Huguenot Park - Your access today!

[JettyDog]

Your responses are censored!

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

[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.
     

[Dog Walker]

Interesting video on jacksonville.com today:

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

[Springfielder]

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.

[Springfielder]

Interesting video on jacksonville.com today:

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.

[Springfielder]

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.

[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.

[Springfielder]

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.

[JettyDog]

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.

[Springfielder]

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.

[kitester]

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.   

[kitester]

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.       

[Shine]

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?

[kitester]

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!

[farawaybabyna]

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.