Huguenot Park - Your access today!

[kitester]

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.                

[Ocklawaha]

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

[Springfielder]

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. 

[Ocklawaha]

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

[Springfielder]

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.

[BridgeTroll]

Is there a compromise to be found...likely

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

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.

This shows it can work without draconian measures...

[Springfielder]

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

[BridgeTroll]

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

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.

[Springfielder]

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

[kitester]

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.             

[buckethead]

So much for Dawrinism.

[Charles Hunter]

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).

[buckethead]

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

Is nuclear fusion unnatural?

[urbanlibertarian]

Death to the Laughing Gulls!!! 

[floridaforester]

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.