Huguenot Park - Your access today!

[fieldafm]

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).

[north miami]

"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.

[BridgeTroll]

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

[north miami]

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.

[kitester]

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.           

[BridgeTroll]

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.

[kitester]

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.   

[Springfielder]

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.

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.

[kitester]

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.   

[Springfielder]

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.

[Springfielder]

+1000 

[kitester]

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?

[kitester]

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.   

[Springfielder]

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.

[kitester]

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.