A New Rule Balances Wildlife and Off-Road-Vehicle Use on a North Carolina Beach
Comments
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.
Hi Tom, Still flailing away
Submitted by Cro (not verified) on Wed, 2012/07/04 - 1:46pm.
Hi Tom,
Still flailing away at strawmen, I see. I went back and can't find a post where I "bashed" statistics. Although, I have bashed your ignorance on the topic.
You've yet to support your assertion why a statistical analysis is needed to know the common fact that when ORVs are driven on breeding beaches used by plover et al, nests and chicks are in danger of being ran over. All you've done is whine about "statistics".
As far as your quoted paragraph:
“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???
No.
New rule balances wildlife and ORV use.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 2012/06/18 - 7:22am.
You cannot take an ORV on the beaches is Nags Head, Kitty Hawk, Kill Devil Hills, Southern Shores, Duck. Yet these adjacent towns are thriving, full of tourists. Hurricane Irene changed the game plan in Hatteras and the National Seashore, by opening a new Inlet and causing a temp bridge to be erected. This change in ocean currents also causes shoaling in the Hatteras Ferry route to Ocraccoke. Federal money, our taxes are paying for the dredging to maintain open waterways, removal of sand and ocean over wash on roads, and repair of roads. How much coin must fill your hands before you give something back in return. Protecting vital areas of the beach for other species is the parks directive from our government, by all the people, for ALL the people. National Park Employees are wonderful and should not be rudely treated. Please ask yourselves, how long could your family, children have survived with a home in a street, vehicles dashing by daily smashing ,disrupting your lives. Compassion, empathy and plain common sense informs you a roadway is not a homesite. Fighting makes people uncomfortable, think about it when you wonder where all the tourists are.
fact checking
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 2012/06/18 - 7:19am.
I have to admit I was wrong in my choice of fact checking regarding some of this issue but seeing Walker Golder was used by your publication for this article I almost gagged. Please.
Totally biased story
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 2012/06/17 - 10:18am.
The article starts with a premise that ORVs were responsible for most of the deaths of birds when natural causes have been documented to cause far more than the anecdotal examples offered as proof as the best science available. Please read the the reply to this and other aspects of this issue at: http://islandfreepress.org/CatBeachAccessIssues.html
There's nothing that can be
Submitted by Cro (not verified) on Sun, 2012/06/17 - 10:49pm.
There's nothing that can be done about natural causes of reduced productivity. But it's irrational to insinuate that because there are natural losses, it's okay to allow even more losses from ORV and other human disturbances.
There's nothing that can be
Submitted by Cro (not verified) on Sun, 2012/06/17 - 10:28pm.
There's nothing that can be done about natural causes of reduced productivity. But it's irrational to insinuate that because there are natural losses, it's okay to allow even more losses from ORV and other human disturbances.
I think the title of the
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 2012/06/17 - 9:33am.
I think the title of the article needs to changed, to be more accurate it needs to read:
Audubon uses its political power to bully the NPS into creating unbalanced new rules at Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area. Suffering businesses and visitors seek help from their local representatives and introduce bills to Congress to seek a more balanced plan.
Add comment
Most Popular
- How Do Tornadoes Affect Birds?
- The Big Year According to Birders
- How to Tell a Raven From a Crow
- May-June 2013
- 2012 Photo Awards Top 100
- Remarkably Curious and Intelligent, Crows and Ravens Deserve a Closer Look
- Roseate Spoonbills Send Warning Signs About the Florida Everglades
- The Healing Power of Birds
- Young Guatemalans Take On Citizen Science
- Hummingbirds See Red
OBX ORV Restrictions
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.