This debate's for the birds

Having dealt with these little critters elsewhere it is certainly important to protect endangered species, however not all plovers are the same.

In the mid-regions of the nation (Great Lakes and vicinity) they are "endangered" but along the Atlantic coast from MD to ME they are "threatened" which is a lesser situation. It means that a management plan is desired to increase the dwindling population.

Elsewhere in New England US Fish & Wildlife staff have closed entire tracts of their preserves for these critters, totally banning the public from miles of beach.

Now, that said, under the USFWS management plans published dating back through the mid-80s, one will find that they have published reports stating that "X" number of nesting pairs of these birds were needed to be maintained so as to sustain the species before these beaches could be re-open to public access. Sounds great on paper suggesting that after a certain level is reached the beach re-opens. Got that?

Except that in every year that the USFWS has published their plans, they keep increasing that number, effectively creating a defacto closure of their lands.

Also while they are required to hold public meetings on such plans, they are not required to accept any public vote or do what the people want or request. They are empowered by Congress to do their thing so these public meetings are at best lip service. They are required by law to seek public input. They ARE NOT REQUIRED by law to fulfill the will of the people.

As long as they keep doing this, the birds will indeed increase their population. Of course they will outgrow the limited USFWS nesting habitats and need other feeding spaces (they are shore feeders and move from their nests at the edge of the dunes to the water's edge to feed).

So as Duxbury Beach closes, this is only the herald of more shore to be closed to public access as that population increases and needs more space. Think sprawl.

Back in the 80s, a beach recreation group I was with hired their own well-established ornithologist (bird expert) and they found the plan to protect these critters at Cranes Beach, under private operation by the Trustees of the Reservations, worked the best as it shielded the nests with a cage that kept out the predators, allowed the bird to thrive and move effortlessly between the nest and shore, and included a public education component.

At Cranes, the population soared.

However, as noted above, USFWS is not required to accept any public input even if it is a better plan than their own, which is to shut the place up and let Mother Nature chart the course, even if it results in a lesser population. Oh, wait, aren't they trying to increase the population?

Insanity prevails.

And the nesting season is much longer than they are saying. Whole tracts of beach could be closed through September if the parent birds get a second clutch laid in the nest or start laying eggs later in the season. Typically USFWS lands close in April and won't re-open till after Labor Day, and sometimes well into October. So much for summer at the beach

As to getting your money back for the un-usable beach permit... Rotas Ruk Charlie.

By the way, the studies used to make up these rules include material taken from one beach, that has no resemblance to the next one, but is applied globally to their advantage and desire. It can be read easily in their publicly published materials. I remember reading in one that all beaches had to be closed to all public access due to off-road vehicles or fishermen in trucks. That rule was applied, to close a whole beach, even though the beach in question already had a state ban on vehicular traffic. They used that to close the beach anyway.

By the way, the area where they closed the beach I speak of had their tourist economy tank.

Best wishes.