A New Rule Balances Wildlife and Off-Road-Vehicle Use on a North Carolina Beach
Comments
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.
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.
Add comment
Most Popular
- 10 Things You Can Do For Birds
- May-June 2013
- Win a Signed Copy of the ‘Crossley ID Guide: Raptors’
- Why Do We Never See Baby Pigeons?
- How to Tell a Raven From a Crow
- 2012 Photo Awards Top 100
- Audubon Priority Bird: American Oystercatcher
- The Big Year According to Birders
- Roseate Spoonbills Send Warning Signs About the Florida Everglades
- What Do Birds Do for Us?
You can just call me Cro
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.