A New Rule Balances Wildlife and Off-Road-Vehicle Use on a North Carolina Beach
Comments
For a scientist, you're not
Submitted by Cro (not verified) on Mon, 2012/06/18 - 5:45pm.
For a scientist, you're not making much sense.
First, the piping plover's Atlantic coast population doesn't stop at our border with Canada. The last I read, there were more than 200 pair north of the border. Habitat loss and conversion has precipitated the decline of the PIPL more than any other factor. And yes, when you have a reduced population, natural phenomena have an increased impact on the populations. Which as you should know, increases the importance of having a wide distribution of the species so the effects of singular events' - storms, disease, etc - on the entire population are minimized.
It has been known for many decades that beach nesting species are prone to lose both nests and chicks to ORVs on the beach and that other human disturbance also contribute to nest and chick losses for all the beach nesting species. (do a lit search, start with Wilcox, The Auk, 1959 ) The decision to regulate ORVs is based on the law (an executive order mandating agencies in the executive branch comply with NEPA), not just plover numbers. The extent of those regulations do address impacts to the resource and protections for all beach nesting species, not just the piping plover.
Do you need a refresher in population ecology and genetics as well? You should know that we can't keep nibbling at the edges of a population's distribution until it's finally isolated into a single location. The results can be bottlenecks, disease and vulnerability to catastrophic events.
And finally, no one has said ORV use on the beach is the only cause of reduced populations - habitat loss, followed by introduced exotic/invasive species are - but it and other human disturbances are contributing factors. Again, all you need to do is search the literature. Surely you don't suggest, as others have, that since we can't control the natural factors, we should not control the things we can control, like ORVs and other human disturbance which negatively impact beach nesting species?
All I could find in a lit search shows the majority of your work was in the efficacy of urban insecticides (on cockroaches) for a chemical manufacturer, and not the recovery of endangered or threatened populations/ecology, no?
ORV Beach Closures on the OBX
Submitted by Thomas S Gallo (not verified) on Fri, 2012/06/22 - 8:56pm.
The only thing I regret is not answering your response earlier Mr. or is it Ms. Cro. At least I had the integrity and HONESTY to submit my name and e-mail address when I posted my comments. Can you say the same? If you respond to these comments, please include your full name so I can google your qualifications as you did mine.
I really don’t know where to start to answer your pathetic response to my comments. I have to admit your following words angered me at bit…quote ”All I could find in a lit search shows the majority of your work was in the efficacy of urban insecticides (on cockroaches) for a chemical manufacturer, and not the recovery of endangered or threatened populations/ecology, no” Were these last words in your response entered to discredit me and garner a favorable monetary response from some of the blind contributors to the Audubon Society?
After reading your response, I see you DID NOT provide any concrete statistical data-justifying beach closures only a lot of hot air. My whole premise is based on statistics and not inference. You state, quote…”Surely you don’t suggest, as others have, that since we can’t control the natural factors, we should not control things we can control, like ORV’s and other human disturbance which negatively impact beach nesting species?” This statement of yours exactly makes my point, WHERE is your statistical data to show that ORV’s impact beach nesting species? The simple answer is that you or no one else has any.
For this discussion we are only talking about Piping Plover numbers in the OBX and not in Canada as stated in the first paragraph of your response. I got the 2008 Piping Plover numbers for my response from the following:
References Cited
Calvert, A.M., D.L. Amirault, F. Shaffer, R. Elliot, A. Hanson, J. McKnight and P.D. Taylor. 2006. Population assessment of an endangered shorebird: the piping plover (Charadrius melodus melodus) in eastern Canada. Avian Conservation and Ecology 1(3): 4. Accessed on April 30, 2008 at http://www.ace-eco.org/vol1/iss3/art4/.
Hecht, A., and S.M. Melvin. 2009. Population trends of Atlantic Coast piping plovers, 1986-2006. Waterbirds 32:64-72.
Melvin, S.M., and J.P. Gibbs. 1996. Viability analysis for the Atlantic Coast population of piping plovers. Pages 175-186 in Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus) Atlantic Coast Population: Revised Recovery Plan. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Hadley, Massachusetts.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Piping plover (Charadrius melodus), Atlantic Coast population, revised recovery plan. Hadley, Massachusetts.
Recommended citation: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Abundance and productivity estimates: Atlantic Coast piping plover population, 1986-2008. Sudbury, Massachusetts. 4 pp.
I look forward to your response, if you have one, especially the listing of your full name.
You can just call me Cro
Submitted by Cro (not verified) on Sun, 2012/06/24 - 4:05pm.
You claimed to be an scientist so as to elevate your statement above those made by other "non-scientists", so I looked up your name in the scientific literature and found out you have no experience relevant to the subject. You agree don't you that being a scientist doesn't make one an expert in all areas of science? You're the one who tried to portray yourself as a subject expert.
I've not claimed to be an expert, nor have I set myself up so that others accept my statements as fact because I claim to be a scientist or subject expert. My statements can be verified by anyone who wants to know the truth and aren't subject to "take my word for it because I'm a "scientist". I'm not asking anyone to accept anything because of some title I may hold - and only ask that they do their own homework. So who I am, or what my expertise is, isn't relevant.
What statistical data do you need? Anything >0 is all that's required:
Piping Plover Mortalities Caused by Off-Road Vehicles on Atlantic Coast Beaches
Scott M. Melvin, Anne Hecht and Curtice R. Griffin
Wildlife Society Bulletin
Vol. 22, No. 3 (Autumn, 1994), pp. 409-414
(it's a global issue)
Buick, AM and Paton, DC (1989) . Impact of Off-road Vehicles on the Nesting Success of Hooded Plovers Charadrius rubricollis in the Coorong Region of South Australia. Emu 89 , 159–172.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/MU9890159
Google Scholar has 3,350 hits for "human disturbance piping plover"
Google Scholar has 1,340 hits for "off road vehicles piping plover"
Again, it's not just about plover:
Google Scholar has 6,070 hits for "human disturbance colonial waterbirds"
Google Scholar has 1,370 hits for "off road vehicles colonial waterbirds"
Google Scholar has 2,030 hits for "human disturbance American oystercatcher"
Google Scholar has 907 hits for "off road vehicles American oystercatcher"
Google Scholar has 20.100 hits for "human disturbance sea turtle"
Google Scholar has 18,000 hits for "off road vehicle sea turtle"
Just in case you think it's an aberration or people are just making it up that human activities negatively impact wildlife:
Google Scholar has 50,000 hits for "human disturbance breeding wildlife"
Google Scholar has 21,700 hits for "off road vehicles breeding wildlife"
There may be some repeats.
You're the one who introduced the issue of populations outside of North Carolina, but now they're not relevant? Okay.
I'll also add that while everyone whines about the plover chick buffers of 1,000 meters, the recent history is that the other, smaller multiple species closures overlap and/or preclude access to those areas protected for the plover (to emphasis the point again, that it's not just about plover). Look at the multiple annual report maps.
Obx Orv Restrictions
Submitted by Thomas S Gallo (not verified) on Mon, 2012/06/25 - 5:36pm.
Well you didn’t disappoint me Mr. or Ms. Cro. Just as I suspected, you choose to hide in the shadows not identifying yourself as to your qualifications while demeaning others. I ask again, what qualifications do you have to comment on this subject?
I suggest you take a course in statistics. The subject covers ALL areas of science be it entomology or population ecology. I NEVER portrayed myself as an expert in population ecology. Those are your words not mine. Yours is just another instance of trying to make a case of incrimination by inference, which is similar to the consent decree.
You say, quote.” I set myself up so that others accept my statements as fact because I claim to be a scientist or subject expert.” Well you finally said something that is correct. My statements are fact. There is no statistical data incriminationg ORV’s rather than population dynamics, climate, or predators for the low numbers of Piping Plovers on the OBX. Anyone, including you, can do a literature search as I did and not find any statistrical data.
You show your ignorance of statistics when you say..quote ” What statistical data do you need? Anything >0 is all that’s required.” I can definetly say now that you have no scientific background whatsoever. Your statement is absolutely absurb. Science would still be back in the dark ages if everyone thought as you. Statistics has been used on EVERY important modern scientific project to verify the truth and not use speculation or supposition to come to a valid conclusion.
You list 12 references which are supposed to justify your argument. I COULD NOT find any one of these references which show a statistical significant correlation between ORV’s and Piping Plovers. I may have missed one and if so, please let me know which one.
The biologicasl lifestyles of Oyster catchers, Hooded Plovers and Colonial Waterbirds all differ from that of Piping Plovers. In case you forgot, the subject is Piping Plover numbers on the OBX. You even try to muddy the water further, probably for those who think as you, by bringing sea turtles and general wildlife into the discussion.
What are you inferring when you state..quote “Just in case you think it's an aberration or people are just making it up that human activities negatively impact wildlife.” You must be kidding, Everyone knows that human activities impact wildlife. Whether it is beneficial or detrimental is determined through the use of statistics. Believe it or not some avian species have benefited from human activities such as robins and certain raptors.
By far and away human activities have been detrimental to wildlife. As I stated in my original posting I appreciate nature and respect wildlife even though you try to make me and others, who don’t agree with the Audubon, to be ogres hell bent on intentially smashing Plover eggs with ORV’s.
Wise up and understand that everything the Audubon proposes is NOT always correct. The confrontation of ORV restrictions on the OBX is one of cases where the Audubon is wrong.
I WILL NOT go away Mr. or Ms. Cro. I anxiously await your responce
ORV Restrictions on the OBX
Submitted by Thomas S Gallo (not verified) on Mon, 2012/06/25 - 5:30pm.
Well you didn’t disappoint me Mr. or Ms. Cro. Just as I suspected, you choose to hide in the shadows not identifying yourself as to your qualifications while demeaning others. I ask again, what qualifications do you have to comment on this subject?
I suggest you take a course in statistics. The subject covers ALL areas of science be it entomology or population ecology. I NEVER portrayed myself as an expert in population ecology. Those are your words not mine. Yours is just another instance of trying to make a case of incrimination by inference, which is similar to the consent decree.
You say, quote.” I set myself up so that others accept my statements as fact because I claim to be a scientist or subject expert.” Well you finally said something that is correct. My statements are fact. There is no statistical data incriminationg ORV’s rather than population dynamics, climate, or predators for the low numbers of Piping Plovers on the OBX. Anyone, including you, can do a literature search as I did and not find any statistrical data.
You show your ignorance of statistics when you say..quote ” What statistical data do you need? Anything >0 is all that’s required.” I can definetly say now that you have no scientific background whatsoever. Your statement is absolutely absurb. Science would still be back in the dark ages if everyone thought as you. Statistics has been used on EVERY important modern scientific project to verify the truth and not use speculation or supposition to come to a valid conclusion.
You list 12 references which are supposed to justify your argument. I COULD NOT find any one of these references which show a statistical significant correlation between ORV’s and Piping Plovers. I may have missed one and if so, please let me know which one.
The biologicasl lifestyles of Oyster catchers, Hooded Plovers and Colonial Waterbirds all differ from that of Piping Plovers. In case you forgot, the subject is Piping Plover numbers on the OBX. You even try to muddy the water further, probably for those who think as you, by bringing sea turtles and general wildlife into the discussion.
What are you inferring when you state..quote “Just in case you think it's an aberration or people are just making it up that human activities negatively impact wildlife.” You must be kidding, Everyone knows that human activities impact wildlife. Whether it is beneficial or detrimental is determined through the use of statistics. Believe it or not some avian species have benefited from human activities such as robins and certain raptors.
By far and away human activities have been detrimental to wildlife. As I stated in my original posting I appreciate nature and respect wildlife even though you try to make me and others, who don’t agree with the Audubon, to be ogres hell bent on intentially smashing Plover eggs with ORV’s.
Wise up and understand that everything the Audubon proposes is NOT always correct. The confrontation of ORV restrictions on the OBX is one of cases where the Audubon is wrong.
I WILL NOT go away Mr. or Ms. Cro. I anxiously await your responce
No salutation, just Cro
Submitted by Cro (not verified) on Tue, 2012/06/26 - 6:46am.
You're obfuscating the issue.
Fact 1:
On every beach where shorebirds have been intensely studied or monitored, adults, chicks and nests have been documented as being killed or ran over by ORVs. (citations in previous post)
Fact 2:
It's absurd to demand we need biologists travel back in time to count every single adult, chick or nest ran over since the automobile was invented to get your "statistic" when we know Fact 1.
.
Fact 3:
You can manufacture what ever statistic you want, but the avoidable deaths of adults and offspring will never be beneficial to stressed/reduced populations.
Fact 4:
It's not just about plover. It's about protecting the resource - which includes all the beach-nesting species - as mandated by Congress.
Fact 5:
Audubon doesn't inform my opinion.
I am surprised to find a "scientist" from the school of "since we don't know everything, we don't know anything." You must have traveled a very circuitous route.
And finally, no I don't believe you're all "ogres hell bent on intentially [sic] smashing Plover eggs with ORV’s", I do believe some (as in not all) of "you" are just narcissists centered on fulfilling your own desires and don't really care whether or not you kill beach nesting wildlife with your ORVs in pursuit of those desires.
OBX ORV Restrictions
Submitted by Thomas S Gallo (not verified) on Tue, 2012/06/26 - 10:12pm.
Mr. or Ms. Cro, you are making this too easy for me to respond. It’s really getting boring hearing you say the same things over and over again only changing the wording.
Initially, I am not obscuring the issue; it’s you that is obfuscating. My responses have been clear and factual while you have tried to confuse the issue by going off on tangents and misdirecting attention to other animal species, which has nothing to do with the problem on the OBX.
In answer to your first 3 Facts, please present any statistical evidence. You lose! It cannot be done.
In answer to fact 4, we both know that the OBX Piping Plover issue is political and has the backing of Audubon money. The Consent Decree would never have made it this far if people arguing against the Audubon had the money to hire countless attorneys, as does the Audubon.
In answer to Fact 5, I NEVER said that Audubon informs you of your opinion. But if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck.
And lastly, you gave in a little when you said in your last paragraph quote “I do believe some (as in not all) of you are just narcissists…” Cannot the same be said for some of the people affiliated with the Audubon? Or are you that naïve and lame to believe that all people associated with the Audubon carry a bible under their arm have no hidden agenda and do not hide the truth. If you think this way, I feel very sorry for you.
I rest my case. Unless you can come up with factual, concrete, valid statistical data I see no reason to continue this debate. I have better things to do than argue with someone as
uninformed and narrow minded as you.
You may now return to your lair lurking around while hiding your identity, something I’ll never be guilty of doing.
You think you're impressing
Submitted by Cro (not verified) on Wed, 2012/06/27 - 9:13am.
You think you're impressing anyone with just repeating the jargon? What statistical data? To show exactly what? You haven't said a damn thing other than "statistical". Clear as mud. It appears you're chasing a strawman. In re-reading your original and subsequent posts, you seem to want statistical data that directly implicates ORVs as the sole responsible cause of species decline. There is no statistical data that shows ORVs are solely responsible for the decline of the plover and other beach nesting species and no one is saying they are.
The statistics are in the observations, do with them what you will. On every monitored beach ORVs have operated and shorebirds nested, nests and chicks have been observed lost to ORVs. That includes plover adults, nests and chicks. (see the citation you've ignored thus far; Piping Plover Mortalities Caused by Off-Road Vehicles on Atlantic Coast Beaches, Scott M. Melvin, Anne Hecht and Curtice R. Griffin)
It doesn't matter if it's one nest a year, or one chick a decade - it's an avoidable loss to stressed/reduced populations. Read the recovery plan as well (I know you cited it, but you obviously haven't read any of the cited literature)
The Consent Decree was implemented because the NPS didn't have a defense to the lawsuit. And it was SELC attorneys not Audubon attorneys. The closure recommendations come from scientists (here: http://www.preservehatteras.org/uploads/chns.102805%20USGS%20Protocols%2... ), not Audubon and thus far, you've been wrong about everything you've written.
My opinion about the disregard for the wildlife at Cape Hatteras is informed through personal interactions as a resident of the island, comments admitting as much on popular tackle shop websites and the popular bumper stickers. And as far as I can tell, the only agenda Audubon has is for the NPS to follow the laws that govern the seashore. Do you have evidence - not conspiracy theories - it's something else? Please include the relevant statistical analysis supporting your claim. As well as the totals of all Audubon expenditures you claim have been used on this issue. ;-)
And yes, your implication was that Audubon informed my opinion, to whit: "Wise up and understand that everything the Audubon proposes is NOT always correct." At the least, as an alleged scientist, you should have the intellectual honesty to just admit you were mistaken, rather than deny you said it. It's right there in print.
Statistics and Piping Plovers
Submitted by Thomas S Gallo (not verified) on Sat, 2012/06/30 - 11:27am.
Mr. or Ms. Cro, in my last response I vowed not to debate you any further but upon reading this response, I was compelled to respond. It’s one thing to bash people who don’t agree with you but it’s altogether different to bash an area of respected science such as statistics.
Statistics is not as you say.quote “clear as mud”. It is the truthful way of determining an answer to an important research project. Conversely the data you have referenced and have been spewing out can be classified “clear as mud” since it is only a bunch of numbers not subjected to statistical analysis.
Here is a lesson for you in Statistics 101. From your previous responses, you are completely ignorant as to what it entails. You actually seem to get a lot of enjoyment out of criticizing it. Click the two links below and educate yourself in the subject. Education is something, which you seem to need a great deal of.
http://www.amstat.org/careers/whatisstatistics.cfm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistics
The following excerpt from the first link is just a small sampling of the important information contained within the two links:
“Statisticians provide crucial guidance in determining what information is reliable and which predictions can be trusted. They often help search for clues to the solution of a scientific mystery and sometimes keep investigators from being misled by false impressions.” Don’t these 2 sentences exactly describe the NPS Piping Plover data on the OBX???
I can just see your response to this posting. It will probably be a complete disregard of the science of Statistics while a continuation to expound on your insignificant data.
Add comment
Most Popular
- Win a Signed Copy of the ‘Crossley ID Guide: Raptors’
- May-June 2013
- How Do Tornadoes Affect Birds?
- 10 Things You Can Do For Birds
- How to Tell a Raven From a Crow
- 2012 Photo Awards Top 100
- Roseate Spoonbills Send Warning Signs About the Florida Everglades
- The Big Year According to Birders
- What Happens When Seabirds Drink Saltwater?
- Audubon Priority Bird: American Oystercatcher
Cape Hatteras ORV Restrictions
I am a retired scientist (entomologist) who greatly appreciates nature and respects wildlife. Throughout my entire career I have been concerned with statistical data concerning many scientific projects. Nowhere in this voluminous document (Consent Decree) have I seen any statistical data, which incriminates Off Road Vehicles (ORV's) with the decline of Piping Plover (PP) populations on the Outer Banks (OBX) of North Carolina.
The DECIS lists the ebb and flow of PP populations over the years but no statistics on this data is presented which links population decline with the use of ORV’s. Rather, there is incrimination by inference. As mentioned in the DECIS, many factors affect Piping Plover populations such as climate, predators and other natural phenomena. I could not find any statistical data which points to ORV’s rather than climate or say predators instigating the decline of PP numbers.
North Carolina is the southern most range of the PP. No PP’s were found in South Carolina during the 2008 survey. A clear majority of the population was found in the northern states of Massachusetts (566) and New York (443) while 64 were found in North Carolina. The state of Maine on the other hand is the most northerly range of the PP where 10 were counted in 2008.
This population distribution can be graphed into a bell shaped curve i.e. Normal Distribution graph. Variability exists in every biological population. The greatest variability in the PP population exists at its extremities (North Carolina and Maine). The least variability is found in the states, which harbor the largest numbers (Massachusetts and New York). Statistically speaking, it is very difficult if not impossible to have a high degree of confidence in North Carolina PP numbers used to make important decisions on beach closures.
As a result of my above commentary, I strongly disagree with the National Park Service (NPS) decision to regulate ORV traffic and close beach access based on PP population numbers. I will be one of the first people to applaud ORV beach closures if shown concrete statistical evidence that ORV's are to blame for reducing marine bird populations.
This is a case of horribly bad science and a disgrace to the NPS.