The Grand Compromise????

The past week has been a rough one for many Scarborough dog owners, not to mention those Scarborough citizens who expect a modicum of honesty from their Town officials.

 First it was the meeting of the Ad Hoc Animal Control Advisory Committee (“AHACAC”) on January 13.  I must have missed something at the meeting.  I always had a clear understanding that “compromise” involved BOTH PARTIES giving some.  And yet, somehow, the “starting point” for a solution to the piping plover protection issue that appeared on the flipchart proposed the following changes to off-leash time:

Yikes!  Perhaps it was just me, but I saw a whole lot of taking and absolutely no getting.  But, fear not, Friends, that’s only the starting point!  (It’s hard to imagine what they’re still planning to take in the “negotiations,” isn’t it?)

“Of course we didn’t put that frog on your chair, Sister Mary Albert!”

And then there was the January 15 Council Meeting.  Not a one of our Councilors acknowledged even the slightest whiff of bias in the composition of the AHACAC.  “Don’t be foolish, Dear Citizens!  We, your esteemed Councilors, are pure as the wind-driven snow!”

Just for kicks, I went back to the video recording of the Council’s December 4 workshop to review the discussion of how the AHACAC would be formed.  Councilor Donovan’s comments on this subject were the most comprehensive:  “It would make great sense for the Chair and Vice-Chair to work with the Town Manager to begin to put together what would be a proposal for an ad hoc committee – what their role would be, what their time frame would be, what the composition would be.  That would then be shared with the seven of us so that we would be able to provide input to it.  And we’ll go from there…”   No other Councilor questioned his suggestion so it essentially became the last word and “sense of the Council” on the formation of the Committee.

 So, at the workshop on December 4, the plan was clearly for Town Manager Hall to work with Councilors Sullivan and Holbrook to flesh out the Ad Hoc Committee’s charge, timeframe and composition and then solicit input from the other Councilors.  But now, none of the Councilors claims to have played any role whatsoever in selecting or reviewing the members of the AHACAC as presented at the December 18 Council meeting.  Huh?  So why did the Councilors decide not to do follow the plan they discussed at the workshop?

(One answer to that question comes to my perhaps overly cynical mind – By admitting to participation in an obviously flawed selection process, the Councilors would have given up plausible deniability of being involved in the charade.  Why not leave the risk associated with that exposure to the paid gun, the Town Manager?  That’s one of the things he’s paid for… to deflect political risk from the Councilors.)

And the beat goes on.

What “Science” can…and can’t… tell us

Much has been made of various scientific studies in the course of discussions about what is good and bad for our piping plover friends.  And I certainly agree that science can help inform any decisions that are made as we search for revised animal control and piping plover ordinances.  But I do strongly object to two misuses of science: (1) drawing conclusions when there isn’t enough data present, and (2) looking to science to answer questions that it is not capable of answering.  (I promise to be brief on this important, but less-than-thrilling topic.)

 (1) Science and data insufficiency

 In a sense, science is merely commonsense dressed up in a suit and tie.  It extends and adds structure and precision to things we either know or intuitively understand.  In the current case, we know or intuitively understand that dogs can be a threat to piping plovers.  Science can dress that knowledge up a bit by discovering that, say, 80% of the time that a dog gets within 150 feet of a piping plover nest, the bird will fly off the nest.  That merely quantifies what we all know in our bones.  What science is unable to tell us is how important any one of the large number of environmental factors is in determining the productivity of piping plovers on any given beach or State or region.  Tides, weather, unknown species health issues, predation, food availability and human disturbance (in its numerous forms) all contribute in complex and interrelated ways to the health of the species.  To try to tease out and quantify the impact of off-leash dogs in the complex equation of piping plover survival and proliferation is not within science’s capability.

(2) The limits of Science

What I know about philosophy wouldn’t fill up a plover’s hot water bottle.  But a quick Google lesson on the limits of science reveals there is general agreement on at least two areas where science cannot be employed – questions about value (which are better pets, cats or dogs?)  and questions about morality (what universal rights should humans have?).  When everything else is stripped away, the current question about plovers, dogs and people comes down to a fairly simple value judgment – how much human enjoyment (expressed through people walking with their off-leash dogs on the beach) are we willing to give up in order to make an unquantifiable improvement to the lives of several pairs of piping plovers each year?  The “we” that needs to make this value judgment are the people of Scarborough, not the biologists of USFWS or Audubon.  This is not a scientific judgment; it is a social/political judgment.

Some will argue that, since dogs are a controllable element in the piping plover recovery effort, we must focus our attention on them.  So if foxes and crows are 50 times more of a threat to piping plovers than off-leash dogs, do we still need to banish the dogs?  Is that reasonable?

We need to recognize that there is, in fact, a limit to the lengths we will go to protect piping plovers.  Otherwise, we would prohibit all types of human activity on beaches – humans can accidentally step on (or pick up) chicks, jogging humans can disturb feeding piping plovers, some particularly uncaring humans will even intentionally inflict harm on plovers   But most beaches are not closed to all human activity because society has made a decision that the levels of risk associated with those activities are tolerable.  There is a limit, and we as members of society, not scientists, make decisions on trade-offs like that all the time through the political process.  This decision should be no different.

Dredge and Western Beach Update

The Scarborough Harbor dredge project is really picking up steam now.  Speaking of picking things up, here’s a shot of the crane lowering the dredge barge (SS Electrolux) on to the gentle sands of Ferry Beach this past Thursday.

As of Saturday (January 18) the barge is still at Ferry Beach as the crew prepares some of the hundreds of feet of 14” PVC pipe that will carry the sediment from the harbor channel on to Western Beach.  It promises to be quite a show.  And since it won’t be repeated for 9-10 years, get your tickets now!

And while we’re on the subject of Western Beach… I didn’t realize until just recently that the Western Beach project is actually a two-fer.  Not only is the Beach being “re-nourished” (on the taxpayers’ dime, by the way), but there’s another project happening concurrently.  An old sea wall that prevents part of the golf course from having a major water hazard (the Atlantic Ocean) is being rebuilt.  That project, to the tune of $1.5 million I am told, also began in earnest this past week.

I have always found those signs proclaiming the “ecological fragility” of the dunes ironically amusing.  The dunes are especially fragile when a landowner doesn’t want somebody crossing them.

Sign on the northern end of Ferry Beach.

But apparently they are much less fragile when the preservation of a golf course is at stake, as the two pictures below attest.

Ever-so-gently massaging the dunes on Western Beach.

Dunes? What dunes? We’re creating piping plover habitat!

As I was checking out the sea wall project at Western Beach, I couldn’t help but notice just how close two or three of the holes on the Prouts Neck Country Club Golf Club are to prime piping plover nesting and feeding habitat.  Shouldn’t serious consideration be given to closing the holes on the golf course that are within 150 feet of piping plover habitat?  The last thing the poor little guys need is a bunch of rowdy golfers, cigars in hand, storming around near their nests and whacking golf balls in their vicinity.  Can you imagine the amount of disruption and stress this must cause in a plover’s life?  [See above discussion of  trade-offs that get made all the time.]   But, country clubbers, fear not!  The affected holes will only be closed from April 1 through September 15!  And, in fact, the  holes may be released as soon as July 15 if none of the little guys show up.

More juicy stuff to come in a later blog entry on the Western Beach projects.  Stay tuned.

Please Note: This blog entry has been produced with a minimum amount of color and capital letters in response to a reader complaint.  Next time though, watch out!  You’ll need sunglasses.

All members of the Maine Association of Psychics and Soothsayers are reminded of the rapidly approaching deadline for submitting your renewal examination for calendar 2014.  If you have not completed the examination (provided below), please do so and submit it to MAPS headquarters on the Pier at OOB by 5pm on Monday, January 13, 2014.  Members who do not achieve a passing grade on this exam will not be recertified for 2014.

 EXAM QUESTIONS:

1.      Thinking ahead to the AHACAC meeting on the evening of January 13, 2014, what will be the vote in favor of the main recommendations of the Committee:

a.       4 to 3

b.       5 to 3 (with Town Manager Hall getting a vote after all)

c.      Outlook not so good

2.      Thinking ahead to the Town Council meeting on the evening of February 5, 2014, which of the following points will Town Manager Hall make in his introductory remarks about the AHACAC’s work and recommendations (check all that apply):

a.       This very talented and committed group worked incredibly hard at the assigned task.

b.      There was a transparent and fair process for selecting the Committee members.

c.       All or nearly all of the Committee members were current or former dog owners thereby making the entire process 100% legit.

d.      None of the Committee members had their minds made up prior to the first meeting of the Committee.

e.       The Committee’s schedule was such that all of the information presented could not possibly have been thoroughly reviewed and discussed.

3.      Again thinking ahead to the Town Council meeting on the evening of February 5, 2014, the vote to accept the AHACAC’s majority recommendations will be:

a.       4 to 3

b.      5 to 2

c.       6 to 1

d.      4 to 2 with one member not present due to a previously scheduled duck hunting engagement

Meeting #3 of the AHACAC

The third meeting of the AHACAC was held on Thursday evening, January 9.  I think a fair one sentence summary would be: “The charade continued to play out.”  At least this time there was some real exchange of ideas and bits and pieces of agreement.  For a balanced and comprehensive account of the meeting, please see Duke Harrington’s article in the Current.  http://www.keepmecurrent.com/current/news/scarborough-plover-policy-fails-to-take-flight/article_6b51b074-7a37-11e3-be98-0019bb2963f4.html

Two suggested solutions in particular are noteworthy.  Professor Perlut suggested the “Co-op beach” on Pine Point as an option for dog walking at any time due to its plover-free nature.  And Councilor Donovan added his imprimatur, perhaps because it’s as far away from Higgins Beach as possible.  I wonder why even the plovers can’t be bothered with the Co-op beach?

The other proposal that received some attention was Ms. Chabot’s.  I must say it sounded quite sensible to me… except for one key feature.  The proposal was basically for the establishment of an Animal Control Committee (note: not a piping plover committee, but an animal control committee) and a two-year study of beach policies on education, enforcement, data collection, etc.  Perfectly reasonable except for one big old fly in the ointment — during the two-year study/improvement period, the US Fish and Wildlife ordinance would be in place.  You know, just like the Town voted for overwhelmingly in December.  Oh, wait…

The meeting ended on a rather sour note as a motion to request a one-week extension from the Town Council was voted down 4 to 3.  Gotta keep this ball rolling.  We wouldn’t want facts to get in the way or encourage better mutual understanding.  USFWS MUST BE OBEYED!  DOGS BE GONE!

 Good grief.  Expect more of the same Monday evening, January 13 at 6:30-9:00pm.

[Editor’s note: Puritan minister graphic to indicate seriousness of what follows.]

In all seriousness…

Allow me, Dear Reader, to stray from my usual format and speak seriously for a moment.  I promise that it will be a brief aberration.

Although this blog attempts to treat the current controversy in an entertaining manner, the issues themselves are serious.  Indeed, extremely serious.  Yesterday I submitted a serious proposal to the AHACAC suggesting a partial solution to the current disagreement about the Town’s policy on beach access, particularly as it relates to dogs and piping plovers.  I will not bore you with the entire document, but the main points were that the AHACAC’s recommendations should include:

• Establishment of a publicly-elected Beach Committee to advise the Council on future beach management and access issues.  We need to restore public trust in the Town’s governance processes.  It is sadly lacking at the moment.  And we currently have an elected Sanitary District Board; don’t our beaches deserve as much public attention as our sewer system?

•  A two-year study/review/improvement period during which a committee would be charged with responsibility for education, enforcement and data collection, as well as making recommendations to the Town Council on those matters.  This is essentially as suggested by Ms. Chabot.

• During the two-year period, the existing animal control ordinance would remain in effect, with any additions unanimously agreed to by the AHACAC. This reflects the outcome of the December 3, 2013 special election.  It has been suggested that some number of “no” voters may have voted that way because they thought the Council’s October 3 stealth amendment “went too far.”   But the undeniable fact is that when they voted “no,” they knew we would be returning to the original ordinance.  If piping plover protection were their main goal, they should have voted yes and then lobbied the Council to correct the overreach.  You can’t have it both ways.

•  The outline of a detailed enforcement plan.  We have heard over and over again that the Town’s past enforcement efforts have been sadly lacking. And yet I have still not seen any specifics proposed for an enforcement plan going forward.   My plan, offered merely as a starting point, calls for a total of 50 hours per week of uniformed presence on the beaches from April 1 through August 31.  These “beach patrol officers” would be scheduled in a way that permitted a minimum of 30 minutes presence (on an unpredictable schedule) on each beach once between 6 and 9am and once between 6 and 9pm every day.  These officers would work closely with the volunteer civilian beach monitoring groups and perform any “heavy lifting” in the enforcement area.  The officers would be funded by a combination of increased dog license fees, beach pass fees and special off-leash dog permits if necessary.

I believe these suggestions will provide a reasonable framework for addressing the serious — but not crisis level — concerns surrounding the limited summer off-leash time for dogs and the protection of piping plovers.  I also firmly believe that it is the responsibility of the citizens of Scarborough to set beach access policies, not a Federal or State agency.

And now back to work…

Preparing the S.S. Electrolux for launching at Ferry Beach.

Dredge Update

Work is beginning in earnest on the dredge with the activity centered at the Ferry Beach parking lot.  They are in the process of assembling the S.S. Electrolux, the floating pump mechanism that will suck all that goop off the bottom of the channel and spray it oh-so-gently on Western Beach.  Ahh, I can feel the good vibes of re-nourishment already!

…..

Neighbor-of-the-Year Nomination Withdrawn

At Thursday evening’s meeting of the AHACAC, Mr. Donovan very kindly offered up Old Orchard Beach as an alternative beach that Scarborough residents could use after he and the Council close our beaches to off-leash dogs from April through August.  In other words, shift the problem (if off-leash dogs are in fact a problem) to another Town.  Isn’t he the essence of neighborliness?  You gotta love it!

By the way, we have it on good authority that the Naked Surfers of New England are planning to hold their 2014 summer convention at Higgins Beach on the July Fourth weekend.  Included in the festivities are a let-it-all-hang-out paddleboard regatta up the Spurwink River.   Arrive early for the best viewing spots.

……….

Next/Last AHACAC Meeting: Monday, Jan 13, 6:30pm at Town Hall.  See you there.

Thanks again for reading this.  Please share with friends.  It’s amazing how far a little information can go.

Howdy, Pardner.  You’re lookin’ mighty beat up.  Another AHACAC meeting?  That’s rough.  Well, belly up to the bar and let me buy you a whiskey.  Tell me all about it.  Sometimes it helps just to talk about it…

 “The Law is an ass…”

So famously said a Dickens’ character.  Well, Councilor Donovan charged into Monday night’s meeting of the AHACAC riding on the law.  With both guns blazing, figuratively speaking.   He was insistent that the Town must comply with the Endangered Species Act.  And who could argue with that?

Mr. Donovan is both the only lawyer and the only elected official on the Committee.  One might have hoped that the combination of these two factors would have caused him to be an informative, helpful and conciliatory force at the meeting.  Any such hopes would have been in vain.

Naturally I would have expected him to argue for his point of view.  But couldn’t it have been presented in a modestly balanced manner – at least acknowledging that (1) the Endangered Species Act does not require dogs to be leashed on beaches when piping plovers are present, (2) that neither he nor the USFWS have the final say in interpreting “the law;” that’s the province of the courts, and (3) that an environmental lawyer from one of Maine’s most respected law firms (Pierce Atwood) came to a significantly different conclusion with respect to USFWS’s ability to require the Town to amend its animal control ordinance?  (Have the Committee members even seen the Pierce Atwood assessment?)

But, no, Mr. Donovan chose to vigorously pursue his own agenda.  I count that as an opportunity lost.

 Blinded by Science?

And the blustering wasn’t limited to “the law.”  On at least three occasions, Mr. Donovan referred to the “scientific studies” noted in “tabs 8 through 11” of the information packet he had provided to the Committee.  These “studies” – “more than a dozen of them” – were supposed to support the notion that there can be no off-leash dogs on beaches during piping plover season.

A review of the so-called scientific studies didn’t occur at the meeting.  Without watching the tape (which I refuse to do – sitting through it once was torture enough), I can’t say specifically why they weren’t challenged. I do know that Mses. Foley and Hodgkins were cut off on more than one occasion, and that Town Manager Hall was very deferential to Mr. Donovan, at one point lauding him as “a facts guy.”

In any event, the oft-referred-to “scientific studies” were pretty much a bunch of hokum, at least as they were presented to the Committee.  Here are a couple of examples of the “studies” which Mr. Donovan included in tabs 8-11:

 From tab 8, a 2006 USFWS publication on the threat posed by dogs and cats:

Note the unqualified statement that “Unleashed dogs chase birds, destroy nests and kill chicks.”  Note that this is from “a 1993 study” – the title, author(s), peer-review status, publication, methodology and conclusions of which we are provided no information. Say no more; what could be more persuasive?.

Or from tab 11, an excerpt from a New Hampshire Fish and Game Department Wildlife Action Plan:

This one received a huge star from Mr. Donovan, never mind that cats are identified as the causes of plover deaths, while the dogs apparently inflicted no physical harm.  And these anecdotes are from “unpublished data.”  Somehow I don’t believe many legitimate scientists would consider this a valid study.

And then there’s a string of several “studies” identified with author name(s), a date and a 3-5 word summary, like “unleashed dogs may chase plovers” in tab 9.  Granted, there may be some real science buried in some of the materials in Mr. Donovan’s tabs 8-11.  If it is there, it certainly wasn’t obvious from what was distributed to the Committee.

Please don’t misunderstand me… I am not denying for one minute that uncontrolled off-leash dogs can be a legitimate threat to piping plovers.  But I do believe that steps can be taken to ensure that off-leash dogs and piping plovers can co-exist on beaches if reasonable steps are taken in the areas of education, specific regulations and enforcement.  And I didn’t see anything that scientifically demonstrates that leashing dogs is the gold standard (or best practice) for protecting piping plovers.

Thumbs Up and Down — briefly noted

·        

      To Dr. Ravin – for suggesting that the Committee look for ways to accommodate off-leash dogs on the beaches in a manner that protects piping plovers.  How refreshing!

·         To Prof. Perlut – for insisting that Tom Hall produce the promised, detailed documentation of the current activities of the Animal Control Officer and Piping Plover Coordinator.  (Enforcement issues?  What enforcement issues?)

·         To Ms. Foley – for summarizing five years of Maine Audubon Society data that demonstrates just how miniscule a “threat” dogs are to piping plovers

.         To Ms. Hodgkins – for pointing out the absurdity of restricting hundreds of dog owners from Pine Point Beach because of a couple of birds.

·         To Prof. Perlut – for providing a no-holds-barred glimpse into the sex lives of piping plovers.  Who knew the little guys were such randy devils?

·       

            To the entire Committee – for including skunks, foxes, etc. in the “feral animal” category.

·         To Tom Hall – for arranging to have the Committee meetings videotaped when the clear agreement at the first meeting was that they would be tape recorded.

·         To Ms. LaCasse – for dismissing out-of-hand the possibility of having different rules for different beaches depending upon the specific beach’s piping plover activity as “just complicating things.”

As you know, Courteous Reader, I do my best to deliver extraordinary value with each posting to this blog.  Part of that steadfast commitment to providing you with the best information available concerning the beaches of Scarborough is sharing information you will probably not see elsewhere.

For instance… at the Monday evening meeting, there was passing reference made to Federal, State or local “predator control” measures, such as trapping animals that threaten a protected species.  If memory serves, it was presented with the historic perspective that some critters had been trapped and relocated from Western Beach.  Sounds humane enough, right?

Today’s free bonus nugget: In August, 2013, Prouts Neck Association, the Town of Scarborough, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Maine Department signed a Beach Management Agreement for Western Beach.  Section IV. E. of that agreement addresses predator control.  “Lethal and [emphasis added]  nonlethal predator removal from nesting areas is a necessary component of piping plover and least tern management.”  The agreement specifically empowers MIDFW to “conduct piping plover management activities on Western Beach.”  This probably won’t be a good year to be a fox or crow on Prouts Neck.

Adios

OK, Friends,  time to put away the ol’ spittoon and rest up for Thursday evening’s meeting at 6:30pm.  I hope to see you there!  (I’ll be the one with wearing the Stetson.)  In the meantime, please remember to share this blog your friends, relatives and neighbors.    And click “Follow” at the above right to be notified of the next exciting installment of Matt Batterson, LCP, Frontier Psychologist.  Coming soon!

Winslow Homer’s “Fox Hunt,” painted on Prouts Neck

In 1893 Winslow Homer painted “Fox Hunt” on Prouts Neck, perhaps on the current site of the golf course.  He probably didn’t realize that this painting would capture two of the significant piping plover predators – crows and foxes, both of which still roam Scarborough’s beaches.  Plovers, like all of our feathered and furry friends, face many challenges in their daily lives.  Dogs, it turns out, are not high on the list of those challenges.

Although no authoritative, ranked list of the causes of plover predation (or disturbance) exists, most threat measurements rank dogs well below other species.  Among the most often cited plover predators are crows, gulls, skunks, foxes, coyotes, and cats (house or feral).  Dogs are a mere nuisance compared to these other species which count plovers as part of a well-balanced daily nutrition program.

So why the over-the-top emphasis on dogs as a threat to plovers?  What other agenda is at work here?

A Species in Crisis?

Much has been made by the bird protection industry of the sad plight of our piping plover friends.  The facts, though, suggest the species is doing quite well under existing conservation measures.  For instance:

• Piping plovers produced 85 fledglings on Maine beaches in 2013 – the most since 2002.  (This is according to data from the Maine Audubon Society’s website.  That data mysteriously disappeared from their website shortly after I obtained it.)

• New England has met its USFWS-determined “recovery goal” of 625 nesting pairs every year since 1998.  The preliminary estimate for the number of nesting pairs in New England for 2012 was 879.  (Interestingly, the “recovery criterion” for the Atlantic Coast Population includes plovers in Atlantic (eastern) Canada.  So the USFWS-defined success for the piping plover population includes non-resident birds.  Perhaps they have green cards.   It’s just another example of how far the USFWS’s clout extends.)

• There have been two unsubstantiated takes of piping plovers on Scarborough beaches in the more than 30 years that Audubon has been keeping score.  I wonder if Audubon has summarized its records for losses to crows, gulls, foxes, merlins, etc. over that time period.  It would be very interesting to see. It’s probably too interesting for them to release.

Note that the “recovery goal” set by USFWS is 625 pairs.

Bring on the Anecdotes!

Anecdotes are fun!  They add lots of color and warmth to a story.  They are especially useful when the facts don’t support the position one is trying to advance.

Among the anecdotes you will hear ad nauseam from the bird protection industry are those involving dogs “disrupting” the nests of plovers.  Or perhaps bothering them.  This particular species appears to have a very sensitive psyche.  (We will explore PBDS (post-beachfront-development syndrome) in plovers in a future posting.)

In any event, most of these anecdotes are very unpersuasive.  Many are based on “dog tracks” leading up to nest areas.  The qualifications of the individual making the assessment that the tracks are indeed those of a dog and not a fox or coyote are rarely if ever mentioned.  And even if an occasional dog does accidentally intrude in a plover nesting area, wouldn’t you expect a normal bird to have the innate ability to deal with it?  What are that particular bird’s chances against a skunk or a fox?

But there are also anecdotes you will never hear from the bird protection industry…  Like the occasional story that slips through the politically-correct filter into the press about how more human activity may in fact be better for plovers than less.   Or what about the radical notion that off-leash dogs are beneficial to plovers by discouraging the presence of non-domesticated animals that regularly consume plovers and their eggs as part of their diet – again: foxes, crows, gulls, skunks, etc.  (Note to budding scientists: I wouldn’t use that last hypothesis in a grant application to the Audubon Society.)

Here are links to a couple of stories that slipped through somehow:

1.  A 2011 Boston Globe article: The curious case of the piping plover

 A couple of excerpts:

“Despite the image Goldenrod and the state’s Endangered Species Act seem to paint of plovers as delicate birds whose patterns of behavior and habitats must never be disrupted, plovers have shown a remarkable adaptability to humans. On the Fourth of July, the piping plover chicks on Kalmus Beach in Hyannis were happily feeding while a massive fireworks display exploded over their heads. In South Boston this year, a plover nest was spotted on the men’s side of the L Street Bathhouse, though it was gone by the time wildlife officials arrived to check it out.

“The main problem facing plovers today, Coleman says, isn’t off-road vehicles but natural predators. Sandy Neck has never lost a plover to human meddling, but this year, coyotes, crows, gulls, and other animals ate the eggs and chicks in 18 of its 44 nests. In Plymouth, a plover hasn’t been killed by a human since 1996; yet in 2005, all 15 plover pairs lost all their eggs to predators.”

2. A recent Cape Cod Times article: All sides weigh in on beach access during plover nesting

A couple of pull quotes:

 “Such extensive closures didn’t help the bird much, Morris said. Predators and storms killed off many of the chicks, as had happened in prior years, and only three chicks on the southern trail and nine on the northern trail reached flying stage. Man is not the problem, Morris argued, and a vehicle ban didn’t contribute to any significant success.”

“Hodgson said he had heard options he hasn’t heard before during the meeting, like the ability to move a nest or reduce the buffer zone around a nesting pair so that vehicles can pass.”  [Editor’s astonished note: moving a nest — what a concept!]

Out on a Limb – Another Fearless Prediction

OK, a prediction of two people who you will not be heard from at tonight’s Ad Hoc Animal Control Advisory Committee meeting: the Town’s Piping Plover Coordinator and the Town’s Animal Control Officer.  That’s right, the two people you would expect would know the most about any issues with dogs and piping plovers will not be asked for their insights.

So any shred of credibility the AHACAC had – and it was a pretty darn small shred to begin with — will be eliminated.  When the final report is written, how will the Council be able to hold it up and crow that it was a fair and comprehensive review of the plover/dog situation when the two principal individuals with the most direct knowledge of “the problem” were not even asked for input?  Who’s writing the script for the AHACAC anyway?   Lewis Carroll?  Franz Kafka?  Monty Python?

Irate customer: “I’ll tell you what’s wrong with it, my lad. ‘E’s dead, that’s what’s wrong with it!”

Pet shop owner: “No no he’s not dead, he’s, he’s restin’!”

Customer: “This parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! ‘E’s expired and gone to meet ‘is maker!…THIS IS AN EX-PARROT!!”

———————————————————————————————–

I hope to see you at tonight’s AHACAC meeting.  I’ll be the one banging two bricks against the sides of my head.

First Meeting of the AHACAC

The Ad Hoc Animal Control Advisory Committee (which is saddled with the entirely unsatisfactory acronym of “AHACAC”) had its first meeting at the entirely unsatisfactory time of 5:15 pm on Friday evening, December 27.  The seven members and Town Manager Hall were joined by about ten interested members of the public.

After the meeting I realized that the Committee reminded me of another group…  yes, that loveable bunch of sitcom castaways from the 1960s.  Please don’t take this comparison the wrong way – I honestly mean it in a very flattering sense.  The Committee members appear to be a diverse group of extremely talented and well-intentioned folks dedicated to a common goal: fixing what’s wrong – if anything – with Scarborough’s animal control ordinance. May the determination, resourcefulness and good humor that sustained those long-ago castaways also nurture the Committee in its efforts.

Unfortunately, despite their talents and good intentions, I’m afraid their biases with respect to “the problem” may lead some of them down the path for which they were hand-picked by Town officials to march.  It was obviously not an accident that four of the seven members are very sympathetic to the slings and arrows to which our piping plover friends have long been subjected.  And that sympathy clearly outweighs the traditional and reasonable enjoyment of our beaches by dog owners.  I hope I am wrong and that a careful, fact-based and unbiased analysis of “the problem” will take place. And that the recommended solutions will fit the real problem.

Of course it’s a balanced committee!            (Sorry I haven’t mastered Photoshop.)

AHACAC (Gesundheit!) Update

So, what happened at the meeting, you ask?  Well, it was mostly a get-to-know-each-other sort of thing, as well as a setting up of procedures for going forward.  But let me highlight three significant decisions/discussions:

1.  Transparency will hinder the Committee’s work

The Committee appeared to understand the need for transparency to counteract the public skepticism surrounding their ability to make recommendations that reflect the will of the 73% of the voters who nixed the Council’s ordinance amendment.  To address transparency, they started out with a proposal to take minutes and post them to the Town website.  Town Manager Hall said that minutes would be of limited usefulness since they would only capture the bare bones of the meetings and could not be reviewed and published in a timeframe that would be useful to the public.  Hall then confirmed that the meetings could be broadcast and/or videotaped just as Council meetings are.  But that suggestion was ruled out because, according to one Committee member, it might inhibit frank discussions among members.  (And if there’s one thing we don’t want, it’s the public to see frank discussions!)  So back they went to essentially useless and untimely minutes being the general public’s access to the Committee’s deliberations.

As a result of Committee’s consensus, there are basically two ways you, Concerned Citizen, can keep up-to-date on the AHACAC’s work – you may attend in person or, for insightful analysis, sign up to follow this blog.  By the way, meetings are currently scheduled for 6:30pm on January 6, 9 and 13.

2.  Not enough time for public input

To those of you who were yearning for an open process with an opportunity for public interaction with the Committee as they craft their recommendations, sorry.  It turns out there isn’t enough time to allow for that.  (Well, maybe they’ll schedule one meeting for public input after they come up with their recommendations.)  Fear not, however… your voice will be heard!  A special Town email account will be set up for incoming suggestions.  Many of you have already had experience with one-way emails to members of the Town Council, and you know how effective that was in many cases.

But why isn’t there enough time for legitimate public interaction with the Committee as they frame the problem and suggest solutions?  Very simply, because we’re on the US Fish and Wildlife Service’s schedule.  The Town has to act (i.e., amend its ordinance to prohibit any off-leash beach time for dogs during the summer) by the possible USFWS deadline of April 1, 2014.  USFWS, in case you hadn’t noticed, is driving this entire absurdly-scheduled, outcome-biased process.  Or, rather, USFWS is being used by certain Councilors as a pretext to enact long-desired limitations of dogs on beaches, regardless of public sentiment.

Speaking of being in a hurry, let’s not lose sight of one crucial point – the Town has still not seen the Maine Warden’s Service report on the alleged death of a piping plover chick on Pine Point Beach more than five months ago.  No one knows the exact circumstances surrounding the incident.  (I heard a new version of the story at the Committee meeting.)  And why is it that the Town hasn’t seen the report?  Because the USFWS Office of the Regional Solicitor in Hadley, MA won’t release it since it’s part of an “open investigation.”  So — follow me closely here — the Town has to jump through ridiculous hoops to meet a possible USFWS deadline while the USFWS refuses to produce the key piece of evidence on the event that started this brouhaha.  My head hurts.

 3.  About that Piping Plover Coordinator…

In June, 2012, the Town entered into a “Beach Management Agreement” with USFWS and the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife for the 2012 through 2014 piping plover nesting seasons.  One requirement of that agreement: “The position of piping plover coordinator shall be incorporated into Community Services Programs and funded as part of that budget for the period April 1 through August 31, annually.”  Among the duties enumerated for the plover coordinator: “The piping plover coordinator will recruit and schedule volunteer monitors.”  And: “The Coordinator will collect daily reports from volunteer monitors, compile data, and act as liaison with The Town and state officials.”

 It turns out, according to Town Manager Hall, that there is no formal job description for the plover coordinator position.  And no formal reports have been produced.  In fact, the coordinator position appears to be more of the symbolic nature than the productive nature.  It was merely a title added to an employee who already had a full-time position in Community Services.

The more I learn about the Town’s past commitment to piping plovers, the more I am convinced that we deserve that $12,000 fine from USFWS.  Not because of the highly questionable link between a supposedly inadequate animal control ordinance and an unfortunate accidental death of a piping plover, but for sheer disregard of previous commitments to plover protection and encouragement measures.  Historically, the Town has not made a good-faith effort to protect piping plovers.

The Next Meeting… Just what is “the problem”?

At Friday’s meeting, some members seemed anxious to dive right into “solutions” without giving much thought to “the problem.”  Isn’t an accurate description of the problem a  prerequisite to arriving at the correct solution?

Do we really have a problem with dogs and piping plovers?  If so, how significant is the problem? 

It’s not as if the Kiwanis Club has been holding an annual piping plover hunt every Memorial Day weekend with a cash prize for the biggest plover bagged.  In fact, despite a marked lack of enforcement by the Town, Scarborough’s record with respect to dogs and plovers has been very good.  In the 30 years that Audubon has been keeping records, there have been two possible plover takes associated with dogs: In 2003, USFWS states that an adult piping plover was killed on Pine Point Beach.  According to an undated letter from USFWS to the Town in September, 2013, “the evidence suggested that this bird [in 2003], too, was killed by a dog.”   That’s a fairly loose standard of culpability, isn’t it?  “Suggested” evidence.   So it might have been a dog.  Or maybe a fox.  Or perhaps a coyote.  Whatever.

And then there’s the July 15, 2013 incident on Pine Point Beach.  The incident for which no official report of any kind has yet been released to the public.  At the time, you may recall that there were conflicting media reports on the incident.  So what exactly happened?  And when?  Was it, in fact, a plover chick?  And, if so, piping, semipalmated or black-bellied plover?  Sorry, but I’m uncomfortable with the USFWS being both judge and jury for this incident.

So, there are two essentially unconfirmed reports of dogs taking plovers in 30 years.  During which period there were probably tens of thousands of hours of off-leash dogs on the beaches.  That’s not sounding like much of a problem.  And shouldn’t any solutions be in proportion to the magnitude of the problem?  Perhaps the Town should actually honor previously made commitments with respect to education, monitoring and enforcement before enacting unnecessary ordinance restrictions to which the voters are strongly opposed.

Happy New Year to All!

As 2013 draws to a close, New Year’s Eve celebrations will be the order of the day, from the very raucous to the very tame.  Every year, television serves up a montage of massive fireworks displays from around the world as Father Time limps along his daily circuit of the time zones for the last time of the old year.

Apparently they are not shy about spectacular fireworks displays in the Bahamas, where many of our piping plover friends overwinter.  (Links provided below.)  I have always been very puzzled by the notion that plovers are particularly sensitive to fireworks and that fireworks cause a major disruption in their lives.  I don’t understand how fireworks are even a tiny bit more disruptive than the thunderstorms that Mother Nature orchestrates on a fairly routine basis.  Someday I’ll have to dig up the studies that demonstrate how fireworks are more damaging to the psyches of plovers than thunderstorms.

In the meantime, on New Year’s Eve I will be imagining Ned and Alice (piping plover band numbers A109-732 and G288-401) sitting on a beach in Bimini sipping rum-based drinks and enjoying a breathtaking fireworks display.

 I wish you all a happy, healthy and prosperous New Year!

 ——————————————————————————-

 Fireworks in the Bahamas:

 Bahamas Fireworks on the Beach – Jan 1, 2012: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QmYXjgt0So

Bimini Fireworks on the Beach – Jan 1, 2012:  http://bimini-bahamas.blogspot.com/2012/01/bimini-bahamas-new-years-eve-fireworks.html

Chew bones are great, Santa, but what we really want is some off-leash time on the beach next summer!

Holiday Schedule Update…

From the “who would have guessed department:”  It turns out that the proposed date for the first meeting of the Ad Hoc Animal Control Advisory Committee – December 26 – isn’t going to work.  Too many members apparently have family and/or travel commitments.  Imagine that!  People are busy with their families during the week between Christmas and New Year’s!  No worries, 14 business days will still be plenty of time to arrive at a forgone conclusion.

Given the hiatus, I, too, plan to spend the next few days enjoying time with family and friends.  I will, however, return refreshed and rejuvenated with more lively and informative posts in the days ahead.  I have several real corkers in mind.  In the meantime, best Christmas wishes to all!

                     Peace on earth (including beaches), good will to all!

A Christmas miracle?

For a few brief minutes yesterday evening, the unthinkable seemed possible: the Scarborough Town Council appeared to be on the verge of listening to the common-sense pleas of the Town’s citizens.  Were we to have our own little Christmas miracle?  Yes, they actually considered extending the wildly unrealistic deadline they had suggested for the new “Ad Hoc Animal Control Advisory Committee” to complete its work – 21 business days amid three holidays to craft a reasonable response to a complex, highly charged issue.  But, no, the esteemed Council members reverted to their true form and nixed the proposed extension.  Apparently 21 days is plenty of time to ram through a predetermined outcome while still preserving the appearance of fair public input.  Councilor Donovan thought 21 days was sufficient.

Councilor St. Clair made a plea that the public name names when questioning Councilors’  statements and positions.  I think she’s right.  Voting against the one-month extension of the deadline were Councilors Benedict, Blaise and Donovan.  That resulted in a 3-3 tie, so the extension amendment was defeated.  Council Chair Sullivan was not present at last night’s meeting.  The last time he was not present – when a 3-3 tie caused the Council not to reconsider their dubious all-leashes, all-the-time amendment – then-Council chair Ahlquist reported that Mr. Sullivan was moose hunting.

More of the same

The Council’s discussion and action Wednesday evening confirmed once again their starting point for any possible modifications  of the animal control ordinance – the US Fish and Wildlife Service is in charge of our beaches. Since a few piping plover families have popped in to spend the summer season on our beaches, the Council has essentially turned over setting access policies for our beaches to a Federal agency.  This is in spite of three important factors:

•   No Council member has seen the Maine Warden Service report on the alleged death of a piping plover chick on July 15.  Yes, the Town basically entered a guilty plea without seeing the evidence.  How irresponsible is that?

• The legal basis for the USFWS’s Notice of Violation to the Town is questionable.  Dueling high-priced lawyers disagree on this point, but that’s often the case.

• The Council refuses to consider the option of simply paying the possibly reinstated $12,000 fine and move on with defining how Scarborough residents want to balance beach access rules with threatened species protection.

(One quick reminder that cannot be repeated often enough – having dogs on leashes is not the USFWS’s preferred method of “protecting” piping plovers from dogs.  They would much prefer no dogs at all on beaches all summer.  Period.  Do not take the word of a jaundiced observer (me) on this… look at what happened at Western Beach this past summer.  In order to get the US Army Corps of Engineers to “renourish” the beach, USFWS prevailed upon the Prouts Neck Association to ban all dogs from the beach from April 1 to September 30.  There’s a definite pattern here – USFWS goes town by town, and even beach by beach, and extracts the strongest concessions they can with the minimum amount of effort and public outcry.  Unfortunately, USFWS has found an all too willing accomplice in the Scarborough Town Council.)

See just how close we are to that slippery slope!

In their own words…

Councilor Blaise

The crowd of about 25 dog supporters  was remarkably quiet, restrained and well-behaved considering the Council’s continuing determination to ignore the will of the people.

Councilor Blaise, however, drew major guffaws with his statement that he hadn’t seen any other solutions regarding the plover issue.

He also made the statement of the night: “I’m not going to fight the government.”  That crisp sentiment, which appears to be shared by at least three other Councilors, is at the very heart of the problem.  Councilor Blaise and others are willing – no, anxious – to cede control of access to Scarborough’s   beaches to a Federal agency.  Many of us are not.

.

.

EXCLUSIVE: Late Breaking News…