICE OR NOT.

For a history of this issue go to Florida Open Beaches on Facebook
                        Or
Visit  the forum page at metrojacksonville.com. Look for “Huguenot Park , your access today” on the public safety page of that forum. 

                                                              Back page

District1                                                                   District 8                                         At Large Council:   Clay Yarborough                                          E. Denise Lee                                  Ronnie Fussell
630-1389                                                     630-1385                                         630-1393
Clay@coj.net                                               EDLee@coj.net                               RonnieF@coj.net

District 2                                                      District 9                                         John R. Crescimbeni
William Bishop                                             Warren A Jones                               630-1381
630-1392                                                      630-1395                                        JRC@coj.net
WBishop@coj.net                                         WAJones@coj.net

District 3                                                       District 10                                       Stephen C. Joost
Richard Clark                                                Reginald L. Brown                            630-1396
630-1386                                                      630-1684                                         Joost@coj.net
RClark@coj.net                                             RBrown@coj.net

District 4                                                      District 11                                         Kevin Hyde
Don Redman                                                Ray Holt                                            630-1398
630-1394                                                      630-1383                                           KHyde@coj.net
Redman@coj.net                                           Holt@coj.net


District 5                                                      District 12                                          Glorious J. Johnson
Art Shad                                                      Daniel Davis                                        630-1387
630-1382                                                      630-1380                                            GloriousJ@coj.net
AShad@coj.net                                             DDavis@coj.net

District 6                                                      District 13
Jack Webb                                                   Art Graham
630-1388                                                      630-1397
Webb@coj.net                                              ArtG@coj.net

District 7                                                       District 14
Dr. Johnny Gaffney                                        Michael Corrigan
630-1384                                                       630-1390
Gaffney@coj.net                                            Corrigan@coj.net


Go to     http://www.coj.net/City+Council/Council+District+Maps.htm  to find your councilman and tell them you are tired of  small  environmental groups and lobbies dictating to you how you can enjoy our natural resources. Tell them to stand up and take back the beach and the water you love and use. Tell then you know the difference between responsible environmental protection and unnecessary permanent restrictions and closures.  Do it before its too late because once it’s gone, it’s gone forever!



YOU KNOW THE DIFFERENCE. YOU KNOW WHAT IS AT STAKE. DO THEY?

The Oceanway Community center link.... copy and paste it into our browser or just hit google maps for directions

http://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&q=oceanway+community+center&fb=1&gl=us&hq=oceanway+community+center&hnear=Jacksonville,+FL&hl=en&view=map&f=d&daddr=12215+Sago+Ave,+Jacksonville,+FL+32218-2658&geocode=CZfaaMBYmazSFWPD0AEdsmYi-yFEy-SRU0IIdA&ved=0CCIQ_wY&ei=PfUVTO-yJZXKzASMuZHMAQ&z=16 

Huguenot Park in North Jacksonville has long been a popular place for beach visitors. Fishermen, kayakers and surfers who frequent the park to take advantage of the open access to some of the states cleanest open water and widest white sand beaches. One of the parks special features is the ability of park patrons to drive out on to beach and right up to the water. Over the past ten years approximately 400,000 people have visited the park each year. But if environmentalists have their way large portions of the park will be closed to automotive traffic for ever and small capacity restrictions will be placed on the park. The Audubon Society and The Sierra Club want to incorporate the park into the large tracts of land they already control west and north of the park. In an effort reduce the number of people and cars in the park and gain control of its resources they have lobbied the ARC, Acquired Recreational Lands Committee, in Tallahassee to prevent the City of Jacksonville from obtaining its state and federal lease agreements. Over the past six years these environmental groups have been instrumental in forcing the city to provide a Park Management Plan that cost the taxpayers of this city over six million dollars. Now they are saying that the management plan which they directed and approved is not good enough and greater restrictions and closures must be put in place to protect wildlife at the park. The current management plan calls for seasonal restrictions and closures as necessary for fledging baby birds or feeding, migrating birds. The FWC  has repeatedly signed off on the plan saying that it has met all of the environmental and wildlife requirements necessary to protect the area and its wildlife in and around the park. But environmental groups have continued to lobby and now the DEP is looking at the park and considering sweeping changes to the management program which would include permanent closures to over 75% of the park land to cars and loss of access for many people who come to the park to fish or swim. No driving or parking would be allowed anywhere in the park except for parts of a 3500 foot stretch along the Atlantic side. As called for in the current management plan large sections of that area will also be car free. While the park can easily accommodate 8000 people at low tide the maximum capacity that the environmental groups want to set in place has been close to only 700. Part of the discussion surrounding this city park is its ability to fund its self. Huguenot operates just in the red most years with the remaining costs being covered by revenue from Hanna Park, the city's only other beach front park. If most of the beach access is removed the future of the park is in serious question. The tough economy which has forced the city to close fire stations, suspend hiring and lay off city workers could also result in reduced revenue for the trust fund that pays for operating Huguenot and Hanna Parks. If the fund can no longer support both parks one of them would have to close. That could be the moment the environmental lobby has been waiting for.                 

An important meeting will be held at the Oceanway Community Center on the 21 of this month. If you use the park you need to be there. See the other postings under the public safety forum etc. This park is under attack. Don't let it disappear!

This is especially important for you guys!

An important meeting will be held at the Oceanway Community Center on the 21 of this month. If you use the park you need to be there. See the other postings under the public safety forum etc. This park is under attack. Don't let it disappear!

I heard you the first time. >:(

Quote from: Cricket on June 14, 2010, 07:57:11 AM
I heard you the first time. >:(

To quote Kenan Thompson, "What up with dat!".

This is kitester's pet issue. His screen name seems to indicate he/she is a kiteboarder. Huguenot is the premier location in the area for that sport.

It's understandable that he is bumping this to keep it visible. It is a very important issue. Once they rob us of access to the park, we won't likely get it back.

Spamming the forums is not a good way to gain support, but periodically bumping a single thread seems much more reasonable.

Quote from: kitestercant take your don either   Audubon saw to that

You can blame the irresponsible dog owners, not the Audubon...let's place that blame where it belongs. As for the constant posting of the same information over and over, that gets really old and like someone else stated, you lose support by that, not gain.

I enjoy going to the park, but have no problem with not driving my vehicle onto the beach, so I have no issue with sections of it being blocked off to traffic. I've heard all of your arguments and still don't have a problem with it.

Sorry to all...

I placed the information on different part of the forum so people who might be interested but unaware could be directed to the primary thread. This was not an attempt to "hijack" the forum. The park is a special place that so many of our community use. but they are often unaware of the closing that are being pushed for. I strongly suggest that all of you find your councilman's e-mail or send them a hard copy in the snail mail. Here is a copy that I sent.

Mr. Corrigan,

My family moved here in 1969 and my wife I have never been very involved with the politics of our city. I lead a simple existence as a small business owner of a lawn maintenance  company. She works for a medical supply manufacturer and distributor. One of the few pleasures we participate in is the enjoyment of our beaches and water in and around the city. We feel that these things are one of our city's greatest resources. But over the past five years we have become increasingly alarmed by efforts of environmental groups like the Audubon Society and the Sierra Club to restrict and remove access to the areas beaches and water. Having provided literally hundreds of hours of volunteer time to those organizations and others like B.E.A.K.E.S., Animal Rescue and Bird Rescue, I find it very disheartening to see these groups lobbying to shut down public access. This seems to be a nationwide trend. The same challenges that other communities have been facing has come to our town. I am sure you are aware of the controversy surrounding Huguenot Park and the north jetty area. Because of the (admittedly informal) education I received from Audubon over the years of volunteer  service I have come to be sensitive to the needs of our surrounding natural environment. I cleaned many oiled birds found in the river back in the 70's and 80's as part of bird rescue. For over two decades I participated in annual censes of bird species for the Audubon Society. My wife and I help rehabilitate sick, injured or young wildlife when ever asked. And, I conduct my lawn business in an environmentally responsible way. I currently serve as a volunteer on the city's Shore Bird Management Committee.  I tell you this so you will understand that I am not in any way an anti-environmentalist. I do not make rash emotional arguments. But, I do attempt to make sense of changes and trends in a rational way. That is why I can not understand why the environmental groups want to remove public access to Huguenot Park. I have spent over ten thousand hours over the last ten years recreating at Huguenot Park. I enjoy water activities as well as bird watching in the park. Over the past ten years the number of people visiting the park has remained around the 400K mark. During that time the wildlife, especially nesting birds and turtles, flourished in the dunes and on the beaches. The water remains some of the cleanest open water in the state. The park manager and staff are extremely efficient, and keep the park very clean even on the busiest weekends. City park employes place temporary adaptive protections when necessary around baby birds and regular patrolling park personnel and JSO officers make sure the birds and wildlife are not disturbed and "educate" people about responsible use of the park. In short the park is clean and safe for both the environment and the park patrons. So I believe that no further restrictions or closures are necessary. Many other people I have talked to feel the same way. Why must we sacrifice our access to one of the last places the common man has to the beaches and water? What gives the environmental lobby the right to dictate to our community a narrow minded agenda focused on removal of beach driving when overwhelming evidence demonstrates no environmental damage? Why must this one mile stretch of man made beach be taken from our people to satisfy a small special interest group? There is a public meeting to be held on the June 21, 2010 at the Oceanway Community Center on the northside of town.  I hope you will be there to ask or answer these questions. I hope you will protect our communities interests and insure that our beaches and waterways remain open and accessible for all the people. 

Thank you for your time and consideration.


Duval county resident
Huguenot Park Patron
Member of the Shore Bird Management team
                     

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.   

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.

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.

Quote from: kitesterto 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.

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.       

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.

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.

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.

         
     

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

Quote from: 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.

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.

QuoteNow 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.

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.

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.

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.

Your responses are censored!

Quote from: cybertique on June 16, 2010, 11:47:40 PM
Your responses are censored!

Now, I expect that.......someone is stepping all over my First Amendment Rights.....

Quote from: Springfielder on June 16, 2010, 01:34:04 PM

Quote from: 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.

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,
     So you agree with me that you don't want to close the beach to people. That means more possible revenues for Audubon and the City. But, you want to close sections which means less people and you offer nothing to replace the parking or car spaces you seek to eliminate. So you take,  but offer nothing in return ? Which, by any definition means less people. Where are these people going to park to go to the beach? Or watch the birds? Interesting, to say the least.
     

Interesting video on jacksonville.com today:

http://jacksonville.com/video/community/jacksonville-community-news/2010-06-16/watch-audubon-volunteers-head-huguenot (http://jacksonville.com/video/community/jacksonville-community-news/2010-06-16/watch-audubon-volunteers-head-huguenot)

Quote from: JettyDog
Springfielder,
     So you agree with me that you don't want to close the beach to people. That means more possible revenues for Audubon and the City. But, you want to close sections which means less people and you offer nothing to replace the parking or car spaces you seek to eliminate. So you take,  but offer nothing in return ? Which, by any definition means less people. Where are these people going to park to go to the beach? Or watch the birds? Interesting, to say the least.

So how would people visiting the park bring revenue to the Audubon? It doesn't, it brings revenue to the park.

I don't have the answer as to parking, that's something the state engineers, (or whomever it would involve) would need to address and take action on. As for there being nothing in return, well that's your take, since you want there to be no restrictions on where people can drive and park along the beach. I see it as protecting the wildlife during critical times, such as nesting and raising their young. Sorry, but when given the choice of allowing people to drive on the beach, and protecting wildlife...I opt for the wildlife, hands down. If that means I have to park at a distance and walk, I'm perfectly fine with that.

Quote from: Dog WalkerInteresting video on jacksonville.com today:

http://jacksonville.com/video/community/jacksonville-community-news/2010-06-16/watch-audubon-volunteers-head-huguenot (http://jacksonville.com/video/community/jacksonville-community-news/2010-06-16/watch-audubon-volunteers-head-huguenot)

Thanks for posting that link...this is exactly why there needs to be restrictions of beach traffic....and nowhere does that sign say or did the rep from the Audubon say that there's restrictions to keep people off the beach.

Quote from: 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.

Obviously there was a reason for the admin/moderators here to sensor your post, of which I did not get to read, so I don't know what was removed. However, the way in which our east coast beaches will likely be impacted by the oil spill, is the relocation of marine life (turtles, birds, etc.) that have been treated, cleaned and then moved to this area.

As for my justification for shutting down the point, which let me remind you...is only to vehicular traffic, not people...is to protect the wildlife that are nesting and raising their young. A point which has been stated several times.

Quote from: Springfielder on June 17, 2010, 01:24:58 PM

Quote from: 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.

Obviously there was a reason for the admin/moderators here to sensor your post, of which I did not get to read, so I don't know what was removed. However, the way in which our east coast beaches will likely be impacted by the oil spill, is the relocation of marine life (turtles, birds, etc.) that have been treated, cleaned and then moved to this area.

As for my justification for shutting down the point, which let me remind you...is only to vehicular traffic, not people...is to protect the wildlife that are nesting and raising their young. A point which has been stated several times.

Springfielder,
      Looks like someone fooled you about my posts being censored. None of them were. Sorry. Now, as for shutting down the Point to vehicular traffic. None of the birds traverse ( read walk, here )  the sand on the Point to feed  themselves or their chicks. That's been that way for 30 years or more. Secondly, even if the birds were traversing that area to feed or teach their chicks to feed, the Audubon Volunteers have done a wonderful job of keeping folks away from the red knot feeding grounds on the shoals and protecting the red knots , which, by the way, are NOT protected under the Endangered Species List . The red knots are merely a Candidate for the List. I checked with Federal folks about this one.
     With such success with the volunteers, why close the Point? You only try a different tactic when the current tactic is failing, not succeeding. The nesting areas in question are well into the dunes and the chicks come out on the Atlantic side to feed, not the Northern Point normally except for last year when they came out on the Bay side. The Point was temporarily closed to accomodate the baby chicks, which I agree to. The Point was re-opened after all chicks had grown and taken flight, which I also agree to. But to close it permanently when the birds are in no danger from traffic nor traversing the area in question, again, makes no sense. They simply take flight and go where they choose to, regardless of vehicles or people. So again, I ask....what is your justification for shutting down the Point?
      As far as generating revenue for Audubon, if folks keep their vehicular access, they might be inclined to donate to the Audubon Society. If they lose it, I garauntee, they won't donate.  Think about it, please. It is foolish to turn down money, especially when you need binoculars for members.

You're incorrect about the nestlings and other birds not walking on the beach, they most certainly do. The nestlings are the ones of greatest concern, for they have not the experience or have learned to move out of the way, as most adults do. If you watched that video that Dogwalker posted, you'd see how they're on the beach and wandering all over it. Let alone, seeing it for yourself, when at the beach, as I have observed.

As for your thoughts about generating revenue for the Audubon, and that people may be inclined to donate, if allowed to drive on the beach...interesting, but not likely. If those who drive on the beach donate to the Audubon, they'd be doing so whether or not there's vehicular traffic allowed or not. Also, the Audubon is not in the habit of buying binoculars for it's members to use, they do however have printed materials and offer other services.

The Audubon volunteers are a great asset, and are helping to educate the public about the nestlings, and to help keep them safe. They're not there to be traffic enforcement for vehicles, which is why that area is closed off to vehicles. To my understanding, the reasoning for closing this section to vehicular traffic is intended to allow for migrating birds to once again have a safe area. Since the vehicles were stopped, certain species of birds have begun to return and there was even a species that was new to the area, which is a big plus.

Springfielder,
       Actually, I'm very correct about the birds. I've been watching them for 30 years. As I stated, the nestlings walk on the beach on the Atlantic side. I did state that. I also stated that they did not traverse ( walk ) across the sand at the Point, as it's too far. That's a large expanse of sand , and , no doubt, many chicks would die naturally if they chose that expanse to cross instead of choosing the shortest path between safety  ( the dunes ) and the water. That's why the city is protecting them by erecting posts and temporarily limiting driving where they feed.
     As far as the volunteers are concerned, you stated " They're not there to be traffic enforcement for vehicles." and you are 100 % correct and the Audubon Society is not there for traffic enforcement either. That's what Jacksonville Sherriff's Office and the Park officials are for. They do a fine job.
     In regards to the "new species" that appeared in the Park, you must be referring to the Asian Sand Plover that hopped a freighter, rode it overseas, and landed at the sight of the first land it saw to feed. IT hasn't been seen since and no more species of the have been seen here. If it had been, you would have dutifully notified the Times-Union and we would have heard about it in the media as we did about the original Plover. Therefore, it was a quirk to see new species out there and nothing more. If indeed, we are seeing new species out  there, the Park should be overrun with them. That's not the case.

Whether or not it was a quirk or not, only time will tell with that.

I do have to say though, if there isn't nesting and nestlings year round (and there usually isn't to my knowledge) that I agree and wonder why it necessary to keep that area closed year round. I would be satisfied with it being closed during the critical nesting times....so I'm with you on that.

I would like to restate the history the fledgling birds and nesting at Huguenot Park

I have spent over ten thousand hours in the park over the last ten or twelve years. I remember when the first baby birds began to emerge from the dunes. That took place about eight years ago. Before that the breeding colony was 4.5 miles north on the north point of Talbot Island and Bird Island. For two years tropical storms wiped out the colony with high waves and winds. The birds were unable to nest where they had. That is when they began to nest at the park. Each year since then the colony has grown. About 5 years ago currents along the Atlantic side began to change the profile of the beach and water began to reach the dunes at high tide more often. Then two manmade factors came into play. One was the controlled burn that was supposed to create more nesting area for terns which need bare sand to build nests. This effectively removed any cover the area had for predators. So essentially the Audubon and FWC engineered a place for birds to nest. But the first type of plant to re-grow after any fire are grasses. Dune grasses are what gulls nest in. The FWC did not think that the area would become over run with Laughing Gulls. But, as more grass grew up more gulls came to the park. At one of the last meetings they discussed the possibility of spraying chemicals to kill the grass since the burn did not last. How is that for responsible management? The second factor was the building of the new bridge. At the north end of the bridge there is a fresh water retention pond. Laughing Gulls now have a source of fresh water water. If you drive up A1A you will see a steady stream of gulls flying across  the road to the pond. Sometimes its so thick with gulls that its almost a driving hazard. The fresh water supply has been a huge factor in the explosive growth of the gull colony. As the gull colony has grown the pressure on other birds has increased. The gulls are extremely aggressive and eat eggs and baby birds of all species, even their own. They have forced other species out of the park and prevent new species from nesting there. During This time forces of nature have been moving the sand around in the park and in the last 5 years as the colony grew, the dunes have lost about 60 feet of sand along the Atlantic side. Some times as much as ten feet of dune face disappeared in a week. This loss of square footage was greatest near the point where the tern colony nests. So while conditions were becoming more favorable for gulls the terns were under more and more pressure in a smaller and smaller area. The FWC representative at the Shore Bird Management Team meetings has repeatedly rejected the idea of bulldozing an area to create a perfect place for the nesting terns. He says that "the birds will nest  where they nest". In spite of all the factors that affect the terns at the park the colony persists. The seasonal no drive zone is possibly the only reason all the terns have not gone back to Bird island. already. The area on and around the island is perfect for breeding bird again and has been for some time. In fact Royal, Forester and Least terns nest there now. other birds do too That is where the Oyster Catchers are nesting as well as the Black Skimmers. In fact when I went up there to se the area I was surprised to find that the Island had grown to such a large size. The pond inside it has almost filled in and there is a lot of plant growth on it now. In fact the north point at Talbot Island has three or four times the suitable nesting area for terns. The island its self has acres of space. Most of the area is posted to keep people from walking through it.               

So there you have it, a man enhanced perfect storm of conflict between the park patrons and the birds.  The city has provided necessary seasonal protections. No further closures or restrictions are necessary.   

I would like to also say that Audubon bird stewards are now telling people that hundreds of birds were run over by cars last year. The Times union has printed a story where one of them states that the reason for them to become a bird steward was the site of hundreds of dead birds run over on the beach.

Both of these stories are completely false. The dead birds are photographed with time and location stamps and  collected. Last year there was only one incident where a bird was actually killed by a car. in previous years when birds died from predation or other natural causes the bodies were not collected from the beach. Any carcass that had a tire track on it was flaunted by the Audubon as proof that cars were killing many birds. There was one single incident that lead to the death of approximately 30 birds. It was committed on purpose by two offenders, one of which was caught and prosecuted. Because of the false claims by the bird lobby the city has to document each dead bird and remove it. Apparently when faced with the truth Audubon simply turns up the volume of the lie.       

Audubon pays three full-time Tallahassee lobbyist working against a plan approved by your elected officials on the Jacksonville City Council -- working against a plan approved by Governor Crist and his Cabinet.  Audubon uses HMP as a tool for fundraising throughout the United States.  Instead of paying lobbyist to make backroom deals, maybe Audubon could put that money to protecting wildlife?

TODAY IS THE DAY. APATHY IS YOUR GREATEST ENEMY. GO TO THE MEETING AND BE HEARD.

6 PM AT THE OCEANWAY COMMUNITY CENTER
AT THE CORNER OF 9A AND MAIN STREET

DONT LET THE AUDUBON STEAL OUR ACCESS!

I am truly sorry that I just found this today.  I would have gone to the meeting last night. 

My family and I are really upset over all of this.  I was born and raised in Jacksonville (at the jetty's) so were our children. 

When I was a child we camped there every weekend and thing have been taken away over the years slowly but surely.  It will be a real sad day if we the Jacksonville residents loose our Jetty's so very many of us can remember a time when you could go to the jetty's any time day or night pitch a tent or like us pull your camper right up to the ocean and man the times we had growing up there...Its a real shame our children never had that,,,,The powers that be took it away before our children were old enough to enjoy that,  fishing all night camping with friends and neighbors I can remember when I was young the whole neighbor hood we lived in all went campers tent and kids in tow.....

If this continues our grandchildren will never know this awesome place its bad enough they will never know it as their grandparents did....

Well as we loose more of the things that keep our children out of trouble well ya know the more time they spend getting into it.  We have this problem all over Jacksonville My kids always rode their four wheelers when growing up after the police harassing us so bad we just sold the darn things kids doing good things is no longer allowed...

I think I will move to Georgia they don't have nearly as many issues as Jacksonville.........Again I am truly sorry I didn't know about the meeting Signed very very disappointed.

To all those who attended the meeting this past monday ....Thank you very much.

It was important for the city council, the state representatives and members of the ARC to see that the people of Jacksonville are in support of the current plan. Thanks to all who spoke and to all who spread the word about the meeting. Its your park and your town. You should be the ones making the decisions on how to protect and manage it.

one more time


Thanks!

Florida Open Beaches and the Friends of Huguenot may have an unexpected ally. I ran across this today. While it is unrelated directly, it may have an impact on Huguenot.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1998905,00.html

     This could conceiveably open up Audubon, Sierra Club, and/or Linda Bremer to civil action and litigation. If beach access can be construed as motorized traffic access, and it can , then anyone wanting to pursue that litigation could find themselves with a winning case.

No permanent closures of any section of Huguenot. Temporary closures for the hatchlings only and only short term.

The Park's Management Plan is the best case scenario for all concerned parties.

To all who read these and visit the park....The whole point is closed at this time including the entire cove side. this will be the case until the birds can fly. Please remember that there is absolutely no driving beyond the protection fences. The area is still accessible to pedestrians and bicycles. Today the high tide is around 9:30. This week high tide will be in the middle of the day.   

http://jacksonville.com/opinion/blog/401026/ron-littlepage/2010-07-01/reasonable-compromise-cars-huguenot-park

Well, the city waterways commission meeting went well, I think, with only myself and Tom Ingram speaking on behalf of beach access and motorized access. There were no oppossition speakers from Audubon or Sierra. Nathan Rezeau gave a history of how we got to where we are now covering ARC, their meetings, last minute eff...orts to close the Park, the structure of ARC and what the city is being forced to do , the proposed closing of the Family Beach area due to pressure from ARC , Audubon, and the Fl. Dept. of Environmental Protection. We did have a DEP person there to speak on the State's behalf. I'm sure Mr. Ingram will post his remarks and thoughts here. I'm posting the content of my remarks to the Commission and response . Here it is:

Good Morning. I come to you this morning to speak out against any permanent closure of any section of Huguenot Memorial Park to motorized traffic.The city stands to lose untold tourist dollars which are now pouring in as a result of motorized traffic . People throughout the SouthEast are coming to Huguenot on vacation as well as local in-state visitors who come for the day or weekend. I have seen license plates from the following states in the Park this past weekend as well as in the recent past. There are plates from North Carolina, Georgia, South Carolina, Alabama, Texas and Utah, to name a few. I have spoken to folks from Live Oak, Lake City, Crescent Beach, Daytona and Lake Butler as well as other Florida cities who frequent the Park also. There are over 400,000 people who visit our Park annually. The city benefits from those folks spending their money at local area businesses and the taxes they pay on goods and services while here. The stock market has suffered a recent setback bringing the specter of a double dip recession. We are not out of the woods yet. We need to keep those tourist dollars coming into the city to aid us in overcoming Jacksonville's deficit and help in the recovery from the recession. The Deepwater Horizon tragedy in the Gulf may even bring additional tourists to the First Coast. There are no valid reasons to shut any portion of Huguenot. The recent public meeting held at the Oceanway Community Club showed overwhelming public support for motorized traffic. As to any endangered species in the Park, I would have to see time stamp and dated photos with recognizable landmarks showing them as well as autopsies of bird deaths. Motorized traffic has little impact on the burgeoning bird population that continues to grow despite having vehicles in the Park. Special interest groups have failed to provide any legitimate overwhelming documentation to show an overall negative impact to the ever increasing bird population. Therefore, my vote is for temporary closures to protect the baby birds, but no permanent closures at Huguenot.We can ill afford to lose this incidental income, tax dollars and tourist money by excluding people from coming here by denying them motorized access to the Park. The end result could be economically devastating to Hecksher Dr. businesses specifically and the city overall. Thank you.

Mr. Crescembeni asked me if I was in favor of the city losing it's lease and the State taking it over and closing Huguenot to all vehicular traffic probably due to my opposition to any closures, to which I repsonded No, I was in favor of the city keeping it's lease and if we had to close a section, then we had to do that. But I was in favor of beach driving. So, there you have it. The fight will be in December in Tallhassee and we need as many public there to support access as possible.

I was at Huguenot yesterday. I saw a van from Conneticut and a young man in a wheel chair. I watched as he wheeled down to the water and his friend picked him up out of the wheel chair and carried him into the ocean. This is a great reason to keep motorized access to Huguenot. He did not have to negotiate over ramps , up dunes nor a great expanse of sand to get to the water. They just parked nearby and had easy access to the ocean.

http://www.facebook.com/photo_search.php?oid=128117997563&view=all

http://jacksonville.com/community/nassau/2010-07-14/story/audubon-gets-vehicle-access-restricted-areas-beach-huguenot-park

     So, let me get this right. Audubon found out "walking to the tip of the oceanfront park north of the Beaches can be exhausting in the summer heat".And , according to Leslie Royce's e-mail "On days when the temps are in the 90s, it is tough walking this area."
     And she goes on to say, "We are doing something to help the city," said Royce. "They [beach access advocates] are asking to go out and recreate. That's not what we are doing. We are doing a job for the city."
Well, it seems that walking from Hecksher Dr. or even from the Bay side to the Atlantic side, lugging anything like umbrellas, coolers, fishing gear, or kite surfing equipment might be just a little more exhausting than just walking.     
     And, if Audubon is really sincere about helping the city, then they need to go ahead and sign off on the management plan. That would REALLY help the City instead of just paying lip service.
     And lastly, "[beach access advocates] are asking to go out and recreate". I believe Huguenot is deeded to the State as a recreation area first and foremost, not a CWA or bird sanctuary. Quite naturally we want to go out and recreate. That's what it's there for.
      It would appear that Audubon wants exclusive access to the closed areas . Sounds pretty hypocritical to me.
     Here's a thought. What is the overlook observation gazebo for in  Zone 16 that is accessible from the unused parking lot to your left as you enter the gate at the Park?

Oh, did I mention how exhausting and tough of a walk it would be for toddlers and handicapped persons if they had to walk from Hecksher Dr. to the ocean? Hmmmmmmm........

I just visited Hatteras NC. If you think the Audubon is actively trying to close our beach look what they are doing to the poor people on the outer banks.

http://www.preservebeachaccess.org/landingnew/news.html

The audubon, Seirra Club and defenders of Wildlife are anything but. They have forced a far less effective management plan into place with threats of law suits. This plan has resulted in fewer fledged birds. They also force the NPS to destroy(read shoot and trap) natural predators living on the islands. Raccoons are probably very plentiful but foxes and minks? Nutria are listed as a predator but are are vegetarians and dont come near the areas where plovers nest. What the hell are they thinking? The official records list hundreds of destroyed animals. All of these are mammals. I wonder if they would shoot hawks that eat plovers?  Are the Audubon and associated groups just run by idiots? The people of Hatteras hate the audubon groups. The effect is that a whole generation is learning to distrust and loath the audubon and related organizations. The general consensus of the people I spoke to is that it is better to kick over a plover nest than to let it be discovered by NPS or audubon. If found it causes a closure of 700 meters or almost half a mile! And they want those closures to be permanent year round closures! Even one of the park service employees I spoke to said that it did not make any sense. His take on it was that people with a lot of book education are inflicting harmful restrictions and policies on an area they have little if any practical knowledge of. Sound familiar? To top it all off the environmentalist groups are fighting the construction of the new Oregon Inlet Bridge. They consistently push for more environmental impact studies even though the necessary studies were done years ago. The old bridge is 10 years past its expiration date and could be closed or worse collapse. If people die the Audubon Society and related groups should be held responsible. Of course they wont. They will just disappear into the shadows looking for the next place to shut down. It is amazing that these groups can achieve such power through threats of litigation. You see what has happened here? As a person who grew up being trained by my parents to respect the natural environment and as a volunteer who has spent hundreds of hours helping these organizations I will never look at the natural world again with amazement and wonder without thinking about how many people were displaced or livelihoods destroyed without reason. I even found myself reconsidering the plight of Japanese fishermen and their whaling industry. And that is truly a sad comment on the audubon etc. These people need to get a grip and realize that they are going to be responsible for a backlash that could be harmful to the environment. They may think they are saviors of the natural world but it looks like they are doing more harm than good.           

Spent yesterday kayaking out there and hand feeding the laughing gulls with a family of three. I did catch the PBS video on red knots last week. It was very intersting, but I have a question or two. Why isn't Huguenot or Jacksonville mentioned in the video? And the cannon netting....isn't that extremely traumatizing to the red knots? It seems the problem lies in Delaware Bay, not here. Here's the link for the video:

http://pbs.org./wnet/nature/episodes/crash-a-tale-of-two-species/introduction/592/

The cannon netting is handled by trained personnel and when done properly, the birds aren't traumatized as much as you think. Although it would be nice if such measures weren't needed, but they are in order to be able to track. etc., the birds.

It's true that the main area is along the coast further north, but they do stop here as well. I've seen hundreds of them along the beach, feeding.

Huguennot Park had 200 at any one time this year during the spring migration. I was told that an estimated 2000 were seen at Cumberland Island. Many of them do not migrate further south than than the tip of Fl. Those are the ones we see here most of the time. We do get a few of the South American birds here but most of those fly further up the coast before making land fall. Mind you this is what the experts say about them. the Fall (southward) migration will start in a few weeks. Last year we did not reach the protection trigger of 50 birds so the protection measures were not activated for the fall migration. On another note the the fledgling bird protections were extremely effective this summer. There are only a few flightless babies left on park property. The protection restrictions will be lifted and the beach completely reopened in a few weeks if not sooner. I will post when it happens.

Would a "Tastes like chicken" blurb be too insensitive here?

Pretty awesome day at Huguenot. Got into the park shortly before 10 am, headed up the hard road to beach access. Spotted the city Gator parked at the end of the hard road and initally thought the tides were too high and the beach was closed. I got closer and saw John, Huguenot Park staff, clutching what I thought was driftwood. I got even closer and realized he was holding a pelican. Seems the bird was hooked on a three prong fishing lure through the top of his wing to midway down the same wing, hindering flight. John asked if I had any side cutters and I replied , I wasn't sure , but I had a set of pliars at least. I searched the Jeep and found a pair of side cutters , luckily, and we proceeded to get the lure off. John made a decision to take the bird up the road to BEAKS for a few days of rehab.
Afterwards, I parked on the beach. John, after completing his task of getting the bird to BEAKS, swung by on the Gator and we spoke briefly. While discussing the incident, John told me the bird was asleep when he found him, ( I say ) undoubtably exhausted from the ordeal of being hooked. While we were talking, a pod of dolphins swam just offshore, feeding. There must have been 15 to 20 in the pod.
It was a good day and some good was accomplished between a park patron and staff.

Just last tuesday the protection fencing for fledgling birds was removed as no more flightless bird were see in the park. The season was extremely successful. People responded well too the information and education about the bird populations and nesting season in the park. The point is open again....for now. There is still a push from the Audubon to close permanently the area from the last trash can all the way around to the large pilling post on the bank just across from the bridge. The city has stated that this area will remain open for public use and driving during non-nesting times of the year. Audubon reps said " they were extremely disappointed by this decision". This is exactly their same response when the city told them they could not/would not prevent people from walking on the shoal at low tide. At that time the Audubon blasted the city for "backing off of environmental protections".  Clearly they intended for the city to give in to their demands. Props and thanks should go to the city staff on this point. They stood up to the bird lobby and told them NO!. Finally our city has grown a backbone! But not all of the "new" tweaks to the management plan are satisfactory. At some point the city officials tried to work out a "deal" with the ARC in Tallahassee. There was an arbitrary decision to expand the area of no driving zones on the beach front to 1500 feet which is much greater than the original area provided for in the plan. Further more those areas will not allow for any parking above them as they did last year. Only a two lane driving distance will be left between the no-drive zone and the tow of the dune. This effectively eliminates about 300 parking spaces for the park. What do the people of Jacksonville get out of this deal? Not one damn thing. We just lose more of the park.  You cant tell me that is not an attempt to remove the public and close the park. Maybe the city's resolve is not up to the task after all. There is no provision to replace any parking anywhere in the park. The non-critical dune areas might be an option but  the Audubon has said they do not want to allow extra parking to be built in the dune area. It has been established that the Critical Wild Life Management Area is only the most northern dune area of the point so there should be no reason not to build parking inside the dunes. It is clear that the goal of the environmental lobby is still the closure of the park Little by little there is a an erosion of your ability to enjoy the last remaining open water access in our area. If as planed, the no drive zones would be attached to the impending post line that will be installed the whole way across the point. During the nesting season a full THREE QUARTERS OF THE PARK WILL BE CLOSED! To access any of the best fishing, deep water launching or the areas most used by kiters there will at least a 2000 foot walk. I dont mind a 300 yard walk but 2000 feet is ridiculous. It is time for the city council and city officials to really tell the bird lobby enough is enough! It is clear that we don't need further posting in the park we don't need no-drive zones and that protections already in place are completely adequate for the protection of birds in the park. In fact FWC has stated that ALL of their requirements for environmental management of the park have been met. Why are we still "dealing" with these people? Very soon there will be some drastic decisions made about access at Huguenot Park. If you sleep through it there will be almost no park to enjoy next year. DONT LET IT HAPPEN. Contact you city councilmen and your representatives in Tallahassee. Let the know enough is enough.             

Well all of you who have visited the park recently may have seen the posts that restrict driving on the shoals at the north end of the point. As the efforts to restrict access to the park continue there is a new restriction that has been introduced and added to the already approved management plan. This new restriction will set a drive only lane of 1500 feet across the front of the Atlantic side. The idea is to attach it to the already restricted area at the north point. This is another sneaky way to exclude as many people as possible with out having to meet the STATE LAW of required replacement parking spaces. By not having any parking within 1500 feet of the point the park will lose about 3/4 of its access for most of the summer. This will happen when the birds start nesting and baby birds fledge onto the beach. The result will be a closure that extends from about the half-way point on the atlantic side all the way around to the highest dune on the pond side. That is really more than 3/4 of the park that will be closed to automotive traffic. This closure is UNNECESSARY for any wildlife protections. It is just another way the bird lobby has cheated the people of this community out of the last real access to the water. I guess the fishermen will just have to fish off the bridges if they are unable to walk the 1/2 mile to deep water access in the park while carrying the gear and coolers. Even the bird watchers will be out of luck. But it's all part of the plan to eliminate the human presence at the park. I have already heard the the city is weighing the option of not renewing the lease or fighting for the park any longer. The park already operated in the red almost every year. Do you think they will keep it open for a few surfers? Not a chance. The result will be a victory for the Audubon/Sierra club Lobby that has already stated that they want to turn this one mile stretch of beach into a bird only place where there will be no access or parking. They are hoping that the tough economic times will force the city to abandon the park.  The bird lobby goal is to make it part of the Timuquan Preserve. The gates will be closed and while the city might operate the camping area for a while the only access to all of the rest of this STATE DESIGNATED RECREATION AREA WILL BE ON FOOT. Bang! the city losses the best resource for public access. If you guys don't want this to happen you better call your councilman. Get on Facebook- Florida Open Beaches and join the effort keep the park open. Its yours... protect it!         

I am a long established routine user of Hugenot Park along with the Talbot Islands,including hand launch small craft vessel access to the outlying Nassau Sound Islands.These endeavours are of no small consequence to users like me.

What Hugenot boils down to is-this is not a matter of effective "Closure" but rather access.
I found recreation conditions at the point improved this summer thanks to vehicle management.(Ok-RESTRICTION.....)
The point is conveniently and reasonably accessible by foot.Past summer vehicle access at the point had it's pluses and absolute convenience but what I discovered on the point this summer was easy foot access and outstanding experience without vehicular and related intrusions.It was an easy matter to employ a small pack for fish gear,grub,beach goodies.There was even life guard presence.

The vast majority of Hugenot users are content to congregate in the vehicle zone.

And the current revised zone allowing point vehicle access while limiting seaward parking seems overall beneficial.

I believe the direction we are headed in the balance of wildlife and recreation is in fact enhancing the human recreation element.

Clearly you aren't carrying a longboard.

To the people who think that the closure and restrictions to automotive traffic are reasonable please understand that driving on the beach at Huguenot Park is what keeps the park open and available. Without it there will be no Huguenot Park to enjoy. Yes... the idea of "reasonable access" is a good one and sounds like a wonderful idea. BUT, ask the pet owners if the loss of access to the park year round was reasonable. When there is no critical wildlife activity in the park should they be banned? Do you realize that the management plan still has language in it that was put there by the bird lobby that prohibits "wading, swimming and kitesurfing" in all of the areas beyond zone 12? How about the fishermen that have coolers and gear to carry, Or the jet ski users that need the deep water access at the point to launch? Now the city IS fighting back a bit by asking the ARC to approve the lease without those restrictions. The bird lobby still refers to the shoals north of the point as a "critical fish habitat" That is simply NOT TRUE. The letter they used to convince the ARC to close the point was written by an anonymous  source on letter head used by NOAA. Critical fish habitats are places with grass bottoms or rock substrates, not sandbars that dry out twice a day. The real reason they wanted to close it is because it is just one more step in the effort to close the entire park. Now personally I think that people who drive through the water simply don't realize or don't care about the damage they do to their cars. First timers or people who visit infrequently are not aware of the fast incoming tides that might trap them on the shoals. So not allowing driving on THOSE AREAS is perhaps a good thing. So on that basis there is some validity in saying that driving on the shoals should be restricted. BUT, do you realize that the bird lobby wanted to prevent pedestrian access to those areas too? Do you realize that the no drive zone will be extended almost half the length of the park on the atlantic side? Do you realize that they continue to push to make the temporary bird fence a permanent year round thing? If the drive only lane is installed and connected to the newly posted areas at the shoals the closest access to the point during the nesting season will be almost 2000 feet away on the Atlantic side and much further on the pond side. The necessary and responsible measures for wildlife protection were met and maintained by the city without the intervention of the bird lobby. Temporary fencing to protect baby birds was more than adequate. The policing and maintenance of the long established Critical Wildlife Area has been provided for by the city for over 25 years. We know that the bird lobby wants your park BECAUSE THEY SAID SO! Every continued effort to further restrict access is just another attempt by PAID lobbyists to remove the human presence from the park.  So when you refer to the "vast majority of Huguenot Park users"  remember that you eat an elephant on bite at a time. Last year it was the pet owners and large temporary closures of deep water access. (By the way the closure on the pond side was for 3 laughing gull chicks!) Next year it will be the jet skis and kiters banned and permanent closures. The following year they will push to remove more access and user groups until the park will not be worth it to the city to keep open. As the voice of opposition is diminished piece by piece, the park access will fade away and the only thing out there will be laughing gulls.                     

In response to North Miami's post .....The point at Huguenot Park is not just  the front side where the lifeguard is. It also includes the back side directly across from the bridge. How far are you willing to pull a jet ski trailer by hand through the sand? Do you realize that the best fishing will be at least a 15 minute walk if you can park on the Atlantic side? The entire inside shore line was closed for three fledgling laughing gulls this year. It was kept closed two weeks longer than necessary because of inadequate counting (flushing) practices. I witnessed it myself.

There is no doubt that the beach experience would be even better if the environmental lobby or current economics would allow the city to build suitable parking within the dunes between the "pond" and the ocean. There is room for three big lots without even getting near the CWA which is located only on the last bit of the vegetated dune on the point. FWC maintains strict outlines of the area for data gathering purposes. Much of the area is off limits for erosion control only. State parks use this basic type of plan to allow for good access all over the world with little or no impact on dunes or vegetation. 

In other news a recent resolution was sent in to ARC. I am told that the city will push to keep further restrictive amendments out of the management plan. This may seem like a victory but if history has has taught us anything about this issue it will never resolved. The Audubon , Sierra Club, Defenders of Wildlife and the Nature Conservancy will continue to work in the shadows to erode this and other communities access to the beaches and waters we all enjoy.  We all need to do everything we can to expose the lies, backdoor deals and pressure they use to sway public opinion or turn our elected officials against us. Thanks to all who voted to reject Amendment 4. The Sierra Club wasted over $200,000.00 of their subscribers money promoting 4. It is time for these organizations to find new leadership that will guide them back to responsible initiatives that will seek real solutions to human and wildlife use of our natural resources. To be sure the problem has no easy answer but complete and total bans on human access should not be an option and any effort to move in that direction should be examined under a microscope to find the real agenda behind it.           

Former ARC Vice Chair Jack Moller is an aquaintance of mine and a good study
Jack was and is very strong on recreation lands access.He had a camp deep within the Everglades.A giant figure in state land purchase, management and public access champion.NRA Life Member.Former Chair of the Florida Wildlife Federation.Thanks to the Federation's Conservation and Recreation Lands bill we have Guana,Talbot,Jennings State Forest and more.These organizations are bed rock.

The ARC process is not the smoke and mirrors image some would cast.For sure some input,which even wanders out to Amendment # 4 is more about personal political views than viable resource and recreation management.

A reasonable and even "challenging"walk to recreation destination throughout the Talbot and Hugenot area yields great benefits.By law,these benefits are among the purposes for which many of the lands were purchased and a guiding management priciple.

Each and every time I am at Huguenot I look at fellow citizens...and my own profile reflected in the shiny paint on my TRD Off Road Toyota ( love that Truck on the beach) and am reminded of the fact that a walk is a good thing....!!

North Miami,

Please enjoy the walk if that is what you would like to do. You can even go to the beach less than one mile away at Talbot Island. A walk north will be almost a solitary trip. For almost 4 miles of beach is nearly unused and at high tide there is almost no access to the north tip without trekking through the original Florida underbrush. For the naturalist this is a view of how Florida coastline used to be. Its a completely undeveloped natural coastline area that stretches for about five and a half miles north. And, its all there less than one mile from Huguenot Park. So go walk it if that is your thing. There is plenty of off beach parking near the entrance to Talbot Island State Park and for the true walker you can park at several trailheads and walk through the woods, over a mile in some cases, to the beach. Of course some of the beach is not accessible because stairs that used to be there washed away and the bank can be very steep in places. Of course if you are not there to swim, fish, sunbathe or enjoy a picnic with your children its an ideal spot. Take your snake boots and bug repellent and lots of water. And get there early because there are only a few parking spaces at the trail heads. 

Of course those of us that carry more than a a few bottles of water with us would like to have a place where we can go to enjoy the water. Huguenot has access that all can enjoy with their families and friends. It has fishing and good boat or jet ski launching and even those with sail boats can find a smooth, deep water launch. People with small children can enjoy the surf or fishing with out having to walk and carry the heavy coolers, beach chairs or gear more than a few feet. 

If the issue was reasonable access then there should be no problem with converting parts of the interior dune areas into real parking with reasonable boardwalk type accesses to shoreline areas. But that is not what the Audubon or Sierra Club are trying to achieve. Their goal as openly stated by their representatives is the removal of all vehicular traffic from the shorelines at the park. They want to see Huguenot Park become part of the preserve. This would very effectively close the park since public assess at the park is based on the ability of the patron to drive and park on the beach.

Over and over the bird lobby has attempted to gain control and close greater and greater areas of the park. In the latest attempt the they tried to have over 1500 more feet of the park closed permanently to automotive traffic on the beach front. They tried to attache it to the already in place line of posts across the north point. During the nesting season the entire point, nearly all of the inside shoreline and about half of the beach front would be closed and access lost. The bird lobby has proved that they will not give up until they have it all.

So walk if you like. There are a few parking places outside the gate and they wont even charge you to walk in! in fact I ask you to try it. Leave your Toyota outside the park. As you walk and enjoy the fresh air imagine yourself to be a fisherman or a family with small children or even a surfer carrying a board. Put yourself in the shoes of 90% of jacksonville residents. Maybe then you will realize what is at stake. Perhaps then you will understand the reason to fight for the LAST true public access this city has to its greatest resource.       

So as we head into a new administration it looks like more sensible heads will prevail and the access to our park might be sustainable. HOWEVER, I was talking to one of the surfers that frequent the park and he told me a very disturbing story. As you all know the the bird lobby has forced the city install ugly posts and signs across the point to prevent people from driving onto the shoals at low tide. Access to the area is still allowed by pedestrians and all former activities are still permitted there. The management plan specifically allows people to walk, swim, surf, kayak, kiteboard or boat in the waters off the point. The only thing no longer allowed is the driving or parking of cars below the posts which designate the mean high tide mark. It seems that the surfer was parked on the beach on the front side well OUTSIDE the no driving area. As he surfed the current carried him north toward the point. When he came to the end of the surf-able waves he exited the water north of the posted line.  While walking  back to his car a woman in a BIRD STEWARD VEST approached rapidly him and took his picture. She then proceeded to his truck and took a picture of it. He asked the lady why she was taking the pictures and she told him that she had been instructed to take pictures of anyone north of the signs. It was obvious that she intended to turn the photos over to the Audubon Society who is responsible for the steward training program. It is now clear that there is still an quiet on-going effort to build a case for closing park access and turning it into a giant bird breeding ground. Now lets be fair. Suppose that the lady misunderstood her instructions. Perhaps she was only supposed to take pictures of people driving past the signs. Still to what end? The only answer is the continued behind the scenes effort of the Audubon and Sierra Club to close our park. They may be quiet but they are not gone and they still vehemently oppose vehicular access to any of the shore line or beach areas of the park. Now, I could be mistaken but, is it not a privacy violation to take identifying pictures of people or their cars if they are just out in public? Is that a form of stalking? There was a case last year and the year before of a man in a car following people around on the beach out there. He waited till someone drove by and then followed them to where they parked. He would park just a short distance away and sit in his car. It was so obvious that the police questioned him. I believe he was asked to leave the park. He came back again in a different car a few months later. Now that guy might have just been a pervert but it was very odd how he only seemed to be interested in tracking people who were driving next to the water or out onto the shoals near the point. I noticed that he did not seem to have a preference as to the type of beach goer he followed. He only seemed interested in people driving on the point. He followed me many times even though as a matter of practice I usually parked near the high tide line.

I encourage anyone to question any person that is obviously and deliberately tracking you at the park. If you dont feel comfortable going right up to them (and it might not be safe) and asking them point blank what they are doing call the park office and ask for an officer to check it out. If they are taking pictures or recording personal information such as license plates they should be reported immediately weather they are bird people or not. That is absolutely not allowed. One bird person was already warned about this.  So as you enjoy the park keep your eyes open. it is a public venue and you never know who might be watching you. The park personnel are always ready to help and will relay a message to the police officer on duty.

Here is the Huguenot Park Office number. Its also on the COJ web site.  904-251-3335. Of course 911 will work too.               

Quote from: kitester on January 18, 2011, 09:40:28 AM
So as we head into a new administration it looks like more sensible heads will prevail and the access to our park might be sustainable. HOWEVER, I was talking to one of the surfers that frequent the park and he told me a very disturbing story. As you all know the the bird lobby has forced the city install ugly posts and signs across the point to prevent people from driving onto the shoals at low tide. Access to the area is still allowed by pedestrians and all former activities are still permitted there. The management plan specifically allows people to walk, swim, surf, kayak, kiteboard or boat in the waters off the point. The only thing no longer allowed is the driving or parking of cars below the posts which designate the mean high tide mark. It seems that the surfer was parked on the beach on the front side well OUTSIDE the no driving area. As he surfed the current carried him north toward the point. When he came to the end of the surf-able waves he exited the water north of the posted line.  While walking  back to his car a woman in a BIRD STEWARD VEST approached rapidly him and took his picture. She then proceeded to his truck and took a picture of it. He asked the lady why she was taking the pictures and she told him that she had been instructed to take pictures of anyone north of the signs. It was obvious that she intended to turn the photos over to the Audubon Society who is responsible for the steward training program. It is now clear that there is still an quiet on-going effort to build a case for closing park access and turning it into a giant bird breeding ground. Now lets be fair. Suppose that the lady misunderstood her instructions. Perhaps she was only supposed to take pictures of people driving past the signs. Still to what end? The only answer is the continued behind the scenes effort of the Audubon and Sierra Club to close our park. They may be quiet but they are not gone and they still vehemently oppose vehicular access to any of the shore line or beach areas of the park. Now, I could be mistaken but, is it not a privacy violation to take identifying pictures of people or their cars if they are just out in public? Is that a form of stalking? There was a case last year and the year before of a man in a car following people around on the beach out there. He waited till someone drove by and then followed them to where they parked. He would park just a short distance away and sit in his car. It was so obvious that the police questioned him. I believe he was asked to leave the park. He came back again in a different car a few months later. Now that guy might have just been a pervert but it was very odd how he only seemed to be interested in tracking people who were driving next to the water or out onto the shoals near the point. I noticed that he did not seem to have a preference as to the type of beach goer he followed. He only seemed interested in people driving on the point. He followed me many times even though as a matter of practice I usually parked near the high tide line.

I encourage anyone to question any person that is obviously and deliberately tracking you at the park. If you dont feel comfortable going right up to them (and it might not be safe) and asking them point blank what they are doing call the park office and ask for an officer to check it out. If they are taking pictures or recording personal information such as license plates they should be reported immediately weather they are bird people or not. That is absolutely not allowed. One bird person was already warned about this.  So as you enjoy the park keep your eyes open. it is a public venue and you never know who might be watching you. The park personnel are always ready to help and will relay a message to the police officer on duty.

Here is the Huguenot Park Office number. Its also on the COJ web site.  904-251-3335. Of course 911 will work too.              

All driving on Florida beaches should be banned in my opinion - especially in parks.  It creates serious safety and environmental and issues.  

Quote from: cline on January 18, 2011, 09:54:10 AM

Quote from: kitester on January 18, 2011, 09:40:28 AM
So as we head into a new administration it looks like more sensible heads will prevail and the access to our park might be sustainable. HOWEVER, I was talking to one of the surfers that frequent the park and he told me a very disturbing story. As you all know the the bird lobby has forced the city install ugly posts and signs across the point to prevent people from driving onto the shoals at low tide. Access to the area is still allowed by pedestrians and all former activities are still permitted there. The management plan specifically allows people to walk, swim, surf, kayak, kiteboard or boat in the waters off the point. The only thing no longer allowed is the driving or parking of cars below the posts which designate the mean high tide mark. It seems that the surfer was parked on the beach on the front side well OUTSIDE the no driving area. As he surfed the current carried him north toward the point. When he came to the end of the surf-able waves he exited the water north of the posted line.  While walking  back to his car a woman in a BIRD STEWARD VEST approached rapidly him and took his picture. She then proceeded to his truck and took a picture of it. He asked the lady why she was taking the pictures and she told him that she had been instructed to take pictures of anyone north of the signs. It was obvious that she intended to turn the photos over to the Audubon Society who is responsible for the steward training program. It is now clear that there is still an quiet on-going effort to build a case for closing park access and turning it into a giant bird breeding ground. Now lets be fair. Suppose that the lady misunderstood her instructions. Perhaps she was only supposed to take pictures of people driving past the signs. Still to what end? The only answer is the continued behind the scenes effort of the Audubon and Sierra Club to close our park. They may be quiet but they are not gone and they still vehemently oppose vehicular access to any of the shore line or beach areas of the park. Now, I could be mistaken but, is it not a privacy violation to take identifying pictures of people or their cars if they are just out in public? Is that a form of stalking? There was a case last year and the year before of a man in a car following people around on the beach out there. He waited till someone drove by and then followed them to where they parked. He would park just a short distance away and sit in his car. It was so obvious that the police questioned him. I believe he was asked to leave the park. He came back again in a different car a few months later. Now that guy might have just been a pervert but it was very odd how he only seemed to be interested in tracking people who were driving next to the water or out onto the shoals near the point. I noticed that he did not seem to have a preference as to the type of beach goer he followed. He only seemed interested in people driving on the point. He followed me many times even though as a matter of practice I usually parked near the high tide line.

I encourage anyone to question any person that is obviously and deliberately tracking you at the park. If you dont feel comfortable going right up to them (and it might not be safe) and asking them point blank what they are doing call the park office and ask for an officer to check it out. If they are taking pictures or recording personal information such as license plates they should be reported immediately weather they are bird people or not. That is absolutely not allowed. One bird person was already warned about this.  So as you enjoy the park keep your eyes open. it is a public venue and you never know who might be watching you. The park personnel are always ready to help and will relay a message to the police officer on duty.

Here is the Huguenot Park Office number. Its also on the COJ web site.  904-251-3335. Of course 911 will work too.               

All driving on Florida beaches should be banned in my opinion - especially in parks.  It creates serious safety and environmental and issues. 

Hard to argue the safety point really. My dad's practice is in Daytona Beach and he's had probably a half dozen cases over the years on the beach for people running over someone laying on the sand. Not sure this is really comparable, the beach down there probably has 50k people on it most days during the summer, this park doesn't get that kind of traffic. But still it definitely happens.

With all that said, everyting entails risk doesn't it? Your risk of getting run over at the beach is no doubt less than your risk of being involved in a car accident every time you get behind the wheel, so following your logic what's next, are we going to ban driving period? Ban walking because you might get hit by lightening on the sidewalk? At some point this safety stuff is absurd, you can't eliminate access to entire classes of activities just because there is some small risk of something bad happening.

And what environmental issues are you talking about? That's a nice catch-all sounding phrase, but what's the difference between driving on the beach and driving on A1A located 50 feet away, with all the runoff water winding up in the same place anyhow? Lol. The couple drops of oil one or two cars might leak are hardly the end of the world, and are going to win up there anyway courtesy of all the roadways we've built next to beaches. It's really a non issue.

QuoteAnd what environmental issues are you talking about? That's a nice catch-all sounding phrase, but what's the difference between driving on the beach and driving on A1A located 50 feet away, with all the runoff water winding up in the same place anyhow? Lol. The couple drops of oil one or two cars might leak are hardly the end of the world, and are going to win up there anyway courtesy of all the roadways we've built next to beaches. It's really a non issue.

I wasn't really referring to point source pollution from vehicles at this location.  I was more referring to the fact that this particular beach is a known nesting habitat for birds and driving on the beach can endanger the birds and nests.  At this beach it is more of a environmental concern.  Further south where there are more people and cars on the beach, it is more of a safety concern.  I just think we can probably do without driving on the beaches.

Banning driving permanently?  Perhaps that's not a bad idea  :)

QuoteI was more referring to the fact that this particular beach is a known nesting habitat for birds and driving on the beach can endanger the birds and nests.

The birds do not nest on the beach.  They nest in the dunes... which has been off limits to cars, humans, and dogs for a long time.  Additionally... during the NESTING SEASON... large areas of beach ARE blocked off from ALL traffic.  Since the birds nest and migrate through during very specific times... those are the times those areas should be closed.

I wonder why the Audobon Society wants the beach closed all the time?

I'm with Bridge on this one.  I think the restrictions in place now are working.  The whole issue with Hugenot is access.  Driving on the beach in St Augustine and Daytona is really just a privilege.  Hugenot is different in that access to the beach is severly limited by having to walk and drag gear without being able to drive on the beach at the designated times and locations.  I wouldn't shed a tear if vehicular access was closed in SA or Daytona. 

Full disclosure, I surf at Hugenot from time to time(depending on which way the wind is blowing at the Poles/Hannah).

"Access" to a full range of activities is of course allowed and yes one must walk and tote gear.Just as is done across the way at the south tip of Talbot State Park with no fuss.

Indeed the PVC pipes at Hugenot are an eyesore.For this and other reasons I have simply given up the 'convenience' of more direct vehicular access and have been using the Talbot south parking lot and ...........walking!
Lots of fisher folk and beach loungers tote their gear-the whole arrangement is just plain great.I know what truly remote country is,it is amazing how lazy I can become along the coast line.My belt line appreciates the Talbot South way.

So... it isnt about the birds so much as it is concern for our waistlines?  How about children?  Elderly?  Pregnant women?

Quote from: BridgeTroll on January 18, 2011, 02:57:59 PM
So... it isnt about the birds so much as it is concern for our waistlines?  How about children?  Elderly?  Pregnant women?

The "closure" area affects the northern section of Hugenot.

Even during the "Closure" duration much of the beach remains open to direct vehicle access.Bring on the vehicular parade-children,elderly,pregnant.I have done so myself.

It is clear that even prior to the Closure era most were content to access the southerly portion.

Of course BT and Chris are correct.  There is far less danger from walking on the beach at the park than there is from driving to the park and there is little if any real environmental impact from vehicular traffic at the park. The areas that have nesting birds have either been posted for years or have been seasonally posted for the past 5 or 6 years since the fledgling birds started to take over the beach near the point. The real reasons for the increase in bird populations and the massive breeding colony of laughing gulls are both man made and enhanced by human intervention. Lack of understand and forethought led to the controlled burn that reduced the natural cover and dislodged the indigenous predators in the area. The construction of the new bridge and the associated fresh water pond at its north end attracts hundreds of gulls from surrounding areas. These two things alone have resulted in a super colony of breeding gulls that not only are substantially extreme in number already (check out any city dump) but also have caused an environmental imbalance of large proportions. This imbalance has destroyed the biodiversity of the park. Where we once had small amounts of many different species of birds nesting and breeding, there are now only a few different types. Laughing Gulls are extremely aggressive and opportunistic animals. They eat the eggs and young of other species (as well as their own) and place extra strain on the few types of birds that may still try to nest there. The environmental lobby has consistently pointed the finger at public use and beach driving in spite of the FACT that public use and beach driving remained unchanged for years the bird populations were well rounded. The Colony of gulls and Terns started developing when storms temporarily destroyed Bird Island and washed away some of the nesting areas at the north end of Big Talbot Island about 8 or 9 years ago. Those areas have since grown to much larger proportions and there is much more nesting area there than before. But the colony is now established at the park. For better or worse its there and will probably remain as it is. The protections that have been placed around nesting and fledging birds are working well to prevent automotive traffic when necessary. The issue of beach driving has never been one of environmental concern nor has it it been one of safety. Those were just excuses first shouted as hard fact then revised as plausible reasons and ultimately proven to be the voices of extremists. The push to eliminate beach driving is driven by a few people who feel it is some sort of immoral activity. Fueled by their money and fervor they continue to drum up support and donations to waste on this last mile of truly accessible beach our community enjoys. They have twisted the information, misrepresented the information and out and out right lied about the information in order to gain control and place unnecessary restrictions on the city and the use of the park. I even caught one official in a complete lie that was published. When asked to retract the statement after admitting it was false they replied that they did not want to because it would seem as though they were "backing off of bird protections". That is how these people are. And, just like the Laughing Gulls they will probably not go away. The recent incident with the "Bird Steward" is just another example of their persistence. So dont be surprised if in a few years there is another permanent year-round closure at the park. That is where THEY are heading.           

Quote from: north miami on January 18, 2011, 04:22:10 PM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on January 18, 2011, 02:57:59 PM
So... it isnt about the birds so much as it is concern for our waistlines?  How about children?  Elderly?  Pregnant women?

The "closure" area affects the northern section of Hugenot.

Even during the "Closure" duration much of the beach remains open to direct vehicle access.Bring on the vehicular parade-children,elderly,pregnant.

It is clear that even prior to the Closure era most were content to access the southerly portion.

No one has a problem with the "temporary" closure of that area.  The PROBLEM is... the Audobon Society does not seem content with that reasonable compromise.  It appears their goal is the ultimate closure of the entire area to vehicles.

Go to that beach during the summer.  There are many older folks... many families... coolers, picnic baskets, toys, surf boards, chairs, fishing gear.  Where would all these people park if not on the beach?  What habitat would you destroy to create a parking lot along A1A?

Closing the park to vehicles effectively closes it to all who cannot hike the mile or so from the road.

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.   

Quote from: kitesterIt seems that the surfer was parked on the beach on the front side well OUTSIDE the no driving area. As he surfed the current carried him north toward the point. When he came to the end of the surf-able waves he exited the water north of the posted line.  While walking  back to his car a woman in a BIRD STEWARD VEST approached rapidly him and took his picture. She then proceeded to his truck and took a picture of it. He asked the lady why she was taking the pictures and she told him that she had been instructed to take pictures of anyone north of the signs. It was obvious that she intended to turn the photos over to the Audubon Society who is responsible for the steward training program. It is now clear that there is still an quiet on-going effort to build a case for closing park access and turning it into a giant bird breeding ground. Now lets be fair. Suppose that the lady misunderstood her instructions. Perhaps she was only supposed to take pictures of people driving past the signs. Still to what end? The only answer is the continued behind the scenes effort of the Audubon and Sierra Club to close our park. They may be quiet but they are not gone and they still vehemently oppose vehicular access to any of the shore line or beach areas of the park. Now, I could be mistaken but, is it not a privacy violation to take identifying pictures of people or their cars if they are just out in public? Is that a form of stalking? There was a case last year and the year before of a man in a car following people around on the beach out there. He waited till someone drove by and then followed them to where they parked. He would park just a short distance away and sit in his car. It was so obvious that the police questioned him. I believe he was asked to leave the park. He came back again in a different car a few months later. Now that guy might have just been a pervert but it was very odd how he only seemed to be interested in tracking people who were driving next to the water or out onto the shoals near the point. I noticed that he did not seem to have a preference as to the type of beach goer he followed. He only seemed interested in people driving on the point. He followed me many times even though as a matter of practice I usually parked near the high tide line.

I encourage anyone to question any person that is obviously and deliberately tracking you at the park. If you dont feel comfortable going right up to them (and it might not be safe) and asking them point blank what they are doing call the park office and ask for an officer to check it out. If they are taking pictures or recording personal information such as license plates they should be reported immediately weather they are bird people or not. That is absolutely not allowed. One bird person was already warned about this.  So as you enjoy the park keep your eyes open. it is a public venue and you never know who might be watching you. The park personnel are always ready to help and will relay a message to the police officer on duty.

First of all, no, it's not illegal and it's not a violation of privacy to take photos of anyone or their vehicle, while in public view. You lose your right to 'expectation of privacy' when you are in public view. And no, it's not stalking either.

Anyone can walk along and take your photo, write down your license plate number, photo your vehicle...it's all legal. Under who's authority is saying "That is absolutely not allowed. One bird person was already warned about this."?

I agree only in that if you (meaning anyone) is suspicious or feels uncomfortable, with someone following you, then by all means, contact the authorities. Which hasn't a thing to do with those 'bird people' doing. This doesn't mean that one of those 'bird people' isn't weird, there's bad apples, no matter what. But you're trying to make this into something that it isn't.

SO once again I ask WHY are the bird people directed to take photos of people walking in the no drive zone? To what possible end? As I stated before it could be a case of that person misunderstanding her instructions. But the city did tell one other bird person not to harass people in the park by deliberately taking photos and recording plate numbers. And the other incident with the weird guy.....He was just acting like a stalker weather or not he was a bird person. It did seem odd that he focused his attention only on people on the shoals and point.

I used to be firmly in the environmental camp and in my ignorance thought organizations like Audubon and Sierra Club were wonderful, wholesome groups with very pure, well informed intentions and agendas. In the past four years my personal experience has shown me a different side. Since I now KNOW they have paid lobbyists that will tell lies and twist information to suit a narrow minded and uninformed agenda. I no longer trust anything they say and I will not support them any longer.

I am not making this into something its not. I think that, based on the past record and open statements by the Audubon and Sierra Club representatives, there is good reason for concern that the effort to further reduce the publics access to the park is still ongoing. I do not believe that they will go away. It is necessary to inform the public and park patrons of these efforts anytime they arise if we want to maintain access. We know they will try “end run” tactics that bypass the people of this community. We know they will try to change the approved management plan with increased restrictions every chance they get. Only vigilance and determination will maintain access to these public recreation areas.   

When I said that you were trying to make this into something it is not...reading my response would clearly indicate exactly why I said that and exactly this issue I feel you were trying to turn into something it is not. Taking photos of people, places, things in public is NOT illegal and it does NOT violate privacy laws. That, is the issue I responded to, and nothing else.

Now, to answer your question to me: I don't know why the 'bird people' are directed to take photos, and my response was neither for or against it, if in fact, they've been asked to do so. That was not the issue I addressed. You made a statement that it was a violation of privacy, and I stated that it is not, which it isn't. Nor is taking photos of people and/or their vehicles harassment, and the officer was merely being nice to the person being photographed; however, it's perfectly legal to do so. Now if the person taking the photos interferes in some manner which restricts the movements, etc. then it could become harassment. But up until that point, it may be annoying to some, but it's not illegal.

I could care less who hired lobbyist, and the rest of your post is but your personal opinions/assumptions...we've bucked heads before over that. As to the thread topic, and your position...we have discussed this before, and we agreed on some and were miles apart on others. I continue to follow the thread, and only wanted to set the record straight on something you said was illegal or a violation.

+1000  ;)

By the way in case you misread the post on the topic of legality and pictures please reread it. I did not say it was Illegal. I posed it as a question because of the previous two incidents. I have read your statement that it is not and I will look into it further. My quote follows...

'" Now, I could be mistaken but, is it not a privacy violation to take identifying pictures of people or their cars if they are just out in public? Is that a form of stalking?"'

I have read your statement that it is not and I will look into it further.

I believe that the question of weather there is something "more sinister" should still be open. I think stalking is a sinister and invasive activity. It does not really matter if the "stalker" is a bird person attempting to gather photographs in an attempt to try to build up an already patently false case for further closures and restrictions at the park or that the "stalker" might be a real predator with truly vile intentions. I find either one disturbing and people should be aware of those activities no matter where they come from. I feel quite sure that if a person was watching children in the park people would want to know.

By the way did you know that one of the most invasive disturbances of bird populations is bird watching? When I heard that I found that extremely ironic. But it makes perfect sense. Who else with the possible exception of a hunter, tries to sneak up on birds. Then I thought back on all the years I spent tracking birds, trying to get close enough to to get a good look so I could put in down on my "life list". I remember one time on an Audubon trip we walked for miles trying to get close to a Brant. We flushed that bird 20 times and all the others in the area over and over. We never got a good look. 

But the other question still remains. WHY are the bird stewards taking pictures of park patrons?

So after speaking with people at the park it was confirmed that the police are powerless to take action toward someone even if they are acting like a stalker. I also confirmed that the city did not authorize any photo reconnaissance of park patron activity in any area of the park by any organization including bird stewards. This activity is very likely part of the ongoing effort by the Audubon to compile information they think could be used to attempt to sway the DEP or ARC to close more or all of the park.   

I told you that it wasn't illegal nor a violation. Now as for the "something more sinister" that's a bit over the top for me. If the Audubon Society or whomever wants to collect information (including photos) they have every legal right to do so. If it makes you feel better, why not go out and take photos of them, taking photos of you or others.

Your claim that bird watching is more intrusive, IMO, is ridiculous, with the exception perhaps of amateurs. Most birders are very conscious and respectful of habitats. There is the intrusiveness when it comes to banding, and the scientific aspects of working to ensure the safety and well being of wildlife. Just as it's intrusive when helping the sea turtles...however, the wildlife isn't injured or killed by such. So to me, that aspect of your argument has no merit.

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. 

Quote from: stephendare on January 21, 2011, 09:02:47 AM

QuoteAs 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

Quote from: kitesterWell 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.

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.       

Quote from: kitester on January 19, 2011, 05:27:33 AM
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.

Quote from: PeeJayEss on February 18, 2011, 10:57:06 AM

Quote from: kitester on January 19, 2011, 05:27:33 AM
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!

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. 

Quote from: kitester on February 25, 2011, 08:18:30 AM
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.

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? ;)

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.

                         

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

Quote from: kitester on February 28, 2011, 05:21:46 AM
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.

Quote from: kitester on February 28, 2011, 05:21:46 AM
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.

Quote from: PeeJayEss on March 02, 2011, 09:15:44 AM
Bridgetroll: my outlook is not judging a person by a single facet of their personality.

Quote from: kitester on February 28, 2011, 05:21:46 AM
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.

Quote from: kitester on February 28, 2011, 05:21:46 AM
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

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.                 

   

QuoteHe 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.

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

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

Quote from: fieldafm on March 03, 2011, 09:27:33 AM

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

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

Agreed!

Quote from: kitester on March 03, 2011, 09:09:51 AM
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.  

Taking part of what quote? I didn't quote anyone at all (except for you in the specially-marked boxes). I know that quote is from Mike Hogan, but I didn't mention him at all. So no idea what you are talking about for the first 4 of 5 paragraphs addressed to me. Also I'm fairly certain that Bridgetroll did not say any of the stuff for which you are giving him credit, at least not recently.

You say some lands have "very little ecological or historical value." I assure you, before Jacksonville was built, all the land here had ecological value. If you removed the development, it would have ecological value again. Just because we have developed land in the past doesn't mean it can only be used for holding concrete in the future. Like cline said, there is value besides economic to ecological preservation.

I say we fill up all the development we already have before we start eliminating protections for lands. How can you justify paving over a nature preserve when there are hundreds of empty buildings in this city and even more empty lots?

There is a project going on at the park and volunteers are needed. It is not hard work just hot and tiedious. The few of us that have been there all week could use a hand. The contact info is below.

Hello Friends of Huguenot Memorial Park,
The City of Jacksonville and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission are teaming up to restore some very important coastal habitat, within Huguenot Memorial Park, and we would like your help. From March 15th through the 21st we are looking for volunteers to help us remove exotic plants inside the dunes. These plants have overgrown and are now affecting the areas used by the Royal Terns during their nesting season. Removing these plants will help improve the dunes, and give the Royal Terns more space for their upcoming nesting season. This is a big task, and we will not be able to do it alone. With your help we will be able to greatly benefit the park, and help Florida’s wildlife at the same time. If you are interested, please see the project details below. If you would like to sign up, or if you have any questions, please contact the Huguenot Memorial Park Manager (Chris Winterman) at 904-251-3335. We hope to see you out there!
Project Details
Dates: March 15th through the 21st
Time: 10:00 am to 4:00 pm. There is no obligation to stay until 4:00 pm, you may leave whenever you would like.
Where to meet: Huguenot Memorial Park, 10980 Heckscher Drive, Jacksonville, FL 32226. On the beach in Zone 11.
The work involved: We will be removing the exotics Mexican tea (a shrub from Central and South America) and Durban’s Crowfoot Grass (a grass from Egypt) by hand and with hand tools such as shovels and rakes. The plants will be bagged up and carried out of the dunes to trucks for transport away from the area. This work will require stooping, kneeling, pulling, bending over at the waist, walking and standing on uneven terrain and some lifting.
What to bring: Huguenot Memorial Park will provide water, hand tools, plastic bags and gloves. Please wear close toed shoes and bring sunscreen and a hat. Be aware this is rain or shine so raingear may be necessary depending on the day. If you are planning on staying through 12:00 pm, please bring a lunch. We are unable to provide lunch for volunteers.
Note: City volunteer release forms must be completed. Children under 18 must have a parent or guardian sign the release.

Christopher Winterman
Manager
Huguenot Memorial Park
Jacksonville FL, 32226
904.251.3335 Phone
904.251.3019 Fax

Quote from: kitester on March 03, 2011, 09:09:51 AM


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.                 

   

It's people like this that will allow our public lands handed over to the riches guy around and any work toward this should be stopped now...this person must work for the port auth. or something...i've seen our mayor take marsh land and turn it into a parking lot a offices...enough of this already....stop the thievery of our land....

The theft of our parks is what I have been talking about this whole time. Its not the sell off of public lands that is the real threat. It is the loss of access due to the overzealous efforts of the Audubon and Sierra Club. There is one place left in this area that people have real access. They have consistently tried to remove that access. The statements made by candidates are (most of the time) presented in a way that covers their butts. So when one of them says all options are on the table including the one for selling off public lands they usually qualify it by adding those lands would have to meet certain criteria. Hogan said he would consider it is as long as those lands held no ecological or historical value. All land has some element of both DUH! What scares me is when a candidate is endorsed by a group that has already stated that closing Huguenot Park to make it an ecological preserve is a goal for them. I would not support any candidate that would take support from any organization that has specifically targeted this last true beach access place for the people of this city. I hope all of us who enjoy the beach will vote to keep access and improve it not to restrict it to the point we all just have to sit home and watch beach tv.

The above mentioned dune project has been nearly completed. Between 5 to 10 volunteers spent 4 t0 6 very hot hours a day for the past 4 days on it and got it done! Thanks to all those who helped remove the invasive vegetation from the Tern nesting area. Today will see the final clean up of the area. Any who show up to help can be part of the clean up of trash in the dune areas. There is not much. Where long pants and a light color long sleeve shirt. The sun is brutal and the area does have rattle snakes in it. The clean up is organized in the first pavilion (the one closest to the ocean)

Well its been a while and it seemed like a balance had been reached between the audubon's agenda to remove people from the park and the park patrons ability to enjoy it. The bird fence was in place a week before baby birds fledged onto the beach forcing the park to close the gate at LOW TIDE on the Memorial Day weekend. And, while the Red Knot migration did not reach the protection trigger number of 50, volunteers were on hand to direct people away from the few that did arrive at the park for a few weeks. The Laughing Gull chicks are running early this year and many are already flighted. The Tern Chicks are on schedule and there are probably several hundred on the beach in zone 12 near the north point.  But, alas there seems to be no rest on the part of the Audubon to push for more unnecessary closures. The city was trying to keep the inside shoreline open for the jet ski crowd, fishermen to the only deep water access in the park. It seems now that there is a chance that some Terns might fledge out onto the point along the back side. The response is to close ALL of the inside shoreline instead of just the affected area. Again the Audubon is attempting to remove as much access as possible in an attempt to turn the park into a bird sanctuary. Remember that it is their goal to shut down the park as much as possible. They have said it, the Sierra club has said it and they continue to push for it. And even though they have been quiet about it lately they will not stop until all driving on the beach is eliminated. Audubon has been caught in outright lies (not just here) and because they field representatives that seem to be experts their word has been accepted as truth. But I can tell you this. It has come down to money. Paid Audubon representatives are dependent on the controversy for their livelihood. The more conflict they can cause the more secure their paid positions are. Now I do not refer to the volunteers that you may see on the beach. They believe they are doing a good deed and in many ways the do. Asking people not to chase the baby birds or feed the gulls is worth while.  But they have been unwittingly led into this controversy. So don't blame them. They just believe they are trying to help. And by the way the "education" Audubon is giving these volunteers is very lacking. I had one that tried to get me to walk right where the baby birds were instead of away from them. The paid lobby behind the efforts to close the park should be removed from the equation. I bet that if those people were not being paid they would not spend their days in 100+ degree heat carrying cameras and tripods and notebooks through the soft sand. If you think they are just there to take pictures of the birds you are wrong. They are there to try to photograph anything that could be used to support the claim that people need to be removed from Huguenot Park. And now there is a new development. As in any normal, natural environment when you have a large colony of nesting birds you will always have predation. That is nothing new. Laughing Gulls eat the Tern eggs and chicks as well as their own chicks and eggs. Eagles and hawks have been snaking on baby and adult gulls and probably terns (I have not seen any predated tern bodies yet). But apparently there has been some evidence of a fox in the area and possibly an opossum. This is great news! The natural order is returning. After the controlled burn ran all the predators out of the area there was a huge explosion in the gull population. That is one of the reasons the Audubon wants this area so badly. They believe they can prevent most natural predation of the birds there.

On the north end of Talbot Island only 4.5 miles from Huguenot Park there is a place very much like the Park that is three times it's size. It is the original nesting ground for the terns and gulls. But you cant get there by car and its a long, long walk through the sand and you can only walk there at low tide and access through the woods is very hard and limited. In short the only people up there are the ones who go there by boat mostly to fish. Most of the area is posted most of the year or all of it to prevent people from walking where birds are nesting. In addition there is an actual island where Black Skimmers and terns nest. But the area is exposed to the natural predation that occurs every where. Fox, raccoon, opossum, bobcat, snakes, hawks, eagles and possibly bears all have access to the area and of course will take an opportune meal if possible.

We used to have all those at the park with the possible exception of bears.  The Audubon pushed for the controlled burn to encourage terns to nest there. In the process they effectively removed the competing wildlife. They also created the "perfect storm" of Laughing Gulls which now outnumber all the other bird species in the park many times over. In effect they they set up a huge imbalance through their meddling. Many of the different bird species we used to have at the park have gone elsewhere because of the very aggressive gulls. But wait! If natural predation is returning to the park wouldn't that be a good thing?

Not according to the Audubon. They now want the city to set traps! Just as they have pushed for in North Carolina where natural predators are shot or trapped they are pushing to maintain the imbalance at the park by trapping animals that might prey on birds. If anything the city should reintroduce natural predation. Not only would it bring the bird populations back to normal but as with any natural environment those populations would produce healthier offspring and better stock for future generations. We would have a more diverse bio-culture at the park and that is a sign of a truly healthy environment.

It is very clear that all normal logic and commonsense has been set aside in favor of a paid lobby that sees further conflict and imbalance as a way to job security.                             

Last time I was at Huguenot was late last fall.

Normally that time of year finds me in the area hunting woods;lease,National Forest and state lands we have fought hard to protect.

With plenty of hunt season left and mindful of past harsh winter, the Seabreeze land called.It was snowing in Ohio,and here I was with incoming tide swirling around my waist,favorite spin rig in hand,fancy newest life like lure,exact real thing fish rendition other than the two sets of treble hooks.

Being out in these places creates for many folk a reflection on things, conservation politics.In my mind I pictured the faces and thanked God for those that worked to preserve Talbot,Ft.George.And the mind wanders to current regression,the likes of Kitester et al..........

Cast is flubbed,the lure suspended in the sea breeze..........rod bends....heart sinks.....a Gull has snatched it.....and now another hooked on the fake fish...gulls swarming in from all points.....like an out of control kite,a horrendous blob that snaps the 8 lb. mono.

I have not been back since.Good for all of us both human and avian.

Many of us inclined toward a little stroll to the cut can simply skip Huguenot,the cut is easily accessed via Talbot State Park southerly parking lot.It's better there.

Its interesting how I am some how linked to some sort of a regression. But, think of it more as form of balance. it is a sad thing that we are forced to choose us or them by people who really don't have any better way of making a living than to try to bring about more conflict in a place where coexistence should be available for all. The truth is that there is nothing to "save" or "preserve" there except public access. None of the species found at the park are endangered or even listed as threatened. There is no huge environmental injustice to be righted or some last bastion of a disappearing animal there. The bird lobby chose this area because they saw a chance to make money. Its what all lobbyists do. Someone offered to pay people to push for their own little agenda and the lobbyists jumped at the chance to get some.  If there is no "us or them" and everyone is happy with the current protections employed at the park there would not be any conflict to seize upon and no reason to pay people who disguise them selves as protectors. It would be time for them to move on. Well guess what. IT IS! 

If I am part of a regression it is because of the twisted narrow minded actions of groups like Audubon and Sierra Club. For most of my life I worked with those groups and others spending hundreds of hours on bird surveys. I spent many freezing cold mornings in the woods recording owl calls and many days slogging through mud and marsh counting birds. And I did it because I felt there was a real need to collect that data to better understand what was happening to bird species.  I was one of the boots on the ground guys willing to go to great lengths to record numbers as carefully as possible. We were never paid and we had to provide our own transportation and food. At other times I was involved with rehabilitation of wild animals, mostly birds, collecting and transporting sick and injured animals to Bird Rescue or BEAKS.  Even today I still stop to help animals in distress. I have spent many hours cleaning oiled birds. And I still would.

But Audubon, Sierra Club, Defenders of Wildlife and organizations like them have pushed me to a place I never thought I would be. I now see the picture in terms of $$$s. And not in the normal sense. Apparently preservation/conservation pays big bucks. The Audubon listed assets over 80 million several years ago.  And the money pours in from people who believe they are doing a good thing. All the dollars from magazine subscriptions that encourage people to give more money to save the environment stuff the pockets of those organizations. In turn they seek out situations where environmental concerns need a champion. In theory its a good idea. In practice its easy to twist the information until a conflict needing resolution emerges. Then you need to hire people to "study" the problem and lobby for the cause.       

I still would like to think of myself as environmentally conscious. I still help the sick or injured birds or other animals I find. But the lies and efforts of organizations like Audubon and its lobbyists have opened my eyes to the reality that its not really about the wildlife, the birds or the environment. Its about making people believe that there is some sort of cause that must be answered and figuring out how to make a buck off it. Now thats regression.                 

kitester,
I enjoy your perspective. Can you show me that part of our county in the weeks ahead that you have so much pride in?
Legislative protectionism. I'd like to discuss that with you.

It's true....there are no indangered birds there and never have been...this space is not a natural space.....we made it...without us...there would be no jetties..its a man mad structure...they were created and should recieve no special support from any group...i don't get it..i've been going there since i was a month old and this place is and will always be a fight for it.

Quote from: Noone on June 28, 2011, 05:30:36 AM
kitester,
I enjoy your perspective. Can you show me that part of our county in the weeks ahead that you have so much pride in?
Legislative protectionism. I'd like to discuss that with you.

the Gulls are really swarming!
Noone,I would say your hands are plenty full already-we take a stand according to where we sit,you have produced some elevation for yet again another largely obscure beat up waterway basically thanks to emerging Internet driver -dangling between a legislative past and future with that waterway.
I bet you will really enjoy the Huguenot/Ft George/Talbot area,and do check out most masterful Kayak put in at Nassau Sound public boat ramp,Byrd Islands.
Learning this area is graphic help in explaining preferences over Hogans Creek,presence of existing Talbot area Vendors.

Kitester,your list of suspect organization lacks reference to one that has helped implement significant regional public access,conservation.Talbot,Ft George,Jennings Forest,Guana,Water Management District TMDL,a full time NE Fla office,Florida Affiliate to the National Organization.Wrote and lobbied the Conservation and Recreation Lands act,Everglades restoration initiative.Public lands access champions,board comprised of hunters,NRA,scientists,general public.Like a church or religion,a different "product" over the Audubons et al............yet still often cast as "anti".That is not balance,that is regression.The Organization: Florida Wildlife Federation

Why not focus on State Agency critique,with as much research and information as if you were entering lawsuit.Personally I have found this approach helps in achieving balance.

Might elevate this thread to something worthwhile.15 pages and waiting.

North,

I am sure you have an opinion like most everybody and yours might not jibe with mine. I do not discount any of the good and valuable achievements accomplished in the past by any of those organizations. I have always supported true conservation and preservation.  The situation at Huguenot Park simply does not apply. As Garden correctly stated the park is a man made construct. The animals there are not in danger or endangered. The real value of the park is as a true public access to the Atlantic and the rivers around the park. Also if this thread does not meet your criteria to make it worthwhile I suggest you spend your time elsewhere instead of belittling the the discussion or the people engaged in it. NOW if you REALLY have something to add please join in. As a real user of the park I am there almost every day in the summer and many days in the winter. Since you have not been back to the park in almost a year I suspect your point of view is to stand back and point a finger. If all you did at the park or Talbot is top water fishing with a plastic lure I would agree that it is probably not the best place. Gulls don't care about the different appearance between artificial and natural baits. They just go for it. Perhaps you would have a better experience if you went to the place known as Black Rock Beach at the north end of Big Talbot Island. Its a long walk through the woods. Its hot and buggy (be sure to wear lots of OFF) and you have to mind your step because of the rattle snakes (pigmy, canebrake, diamondback) and coral snakes. Don't worry 'bout the very large banana spiders that cross the path. They are not poisonous to humans. When you get to the beach you may have to climb down through dense underbrush. And be careful about how you step because what looks like rock is really an outcropping of hard clay that can be very slippery at times. once on the beach you may find that you will be nearly alone except for the people who fish the area from boats. Still most of them are after flounder and other fish but, at least the numbers of Laughing Gulls will be smaller. Terns don't go after artificial baits most of the time. They don't eat trash the way gulls do. In this place you will be able to enjoy a truly preserved piece of original North Florida. This protected and preserved area is many times the size of Huguenot Park and there for all to experience the natural wonder of nearly undisturbed florida coastline and estuaries. If on the other hand you want to take the family for a day on the beach and play in the surf then Huguenot is the place to go.               

It might also be interesting to note that this thread topic in this part of the forum exceeds all but the ones concerning healthcare in views and replies. Clearly this is important to the people of this community. More people use the park for recreation each year than go to Jaguar's games. The loss of access to the park is a real issue for this city.   

SO how many people were listening to the NPR story yesterday about the explosive gull population in San francisco? It seems that the environmental groups there have been trying to convert old salt ponds back into natural wildlife areas. For over one hundred years these ponds have been used to harvest salt. The normal, natural environment was disrupted and a different balance developed. One that included the presence of the salt harvesting industry. And did you get that part about 100 years? That is along time for an area to be disrupted. So long in fact that the disruption has become the norm.  But the rest of the world has continued to move forward in time. Compare the human population 100 years ago in the area to todays numbers. I don't know what they are but how can anyone be surprised that inserting an anachronism such as a redefined bubble of 100 year old "natural" environment into any present day urban area would result in a sustaining  pre-industrialized natural area? Its impossible.  It is just like what we have had happen here on a smaller scale. You can not turn back the clock. Trying to do so more often than not has very undesirable results. I am not against the re-purposing of areas that were used for industry. But to think that the pre industrial balance will be reestablished is ludicrous.

In our case the meddling of the environmental groups is driven by the effort to remove driving on our beaches. This effort has been disguised as a preservation initiative and the birds are just a political tool. And the situation is growing worse. Every one of the Audubon reps I have asked about the gulls over the past several years have told me they detest them. Laughing Gulls are so disruptive to other bird species that most of those species have fled the area to places where the gulls are not so thick. Once again attempts to manipulate the wildlife have back fired.  In public the song and dance of the Audubon and Sierra Club is one of how important and endangered the gulls are. Most people at the park know that the gull population is out of control and the phrase "rats with wings" is used often. And the analogy seems to be accurate in more ways than one. It appears that there has been a third round of breeding activity and egg laying among the gulls. Because of the ample food source, i.e. the city dumps, baby terns and tern eggs, and the ample fresh water from the retention pond near the base of the bridge combined with the exclusion of the natural predation gulls are breeding like rats. Not only did they start about 6 weeks early this year but new fledgling birds have just emerged from the dunes on the point. Less than a week ago I saw gulls breeding. A fourth clutch of gulls may be on the way. To the Audubon this will be music because the management plan they were successful in ramming down the city"s throat states that areas with flightless baby birds should remain closed until three days after the last baby can fly. Last year wild life officials kept the park closed for an extra week because ONE bird did not fly off. The test is to see if you can make them fly by clapping your hands  as you approach. That bird just walked into a half inch of water thirty feet from the person doing the test and stood there. Less than two minutes later people walking down the beach flushed it into the air and it flew several hundred yards. If the breeding season lasts all summer we have baby laughing gulls well into the fall. And the Audubon will shout hooray! Any piece of the park that can be shut down is a victory for them. Any longer period of closure is a victory for them. Even if it means using a bird species they privately hate as a tool to that end. What will happen if the next round of chicks doesn't fly until November? How long will it be before the driving access to the point is permanently lost?   

And how off base can things get? We have  environmental groups causing environmental damage under the guise of preservation and using that damage to further their agenda of removing public access from a man made area. And to be sure it will only get worse. The birds that are breeding at the park are birds that were fledged at the park. Its the only place they know to nest. Once that pump was primed the flow of gulls will continue to increase every year. We now have several generations of adult breeding gulls (and terns) at the park. If the gulls actually are successful in a fourth round there may be no stopping it until drastic measures are used. Unfortunately the solutions sound like anti-environmentalism.  It is not.                     

If these birds were prevented from nesting at the park they would relocate the colony back to the traditional nesting grounds 4.5 miles north at Nassau Sound. If they could be "encouraged" to do that for several years they would probably stay there. The populations would be more in balance and healthy, the colony would be in a much larger area where human intrusion is very minimal and the people of this community would have the access at Huguenot Park restored and protected. That would be a win, win situation. The gull population would diminish over several years, the Tern populations would be healthier, birds that left the park because of the gulls would return and the park would remain as an important access to our peoples best resource, its water.

Its hard to oppose groups like Audubon or Sierra Club. Not only do they have vast resources and are skilled in lobbying techniques. They also seem to have a mandate that makes it hard for our elected officials to stand up to them. They misinform their contributors with warm and fuzzy pleas for support and donations. Their letter writing scams are intended to bend our elected politicians to their will and agendas and they dupe volunteers into "evidence" gathering. Recently one such "volunteer" was caught hiding behind cars photographing people walking on the beach in the no driving zone. When asked what he was doing he said he was taking pictures of people intruding on the wild life area. So it seems they are not going to be satisfied until the park is closed.     

                   
       

Quote from: kitester on August 10, 2011, 09:44:51 AM
SO how many people were listening to the NPR story yesterday about the explosive gull population in San francisco? It seems that the environmental groups there have been trying to convert old salt ponds back into natural wildlife areas. For over one hundred years these ponds have been used to harvest salt. The normal, natural environment was disrupted and a different balance developed. One that included the presence of the salt harvesting industry. And did you get that part about 100 years? That is along time for an area to be disrupted. So long in fact that the disruption has become the norm.  But the rest of the world has continued to move forward in time. Compare the human population 100 years ago in the area to todays numbers. I don't know what they are but how can anyone be surprised that inserting an anachronism such as a redefined bubble of 100 year old "natural" environment into any present day urban area would result in a sustaining  pre-industrialized natural area? Its impossible.  It is just like what we have had happen here on a smaller scale. You can not turn back the clock. Trying to do so more often than not has very undesirable results. I am not against the re-purposing of areas that were used for industry. But to think that the pre industrial balance will be reestablished is ludicrous.       

So once any area of the world is developed, it must stay developed for the rest of time?
100 years is a geological blink of an eye. Stop tending a developed area for 100 years, and you won't know there were ever humans there.

Is your aim to remove the natural animals from the area so that you can have better access to enjoy the natural splendor of the world around you, but without all those pesky god damn wild animals?
It seems that you want beach access, but that the miles of easily accessible beach decimated by development in most of the county are not good enough for you to use. You seem to prefer the less-developed, less occupied, more natural beach, which I understand completely. But when you get there, you still want all the convenience afforded to you in Jax Beach (access to any point along the beach in your car, bathrooms with running water, etc). There is no shortage of easy beach access around here, does it all have to be that way? If you just want to drive to the beach, go to Jax Beach, where all the natural animals have already been driven out. When I want to get away from the crowd and get some solitude, I put in the work to get there (walking). I'd prefer it if that solitude wasn't interrupted by some lazy jackass in a pickup truck with his stereo blasting, who just ran over a couple of birds to get here.

Mostly I'm just annoyed at this thread, which is no more than a kitester soliloquy of environmental group-bashing by a purported conservationist, who apparently doesn't care much for that nature when its not neatly packaged. It doesn't appear that you have posted on this forum about anything other than Huguenot Park (so bragging about the length of this thread that is made up of almost exclusively your own posts is ridiculous). Perhaps if you were more involved here, we could take you more seriously. As it is now, you are just a pro-Huguenot-access mouthpiece. By the way, are you involved with any organization concerned with beach access? (Surfrider, American Littoral Society, or one of the many non-profits representing fisherman)

+ 1000

Does anyone have a mockup of what the area looked like pre spanish?...

SO Peejay,

I think you missed the point of my last post. I never said it was my

"aim to remove the natural animals from the area so that you can have better access to enjoy the natural splendor of the world around you, but without all those pesky god damn wild animals?"

Its almost as if you have not been following this thread at all.
Your use of GD indicates a diminished capacity to communicate. But, since you missed the point I will try to explain it again.

I am not anti-environment. However I do think there should be a realistic balance. The miles of "beach access" you refer to are not real beach. Even the “beach “ at Huguenot park is a manmade construct. The beaches along Jax, Neptune And Atlantic Beach have to be maintained so the encroaching buildings wont wash away. They have  become a commercialized asset and that is how they are used.

Less than a half a mile away From Huguenot is the Talbot Island State Park system and many square miles of undisturbed natural areas of the Timuquan Preserve. With its nice parking and board walks Little Talbot Island has reasonable access to a small part of that beach if you are willing (or able) to walk several hundred yards out to the water. As I have stated before I think that would be a reasonable thing to do with Huguenot Park. Place three large parking areas inside the dune line and provide good access to the beach over the dunes. People with special needs could be allowed to obtain a special permit to drive to certain areas. That would accommodate the fishermen, jetski and small boat users and the handicapped. It would eliminate most of the beach driving while not disenfranchising those people in our community. I also think that pet owners should be allowed to bring pets back into the park. This could be accomplished without harm to the wild life by making it a seasonal permit or restriction. See there? One simple change would make the park useable to all the people and remove most beach driving. But, when suggested at several meetings this idea was flatly rejected by Audubon and Sierra representatives.

If you want to go to a place where  “that solitude wasn't interrupted by some lazy jackass in a pickup truck with his stereo blasting, who just ran over a couple of birds to get here.” Go to Talbot. And by the way spouting Audubon rhetoric and lies blindly is not a good way to go. The more you do the more cred you lose. Lets talk about the bird deaths for a minute.  I remember when not one baby tern or gull was fledged at the park. We actually had a better bio-diversity there. When the colony relocated to the park (in spite of the human presence) about 9 years ago there were only a few fledglings here and there. Drivers could easily avoid them and did. The only birds lost to cars were the ones that were seeking shade under them. With each year the colony grew. At some point it got so large that it was hard to maneuver a car around the birds. It was at that time that I (yes, I was the first) suggested that the city place a protective barrier up to keep cars separate from the baby birds. That was about to happen. Then a very regrettable thing did happen. Two idiots decided that it would be fun to drive through a group of fledglings. They killed or maimed about 30 of them. As I understand it only one of those idiots was caught. Shortly there after the bird protection fence was installed and the colony protected. That should have been the end of the story. But, the Audubon saw a chance to shut down the whole park and convert it into part of the giant already existing preserve. With the city’s lease up for renewal they tried every tactic they could. They misrepresented information at city meetings. Some volunteers took pictures of bird carcasses that had only been run over by cars after the bird had died and presented them as evidence of car killing birds. Every year they went to ARC in Tallahassee and showed the same pictures (several years old) to the committee in an attempt to stop the city from obtaining its lease. They did an end run around our local elected officials in an attempt to shut the park completely and were successful for 24 hours. Now that cars are prevented from driving through the area on the point during the nesting season bird deaths have actually increased as the colony has grown. Cars were never the reason for the majority of the deaths. Natural events, like the one which caused the colony to relocate to the park, are responsible for far more dead birds than drivers ever caused.

So like I said before. If you want a true natural experience visit the coast line along Talbot Island. Take a trip to Black Rock Beach. Its only ten minutes up the road. I go there three or four times a year mostly to look at birds and reptiles. Have you ever walked to the beach from the road? You should try it sometime. To be sure it is not, “neatly packaged”, as you say. It is, on the other hand, a very enjoyable experience when that is what you want.

But if you want a day at the beach to swim, fish, surf, ride a jet ski, sail a hobbie or just walk down the beach picking up sharks teeth and shells then Huguenot Park is the place to go. If you have a family with children and coolers and gear to carry then go to Huguenot Park. If bugs and snakes in high numbers bother you go to Huguenot Park. If you enjoy the social atmosphere and, yes, connivance that parking near the water gives then got to Huguenot Park.

You say that I am guilty of environmental group bashing. Well in this case they NEED some. You say that I am just a “pro-Huguenot-access mouthpiece” but, please don’t pigeonhole me that way. The efforts by these groups to close or remove public access is much more far reaching than just the park. This is a national issue.

And because you asked…..

I have served as a volunteer for Audubon, Sierra Club, Nature Conservancy, B.E.A.K.S., Bird Rescue and Animal Rescue  for over 30 years. I was involved with Jr. Audubon before that and I have served for the last four years or so as a member of the Huguenot Park Shore Bird Management Committee. I am a de facto bird steward and every day I pick up any trash I find or talk to people about the animal populations in the park. I am a member of Florida Open Beaches. My efforts are all boots on the ground where you get to see the real consequences (good and bad) of environmental groups in our area.

I understand that Surfriders accepts money from Audubon. I would need more information about that organization and its involvement with Audubon. Their efforts to support beach access have been strong in the past. I will be looking into the fishermen’s NPOs. Thank you for your suggestion.               

And my last point here…… I still respect your opinion even if you choose to use profanity. But, If you are annoyed by this thread I suggest you go spend a day at the beach and quit reading and responding. Surely a day in the woods at Talbot Island is better than sitting in the AC in front of the computer.  I think I will go to the beach!

Garden,

I saw some of the original surveys of the area before the jetty was installed. The area was mostly marsh grass with a few outside beaches or sand bars. Of course that was when surveying methods were far less accurate than today.

IT is time to open the whole ark back up. There have been no flightless baby birds seen in at least three weeks. The trigger number is 3 days! That is in the management plan. Call the park an ask to have the point opened back up. If the Audubon pushes so hard to close the park we should push just as hard to open it. If we dot ir will stay closed and they will close more and more for longer and longer until the whole park is gone. Call the park, e-mail the mayors office and ask them to open your park back up. If you  dont no one will.

The laughing gull population IS exploding. I go out frequently and observe the bird population whilst out there, mainly due to Duval Audubon's efforts to throw everyone out of the Park. The gulls eat their own chicks as well as other chicks ( Royal Tern, among others that I have personally witnessed ) and seem to be driving the Royal Tern population away from Huguenot. This may explain Audubon's stepped up efforts to eliminate beach driving through the use of outdated and stale information that they are now dissiminating to anyone who will listen. If the Royal Tern population flees to safer habitats like Talbot or Cumberland Island ( as they seem to be doing ), Audubon will not have any reason to close Huguenot down.
I again reiterate that any photos or information should be dated and time stamped along with accompanying identifying landmarks tying any loss of chicks or other pertinent data Audubon produces for any agency be current and not stale or outdated. We should ask that they do this and expect any agency to ask the same so there is an accurate picture of the Park. Huguenot Park Management is doing a fine job of documenting all of this in the manner stated above and may be something we may need to submit to any agencies Audubon is approaching about closure to driving.

I know that St. Augustine and Daytona allow driving on the beach.  Perhaps you should just head down there.  It would probably be a lot less stressful for you.  You wouldn't have to worry as much about those pesky environmentalists keeping you from your God-given right to drive on the beach.

Hi Cline,

You are right that there still driving allowed on some areas of Daytona and St Augustine beach. The Audubon has been trying for years to shut those areas down as well. Some have been lost. Anastasia State Park had beach driving. For years the environmental lobby tried to get it banned there stating that the "beach mouse" was at risk. In fact the beach mouse is found in the dunes and marsh areas which was well away from the public access areas and driving. The minute a person was hit by a car in a hit and run accident the Audubon jumped at the chance to lobby hard to close the park beach to driving. Now the park is almost desolate and unused which is of course what they wanted. We permanently lost access to the Matanasas inlet area. They used the same argument that the area was the only one in north Florida where terns nested. The same argument they continue to try at Huguenot Park. In Daytona they have managed to shut down some areas both year round and seasonally.

Now, Cline, I am not stressed about the issue. Some closures are necessary and prudent. I just want people to sit up and take notice before its too late and most access is lost. Your extremely sarcastic comments indicate once again that you have no real or new information to add. You are obviously one to side with the pro-closure team. And of course that is your right. Driving on the beach never was any kind of right but,  it is a privilege. And its one that I feel should be protected where there is no other alternative for beach access. If it takes pointing out the lies and misinformation disseminated by those people with a my way or the highway view of things  then so be it.

I suggest that you take a hike, literally, on Talbot or Anastasia. You will probably be alone which may be the way YOU like it.     

Quote from: urbanlibertarian on January 02, 2010, 02:28:48 PM
Death to the Laughing Gulls!!!  ;)

Tom Ingram,recently tagged as "Activist" by the Times Union,will possibly take the Waterways Commission podium re River Access hand launch points.

The opportunity was available to anybody.

Huguenot Park needs volunteers. As we get closer to the summer the park is asking for even-haned people to man the bird fence. In the past the Audubon has use the fence and it's "representatives" to harass the public. This year the Audubon will not field a steward nor will the city have an intern posted  at the fence. The true purpose of the fence is to keep auto traffic away from flightless baby birds. The true purpose of the stewards is to ask people to keep as much distance from the baby birds as possible without preventing access to the area. There is plenty of space for people to enjoy the beach on the point without disturbing the baby birds. ALL normal beach activities (except driving) are acceptable and possible during this time without disturbing baby birds. The park will train and equip volunteers.  There is no heavy lifting, you dont have to count birds and shade is provided. So if you have any free time to spend on a beautiful beach let the park office know. Thanks.

On another note......I wonder if most of the readers are aware of the destruction that has taken place on Talbot Island? Several months ago bulldozers and other heavy equipment were brought in to build a bike path the length of Big Talbot Island. The width of the disturbance was at least as wide as A1A. Dirt was moved or brought in to create "hills" and the path meanders in and out through the previously unmolested Florida hammock. Now Talbot Island was supposed to be left as an example of original Florida. It was fought for and won by Audubon to be kept as such.  It was a big feather in their caps. (no pun) And now it has a huge scar running through it. I spoke to some distance bikers who said it would not be really great if it has lots of curves. I guess they like the straight, flat road. The point here is why do we have such a conflict with environmental groups over the park and not a peep from them while their local crowning achievement is being raped just four miles to the north? One of my friends sees a twisted political agenda. As he puts it "it's all smoke and mirrors". It does seem odd. Have people who were involved in the fight over the park gained in some way? I understand that some were paid lobbyists and employes of environmental groups. Did the make their "bones" by fighting to close the park? Did they move up in the ranks? Any way it seems to me an incongruity that we must fight to matain access to a traditional long used and designated public recreational area while a slice of pristine local florida is quietly cut up for a small group that would have been happier with a straight, parallel bike trail.

Well at last it seems some sanity might be creeping back into the world.....

OBX II Support Free & Open Beaches
JONES INTRODUCES BILL TO RESTORE ACCESS TO CAPE HATTERAS NATIONAL SEASHORE RECREATIONAL AREA


WASHINGTON, D.C. â€" Today Congressman Walter B. Jones (R-NC) introduced H.R. 4094, legislation that would restore reasonable pedestrian and motorized access to the Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area. The bill would overturn a final rule implemented by the National Park Service (NPS) two weeks ago, as well as the 2008 U.S. District court approved Consent Decree. Both the Rule and the Consent Decree excessively restrict human access to the Recreational Area. The bill would reinstitute the Park Service’s 2007 Interim Management Strategy (IMS) to govern visitor access and species protection in the Recreational Area. The Interim Strategy was backed up by a 113-page Biological Opinion issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service which found that it would not jeopardize the species of concern, namely piping plover and sea turtles. H.R. 4094 has been referred to the House Natural Resources Committee for further consideration.

“The federal government needs to remember that Cape Hatteras was established to be a recreational area for the American people,” said Congressman Jones. “But taxpayers can’t recreate without access to the beach. The goal of management ought to be a balanced approach between visitor access and species protection. The Final Rule falls short of that goal. The Interim Strategy comes much closer to hitting the target.”

We should all support this man and his efforts to reopen the completely closed and permanently lost access in North Carolina. We must remember it is everyone’s access at stake. The draconian attempts to close the beaches in NC. and remove the public are damaging and completely unnecessary. In an article on Monday in the TU and Audubon representatives again misrepresented the facts. 


By Drew Dixon 
Beach closings for environmental reasons in North Carolina have spooked some First Coast beach access advocates who think Jacksonville’s Huguenot Memorial Park could be next.
Environmentalists, on the other hand, think it’s about time to start restricting the use of vehicles on beaches to protect nesting birds.

(This statement is completely false since the permanent dune closures imposed on the public protect the nesting birds and seasonal closures for beach driving protect the fledgling birds. Only emergency and park maintenance vehicles are allowed in the area along the north point during that time. Since the seasonal closures were instated not one single bird, adult or otherwise, has been injured or killed in that area by cars. There have been a very few incidents of bird deaths among the laughing gull populations outside those areas where flightless young birds walk out of the protected area seeking shade under parked cars.) 


“It’s a very ominous sign,” said Bobby Taylor of the developments along North Carolina’s Outer Banks barrier islands. Taylor, the president of the Florida Open Beaches Foundation and Heckscher Drive Community Club, said the closing of the beach known as “The Hook” to most vehicle traffic in Cape Hatteras along with a newly instituted off-road vehicle permitting policy in North Carolina is yet another blow to public beach access.
But Audubon Florida biologist Monique Borboen said the overriding issue should be the protection of wildlife when it comes to the beach.
“Our responsibility as Audubon is to preserve the natural resources,” Borboen said. “If some of the recreational uses are not compatible, we have to side on the interests of wildlife.”
Issue long disputed
Environmentalists and beach access advocates have been squaring off over the future of Huguenot for years. It’s the last beach in Duval County that allows driving on the beach, and the developments in North Carolina this month parallel the First Coast dispute. The National Park Service there closed the beach to vehicles in hopes of protecting nesting sea birds, according to the Island Free Press website.
That’s the same reason Audubon Florida has been arguing for permanent closure to vehicles of the northern area of Huguenot. Temporary beach closures at Huguenot are already in force depending on the seasonal nesting of birds.
Borboen said while many beachgoers are upset about the restrictions at Huguenot, they need to keep in mind that living beings are threatened.

(Notice how the birds are now referred to as living beings? That is because they have been caught too many times saying that endangered species were at risk at the park. The truth is that there is not one single "endangered", "threatened", or even "near threatened" species at the park. When questioned and directly asked on NPR's First Coast Connect which species at the park were listed as endangered even the local Audubon representative had no answer. She did not even understand the internationally accepted rating system used by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature. That system lists species in relation to their threat of extinction. Not even one of the species found at the park meets the standards that would place it any danger from human recreational use at the park. In fact all of the species at the park are listed as species of "least concern" This is the real data back by real science and not just a warm and fuzzy idea that beach driving is bad.)     



“Do not forget that for the wildlife, it’s just a matter of life and death,” Borboen said Wednesday. “If they can’t reproduce, their species goes extinct. Let’s remember, for people to go to the beach, it’s a matter of fun.”

(this issue has already been solved with the park management plan and seasonal closures.)

Taylor said beach access advocates are not against the environment. Taylor himself serves on a sea turtle patrol at Huguenot. But he said there’s no point in preservation if humans don’t get access.
“Anytime the public’s access to their resources is taken away from them, it’s another nail in the coffin to people’s access to their beaches,” Taylor said. “It’s strange that under the guide of protection, you close off access to it.”
A call for restrictions
In 2008, Jacksonville’s Huguenot Park management plan called for temporary restrictions to vehicles’ access to the beach for seasonal nesting. The Army Corps of Engineers, which owns the land, has not signed off on the plan, and Taylor admitted that leaves uncertainty to the future of Huguenot access.
As with North Carolina, Taylor warned any more restrictions on access to Huguenot will draw serious backlash.
“The only way you build environmental consciousness is to be out in the environment,” Taylor said. “This is a cautionary tale of how single-minded bureaucrats override the will of the people.”


(How true. But its not really a bureaucratic issue. The Audubon receives funding from donations, member dues and sales of the magazine, etc. Much of that money goes into paying lobbyists that bend every ear they can in government to push forward agendas that may or may not be backed by real science or actual studies. In other words its their job to tell a story weather its true or not. These "mouthpieces" make their "bones" by creating controversy where there is none and then using that invented controversy to push forward their agendas.  Its not any different than any other lobbyist.)
       
Borboen said Audubon still wants pedestrian traffic allowed at the northern end of Huguenot. So its not really about beach driving, its about money and who can get paid to say what ever someone wants them to say.)

(does anyone remember the one year when they prevented pedestrian traffic on the beach?? Yep, they did it until the city legal dept. was asked if they could do that and the answer was a flat no. The same Audubon representatives then blasted the city saying that they would close the whole park. It was not that long ago and yet they want to pretend as though they support pedestrians? I guess they think we are stupid.

“There always has been some kind of backlash to some kind of news of an area that has been restricted,” she said. “In the long term, it changes and then they have some other kind of patron who uses the beach [that’s] maybe more in line with nature.”

( In line with nature? I personally know of a surfer who was harassed by an Audubon reps on the beach. I guess fishermen are anti-nature too? Remember they are trying to remove us all.)
drew.dixon@jacksonville.com, (904) 359-4098


Read more at Jacksonville.com: http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2012-02-27/story/driving-restrictions-could-be-next-huguenot-park#ixzz1nm804RVA


We should all through our support behind Walter B. Jones. Hell, he’s got my vote (if I could give it) I wish he was running for president!

From the Times-Union:

http://jacksonville.com/opinion/blog/400646/drew-dixon/2012-03-23/government-officials-discuss-future-access-huguenot (http://jacksonville.com/opinion/blog/400646/drew-dixon/2012-03-23/government-officials-discuss-future-access-huguenot)

QuoteGovernment officials to discuss future access to Huguenot Memorial Park in Jacksonville

Submitted by Drew Dixon on March 23, 2012 - 12:13pm Drew Dixon's Blog

Several governmental officials are set for a meeting Wednesday to discuss the future of vehicle access at Huguenot Memorial Park, the only remaining seaside park that allows vehicle driving in Duval County.

Officials from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers along with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the city of Jacksonville are planning to meet at 10 a.m. Wednesday at the Jacksonville Ecological Services Office off Bay Meadows Road to review possible plans for the future of the park and seasonal beach closings to protect nesting migratory sea birds.

Jacksonville Parks spokeswoman Pam Roman said the Army Corps requested the meeting.

“Our understanding is that the meeting is to discuss the management plan. That's all the information we have right now. We don't expect to have additional info until after the meeting,” Roman said.

Environmentalists and beach access advocates have been squaring off over the future of Huguenot for years. In 2008, Jacksonville’s Huguenot Park management plan called for temporary restrictions to vehicles’ access to the beach for seasonal nesting. The Army Corps of Engineers, which owns the land, has not signed off on the plan.

While several governmental officials are set to attend, it is not clear if the meeting is open to the public.

http://jacksonville.com/opinion/blog/400646/drew-dixon/2012-03-23/government-officials-discuss-future-access-huguenot (http://jacksonville.com/opinion/blog/400646/drew-dixon/2012-03-23/government-officials-discuss-future-access-huguenot)

Well here we go again......

The environmental lobby has been trying to force the closure of the park for a long time. This may be the final nail in the coffin for the last true access to the beach and water our town claims it prizes. For years the people of our community have visited the park to enjoy the best beach, the best fishing, the best surfing. The park has seen 450 thousand visits each year for the past 20 years. More of us go to the park than go to Jaguars games. But once again the park is under attack. The claims that nesting birds are endangered at the park is pure rubbish. The city’s management plan addressed and solved those issues years ago. The environmental lobby needs to be kicked to the curb! Because they had no other valid reason to claim that the park should be closed they jumped on the “safety” bandwagon. I guess any closure justifies the means, right Audubon/ Sierra club? And the incident of the child that ran under a car last week will only serve to pour more gasoline on the park funeral pyre. I saw the billboard last year that said “ The most dangerous thing for a child is an inattentive parent.” BULLSEYE! In our candy coated, kindergarten society we have forgotten that we are the ones responsible for our own well-being. SO if you cant keep your kid safe, keep them in a cage! Or be responsible for their safety wherever you take them. This park stands a good chance of going the way so many other PUBLIC ACCESS LANDS have, NO PUBLIC ACCESS!       

I strongly disagree with your statement blaming the parents of the child for the child being hit. I've been on that beach more times than I can remember, and every time I see people driving faster than the speed limit, drinking, and not paying attention to where they're going. Cars on that beach are a HAZARD, plain and simple.

Parents should have every expectation that a public beach should be a safe place for their children to play. Yes, it's the parents responsibility to watch their child, but inattentive and impaired drivers are a real problem on the beach. Children move fast, but cars move faster and win the "gross weight" contest. It's up to the driver to be cognizant of what their driving over, around, etc.. Sadly, most of the drivers I've observed over the 18 years going to that beach simply use the sand as an excuse to hot-dog and show off.

Many people (myself included) would rather go to Little Talbot simply for the fact that there are NO CARS. Yes, I have to hike it a bit with my beach cart to get to where I want to be, but the fact that I don't have sand-pirates and idiot rednecks threatening myself and my family make it worth it.

So lets break it down....


So lets break it down....

You say "cars on that beach are a hazard, plain and simple." Well you get no argument from me on that. Everywhere that cars are driven are hazardous places. But I bet that if the parents had been standing next to a city street such as Park St or Union St. or any other street that is used by that many people they would have had a tighter grip on the child.

You say that “Parents should have every expectation that a public beach should be a safe place for their children to play.” Only a fool would assume that any place where cars are in use would be safe for unsupervised children. In fact no place is safe for unsupervised children.

You say that “Sadly, most of the drivers I've observed over the 18 years going to that beach simply use the sand as an excuse to hot-dog and show off.” Well you must be one of the most unobservant people on the planet. I been going to the park for at least twice that long and what I have seen is that by far most of the people who visit the park are very careful to obey the speed limit and drive with extreme caution.

Accidents happen everywhere. It’s a fact of life. Just the other day a woman killed her own grandchild in her own drive way. No one was really at fault. The child simply got away from its protected area. The mere fact that nearly 50 thousand people visit the park every year and not one has been killed by another driver, is a fantastic testament to the parks safety record. I doubt you can find another busy road in this town where someone has not been killed or seriously injured. At some point we have to realize that the parents of small children wherever they are must take responsibility. By the way the driver of the car involved in the Park incident was not speeding, hot-dogging  showing off or drinking. The child ran under the back tire as the car passed at 5 mph.

So enjoy Talbot Island with you and yours and quit cruising Huguenot Park looking for reasons to go elsewhere. If you don’t like the park don’t go. That way no one can call you a hypocrite.         

I received this letter just a few days ago .....

Friends:

As you know, members of various environmentalist organizations and staff of governmental entities have been working to limit the public’s ability to use and enjoy Huguenot Park.   Every year or two, a justification for a closure is advanced, and efforts are made to secure a “compromise” from the City, which must then be implemented by the City.  We have heard concerns about the need for family beach areas (notwithstanding that families would be the same ones prevented from finding a place to park), about birds fearing kites, and about all submerged bottomlands being “essential fish habitat.”  We have heard about the needs of the red knot at our park -- a non-listed species that passes along the northeast Florida coast as it migrates from Newfoundland to Patagonia.   Years ago, our governments eliminated any use of the dunes behind the beach for any potential use (including as parking areas), as such are now designated as critical wildlife areas.   We have closed all areas of the beach where baby birds are present until the last baby bird (seagull or otherwise) can fly.  Each of these compromises has the net effect of reducing available parking, which then causes the park to close prematurely during warm weather weekends and holidays when it fills to the available capacity.  The City then becomes the target for the people’s frustration.

In the latest effort to reduce public use of Huguenot, the US Fish and Wildlife Service has argued that further restrictions on public use of the park are needed to encourage more birds and additional species of birds to nest there.   Specifically, they propose the elimination of parking and the posting of signage to discourage people from going into the area of zones 11 and 12 (the point along Ft. George Inlet plus about ¼ of the remaining beachfront), together with having staff or volunteers at the boundary to “educate” the public about why they shouldn’t go into Zones 11 and 12, from April 1 through August 31 of every year.  Conveniently, the USFWS has paid the Audubon Society to help enforce the current restrictions.  They also propose to restrict people’s use of the area between zone 11.75 and 12.5 (the point), allowing only a 5 foot wide pedestrian corridor during high tide.    By the way, this is all from the same agency whose staff argued that they should have vehicle access to closed areas because it was too much work to walk so far.  (See http://jacksonville.com/community/shorelines/2010-07-15/story/audubon-officials-get-vehicle-access-closed-areas-huguenot-0, and email from John Milio of USFWS to Audubon and the Huguenot park manager dated 7/1/10).

The area in question is the key area used by fishermen, kitesurfers, and jet skiers, not to mention a large number of people there simply to enjoy the beach.  Various justifications are advanced by the USFWS â€" baby birds seek shade under cars, one vehicle drove fast over (but did not hit) a baby seagull, some species might use the beach for nesting if fewer people and cars were around, and dead baby seagulls have been found at the park (all living things die at some point; seagulls can be especially mean to each other).

In the past, the environmentalist factions have avoided suggesting that restrictions on people using the beach (without their cars) were necessary.  They have now crossed that line.

The USFWS goes on at page 11 of its memo to threaten the City with a criminal enforcement action if any migratory birds (which would include laughing gulls) are killed as a result of having its “feeding pattern” disrupted by humans using the park.  They cite a case where a local government settled with the feds rather than fight a charge involving a Hawaiian subspecies of shearwater dying as a result of having struck or been confused by a government-owned light pole.   This is an extraordinarily aggressive reading of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and a plea agreement is not strong precedent for anything.  The author of the USFWS memo, Cindy Fury, then states, “The local government in this case had been previously warned by the Service.”   I read this as a federal agency’s verbose and difficult-to-quote threat of criminal prosecution against the City of Jacksonville if it does not go along.  I think it is way out of line in this case, particularly in the context of demanding a set of detailed and broad-reaching restrictions that they want on the park.

Were such extreme readings of the Act implemented, we would see landfills, highways and parking lots emptied of people and vehicles because of the theoretical potential for migratory bird deaths due to daily human activities.  Surely all domestic cats should likewise be exterminated immediately by their owners under similar memos threatening prosecution unless specific feline management plans of their design are implemented.  I would argue that rather than their demands being necessary to avoid prosecution, the USFWS is instead advocating a policy issue â€" that the potential for increased bird use is more important than the use of Huguenot Park by the people.  They may also believe that restrictions on Huguenot are politically viable, as opposed to eliminating all outdoor cats, or TV antennae, or highways.   

If we want future generations to care about the environment, including the birds, we need to make it easy for everyone to be able to get out and enjoy our outdoor spaces.  It is not enough to say that the beach is available if you get up at 6 and are there before the quota is reached.  It should also be perfectly legal to do things in natural areas other than nature study.

Please spread the word to others who care about the parks and support your City leaders in their discussions with the federal agencies.   The City has been a good manager of the park and continues to defend the public’s use of the park under Mayor Brown’s Administration.   A call to Congressman Crenshaw and Congresswoman Brown would not be out of line.  When a federal agency threatens a City with criminal enforcement over the public’s use of a City park, they should know about it.   A call for a public hearing with the USFWS and the media present is also not out of line.    Please also let me know if you can join our group, the Florida Open Beaches Foundation, Inc., in its effort to promote and protect access to beaches in the Jacksonville area.  Thanks.

Tom Ingram

Here is the TU's article..... It full of lies.... again. I will show you which statements are patently untrue.

By Drew Dixon 
Federal wildlife officials want about one-third of Huguenot Memorial Park's beachfront closed to vehicles from April through August â€" the Jacksonville park's busiest season â€" in order to protect nesting sea birds.
The Army Corps of Engineers, which has the final say, said this week it will listen to all arguments before deciding.
Huguenot is the last remaining seaside park in Duval County that allows driving on the beach. There are already seasonal closings of portions of the beach when park management or bird watchers spot migratory birds nesting there. But the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's new recommendations go much further.
"The measures are not sufficient or conducive to restore nesting shorebird diversity and success within this important nesting area," said Cindy Fury, project manager for the FWS Florida Caribbean Migratory Bird Field Office based in Tallahassee.

FACT: THE THE MEASURES HAVE BEEN VERY SUCCESSFUL. IN THE PAST 8 YEARS THE NESTING COLONIES HAVE NEARLY DOUBLED IN SIZE EVERY YEAR. ON TOP OF THAT THERE IS NOTHING TO "RESTORE". THE MASSIVE COLONY OF NESTING BIRDS IS A RECENT PHENOMENA. IT WAS BROUGHT ON BY STORM TIDES THAT WASHED OVER THE TRADITIONAL NESTING GROUNDS IN NASSAU SOUND OVER 10 YEARS AGO. THOSE AREAS ARE NOW MUCH LARGER AND COVERED WITH VEGETATION. ALL OF THE SAME SPECIES NESTING AT THE PARK CAN BE SEEN NESTING AT NASSAU SOUND WHICH IS 4.5 MILES NORTH. I bet Cindy has never been there. I would like to invite anyone to go and take a look at the area called bird island. Of course you have to have a boat. I bet FWS or Army Corp could rustle one up.   

Fury said Huguenot is the "sixth most important sea bird breeding site in Florida and the most important on the Atlantic Coast in Florida."

FACT: THE HUGE COLONY OF NESTING BIRDS DID NOT EXIST UNTILL ABOUT 9 OR TEN YEARS AGO. THEY DID A CONTROLLED BURN ABOUT EIGHT YEARS AGO TO TRY TO MAKE THE PARK MORE FAVORABLE FOR NESTING TERNS. EVERY YEAR A "TEAM" OF VOLUNTEERS GO INTO THE AREA TO OPEN UP AND REMOVE VEGETATION THAT WOULD NORMALLY DETERE TERN NESTING. THE NESTING AREA IS AN ARTIFICIAL CONSTRUCT. IF LEFT ALONE THE TERNS WOULD EVENTUALLY LEAVE AND THE TERN COLONY WOULD MOVE 4.5 MILES TO ITS TRADITIONAL NESTING AREAS IN NAUSAU SOUND. Where are the top five sites?


FACT: NONE OF THE SPECIES BEING POLITICIZED FOR THE BIRD LOBBY AGENDA ARE ENDANGERED BY ANY HUMAN ACTIVITY AT THE PARK. NEITHER ARE THEY ENDANGER OF EXTINCTION. IN MANY CASES THE POPULATION NUMBERS HAVE BEEN INCREASING. NOT JUST AT THE PARK, BUT EVERYWHERE.  RED KNOTS (FEEDING MIGRANT), ROYAL TERNS, LEAST TERNS, BLACK SKIMMERS, LAUGHING GULLS AMERICAN OYSTERCATCHERS AND WILSON'S PLOVERS ARE ALL CONSIDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR THE CONSERVATION OF WILD LIFE (IUCN) TO BE SPECIES OF "LEAST CONCERN".  DATA IS COLLECTED FROM SOURCES LIKE AUDUBON, CORNELL UNIVERSITY AND INDEPENDENT STUDIES FROM AROUND THE WORLD AND POSTED AS A CLEARING HOUSE FOR FACTS THAT SCIENTISTS USE TO DETERMINE THE TRUE THREAT TO ANIMAL SPECIES. GOOGLE IT.     


FWS wants the park's northern portion to be temporarily closed to vehicles annually from April 1 to Aug. 31.
According to the city's figures, about 307,000 people visited the park in the past fiscal year.

FACT: NESTING ACTIVITY AND BREEDING DO NOT TAKE PLACE UNTILL MAY. THE HUGUENOT PARK MANAGEMENT PLAN CALLS FOR THE FIRST SEASONAL CLOSURE TO BEGIN BASED ON FLEDGELING BIRDS EMERGING FOR THE DUNE LINE. THE TRIGGER NUMBER IS THREE BUT THE CITY PUTS THE RESTRICTIONS IN PLACE A FEW DAYS EARLY. THERE IS NO NEED TO REMOVE THE CARS BEFOR THAT.     


The corps still owns portions of the land at Huguenot and has a 25-year lease agreement renewal, which it hasn't finalized, that allows Jacksonville to operate the park.

FACT: THE CITY AND OUR COUNCILMEN HAVE CONTINUED TO MEET OR EXCEED THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE HUGUENOT PARK MANAGEMENT PLAN. THE PAID BIRD LOBBY HAS BLOCKED THE LEASE RENEWAL WITH THREATS AND LIES AIMED AT THE CITY AND THE PARK PATRONS.   


Jason Spinning, chief of the Jacksonville coastal sector for the corps, said the agency is reviewing all viewpoints and it is "not out of the question" that it will hold a public hearing on the issue.
Beach access advocates have battled for years to keep Huguenot open to vehicles and are already rallying to fight the recommendation.
"It's a bunch of nameless, faceless bureaucrats making a decision to kick the owners of the property out of their own property," said Bobby Taylor, founder of Friends of Huguenot Memorial Park and president of the Florida Open Beaches Foundation.

FACT: THESE PEOPLE ARE NOT NAMELESS OR FACELESS. THEY ARE NOT BUREAUCRATS EITHER. THEY ARE SKILLED, WELL PAID LOBBYISTS WHOS JOBS DEPEND ON THE CONFLICT THAT SUROUNDS THE PARK AND OTHER PLACES LIKE IT. IT IS TRUE THAT MANY OF THE PEOPLE INVOLVED IN RULE MAKING AND POLICY CHANGE ARE NOT AWARE OF THE REAL FACTS SURROUNDING THE PARK. SOME HAVE NEVER BEEN TO THE PARK. MEMBERS OF ARC ONLY VISITED THE PARK AFTER THEY WERE ASKED BY THE CITY TO COME AND VIEW IT FOR THEMSELVES.  THE LOBBYISTS ARE KNOCKING ON THEIR DOORS REPEATEDLY WITH THIER OWN VERSION VERSION OF THE TRUTH WHICH HAS LITTLE IF ANY TRUTH IN IT. 


Taylor said part of the stewardship that Friends of Huguenot provides is environmental protection and the group has done more than just make sure birds are left alone.
"By everybody's measure, we have done everything to protect these species," he said. "We have been proactive and we're being told we're the problem still."


FACT: MR. TAYLOR HAS FOR YEARS BEEN THE CERTIFIED INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PROTECTION OF TURTLE NESTS AT THE PARK. HIS EFFORTS HAVE INSURED THAT THE PARK REMAINS ON OF THE MOST PRODUCTIVE TURTLE NESTING SITES IN FLORIDA. NOT ONCE HAS A TURTLE NEST BEEN DISTURBED BY THE PUBLIC EVEN THOUGH THE NESTS ARE SEPARATED FOR PEOPLE BY ONLY A FEW FEET.


Fury said Tuesday that royal terns and laughing gulls already nest in the dunes at Huguenot, which are protected from all access. But increasing species, such as the least tern, have taken to nesting on the beach itself and the birds need protection.

FACT: THERE IS NO NESTING ACTIVITY OUTSIDE OF THE ALREADY POSTED AREAS


"We have no interest in closing access to all the beaches at Huguenot," Fury said. "We recommended April through the end of August because that's the breeding season for these important shore birds."
Her recommendations also reflect a broader effort by federal officials to protect waterfowl at seaside parks, though Fury stressed her recommendations are specifically targeted for Huguenot.


FACT: IN EVERY INSTANCE THAT A FURTHER RECOMMENDED CLOSURE IS APPROVED THE LOBBYISTS FOLLOW IT WITH MORE "RECOMMENDATIONS" FOR MORE CLOSURES.   


She added that she still recommends pedestrian access to the area.
The National Park Service in North Carolina closed beaches on the Outer Banks in February to vehicles in hopes of protecting nesting sea birds.

FACT: 9 BIRDS WERE USED AS AN EXCUSE TO CLOSE ALMOST 100 MILES OF OBX BEACHES.

The National Park Service also closed another popular beach in Florida that used to have vehicle access in 2010. That's when vehicles were restricted from entering Fort Matanzas National Monument Park in St. Johns County, also due to concerns over protection of sea birds.


FACT: THE SAME PEOPLE TOLD THE SAME LIE.  THEY SAID THAT THE MATANZAS AREA WAS THE ONLY AREA WHERE THESE BIRDS HAD TO NEST. IN FACT THERE WAS NO NESTING COLONY THERE PRIOR TO ABOUT 8 YEARS AGO. JUST AS HUGUENOT PARK HAS BECOME THE RECENT NESTING SITE FOR LAUGHING GULLS AND TERNS MATANZAS BECAME ONE IN EVEN LESS TIME.



Read more at Jacksonville.com: http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2012-05-02/story/wildlife-agency-pushes-restrict-beach-driving-parts-huguenot-park#ixzz1u5KMPfyc

Its also interesting to note that the same groups and govt. organizations were responsible for the lie about nesting birds in Boca Grand. Claims were made of endangered birds nesting on a beach to remove the public from the area. An independent ornithologist was hired to review those claims and after three days could find not even one single nest or even attempted nesting. Turns out that the FWS was duped by audubon reps (lobbyists) into closing the area just on their say so. After the truth was determined the FWS quickly removed the posting signs and the public could once again use the beach.

Face it kitester... the lobbyists are good at what they do.  The stereotype of the beer swilling, pick up driver running down children and stomping baby birds into mush is too ingrained in the minds of those who make the decisions (but do not actually use the area).  What I do not understand is why they wish to restrict access to that beach to only the fittest and most determined segment of the public... ::)

Bridgetroll, indeed. Why is Duval Audubon so intent on discriminating against handicapped folks who cannot navigate the stretch from the parking lot or the bay side to ocean side? I see where the Wounded Warriors held a Surf Camp Saturday for those injured serving their country and protecting all of us. If you scan the pictures, one of those soldiers (Capt. Robert Whitters ) is missing a foot from a possible improvised explosive device that he encountered while serving on active duty in Afghanistan. The article is here:

http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2012-05-12/story/wounded-warriors-get-some-quality-surf-time-huguenot?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+JacksonvillecomNews+%28Jacksonville+Local+News+%E2%80%93+Jacksonville.com+and+The+Florida+Times-Union%29

     But they are not the only ones. I spoke to a Nassau Co. Deputy Sherriff a few weeks ago whose daughter had a debilitating disease that confined her to a wheel chair . She told me she could not navigate the passage leading out to the ocean side with her daughter in a wheel chair and had to drive out so her daughter could access the ocean after she had gotten the wheel chair out of the vehicle and placed her daughter in it.
     That same law enforcement officer also bemoaned the fact that some parents do not watch over their children properly while at the Park. Would you allow your kids to play in traffic? I think not. Children can be hit by vehicles anywhere in Jacksonville. What should we do? Ban all traffic in the city in order to keep children from being hit by cars? Of course not.                   
     Somewhere, there is a responsibility of parents to watch over their children and protect them from harm. Society demands it. Not only expects it, but demands it. Folks are put in jail all the time for child neglect where and when children are injured.  The irresponsible parent is a stereotype also as is the careful driver who has never had an accident that suddenly has a child dart out in front of their vehicle and who cannot stop in time. The careful driver stereotype is overlooked solely because there is no notoriety associated with them . As far as the beer swilling pick up driver stereotype is concerned, the City and the Park does ticket and ban those who are caught in the park with alcohol. It is posted....NO ALCOHOL ALLOWED . I've seen a few examples of that too. So, do we now reinstate Prohibition also? That didn't work the first time either, as history tells us. By the way, do you or anyone have evidence like photos or video of someone stomping baby birds, and , if so, did you or they turn that over to the proper authorities? If I catch someone doing that , I definitely will. That's a promise. I always have my camera out there.
     The answer is not to ban driving , but hold those irresponsible persons accountable for their actions, plain and simple. That way we all can  enjoy the beach, the surf and the birds, not just a select , elite group of selfish citizens who are bent on throwing all the rest of us out of the Park so they can covet it for themselves.

DARING JSO AIR OPERATIONS RESCUE
       I spoke to Park Manager Chris Winterman yesterday and he told me about a daring rescue that occurred sometime in the last week at Huguenot. Jacksonville Sheriff's Office Air Operations frequently patrols the beach at Huguenot via helicopter helping the ground units with any problems that should arise during the course of a normal  crowded day at the Park. While patrolling one day last week, they spotted a person in the water. They drew close and tossed a buoy to the person , but the individual did not respond and didn't reach for the flotation device. Realizing the person might be unconscious, the yet unnamed chopper copilot leaped from the hovering aircraft into the water and rescued the man from an almost guaranteed drowning, keeping him afloat until Ocean Rescue was able to make it out to the man and bring him safely to shore. The chopper copilot should be commended for risking his life to save a distressed swimmer and helping to keep Huguenot and all of us a bit safer out there.

Thanks for posting. Some news orginization will share this story. You see them training all the time from NAS in the river. Great teamwork with pilot and crew.

If I ,

There certinanly must be some amount of increased pollution wherever large groups of people go. The park is no exception. BUT I bet that there is far more environmental damage done by driving to the park than by driving on it. On top of that there are far more animal deaths caused by cars on paved roads. While the bird lobby screams about potential bird deaths at the park due to human causes they ignore the deaths of truly endangered species and the loss of wild habitat along Heckshore dr. It's just like the public safety issue Audubon and Sierra Club keep trying to use to ban beach driving. It's far more dangerous to drive to the park than to drive in the park.

The fight over the park is really just about money. If there was no controversy to enflame a donating public there would be no money to pay for the lobbyists who fan those flames.

If_I_Loved_you,
     You are stunningly misinformed about the pollution that the cars at Huguenot emit. In fact, the cargo and container ships entering the St. John's River headed to our Port cause more pollution to Huguenot's environment than the cars do on an annual basis. You have not done your homework. I submit , as evidence, the following information:

http://www.gizmag.com/shipping-pollution/11526/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/apr/09/shipping-pollution

   Now, admittedly, we don't have supercargo container ships entering the River, however, the diesel engines on those ships emit FAR more pollution than the cars that visit the Park. Under the circumstances, I humbly suggest we relocate any bird colonies to other, safer, less polluted areas along the coast as far away from any ship traffic as possible, say, Big Talbot or Bird Island. By continuing to protect the birds at Huguenot, we are not doing them any favors, but subjecting them to more danger from the ship pollution of the cargo/container ships entering the Port than the cars that visit Huguenot every year. After all, what would be the alternative? Shutting down the Port and devastating the City's economy and livelyhood? Relocation would be far more cost effective as well as healthier for the birds in every imagineable way and is the wisest course of action. Wouldn't you agree?

The "vehicle pollution" load is only temporary concentrated on the weekend. The ship traffic, and road run off  is a 7 day a week item.  If you are concerned about pollution then banning people all together should be your goal. Where people go trash follows. You also know what all those people do in the water.

If pollution of the river is your concern then the flushing of the toilet, clean storm drains and the fertilizing of the yard should be your focus. 

I_I_Loved_You,
    You are sidestepping the issue. The emissions from those cargo/container/tanker ships are FAR more concentrated and probably spread out in a mile wide circumference around those ships as they enter the St. John's River and are FAR more dangerous to the birds than the auto emissions on the beach. It's not as much the river, altho that is a concern, but it is more the air pollution. If you relocate the bird colonies, you solve both problems, no auto emissions, no ship emissions, healthier birds.

Now, that's a no-brainer.

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on June 11, 2012, 09:04:35 AM

Quote from: JettyDog on June 11, 2012, 08:25:28 AM
I_I_Loved_You,
    You are sidestepping the issue. The emissions from those cargo/container/tanker ships are FAR more concentrated and probably spread out in a mile wide circumference around those ships as they enter the St. John's River and are FAR more dangerous to the birds than the auto emissions on the beach. It's not as much the river, altho that is a concern, but it is more the air pollution. If you relocate the bird colonies, you solve both problems, no auto emissions, no ship emissions, healthier birds.

Now, that's a no-brainer.

"The emissions from those cargo/container/tanker ships are FAR more concentrated and probably spread out in a mile wide circumference around those ships as they enter the St. John's River" Jettydog if your facts are true then you and the other beach-goers should be removed for your own safety?

      So, it comes down to who we "protect/remove"? The birds or the humans? If Audobon is sincere about the birds, then we remove/relocate the birds. If they are not , then throw the humans off the beach in the name of "safety", and let the birds suffer from pollution? A difficult choice, indeed. Audubon is all about the birds, not the human species. We humans accept the pollution, as thinking, sentient beings. We know there is an danger, but accept it in a trade-off in order to enjoy nature and the BIRDS. The birds don't have a choice, much less a voice, hence, Audubon speaks for them . Am I wrong in making that statement? So , by getting rid of human interaction and pollution, they damn and condemn the bird species to suffer and die from ship pollution, which is far more intrusive and damaging than auto pollution? The logic is interesting, but , in my opinion, misguided.
      We make the choice to subject ourselves to pollution for the pleasure and enjoyment that the ocean and God provides us. The birds don't make that choice. They adapt to what we humans subject them to. So why not help them and relocate them to another, human-safe area? A less human polluted area? Like the newly acquired area on Talbot or Bird Island where they are far removed from human pollutants? Again, I would personally feel better about relocation then subjecting them to the deadlier ship emmissions that we humans subject ourselves to. Unless you feel we should commit the birds to species extinction to save the humans, i.e., removal of cars and people from Huguenot, in which case , is counter to Audubon's goals and charter, as I understand them to be.
      You can't save the birds from by eliminating the cars and people from Huguenot without eliminating the ship traffic also , unless you relocate the birds through State/Federal actions/money to some safer, less polluted area on the coast. There is no argument here,  with any substance,  that will hold water, in my opinion, no pun intended. To stick your head in the sand and ignore the facts , like an ostrich, is , indeed, in my opinion, foolish.

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on June 11, 2012, 09:04:35 AM

Quote from: JettyDog on June 11, 2012, 08:25:28 AM
I_I_Loved_You,
    You are sidestepping the issue. The emissions from those cargo/container/tanker ships are FAR more concentrated and probably spread out in a mile wide circumference around those ships as they enter the St. John's River and are FAR more dangerous to the birds than the auto emissions on the beach. It's not as much the river, altho that is a concern, but it is more the air pollution. If you relocate the bird colonies, you solve both problems, no auto emissions, no ship emissions, healthier birds.

Now, that's a no-brainer.

"The emissions from those cargo/container/tanker ships are FAR more concentrated and probably spread out in a mile wide circumference around those ships as they enter the St. John's River" Jettydog if your facts are true then you and the other beach-goers should be removed for your own safety?

So, following your line of logic and reasoning, then , because of ship pollution, we should remove not only the beach goers, but we should shutter Mayport, (remember the chopper pollution and their overflights here, also)leaving us vulnerable to terrorist attack and drug activity by sea, permanently evacuate the St. Johns River of all residents for a mile on either side from Blount Island to the Jetties all for public safety from ship pollution ? Run that by all the affected parties and see what you get in response, please.
      I think not. What about the birds along that entire stretch? Relocation also? Along with the humans? Hmmmmm, a problem , indeed. I fail to understand the logic behind the statement. Of course, I'm only human, but it is a daring plan. How successful do you think all of it would be? To disrupt an entire city and it's commerce.........for their own safety and to protect the birds at Huguenot. Really.........?

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on June 12, 2012, 11:03:31 PM

Quote from: JettyDog on June 12, 2012, 10:29:51 PM

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on June 11, 2012, 09:04:35 AM

Quote from: JettyDog on June 11, 2012, 08:25:28 AM
I_I_Loved_You,
    You are sidestepping the issue. The emissions from those cargo/container/tanker ships are FAR more concentrated and probably spread out in a mile wide circumference around those ships as they enter the St. John's River and are FAR more dangerous to the birds than the auto emissions on the beach. It's not as much the river, altho that is a concern, but it is more the air pollution. If you relocate the bird colonies, you solve both problems, no auto emissions, no ship emissions, healthier birds.

Now, that's a no-brainer.

"The emissions from those cargo/container/tanker ships are FAR more concentrated and probably spread out in a mile wide circumference around those ships as they enter the St. John's River" Jettydog if your facts are true then you and the other beach-goers should be removed for your own safety?

So, following your line of logic and reasoning, then , because of ship pollution, we should remove not only the beach goers, but we should shutter Mayport, (remember the chopper pollution and their overflights here, also)leaving us vulnerable to terrorist attack and drug activity by sea, permanently evacuate the St. Johns River of all residents for a mile on either side from Blount Island to the Jetties all for public safety from ship pollution ? Run that by all the affected parties and see what you get in response, please.
      I think not. What about the birds along that entire stretch? Relocation also? Along with the humans? Hmmmmm, a problem , indeed. I fail to understand the logic behind the statement. Of course, I'm only human, but it is a daring plan. How successful do you think all of it would be? To disrupt an entire city and it's commerce.........for their own safety and to protect the birds at Huguenot. Really.........?

Dear Jettypuppy I feel you have slipped a disk? You're the one that has taken this over the hill and thru the woods. Do you remember my first post on this subject? "In your posting one thing I believe you have left out? Driving on the beach does add to air and water pollution. How about just like in Cape Hatteras a National Park unlike Huguenot Park. The fees for parking on the beach should increase. http://www.nps.gov/caha/planyourvisit/upload/02-01-12a-FAQ-Site-Bulletin-for-CAHA-ORV-regulation.pdf" So in closing go ahead and believe you're the ONLY person who has the Right Answers. I'm done!

If_I_Loved_You,
     I merely stated the facts here. Container/Cargo/Tanker ships emit more  emissions than the vehicular traffic at Huguenot, therefore the threat of vehicular pollution is understated in view of the larger pollution issues caused by shipping. I provided evidence proving so. I apologize for upsetting you to the point you cannot engage in civil discourse on the subject and must resort to name calling (i.e., "Jettypuppy" ) or misstating facts such as "go ahead and believe you're the ONLY person who has the Right Answers". I am one person with one opinion and I am entitled to voice that opinion, which I will reiterate here. Relocating the birds is the wisest way to protect them from the larger issue of shipping pollution. This also solves the auto  pollution issue you are concerned about. Surely, you can agree to that. Any rational, reasonable person would.

TODAY'S REPORT
     I spent the day at Huguenot and observed the following. The hatchlings appear to be coming out in Zone 11 , predominately. This area is between Lifeguard post 11 and 12. Zone 10 has been carved in half, but is mostly unused by the hatchlings. This means that we have lost an additonal 200-300 feet + of beach for parking due to Audubon's pressure on the city to protect non-endangered species in the park, which, are covered by the Federal Migratory Bird Act, but, nonetheless, are  non-endangered. There were a handful of Black Skimmers on the point, but little evidence of hatchlings or nesting by the Skimmers , which makes me wonder why the Point is closed. The Skimmer nesting points have been re-established no less than four times, by my count . The Point has been closed from the beginning of the Bay side to Zone 10, thereby effectively denying the West/NorthWest point to jet ski traffic as well as fishermen.
      A pattern has now been established whereby Audubon is stealing our beach yard by yard, through strongarm tactics, claiming to protect the birds, which, by previous posts, are being harmed more by cargo/container/tanker pollution than by auto/human pollution. This is extremely hypocritical on their part. Say one thing when reality dictates something otherwise.
     The other glaring issue is the structure erected just into the closed area. It's posted "reserved" Why is it , that the city has been forced to erect a reserved structure for Audubon ONLY, on city property? This structure should be treated as other shelters erected in the Park and be accessible to all Huguenot patrons, not a selected, elite few like Audubon. This structure should be for rental by the general public as all the other structures in the Park are. To not rent it out is discriminatory in nature against the Park patrons, as well as handicapped persons visiting the Park. If a new structure is erected , as it has been, than all should have access to it, not just a select few.
    Relocate the birds to Little or Big Talbot or Bird Island in order to protect them from Shipping pollution and resolve these issues..........

I just returned from vacationing out West and learned something very interesting. While visiting National Park Service's Mesa Verde Park and the Pueblo cliff dwellings there, I noticed what appeared to be a blanket hanging out of one of the windows on of a third story restored section of one of the cliff dwellings. It turned out to be a net designed to keep birds from nesting there inside of the structure. In a related conversation , a NPS ranger pointed out , at one time, they had an endangered bird nesting in an endangered building. The solution? Relocate the endangered bird. So, NPS policy IS inclusive in removing endangered species where there is an issue. Therefore, it IS possible to relocate any endangered species at Huguenot to another spot. Very interesting indeed!

Sitting here, listening to Jimmy Buffett's "A Pirate Looks At Forty". and reflecting. It is GOOD to be back from the SouthWest. I went to Huguenot for the first time in a month. I missed the ocean, the birds, the ambiance, Nature. I usually take a walk or two, looking for marine life, enjoying the day. Sunday, I went walking, taking my Gatorade as usual, and witnessed something unusual. As I started out, I saw the Audubon Bird Steward sitting 100 feet towards the Shore (eastwards towards the ocean ), sitting in lawn chair, not occupying the shelter built for that purpose, but sitting alone, away from it. As I eased down the beach, the wind took his umbrella and blew it down the beach. Here was a Delimna, the Audubon Bird Steward, charged with keeping Huguenot patrons from disturbing the fledglings, letting his personal umbrella blow down the Beach to the Lifeguard station,some 200-300 feet ( or better ), disturbing the fledgling , if not injuring some of them. He chased after it, to his credit, but not before it had disrupted  most of the birds sitting on  the shoreline. I find it ironic that Audubon should criticize we beach patrons for disturbing the birds when they do not take steps to do the same. It is hypocritical, in the very least, for them to preach to us to protect the birds, when they are not doing the same. This was witnessed by many beachgoers, as well as Lifeguards, who saw it all. How can  Audubon claim to be protecting the birds from us betray the same principles they claim to uphold, but don't? It is sacrilegious, at best, for them to claim they are protecting the birds to only , irresponsibly, allow something of this magnitude to happen. They have demonstrated  an inability to protect the very  species they claim to protect . 

Then perhaps the actions of that particular steward should be reported to the Audubon, since they didn't seem to be following the rules.

Other than that, even if birds are not on an endangered list, they are still protected under federal migratory act....so it doesn't matter about not being an endangered species.
http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/RegulationsandPolicies.html (http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/RegulationsandPolicies.html)

Springfielder,
   So, you are saying this Audubon Bird Steward violated Federal Migratory Bird law through irresponsible behavior? Even worse.......

No, I did not say that. I said perhaps you should report the actions of that particular steward, since what you described that happened, that this person may not have been following the rules.

The second part of my post was in reference to what else you were saying about bird not being on the endangered list....and my response was, they would still be protected under the federal migratory law.

This is what I posted

QuoteThen perhaps the actions of that particular steward should be reported to the Audubon, since they didn't seem to be following the rules.

Other than that, even if birds are not on an endangered list, they are still protected under federal migratory act....so it doesn't matter about not being an endangered species.
http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/RegulationsandPolicies.html

Springfielder,
    Audubon is not aware of their own violations by their own stewards of the Federal Migratory Bird Act? And violations of the Act by their own personnel,  needs to be reported to them? That's fascinating. I would think such a prestigious organization would stress Federal Law to their own members to insure that they would not, under any circumstances, violate their own charter, much less the Federal Laws they seek insure are NOT violated , due to the damage and embarrassment they would cause the organization. But.........I may be wrong here. Although you may not have said it, it  was , in my opinion, implied. Again, I may be wrong here, but I think not. If I, as an individual overseeing such an organization, thought this was possible, i would take steps to insure the unthinkable would not happen and take steps to make sure it did not. I would take into consideration....that the unthinkable COULD happen and make sure to limit the possibility of any violations that would embarrass the organization. But, that's just me, and , as previously stated, I could be wrong.

Actually JD is not a kite surfer. He is just one of many other people in our area that feel the harassment of park patrons has gone on long enough. The birds are being used as a political tool to continue pay the lobbyists that prey on the controversy they themselves create. This has been the way they operate for a long time and Huguenot Park is not the only place they use tactics like this. It generates income for the organization from people who believe (read are lied to) that they are doing the right thing. The only real winners are the lobbyists, not the birds, not the public. If the money was gone so would they be.

Quote from: JettyDog
Springfielder,
    Audubon is not aware of their own violations by their own stewards of the Federal Migratory Bird Act? And violations of the Act by their own personnel,  needs to be reported to them? That's fascinating. I would think such a prestigious organization would stress Federal Law to their own members to insure that they would not, under any circumstances, violate their own charter, much less the Federal Laws they seek insure are NOT violated , due to the damage and embarrassment they would cause the organization. But.........I may be wrong here. Although you may not have said it, it  was , in my opinion, implied. Again, I may be wrong here, but I think not. If I, as an individual overseeing such an organization, thought this was possible, i would take steps to insure the unthinkable would not happen and take steps to make sure it did not. I would take into consideration....that the unthinkable COULD happen and make sure to limit the possibility of any violations that would embarrass the organization. But, that's just me, and , as previously stated, I could be wrong.

That's not what I said, no matter how you wish to twist and change my words....clearly, you have your own agenda and trying to fit what I actually did say to fit your agenda, doesn't work. My point was and remains, that if there was a situation with a particular steward, then report that particular steward and that particular act, to the Audubon.  Although at this point, since you continue to try and manipulate what others have said, I can see where any reporting from you would not be taken seriously.

Quote from: Springfielder on August 12, 2012, 07:55:05 AM

Quote from: JettyDog
Springfielder,
    Audubon is not aware of their own violations by their own stewards of the Federal Migratory Bird Act? And violations of the Act by their own personnel,  needs to be reported to them? That's fascinating. I would think such a prestigious organization would stress Federal Law to their own members to insure that they would not, under any circumstances, violate their own charter, much less the Federal Laws they seek insure are NOT violated , due to the damage and embarrassment they would cause the organization. But.........I may be wrong here. Although you may not have said it, it  was , in my opinion, implied. Again, I may be wrong here, but I think not. If I, as an individual overseeing such an organization, thought this was possible, i would take steps to insure the unthinkable would not happen and take steps to make sure it did not. I would take into consideration....that the unthinkable COULD happen and make sure to limit the possibility of any violations that would embarrass the organization. But, that's just me, and , as previously stated, I could be wrong.

That's not what I said, no matter how you wish to twist and change my words....clearly, you have your own agenda and trying to fit what I actually did say to fit your agenda, doesn't work. My point was and remains, that if there was a situation with a particular steward, then report that particular steward and that particular act, to the Audubon.  Although at this point, since you continue to try and manipulate what others have said, I can see where any reporting from you would not be taken seriously.

Manipulator? Now, there's a title I haven't been labled with ever before.  :o Agenda? Yes, coexistence with all patrons, Audubon included, unless they want to exclude all others from enjoying Huguenot except themselves. I'm a believer in the Good Book. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Someone wants to exclude me and others from something, then I say exclude all. Be fair. That's my agenda , if I have any at all. Fairness and coexistence. I try to keep an open mind despite vicious, underhanded attempts to exclude all the rest of us, handicapped folks included here, only to reserve one of God's greatest works for a select, selfish few.  Aren't you like-minded? As far as reporting is concerned, I will support anything I "report" with time stamped, dated video or pics in the future so that I may be taken more seriously, if you wish. I don't have a problem with that at all.  :)

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on August 10, 2012, 12:18:32 AM
J.D. you don't give a Damn about the Birds you're a "Kite Surfer" this is the Only Reason you care about Huguenot Park. I remember back in June I stopped talking to you "So in closing go ahead and believe you're the ONLY person who has the Right Answers. I'm done!" Hey the City of Jacksonville needs to cut Five Million more from the budget maybe Huguenot Park should be closed down for a couple of years to give the Birds you care so much about ??? a better chance to live. I know engaging in a discussion with you is just about pointless. But from time to time giving a Jetty Dog a bone is good for the soul.  ::)

If_I_Loved_You,
      if you quit talking to me back in June, why in the World are you addressing me now? You are a bewildering creature, at best. Kitester is right. I'm no kite surfer, although I do admit taking a lesson or two from him. I am a kayaker, if you must apply a title or label to me. I'm a nature/beach enthusiast.There's another label for you.
      As far as birds are concerned, I do care about them. My Doctor says chicken is good for me to eat and I love turkey at Thanksgiving. I've even eaten quail a time or two and rock Cornish game hen. Birds have been a staple of man's diet since the Stoneage.
     When I'm at Huguenot, I marvel at the Pelicans, Ospreys and other fowls I see. My favorite bird is the Bald Eagle. They are magnificent while hunting. Yes, I do care about the birds.
     Turning to other statements you made,  I  simply stated, and I'll restate here, I'm not the only person who believes they have the right answers, merely someone with an opinion. People aren't doing the birds any favors by protecting them at Huguenot and exposing them to the deadly carcinogens spewing from the cargo/tanker/container ships entering the River at Mayport/Huguenot. Relocate the birds to a safer environment if you REALLY wish to protect them. That will give them a better chance to live.
     If you feel that engaging in discussion with me is pointless, then perhaps you may wish to cease replying to me or posting here in the future. I'm just saying.......

Quote from: JettyDog on August 12, 2012, 01:13:48 PM

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on August 10, 2012, 12:18:32 AM
J.D. you don't give a Damn about the Birds you're a "Kite Surfer" this is the Only Reason you care about Huguenot Park. I remember back in June I stopped talking to you "So in closing go ahead and believe you're the ONLY person who has the Right Answers. I'm done!" Hey the City of Jacksonville needs to cut Five Million more from the budget maybe Huguenot Park should be closed down for a couple of years to give the Birds you care so much about ??? a better chance to live. I know engaging in a discussion with you is just about pointless. But from time to time giving a Jetty Dog a bone is good for the soul.  ::)

If_I_Loved_You,
      if you quit talking to me back in June, why in the World are you addressing me now? You are a bewildering creature, at best. Kitester is right. I'm no kite surfer, although I do admit taking a lesson or two from him. I am a kayaker, if you must apply a title or label to me. I'm a nature/beach enthusiast.There's another label for you.
      As far as birds are concerned, I do care about them. My Doctor says chicken is good for me to eat and I love turkey at Thanksgiving. I've even eaten quail a time or two and rock Cornish game hen. Birds have been a staple of man's diet since the Stoneage.
     When I'm at Huguenot, I marvel at the Pelicans, Ospreys and other fowls I see. My favorite bird is the Bald Eagle. They are magnificent while hunting. Yes, I do care about the birds.
     Turning to other statements you made,  I  simply stated, and I'll restate here, I'm not the only person who believes they have the right answers, merely someone with an opinion. People aren't doing the birds any favors by protecting them at Huguenot and exposing them to the deadly carcinogens spewing from the cargo/tanker/container ships entering the River at Mayport/Huguenot. Relocate the birds to a safer environment if you REALLY wish to protect them. That will give them a better chance to live.
     If you feel that engaging in discussion with me is pointless, then perhaps you may wish to cease replying to me or posting here in the future. I'm just saying.......

Springfielder, If_I Loved_You,
  If my care and love for the birds is in question, then you should ask Park Personnel about the Pelican I helped out. I approached the beach one day last year, seeing Park personnel holding what I thot was a piece of driftwood, only to discover it was a Pelican, whose wing was hooked with a triple hook, double ended fishing lure to it's body at the wing .
The Park person , whose name escapes me at the moment,  asked if I had a pair of dykes to cut the lure, to which I replied,  I might have something to cut the lure with, which I did and we did, freeing the Pelican from the fishing lure. He then , subsequently  took the pelican up to BEAKS for rehab. So , I  DO CARE For the birds at Huguenot . What have either of you done for the birds out there lately,  like that?

and...I questioned your care and/or love of birds, when?

Quote from: Springfielder on August 17, 2012, 07:34:07 PM
and...I questioned your care and/or love of birds, when?

Springfielder, you are right. That was primarily directed towards If_I_Loved_You, but , you didn't answer my question. Instead, you chose to duck it by asking another question. I'll ask again: What have you done for the birds out there lately,  like that? It's simple to answer, either something or nothing. I'm just asking......

Quote from: JettyDog

Quote from: Springfielderand...I questioned your care and/or love of birds, when?

Springfielder, you are right. That was primarily directed towards If_I_Loved_You, but , you didn't answer my question. Instead, you chose to duck it by asking another question. I'll ask again: What have you done for the birds out there lately,  like that? It's simple to answer, either something or nothing. I'm just asking......

I'm not sure what my involvement with birds is of your concern, as I have not asked for your credentials. However, I am and always have been an advocate for wildlife, which of course, includes birds.

I'm an avid birder, am also active in many organizations and am personally involved in maintaining bird habitats, including one at an elementary school, in which the students in the autistic program are directly involved with the daily care and maintenance of the habitat. My program/habitat was recognized by Cornell University's Ornithology Department and received national exposure, as well as local media recognition.

Quote from: Springfielder on August 25, 2012, 07:40:20 AM

Quote from: JettyDog

Quote from: Springfielderand...I questioned your care and/or love of birds, when?

Springfielder, you are right. That was primarily directed towards If_I_Loved_You, but , you didn't answer my question. Instead, you chose to duck it by asking another question. I'll ask again: What have you done for the birds out there lately,  like that? It's simple to answer, either something or nothing. I'm just asking......

I'm not sure what my involvement with birds is of your concern, as I have not asked for your credentials. However, I am and always have been an advocate for wildlife, which of course, includes birds.

I'm an avid birder, am also active in many organizations and am personally involved in maintaining bird habitats, including one at an elementary school, in which the students in the autistic program are directly involved with the daily care and maintenance of the habitat. My program/habitat was recognized by Cornell University's Ornithology Department and received national exposure, as well as local media recognition.

Springfielder, I just wanted to assure myself you were actively involved, hands on, with the birds as I was, and not politically using them as a crutch or a tool to advance an agenda that included acquisition of lands/habitats for personal or organizational gain. Since you are an avid birder, then, you must agree, that protecting the birds at Huguenot is harmful due to the emissions of cargo/container/tanker ships entering the St. Johns, and , as a result of that , you would agree, in my opinion,  that relocation of the birds to a safer habitat, such as Bird Island, or the Talbot Islands,  would be in the best interest of the birds, overall.  After all, the protection of the birds is the goal, no matter what the cost, wouldn't you agree? Surely Cornell University would approve as well as the local media, and , I would think, would be a feather in your cap. But, I could be wrong. Your thoughts on the matter?

Human access to the north section of Hugenot is there.Simply vehicle restrictions.No doubt more of an inconvenience to some more than most.Actually a human recreation experience plus.Even Life Guard Station protection!

And the birds.Gosh,like being at an ocean beach!

Many of us humans have benefited from the Huguenot non vehicle access experience.
We have also learned how credible,important the area between dunes and water is for the critters.Could win a court case with that info.
Good for us!

Quote from: JettyDogSpringfielder, I just wanted to assure myself you were actively involved, hands on, with the birds as I was, and not politically using them as a crutch or a tool to advance an agenda that included acquisition of lands/habitats for personal or organizational gain. Since you are an avid birder, then, you must agree, that protecting the birds at Huguenot is harmful due to the emissions of cargo/container/tanker ships entering the St. Johns, and , as a result of that , you would agree, in my opinion,  that relocation of the birds to a safer habitat, such as Bird Island, or the Talbot Islands,  would be in the best interest of the birds, overall.  After all, the protection of the birds is the goal, no matter what the cost, wouldn't you agree? Surely Cornell University would approve as well as the local media, and , I would think, would be a feather in your cap. But, I could be wrong. Your thoughts on the matter?

Of course there's concern about the emissions from the ships, just as there is from all other vehicles. Trying to relocate birds is not only costly, but most often, not practical. It's not like you can simply give them a map to the location that's deemed more safe. The react on instinct, and trying to train migratory birds where to nest is basically futile. This is why areas in which they do nest, are protected during nesting season.

Quote from: Springfielder on August 26, 2012, 12:51:48 PM

Quote from: JettyDogSpringfielder, I just wanted to assure myself you were actively involved, hands on, with the birds as I was, and not politically using them as a crutch or a tool to advance an agenda that included acquisition of lands/habitats for personal or organizational gain. Since you are an avid birder, then, you must agree, that protecting the birds at Huguenot is harmful due to the emissions of cargo/container/tanker ships entering the St. Johns, and , as a result of that , you would agree, in my opinion,  that relocation of the birds to a safer habitat, such as Bird Island, or the Talbot Islands,  would be in the best interest of the birds, overall.  After all, the protection of the birds is the goal, no matter what the cost, wouldn't you agree? Surely Cornell University would approve as well as the local media, and , I would think, would be a feather in your cap. But, I could be wrong. Your thoughts on the matter?

Of course there's concern about the emissions from the ships, just as there is from all other vehicles. Trying to relocate birds is not only costly, but most often, not practical. It's not like you can simply give them a map to the location that's deemed more safe. The react on instinct, and trying to train migratory birds where to nest is basically futile. This is why areas in which they do nest, are protected during nesting season.

And , now, Springfielder, we have a meaningful dialogue. I have researched the  ship emissions. Some of the ships emit more emissions than the vehicles do. These are the facts. And you are right, relocation is costly, but not impossible. Other Federal agencies have done so when necessary. That is another fact as well as the nesting issue. So, a compromise is in order here. We share the beach and dunes with the birds. Mutual respect is the order of the day.  No one entity can be allowed to be dominant. Neither bird nor human. It's called co-existence and has been in place for thousands of years. But getting folks to recognize that is difficult when some people are stubborn and narrow minded or selfish. When we were children, our parents taught us to share when in the sand box or at the playground. Why have we lost that lesson? It is time to re-learn the lessons our parents taught us. Share. It's simple in concept. And everyone could and will benefit from it. Share. There is room for all, bird lovers as well as kite surfers, surfers, kayakers, jet-skiers and the simple beach patrons at Huguenot. After all, some of us that others consider to be nuisances, obstacles  or anti-birders are helping in our own way with the birds, such as myself. Share.

"deadly carcinogens spewing from the cargo/tanker/container ships entering the River at Mayport/Huguenot" Jetty Dog this is pure doublespeak. The best thing to do in saving the birds and other animals at Huguenot is to remove all people and vehicles from the beach. Thank You If_I_Loved_You

Doublespeak? From experts in their respective fields? I did some independent research on the matter before I spoke about it or posted it here.


http://www.gizmag.com/shipping-pollution/11526/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/apr/09/shipping-pollution

I posted this previously and you may have missed it. The "doublespeak " you are attributing to me is well documented in the above websites. Are you saying the experts are wrong? Or lying about the environmental impact of these ships? Or , possibly, are you ignoring the experts in order to advance your agenda of throwing everyone and their vehicles off the beach in order make Huguenot a private, members only preserve for birders?  ??? When folks close their minds and bury their heads in the sand like an ostrich, it really is impossible to communicate anything to them. Would you be willing to tell these folks who wrote these articles or contributed to the research that they are engaging in "doublespeak"? I prefer to consider all angles and tend to trust the experts.

Here is more info:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/feb/13/climatechange.pollution

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1229857/How-16-ships-create-pollution-cars-world.html

(please note that the above article quotes James Corbett, of the University of Delaware, is an authority on ship emissions )

Even Lloyd's of London recognizes the issue of ship emissions, although, many countries are working on making the emissions greener as they are with automobiles.

http://www.lloydslist.com/ll/topic/emissions/

There is a ton of research available on the Web on how ship emissions are harmful to the environment as well as the animal life. How can anyone possibly ignore the facts?

Hey jetty and kitester...

Can you post some pix of the kite surfers doing your thing out at Huguenot.  I certainly would like to see them...

This entire thread as if sucked out by gigantic undertoe, in to the far Gulf  Stream,ever farther north,now east,chilling cold waters,now 'tossed',like stale salad on to the brutal (mostly rocky,hard to walk on) war torn French shore line.

From the shores of France,Jacksonville's beaches would be assumed to be so fine.And they are.We don't know what a real battle is,or about.

For the birds;human foot access. Concrete Retreat from the shore. (Dr.Pilkey)   Us

Bridge, I'm not a kitesurfer, Kitester could probably help you out better there.

Quote from: JettyDog on August 29, 2012, 11:44:19 AM
Bridge, I'm not a kitesurfer, Kitester could probably help you out better there.

Thanks jetty... I drove past on A1A last saturday and the place looked pretty busy... lotsa kites!

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on August 28, 2012, 04:43:18 PM

Quote from: JettyDog on August 28, 2012, 01:59:09 PM
"deadly carcinogens spewing from the cargo/tanker/container ships entering the River at Mayport/Huguenot" Jetty Dog this is pure doublespeak. The best thing to do in saving the birds and other animals at Huguenot is to remove all people and vehicles from the beach. Thank You If_I_Loved_You

Doublespeak? From experts in their respective fields? I did some independent research on the matter before I spoke about it or posted it here.


http://www.gizmag.com/shipping-pollution/11526/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/apr/09/shipping-pollution

I posted this previously and you may have missed it. The "doublespeak " you are attributing to me is well documented in the above websites. Are you saying the experts are wrong? Or lying about the environmental impact of these ships? Or , possibly, are you ignoring the experts in order to advance your agenda of throwing everyone and their vehicles off the beach in order make Huguenot a private, members only preserve for birders?  ??? When folks close their minds and bury their heads in the sand like an ostrich, it really is impossible to communicate anything to them. Would you be willing to tell these folks who wrote these articles or contributed to the research that they are engaging in "doublespeak"? I prefer to consider all angles and tend to trust the experts.

Here is more info:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/feb/13/climatechange.pollution

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1229857/How-16-ships-create-pollution-cars-world.html

(please note that the above article quotes James Corbett, of the University of Delaware, is an authority on ship emissions )

Even Lloyd's of London recognizes the issue of ship emissions, although, many countries are working on making the emissions greener as they are with automobiles.

http://www.lloydslist.com/ll/topic/emissions/

There is a ton of research available on the Web on how ship emissions are harmful to the environment as well as the animal life. How can anyone possibly ignore the facts?

Jetty dog I have read most of your links before you posted them. But just like Springfielder said "Trying to relocate birds is not only costly, but most often, not practical." Look I would be OK with letting people have space towards the jetty's for sunbathing and fishing on the jetty's. But No vehicles allowed so a new bike and walking path should be built towards that area of the beach. And make it so handicap people can make it out towards the beach also via the path. But leave the whole other area for the birds and wildlife. Jacksonville Fl is a port city we can not close the st johns river down for one minute. And Jaxport in the next several years is even going to get bigger. So it's up to the future engineers to build ships that use better fuel with less emissions. Now if Willard Mitt Romney gets into office God I hope not! The EPA and other federal agencies are screwed. And ship and car emissions will get even worst. So lets make sure Obama wins and the birds and wildlife have a bigger place to call home at Huguenot park. Thank You :)

If_I_Loved_You,
      You misconstrue my point. The ships emit more emissions than all of the automobiles at Huguenot. The cars out there are more emission's than the ships and doing less harm to the birds, as a result. These are the absolute stone-cold facts, please do the research yourself.
     As far as handicap access is concerned, will you volunteer to carry those handicapped folks who cannot make the trip from anywhere you designate parking, down to the shore? After all, many are not in wheel chairs and have to use other types of mobility, such as crutches like those with polio or multiple sclerosis? Someone on crutches will struggle to make it from where ever , such as the existing parking lot, to the beach, via bike/walking path or not. A simple bike path/walking path will not suffice for these unfortunate folks. They must have auto access. And what about kayakers who cannot carry their boats down a path. And what of jet skiers? Would you have them physically carry their jet skis down the same path? Really? Not practical at any level.
      Then , again , you raise the question of costs. How much do you propose to spend of the tax payers money and the city's money (which we do not have ) to build this bike/walking path to give the birds their space and accommodate ALL of the beach patrons? And why are you dictating, that , we , the people, must subscribe to what you want for all of us? I propose coexistence for all.
     As far as the politics you choose to inject into the conversation, I shall remain neutral . You brought up the subject , not I , as a ploy to gain votes for one particular candidate, while, I believe,the best man will win based on what he claims he can do, overall, for the entire country, not just for one special interest group.

If......

It is unfortunate that the environmental lobby is not truly of a mind of coexistence. There have been many areas closed off for birds and other wildlife. Once closed they are extremely difficult if not impossible to reopen to public use even if the reasons given for the closure no longer exist. Do you think the lost public access in Hatteras NC. will ever reopen even if the piping plover comes off the endangered list? The trend is to remove the public permanently. Look at what has happened at the park already. Pet owners are not allowed to bring pets to the park at all YEAR ROUND! Why is that? It was never a problem before the colony of birds began nesting at the north point. It was not a problem for the birds or the public. Even now critical wildlife activity only takes place in the spring and summer. Why can't dog owners come to the park in the off season? Because it was bargained away by our city council in return for it being the FINAL concession to the bird lobby. What did the bird lobby do and have continued todo since then? They pushed to closed 1500feet of the front beach between the point and jetty. They pushed to close the point permanently to both cars AND PEOPLE.  They push to close all driving access along the inside shoreline. In short they want to remove ALL driving access from the park. They know that will close the park forever. It will become a posted, off limits area an our city will have lost the last true beach access we have. I have been to EVERY public meeting and listened to members of the audbon and  sierra club. There is no other explanation for their continued efforts. The professional lobbyists working for those organizations an ones like them that make a living from the controversy continue to push fo more controversy.

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on September 05, 2012, 11:21:35 AM

Quote from: kitester on September 05, 2012, 10:17:40 AM
If......

It is unfortunate that the environmental lobby is not truly of a mind of coexistence. There have been many areas closed off for birds and other wildlife. Once closed they are extremely difficult if not impossible to reopen to public use even if the reasons given for the closure no longer exist. Do you think the lost public access in Hatteras NC. will ever reopen even if the piping plover comes off the endangered list? The trend is to remove the public permanently. Look at what has happened at the park already. Pet owners are not allowed to bring pets to the park at all YEAR ROUND! Why is that? It was never a problem before the colony of birds began nesting at the north point. It was not a problem for the birds or the public. Even now critical wildlife activity only takes place in the spring and summer. Why can't dog owners come to the park in the off season? Because it was bargained away by our city council in return for it being the FINAL concession to the bird lobby. What did the bird lobby do and have continued todo since then? They pushed to closed 1500feet of the front beach between the point and jetty. They pushed to close the point permanently to both cars AND PEOPLE.  They push to close all driving access along the inside shoreline. In short they want to remove ALL driving access from the park. They know that will close the park forever. It will become a posted, off limits area an our city will have lost the last true beach access we have. I have been to EVERY public meeting and listened to members of the audbon and  sierra club. There is no other explanation for their continued efforts. The professional lobbyists working for those organizations an ones like them that make a living from the controversy continue to push fo more controversy.

Good about time! ;D kitesurfer you and jetty dog are truly unreal get over yourself. Please come to the meetings and voice your one sided thinking. I welcome you to come to all the meetings. Maybe we can leave an area for you to destroy and screw the birds and wildlife!  :o

I really do not think he is saying he wants to destroy the habitat and screw the birds.  His mother taught him that sharing is a good thing... and cannot understand why the Audobon and their lobbyists cannot share.  Birds and humans coexist all the time... limiting human access during hatching or breeding or migration is reasonable... also reasonable is re opening those areas after the birds are gone... or done reproducing... or migrating.

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on September 06, 2012, 12:20:30 AM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on September 05, 2012, 01:06:25 PM

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on September 05, 2012, 11:21:35 AM

Quote from: kitester on September 05, 2012, 10:17:40 AM
If......

It is unfortunate that the environmental lobby is not truly of a mind of coexistence. There have been many areas closed off for birds and other wildlife. Once closed they are extremely difficult if not impossible to reopen to public use even if the reasons given for the closure no longer exist. Do you think the lost public access in Hatteras NC. will ever reopen even if the piping plover comes off the endangered list? The trend is to remove the public permanently. Look at what has happened at the park already. Pet owners are not allowed to bring pets to the park at all YEAR ROUND! Why is that? It was never a problem before the colony of birds began nesting at the north point. It was not a problem for the birds or the public. Even now critical wildlife activity only takes place in the spring and summer. Why can't dog owners come to the park in the off season? Because it was bargained away by our city council in return for it being the FINAL concession to the bird lobby. What did the bird lobby do and have continued todo since then? They pushed to closed 1500feet of the front beach between the point and jetty. They pushed to close the point permanently to both cars AND PEOPLE.  They push to close all driving access along the inside shoreline. In short they want to remove ALL driving access from the park. They know that will close the park forever. It will become a posted, off limits area an our city will have lost the last true beach access we have. I have been to EVERY public meeting and listened to members of the audbon and  sierra club. There is no other explanation for their continued efforts. The professional lobbyists working for those organizations an ones like them that make a living from the controversy continue to push fo more controversy.

Good about time! ;D kitesurfer you and jetty dog are truly unreal get over yourself. Please come to the meetings and voice your one sided thinking. I welcome you to come to all the meetings. Maybe we can leave an area for you to destroy and screw the birds and wildlife!  :o

I really do not think he is saying he wants to destroy the habitat and screw the birds.  His mother taught him that sharing is a good thing... and cannot understand why the Audobon and their lobbyists cannot share.  Birds and humans coexist all the time... limiting human access during hatching or breeding or migration is reasonable... also reasonable is re opening those areas after the birds are gone... or done reproducing... or migrating.

BridgeTroll when it comes to the environment I'm not a real fan of sharing. When we humans have screwed up so much in such little time. Do we need every square inch of beach for are pleasure? I'm really in favor for closing 100% of Huguenot Park forever just for the birds and wildlife at the beach and dune area. But then I said I can bend, how about No vehicles on the beach at all and the beach near the jetty's would be open for people. With a new walkway to be built so the fishermen and beach people can walk in with beach carts and the like.

How generous!  You realize the Huguenot Park beach area and the associated jetties are man made structures... I suppose we could add another man made structure in the form of a giant parking lot in the dunes area and build a walkway to the beach...

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on September 06, 2012, 09:39:21 AM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on September 06, 2012, 06:37:37 AM

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on September 06, 2012, 12:20:30 AM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on September 05, 2012, 01:06:25 PM

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on September 05, 2012, 11:21:35 AM

Quote from: kitester on September 05, 2012, 10:17:40 AM
If......

It is unfortunate that the environmental lobby is not truly of a mind of coexistence. There have been many areas closed off for birds and other wildlife. Once closed they are extremely difficult if not impossible to reopen to public use even if the reasons given for the closure no longer exist. Do you think the lost public access in Hatteras NC. will ever reopen even if the piping plover comes off the endangered list? The trend is to remove the public permanently. Look at what has happened at the park already. Pet owners are not allowed to bring pets to the park at all YEAR ROUND! Why is that? It was never a problem before the colony of birds began nesting at the north point. It was not a problem for the birds or the public. Even now critical wildlife activity only takes place in the spring and summer. Why can't dog owners come to the park in the off season? Because it was bargained away by our city council in return for it being the FINAL concession to the bird lobby. What did the bird lobby do and have continued todo since then? They pushed to closed 1500feet of the front beach between the point and jetty. They pushed to close the point permanently to both cars AND PEOPLE.  They push to close all driving access along the inside shoreline. In short they want to remove ALL driving access from the park. They know that will close the park forever. It will become a posted, off limits area an our city will have lost the last true beach access we have. I have been to EVERY public meeting and listened to members of the audbon and  sierra club. There is no other explanation for their continued efforts. The professional lobbyists working for those organizations an ones like them that make a living from the controversy continue to push fo more controversy.

Good about time! ;D kitesurfer you and jetty dog are truly unreal get over yourself. Please come to the meetings and voice your one sided thinking. I welcome you to come to all the meetings. Maybe we can leave an area for you to destroy and screw the birds and wildlife!  :o

I really do not think he is saying he wants to destroy the habitat and screw the birds.  His mother taught him that sharing is a good thing... and cannot understand why the Audobon and their lobbyists cannot share.  Birds and humans coexist all the time... limiting human access during hatching or breeding or migration is reasonable... also reasonable is re opening those areas after the birds are gone... or done reproducing... or migrating.

BridgeTroll when it comes to the environment I'm not a real fan of sharing. When we humans have screwed up so much in such little time. Do we need every square inch of beach for are pleasure? I'm really in favor for closing 100% of Huguenot Park forever just for the birds and wildlife at the beach and dune area. But then I said I can bend, how about No vehicles on the beach at all and the beach near the jetty's would be open for people. With a new walkway to be built so the fishermen and beach people can walk in with beach carts and the like.

How generous!  You realize the Huguenot Park beach area and the associated jetties are man made structures... I suppose we could add another man made structure in the form of a giant parking lot in the dunes area and build a walkway to the beach...

Not at all Bridge Troll the added parking would be controlled and limited to only the amount of people that could use the jettys and small beach area. Have you been to Huguenot Park? The parking is made up with shells and the old dunes themselves. The so called campground area could be turned into more natural parking for the beach and jetty people. http://www.coj.net/departments/parks-and-recreation/recreation-and-community-programming/huguenot-memorial-park/huguenot-park-map.aspx look at this map. The only area I would want for people would be near the jettys and the "No Motorized Watercraft Area" a natural or concrete path with little or no damage to the beach itself were the vehicles drive to the beach today would be built. People could be allowed to drop off there friend's and fishing gear closer to the new walkway. So they wouldn't have to walk from the New campground parking area. And then those drivers could be picked up by an GOLF CART ELECTRIC SHUTTLE and be taken down to their friends and family. So BridgeTroll when you say we would have to build Another Giant Parking Lot you're just blowing smoke.

Been there many times... it is a great place for humans and birds... they co exist very well...

The "so called" camping area... is... in fact... a camping area.  Golf cart electric shuttle?  Really?  How 'bout a monorail?

What say you about the fact that the entire area we are talking about is man made?

If_I_Loved_You,
     Since you propose to get rid of the automobiles, what do you propose to do about the ships and their pollutants, which, are far more environmentally damageing to the birds than the cars? What is your plan for them?

Also,Labor Day weekend, I witnessed a 4 wheel drive truck pull out onto the beach with an electric wheelchair in the back, which the occupants unloaded for an elderly man to sit in. I have pictures of  it. Are you proposing to load up those electric wheelchairs on those same electric golf carts and take them and their occupants over to the beach on a (man-made) concrete walkway? We should not be  discriminating against the handicapped, in my opinion. They want to enjoy the birds and the beach as well as we able folks.

Huguenot is dredge spoil from the St. John's put there by the Army Corps of Engineers when they dredged the River for the Mayport Naval Base, I believe. Therefore, man-made.

So, you are proposing to clutter up Nature with more man-made items like bike paths, concrete walkways and such? Sorry, I prefer not to clutter it up more than it already is. I used to come out to Huguenot when it was only 4 Wheel Drive accessible, and , therefore, more natural than it currently is.  I preferred it that way. But since, I cannot have it that way, I'll settle for the current situation. Co-existence with the birds is the only reasonable option. There really are no others of merit.

Wow!  The distortions, half-truths, fictions, and myths continue to pile up.  It's hard to keep track of them all.

If,
You have stated your point of view. No cars on any beach. Period. You have left no consideration for our community to have access to the water or beach. That is your choice. You probably have no interest in fishing, swimming, surfing kiteboarding, kayaking or any other activity that beach access provides. I guess you don't have a dog either.  You probably are not bound to a wheel chair or suffer from other disabilitys. In short you are a physicaly healthy individual  willing to sacrifice everyone elses access to the park to suit your overdeveloped sense of personal morality. You know that the only thing that keeps  Huguenot park open and available to the rest of us is the ability to drive and park on the sand there. You are firmly in the bird lobby camp. You believe there is a cause that is worth all of us giving up the access we enjoy at the park.  So either you are the propagator of lies and misinformation the Audubon and Sierra club spouts over and over or you simply have been misled. I hope it is the latter. That way there might be some way for you to see the truth of the situation. If that is so then go back and reread the posts within this thread withan open mind. Consider the facts for once.

I heard today that the seasonal bird fence has been removed for the year. Another year of responsible, successful coexistence has proven that the people of this community and the bird colony can both use the beach. We are not mutually exclusive as the bird lobby would have us believe. Unfortunately, if past is any indication, they will be back with another round of lies and misinformation. For those of us that love the park and the access it gives us to the beach, river and the waters of Ft.George inlet we must remain vigilant stewards of our access so narrow minded special interest groups don't steal it from us and our families. Enjoy the park and reflect on the efforts of those individuals and local pro-access groups that have fought to keep it open for all.

Quote from: Dog Walker on September 08, 2012, 11:50:43 AM
Wow!  The distortions, half-truths, fictions, and myths continue to pile up.  It's hard to keep track of them all.

Dog Walker,
     Would you care to expound upon exactly which "distortions, half-truths, fictions, and myths" that you referring to ? I know I haven't knowingly misspoke and I don't believe Kitester has either. So, exactly who and what are you referring to ? Thanks.

Wow! I thot I was on the right track. Now I know so. Kitester and I have told nothing but the truth, and , yet, we are are accused of deception, a charge worthy of libel or slander, yet , no charges have come forth. So, are the charges justified or are they false ? Who, now, is telling the truth? Hmmmm, a point to ponder.

I was out at Huguenot yesterday and much dismayed to see several of the PVC posts were gone, taken God knows where, off into the environment somewhere, polluting nature and possibly serving as a bio-hazard to the birds as well as other animals, be they sealife or land mammals. The storms, no doubt , are responsible, but this is an unintended consequence of having put them up to begin with. The city should immediately remove all posts and ropes they were forced to put up, as they are a threat to the environment due to inclement weather.  I did manage to see several osprey and pelicans fishing out there as well as dolphins swimming in the St. John's between Huguenot and Mayport Naval Station. It was a pretty nice out there and even met Reverend Gene Smith and one of his flock, out to take in the park for a little while.

 Shine

    Newbie
    *
    Posts: 47
        View Profile
        Personal Message (Offline)

open
« Sent to: JettyDog on: June 15, 2010, 12:25:08 PM »
« You have forwarded or responded to this message. »

    Reply
    Quote
    Delete

What's up bro?

I get messages from this PM system but they are kind of scrambled when I try to read them on my end.

Anyway, just to give you an update.  I went ahead and got this listed as an agenda item for WWC.  We have a new Chairman comming in, so that may color things a bit. Overall, my goal is to make sure we have as many people, public officals, and advisory bodies on board with keeping HMP open.  At some point, would like to get WWC to endorce plan to keep HMP the way it is.

Cheers!

Scott

If_I_Loved_you

    Hero Member
    *****
    Posts: 521
        View Profile
        Personal Message (Offline)

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha
« Sent to: JettyDog on: November 06, 2012, 02:27:03 PM »

    Reply
    Quote
    Delete

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha a Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha a Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha a Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha a Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha HaHa Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha a Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha  Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha a Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha a Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha a Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha a Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha  8)
"Th-Th-Th-Th-Th-... That's all, folks."

If_I_Loved_You, you sent the following message to me based on Mr. Shine's comments.

My only concern is for the birds, animals and the environment and the negative impact the PVC poles that are wrenched loose from their moorings by Mother Nature. They are an environmental hazard to everything. To respond to my concerns and others concerns with mockery is very disturbing, at the very  least. You should also be concerned about such an impact and take it seriously, in my opinion. We ALL should. And, Mr. Shine's comments , whom I hold in great esteem, were taken out of context to my most recent post calling for the elimination of the PVC posts. He made that comment back in June of 2010, before the storms and uprooting of the man-made barriers. Let's please keep everything in proper context . Thank you. I Remain Your Most Humble Servant, the Jettydog.

If I loved you is just a troll, formerly NorthMiami, formerly KnowGrowth, etc., who has nothing better to do than make fake new screenames about every 6 months and adopt new personas intended to rile people up on the site. He started with pro-suburbia BS, switched to "the blacks caused all the problems," and when that didn't stir up enough response, is now back with this new screename pretending to be a Jesus freak, routinely bombing threads with nonsensical BS just for the hell of it. The rest of us quit paying attention to him back in the NorthMiami days, I'd suggest you fellows do the same.

A troll is a troll is a troll. Sorry, call it like I see it.

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on November 17, 2012, 11:08:35 AM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on November 17, 2012, 10:51:30 AM
A troll is a troll is a troll. Sorry, call it like I see it.

A baby is a baby is a baby. Sorry, call it like I see it.

Rarely does someone so readily confirm an accusation they deny...a true classic.

Once again as spring approaches the nesting season is starting to heat up. Several weeks ago the laughing gull count was already around a thousand and red knots were beginning to feed on the sand bars and mudflats in and around the park. The number of royal terns were not high but we are still a few weeks away from the real beginning of nesting.

Park management is asking for your help. It is up to all of us who use the park and its fantastic waters to maintain a good rapport with the nesting birds and other wildlife found in the area. COJ has done a very good job of providing the necessary signage, posting and public information services. Their team does an excellent job of maintaining and even up grading the park facilities. Not an easy task in our struggling economy. The park remains the best entertainment value in our community. Nowhere else can a family spend the whole day out doors in such a beautiful place for $ 3.00. It's truly a gem. Help us keep our incredible park open for all. Volunteers are welcomed. Inquire at the park entrance or better yet at the nature center near the snack bar. Information will also be on the COJ web site.

So the bird fence has been up since the second week of June. The pond side is still open and fishermen and jet ski fans still have good access up to the big sign post. The front side acces  is by foot only from zone 12 and west ward toward the bridge. There are bird stewards posted under the temporary shelter just inside the bird fence. They are there to INFORM ONLY people who wish to walk, fish, surf or kite on or around the point. They are supposed to ask you if you know about the baby birds and to ask you to walk as far from them as possible. They are not there to prevent access. I was told that they were  at one point attempting to prevent people from taking anything with them to the point including fishing gear. I am also told they have been corrected and will not interfere with public access again. Attempts are still taking place to "invent" nesting activity in the on going effort to close more of the park but they have been short lived as no nesting birds were seen inside those posted areas and have been removed. Additionally there was a report of someone presenting himself as a wildlife officer in an effort to run people(kite surfers) off a nearby beach (not Huguenot Park). It seems to me the Huguenot patrons have been mostly understanding and helpful with the bird protections at the park. We all have a stake in our access and it requires that we share it amicably with the wildlife we find there.

I had a chance to go with some friends several weeks ago to a local beer brewery. The place hosted a number of local business and organizations in the parking lot. It was cool to see the quad cars and exhibits from the Jacksonville Zoo. One of the organizations represented there was the Sierra Club. They had a 10x10 tent like most of the others with a table full of information. I did not stop at their booth as I was more interested in having a beer in the air conditioned brewery. Shortly I headed for a cold one. I found seating for myself and my friends. After a while they came in. When they sat down they asked me if I had stopped at the SC booth. When I said no they told me I should have. My friends wife had been talking to them and mentioned Red Knots. She said the guy in the booth lit up and began to tell her all about Red Knots. It seems they fly from South America to Huguenot Park where they feed on one particular sand bar ( thats a new lie) to build up enough weight for the long flight to the arctic. He began to talk about how they are an endangered species. About that time my friend walked up to hear what the guy was saying. My friend asked a few questions and the man was about to regale him with more "information" when he notice that my friend was wearing a hat promoting kitesurfing. They told me the man stopped talking mid sentence and sat down making a sound of disgust. I guess Sierra Club just assumes that the public will continue to swallow the crap their reps are pumping out. Unfortunately they might. The fact that the guy just shut up when he realized he was talking to better educated people that were already familiar with the very well established truth surrounding Red Knots shows that he knew he was not being truthful. The culture of misinformation , bad information and just plain lies continues in SC and others. It's a shame because the truth about Red knots and other wild life is more interesting than the fictional crap spewed from the mouths of these narrow minded people bent on controlling and manipulating public opinion to suit their narrow point of view. 

After along hiatus, I'm back. I was out of work with an injury for 2 months and unable to make it out to Huguenot but have tried to make up for it recently. Last week, I made a fascinating discovery. I espied  two individuals on the beach , Atlantic side, with a dog. I questioned them about it. The dog's owner told me that the dog in question was a service dog, and that he had suffered a stroke in years past and had to have use of a service animal. He had told me that the City had given him some grief over the dog, but had allowed him to let the dog have access to the park, being it was a service animal. Apparently, Duval Audubon  didn't take service animals in consideration when they forced the city to ban all dogs from shorelines. Therefore, they MAY have discriminated against handicapped individuals who require the services of a service animal in the Park by banning dogs on the beach and restricting them to the environs of the campground. It also MAY restrict  handicapped individuals access to the beach and bay side. Way to go Audubon and Sierra Club members. You folks claim you want to provide access to handicapped individuals,  but don't honor those statements. As we all know, it was Audubon that was taking photos with 35mm zoom lenses of dogs chasing birds from A1A across the Ft. George inlet. That's well documented by the City, as Audubon used the photos to justify moving the dogs down towards the Jetties and restricting their access to most of the Atlantic side beach and ultimately, restricting them to the campgrounds with no shoreline access. I also have issue with the new signs I saw posted (which have since been removed ) which show children and dogs chasing birds. Audubon had the dogs removed from the shorelines, therefore, there is no need to illustrate something that is not occurring. Lastly, the dog owner , before he left , and after several hours of conversation, identified himself as a physician, of some note, whom I knew of by reputation. There's your double bombshell of the summer, Huguenot patrons. As a postscript, the point is now open again, anglers and visitors. Thanks Jax Parks Staff, for another job well done with the birds . Keep up the good work.

Well said jettrydog. The battle is not over. I might just clear up a point though. Audubon has absolutely no say or control over service animal owners on any public lands. They can complain all they want but I believe that right is provided for in our state constitution. Anywhere the public is allowed so service animals are also. The conflict comes from multiple people who have been instructed to inform owners of non-service animals that they must leave the park immediately with their pets. Service animals are the exception and since not every member of the staff might be aware that someone with a service animal is in the park, there could be some misunderstanding. A simple way to fix this would be to train all park personnel to ask first if an animal might be a service animal. I was told that if documentation of the animal as as a service animal is presented the owner is not to be questioned further. It is against the law to even ask what the owners disability is.

The Audubon members have been continuing to try to infiltrate the city's bird steward program. This summer on several occasions city bird steward volunteers jumped to prevent pedestrians from accessing the point. They tried it with fishermen and bicyclists. They were told no one was allowed to carry any items or bike north of the bird rope line. They were quickly caught and retrained or removed from the volunteer roster. So to sum up .... Even if the person has a bird steward vest on they can not prevent any pedestrian or bicycle traffic in any area of the park at any time. They are only allowed to point out baby birds on the beach a ask that pedestrians provide as much distance between themselves and the fledglings. If a member of the public is seen to harass the fledglings they can ask them not to and they may call the park office or wildlife center to report the incident. People who disturb, threaten or harass the babies may be escorted out of the park by park management.

Huguenot park is once again completely open for beach driving. The sand on the point is plenty hard for the carefull beach driver. Most people who go out there will have either the knowlage and expierence to drive the beach or will be in a car or truck that can easily handle most of the areas out there but you can still get stuck in a few places.

As time goes by erosion is displacing more dune sand onto the point. During the last Northeaster another 2 feet was lost in some places on the Atlantic side. The small slough that was forming right next to the no driving signs was filled in  so there is more open sand between them and the larger, deeper one at low tide.  The last time i was in the deeper slough it was about four and a half feet deep and the current was strong so be carefull if you plan to swim or have small children out there. The area is always changing. Now is a great time to vist the park. If you like the beach you should go and enjoy it there.

Don't most service dogs have a vest, or collar that indicates they are obviously a service animal?  I  would think this would be required, sort of like having a placard to park in the handicapped space.

I don't know if there is a requirement for service animals to wear or display identifying vests or collars. I have seen many service animals that only had regular collars on and some with vests or harnesses.

It's about that time again. The birds are amassing at the park, pairing up and doing the wild thing. As happens about this time every year there are bird protections and education for the public to be aware of at Huguenot. The birds arrived just a bit later this year so the "bird fence" should go up after Memorial Day, probably the week after. City trained bird stewards will be in place under the temporary shelter just inside the roped off area. As always it is still ok to walk up to the point. You can fish, look for shells, swim, surf or even ride your bike up there.  Just be sure you give the new chicks as much room as possible. It might be necessary to walk in knee deep water at high tide to get around them. The idea is not to make them run away. The less disturbance the better. Remember your access is at stake!  Also if you plan to drive up to the rope line remember that the tide might be coming in. It can get crowded near the line and you want to park as high up on the beach as possible. Don't leave your car for very long. The profile of the beach has changed and there is no beach at high tide this year. Low tide is between 11:30 and 1pm through the weekend with a plus 5ft. That means you might want to consider driving off the beach by around 3:30 or 4pm.  Check local tide notifications and at the front gate. I would guess that they will have to stop people from coming in sometime around 3 depending on the numbers. Enjoy your Memorial Day !

Just an update .....the bird fence is up and the back lane around the pond is closed. Too bad for anyone who wants to fish or launch a boat or jet ski. There is a deeper, faster channel across the point that remains full and flowing at low tide. Be aware of the tide direction if you plan to cross to the sandbars north of the park.

Well here is another kick in the teath. After all the Years of working with the city and the navy, after all the years of promoting safety and responisbility, after all the years of fighting for access to the last real place people can go to access the water and beaches of north Florida the most concerned pro community access advocates have been delt an under handed  back door deal. It's clear that no effort was given to reach out to and understand the kiters of our community. They have been lumped in with parasailers, which doesn't even take place at the park. What is different from the last twenty  years and today? Not one damn thing. It was never a problem (except to the environmentalists who want to remove all the people from Huguenot park). Kiters were given EXPRESS permission to enjoy the sport precisely because we were never a threat to any public safety. Kiters have fought for everyone's access. Why? Because they were singled out as the one group that stood in the way of removing public access to the park. Who stood up and raised the alarm when Audubon sponsored by Sierra Club tried to close the park (and was actually successful for 24 hours)? Who has done more beach cleaning? Who has saved over 40 people that were in real danger of drowning at the park? KITEBOARDERS that's who. Without acolades they have worked long and hard to build bridges and open discussion.They were told that there was no plan to kick them out of the park. That no action would take place to alter the long established kiting use at the park. ALL LIES! Anyone who might be interested in ever enjoying the park should take note. When kiters told pet owners that they would be removed from the park no one beleved it. Where are dog owners now? Not at the park! This is the next step to closing the gates at Huguenot Park. Take note. It's. coming. As the voice of opposition is diminished so will the voice for access be diminished.