Last month, Larry Hardham brought me some photos that his son took at three Florida beaches at the height of the sea turtle nesting season.
Larry is president of the Cape Hatteras Anglers Club and a board member of the Outer Banks Preservation Association. He was also a member of the negotiated rulemaking committee that met for months to try to come up with an ORV rule at Cape Hatteras. And he knows more about sea turtles than any other non-scientist I know ? maybe even any scientist.
Although I have been reporting on and writing about sea turtle nesting on the Cape Hatteras National Seashore for almost two decades, I was amazed and astounded when I looked at Chris Hardham?s photos.
Even though the nesting sea turtles are federally protected as endangered or threatened, there are apparently regional differences in how they are protected.
Here on the seashore, we reached a record 112 turtle nests last year.
The nests have been protected by the Park Service for years.
Each nest is marked with stakes and string, and when it approaches its hatch date, the Park Service biotechnicians ?expand? the nest by creating a path for the hatchings to take to the ocean with dark, fabric screening to guide the turtles to the ocean.
The expansion closes down pedestrian and off-road vehicle access between the nest and the ocean, and often it cuts off access behind the nest also, depending on how close the nest is to the dunes.
The same protections apply to beaches that are open to driving during the nesting season, and those that are not ? including those in front of the island?s villages.
Beginning May 1, 2008, protections for nesting sea turtles on the seashore were expanded to include a ban on driving on the beach between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m.
Park Service biotechnicians patrol the beaches every morning, painstakingly marking each nest and checking on it ? at a good deal of taxpayer expense.
This is not the case at many beaches in Florida, where the protection of nests appears to be much less intensive.
Florida is the epicenter of sea turtle nesting in the southeastern United States, but I was surprised to hear the numbers there when our record was last year?s 112 nests.
Also, last year was a good year for turtle nesting all along the North Carolina coast. There were 866 nests, compared to an average of 715. Most of the nests in our area are laid by loggerhead sea turtles, federally listed as threatened.
Last year on Florida?s 800 miles of coastline, there were 62,000 loggerhead nests.
Yes, that is 62,000, which is down from a high of 84,000 nests, according to Robin Trindell, a biological administrator with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission.
Here are some interesting facts about protections for the nests in Florida
? Management varies on the state?s beaches, but on many beaches, especially in urban areas, turtle nests are not even marked. A biologist or volunteer may make notes each day on new nests, but that?s it. So beach visitors in some areas could well be sitting right on top of the nests.
? On other beaches the nests are marked with small stakes and some string in the shape of a triangle about a foot on each side. Beachgoers can sit right next to the stakes.
? In Palm Beach County, visitors are advised to ?place umbrellas only in the upper 12 inches of sand? to avoid disturbing unmarked nests.
Now this really surprised me and might be surprising to others who are used to the measures that protect turtles and their nests here.
A cynical person might think that Florida?s more lax protections are really protecting the tourism industry.
After all, with 62,000 nests from only loggerheads on the coast, how much room would be left for visitors if all of the nests were marked?
The answer is not much.
At John D. MacArthur Beach State Park, no nests are marked because in 1.5 miles of beach, there might be thousands of nests, said park manager Don Bergeron.
A brochure from Palm Beach County notes that there is an average of 14,000 nests a year on the county?s 45 miles of beach.
The shoreline in the areas of Juno and Jupiter beach has up to 1,000 nests per mile.
However, Trindell from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission and Bergeron say this is not so.
?We like to protect our turtles in Florida,? Trindell said in an interview, ?but we have such a high number of nests and we do have a share the beach philosophy.?
She noted that in some more rural areas of the state, there is more vigorous marking and monitoring of nests.
Trindell and Bergeron also say that marking every nest would block the path for other females coming ashore to lay a nest.
And they both noted that poaching turtle eggs has been a problem in Florida. Apparently they are considered a delicacy in some cultures. So not marking has its advantages.
In addition, very few Florida beaches allow driving. Many, including MacArthur State Park, are closed at night even to pedestrians.
Some beaches are required to rake the sand at the end of each day to help hatchlings to the water.
Bergeron says MacArthur does not allow such items as beach chairs or umbrellas during nesting season ? though apparently visitors can spread a towel and sit on a nest.
Predators, especially raccoons, are a problem on some beaches, and Trindell notes that screens or cages are used at some nest sites.
Also, many Florida municipalities have very strict nighttime lighting regulations on the oceanfront.
?It?s been a long, hard battle,? Bergeron said, ?but most communities now embrace the idea.?
Trindell added that the state does not allow moving nests, even those threatened by ocean overwash.
?If you have a natural beach, you have good years and bad years,? Bergeron said about overwash at MacArthur.
It?s interesting to explore how another state handles protecting federally listed sea turtles.
The assumption is that rules and regulations to protect these sea turtles apply to all, but that?s not exactly so.
I haven?t decided what the message is for us at Cape Hatteras.
Should we be happy we have only 104 nests this year?
Or should we wish for thousands of nests that would make marking them inconvenient or impractical?
(Slide show photos were taken at Ocean Reef County Park on Singer Island, just north of Palm Beach, at John D. MacArthur Beach State Park in northern Palm Beach County, and in the Juno Beach-Jupiter area.)
For more information
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission — http://myfwc.com/
Juno-Jupiter Beach area ? www.marinelife.org
John D. MacArthur Beach State Park ? www.macarthurbeach.com
Palm Beach County ? www.co.palm-beach.fl.us/erm
Well folks, I hope you don?t mind, but I?ll tell you what it means.
It means that the waste of our tax dollars up here is an absolute fallacious outrage!
It just shows how irrational things can get when the “local biological experts” are allowed to make their own rules. They make rules that help assure their own long-term employment.
I found the sign in the slide show showing over 3,133 Loggerhead nests in a 5 1/2 mile stretch of Jupiter/Juno Beach to be astounding! In Florida people sit on the nests, play volleyball on the nests, dig in the sand over the nests, the wildlife folks drive their vehicles up and down the beach over all the unmarked nests and when they hatch, the biologists in Florida understand that the turtles know where the ocean is! (they don?t build fences to guide the hatchlings)
Up here, the biologists go out every morning and check each and every nest (yep, it looks like it did yesterday and the day before, a patch of bare sand ? but you never know ? a Martian spaceship could have landed right on one of the nests since I looked at it yesterday morning!).
The fact is that we have to many biologists employed by the Park Service up here. And this is their way of “staying busy” so that we, the taxpayers, will have to keep paying their salaries.
I will say it again ? it is an outrage.
Remember its not about the turtles or the birds, as can be seen by the different actions and tatics taken by NPS and local GFW in other states to protect species. There is no good reason why corridors for ORV?s and pedestrians cannot be made thru closure areas to allow access to open portion of the beaches and there is no good reason why you cant drive at night. Bottom line is they are trying to take our beaches all over the country. Veterans fight for your freedom, you have to fight for your rights.
So, the two areas have nothing in common, but they?re being compared, why?
Oh, the fencing is used to block light pollution, not ?guide [them] to the ocean?.
Interesting Crot that when differences in protection are shown that indicate Fla is more lax, the areas have nothing in common.
Yet at REG–NEG it was Fla data that was presented to justify prohibiting vehicles on the beach here at night even if the vehicle went out before curfew and remained stationary without lights until after curfew.
Looks like cherry picking what?s desired as common to me.
So the two areas have nothing in common….yes….I see…..what could two states with very POPULAR PUBLIC BEACHES ……. that border on the SAME ATLANTIC OCEAN …..that are enforcing the SAME FEDERAL LAWS……. in protecting the SAME FEDERALLY LISTED SEA TURTLES…..possibly have in common.
Thanks for this blog, Irene. Very timely. And, SJ, ?cherry picking? is the perfect phrase. Last summer CNN Heroes reported on a Jamaican woman who is protecting a five-mile stretch of beach which routinely provides space for SIX THOUSAND leatherbacks turtle nests.
Thank you Chris and Larry Hardham and Irene! This shows what really happens in the outside world. Here at Hatteras, we refuse to face the facts that ORVs and pedestrians have only killed at the most 1 turtle in recent years that has been documented. In the same years, CAHA records show that almost 5O% of the turtle nests (of over 100 eggs each) are lost to storms. Many eggs and hatchlings are killed by ghost crabs and other predators. There are other ways to save turtles at less cost than is now attempted with poor success.
How many nests have been lost this year so far? How many hatchlings have made it to the water? What happened to the only endangered turtle nest this year?
How much of the beach has been made inaccessible by closures? How many rental homes, campsites haven?t been rented this year because of the restrictions on beach usage? How many businesses have failed because of lack of tourists? How many islanders are unemployed because lack of tourist business? How many children have been denighed safe swimming areas? How many surfers couldn?t use the special areas because of closures? How many families couldn?t use/enjoy the special places that are only at Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area?
What is the total cost for this great injustice that is not based on science, economics, or law of our country?
THESE beaches have nothing in common ? no ORVs and closed at night, not ALL Florida beaches.
They are also not federal beaches and the applicable regs are different.
OK Crot I think I?ve got it now on the nothing in common.
Different sand, different salt water, different people, different turtles there than here, right?????
Jimmy,
You forgot; different state, different state regs, state and/or municipal parks not federal parks, and not representative of all the nesting beaches in Florida.
Well Crot your rationale says Daytona that was used at REG–NEG certainly has no commonality with CHNSRA.
Crotalus, when you stand up for your arguments in person I will be glad to give them some weight and welcome them in finding a balance between nature and human access.
My mother taught me not to accept information from the “Man Behind The Curtain”; you never know exactly what his agenda is.
I recognize that you probably have some reason to not be known. You may be afraid of harassment from the people you know who don’t agree with your position. It’s a reasonable fear when tempers are running high and people are loosing their jobs and way of life.
This fear all began with the Avon incident, where the local population came out to protest the loss of access. Signs and banners were displayed; the protestors took photos and exercised their right to be heard. This caused the access opposition to complain that they were in some sort of danger from the pitchforks and torches of the villagers.
No one threw red paint on someone wearing clothes they didn’t agree with, no one drove spikes into trees, no one burned a car dealership and no one torched a subdivision.
All in all it was a pretty mild protest as things go in the world of protest, yet it was enough to have the negotiations moved to a “secure area” and the access movement moved with it. Willing to go on camera, identify them self and stand up for what they believed in.
It’s interesting that the opposition to broadcasting the proceedings came from the environmental groups. This seems to be a case of “do as I say not as I do”, because they surely do like to do, when it comes to grabbing media attention.
So stay behind the curtain while the rest of us try to figure out what will make things right down here at the Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area.
Man Up Dude or stay out of it.
Jimmy,
I would agree Daytona is only applicable with regard to the issues of beach driving and sea turtle nesting that both areas share.
Did you see the slide show? Did you notice anything peculiar in slide 8? Look at it and then read this: http://www.islandfreepress.org/2009Archi..
John,
I hear what you?re sayin?. It shouldn?t matter what person is saying what, the facts won?t change.
If someone is wrong, it should be easily proven no matter what their name is. Other than dismissing someone?s argument because of who they are ? or in this case because who they are is unknown, rather than refuting what they say, there?s no advantage.
If I?m wrong, I?ll willingly admit it.
You are cherry picking Crot with the vehicle thing. You can?t have it both ways. The Fla beach cited in this blog has pedestrians, for example, just like we have pedestrians.
Why don?t you just spell out your point about slide 8 and the IFP article. I see nothing peculiar about slide 8 in the REG–NEG presentation, other than it uses ?Potential?, meaning it is speculation not fact. But perhaps the article study cited might eventually prove and/or disprove the ?potential?.
Are you being deliberately obtuse?
Unless your solution to the problem is to manage CAHA beaches in the manner the beaches are managed at these Florida beaches ? closed at night and no ORVs, they?re irrelevant to the turtle management issues here.
ORVs and the issues and management of them anywhere in the world where turtles nest, is relevant to the issues here.
I was referring to the slide show Irene posted above. But, based upon the turtle tracks, can you determine the direction of the ocean?
Crot,
I quote you:
Oh, the fencing is used to block light pollution, not “guide [them] to the ocean.?
Interesting but not altogether correct. In Pea Island Wildlife Preserve that is within the boundaries of the National Seashore Recreational Area, these fences are quite different than in the NPS part of the seashore. NPS has wide ?what is it 50 feet across? ? fences to guide the turtles back to the ocean and/or restrict light sources, but if you will please go to these closures and do some line of sight checks of headlights, hand carried flashlights, home lighting or what ever you will discover that your fencing has no ability to remove the magor part of light entering the nest area in the center of the nest. Also these enclosures reach all the way to the dune ? not for the turtles safety, but to restrict vehicle traffic around them. Oh and for goodness sake, do not let some dingbat in your eye and the true off road users eye damage a nest area and have NPS put the fencing further from the nest.
Now go to Pea Island Refuge and check their fencing that is only 18 inches across going to the surf line and only a very few feet behind the nest. But, of course, this type of fencing cost less, does a better job and allows access behind. NPS in its wisdom would never want that to happen.
Frank, or Fran,
Both McDonalds and Burger King sell hamburgers??
The NPS did not establish the distance that must be closed behind a nest. But you knew that.
If I get my choice I want the Burger King Angry Whopper with an extra helping of jalepeno peppers.
You got me on the distance behind the nest as that is a part of the wonderful consent decreeof which I had no part. How about the 50 feet in width, check your source on where that came from please, but I beleive that it has been in effect since well before the environmental special interest groups began their agenda.
Not being obtuse and never stated a solution. Just challenging your all inclusive statement that was then followed in another post with cherry picking re vehicles.
?THESE beaches have nothing in common ? nothing being the operative word since both have pedestrians.
Re direction of ocean in blog slide 8, possibly toward upper left because of what looks like a wrack line there.
Frank, or Fran,
My source is the FONSI, not the Happy Days one, but the one (Interim Plan) that went though NEPA.
http://parkplanning.nps.gov/showFile.cfm?projectId=13331&docType=public&MIMEType=application%252Fpdf&filename=CAHA%5FIPSMS%5FFONSI%5FFinal071307%2Epdf&clientFilename=CAHA%5FIPSMS%5FFONSI%5FFinal071307%2Epdf
It?s in the tables at the end. Page 36-37.
It?s 75 feet for remote beaches w/little pedestrian traffic and no ORVs
150 feet for villages and heavily pedestrian beaches
350 feet for ORV beaches
There is also a requirement for at least 30 feet behind the nest, or access is closed.
Jimmy,
The issue was ORVs and the protection of turtle nests on CAHA, compared to beaches that do not have to protect them from ORVS. So, unless your solution is to manage ORVs on CAHA?s beaches in the same manner, no they have nothing in common.
I tried to tell by the turtle tracks and couldn?t. They?re traveling both ways. A light pollution problem it seems.
Managing turtles is not managing people. It NPS, FWS, and NCWRC want more turtle hatchlings in the ocean, they need to manage the turtles. Face the fact that storms and predators kill the gestational turtles, not people. Providing safe areas or a hatchery are the only way to truly prevent the threatened turtles from becoming endangered or extinct. What do you truly want, turtles in the water or people, ORVs and pedestrians, off the beach? Face it, all current attempts presently being carried out at great NPS and island expense don?t work. Your great FWS resource person who compaired Datona Beach to CAHA, actually told us all that turtles are not bothered by brief lights but the continual light glow of the island.
Crot,
Another question since it seems that you have provided some relevant answers to my questions.
1. Do you agree with the distances in the quotes you supplied?
2. Why the difference in what is done in Pea Island and on NPS Seashore juriosdiction?
3. Do you disagree with USFW in Pea Island?
Crot,
Again I never stated a solution. Just challenging the use of ?nothing?. Not woth going further with that issue.
Now tell use your thoughts on why we are not being allowed to take a vehicle onto the beach before the 2200 curfew and leave it there parked with no lights on until after the 0600 curfew end.
The reason given at REG–NEG by NPS is that there was concern that eventually someone would deem an ?emergency? existed requiring them to drive off the beach. Seems a reasonable risk particularly when the same ?emergency? could exist with a person stuck with a long walk.
Plus anywhere a vehicle could go would have to have a pass behind the nest or the vehicle could not be beyond a nest and in a position to have to go on the ocean side of a nest.
Barbara,
I don?t have a ?FWS resource person?. She was also talking about lighting like the lighthouses.
Frank, or Fran,
1. Not completely.
2. I would assume the state permitted them to do so because of the few nests they get ?
Jimmy,
I don?t oppose ?park and stay? at your won risk, but also realize that would require night patrols onto the beach by marine fisheries and/or park law enforcement.
Sorry, my post got cut off for some reason.
Frank, or Fran,
1. Not completely.
2. I haven?t cared enough to investigate it, but I would assume the state permitted them to do so because of the few nests they get ?
Night patrols?????
What do you think happened in the past before the curfew or for that matter now during the night permit period or the period now after no permit is needed ????
Frank, or Fran,
Finishing my post:
2? less than one percent of the nesting population.
3. Yes. I do not believe it?s best for the species to move nests unless they?re in obvious danger.
Jimmy,
It still requires them to drive out ? using their lights. When the entire purpose for ?Park and Stay? is no headlights that would disturb the turtles.
Crot,
Sorry you got cut off on your answers, but while I do not agree with your answers they are well put together and show that while you are an avid turtle protector, you could probab;y have sat on neg reg or within a group of user groups and explored different ideas and possibly reached some middle ground we al could have lived with.
While you say that USFW at Pea Island is allowed by the state to be different than NPS in the seashore confuses me. Are you saying that if our state turtle people were to say that no or minimal protection similar to those seen in some Florida seashores that NPS would follow those guidelines? You are correct that north of us at Oregon Inlet and to some degree there are less nests, but if you go south of South Carolina and look to their north we are insugnificant and should not worry about protecting the less than 10 % that do nest north of there. While I only sat on neg reg and got what little knowledge about turtles that I have from that ordeal, you seem to have a better knowledge of turtle nesting than I do that only leads me to less understanding and more questions about the science in NC being more bunk than fact. If science were used there would be more standard practices used up and down the coast and less environmental s[ecial interest groups using mumbo jumbo to cause our seashore to be what it was not intended to be when it was established.
There have been no turtle nests on Bodie Island. Therefore, there should be no restrictions on nighttime driving
Barbara,
Well, I don?t think there have been very many nests in the last few years, but I would agree.
Frank, or Fran.
The goal isn?t to use the best available science. If it were, we both know the science tells us the species will be most successful without recreational or other human activities occurring in their breeding habitat.
The goal is to manage those activities in such a manner as to cause the least amount of harm. The reason there are such divergent management practices throughout the breeding range is due to hundreds of different property owners with as many different uses/mandates and/or mission statements of/for the property.
Generally, I have the impression that all the USFWS cares about are the impoundments/habitat they?ve created on Pea Island and even the species which may nest around them are secondary, and the species which nest on the beach are even further down on their list of priorities.
By the way, I?ve always found the ?established as? argument as pretty weak. This Nation was ?established as? a Republic in which the only persons allowed to have any political say were land-owning white males and slavery was allowed.
Surely you would agree there is precedent for re-evaluation and modification.
Parking lights, Crot, parking lights. We have used them for years to keep from disturbing the fish. I submit they should be fine for the occasional NPS / MF patrol to not disturb turtles.
In my many years since about 1970 I?ve never seen NPS / MF out there in the middle of the night anyway. I?m sure they occasionally are but my experience says it is few and far between.
Again reasonable risk to allow public access.
Jimmy,
Do you think you can see a nesting sea turtle covered in sand with parking lights?
Yes and I?ve done it. You know they are fairly big and leave a pretty big track so applying common sense (ie going slow) seeing one is not a problem.
Jimmy,
Well, we know you and I would apply common sense?..
Crot
Too bad we don?t know you.
OBTW I guess night patrols by NPS / MFP are not required for pedestrians during the vehicle curfew since pedestrians are allowed on the beach during curfew. Your logic on patrols would indicate they are only needed for the Redneck, Bubba, ORV driving Beach Bums.
Jimmy,
Can you quantify that?
Crot,
Note sure what you want quantified but your two posts below imply patrols are only needed if vehicles are out there at night.
A person can park at say Ramp 23 parking area between curfew hrs of 2200 ? 0600, walk out carrying/dragging whatever they want, have lights, tramp on anything they don?t see, fish, stargaze, have a fire (albeit not legally after 0000) etc. etc.
But only vehicles out there would require patrols ??????
[quote]
Jimmy,
I don’t oppose “park and stay” at your won risk, but also realize that would require night patrols onto the beach by marine fisheries and/or park law enforcement.
Jimmy,
It still requires them to drive out – using their lights. When the entire purpose for “Park and Stay” is no headlights that would disturb the turtles.
[unquote]
Jimmy,
The point was to quantify how many ?rednecks and bubbas? (assuming by that you meant irresponsible visitors) there are in every 10 ORV drivers.
If someone walks out onto the beach, why would patrols need to drive?
My redneck/bubba comment was a cynical reference to the article in Audubon magazine.
My guess is NPS / MF patrols are not going to walk the several miles to places like Cape Point or where someone has walked over between say Ramps 23 ? 27 from the Hwy. I?m sure they would consider the time involved to do such a foot check very inefficient. IMHO they drive or don?t check such places.