The point I would like to make today is
this:
We are voluntalarily accepting additional restrictions on
camping activity - and we would like to know that the success
- or failure - of this consession will be fairly evaluated
7 years from now. And to that end, we would like to carefully
define what success or failure means.
We have heard from many different interested
parties during this process - and if there is one thing
that everyone seems to agree upon - it's that we should
assure the well being of the wildlife in our area - while
retaining reasonable resources for public use.
The problem is that - not everyone agrees
on how to do that. And it is the unenviable task of the
county staff - to make recommendations which are scientifically
defensible - and that are least tolerable to the greatest
number of people.
And while you and the commission may need
to take cumulative, public opinion into account, most of
us are more immediately concerned with what will - or will
not - produce long lasting harmony betweem preservation
and public use.
So - we campers have been willing to take
a leap of faith - that our consessions with regard to the
new restrictions - will be a useful contribution - toward
this goal of harmony. But we are also are saying that we
want to make our concessions - be acountable to some objective
criteria.
In 7 years, we will be here again. Talking
about the sucesses and failures on Shell Key. What we would
like to avoid, is finding ourselves with anecdotal or erronious
measures to gage the success of that contributiion.
Police videos of Labor Day weekend may be
disturbing - but they can't tell us anything about the overall
effect of camping on Shell Key. It's not that the holiday
video is meaningless - you might very reasonably conclude
that we need more enforcement on holiday weekends from this
video. But you can't conclude much more than that - we know
that these scenes are the exception - rather than the norm.
Lets be methodical and clear about drawing
our conclusions...
Declining nesting numbers are alarming!
But let's be carefull where we place the blame for a complex
problem that is influenced by a myriad of conditions both
locally and globally.
If a 2 month dog ban is not working because
it's too confusing and doesn't cover the full 6 month nesting
period - the next logical step is to issue a 6 month ban
- rather than going right to Zero tolerance. It's a clear
and simple solution.
What I'm saying is: Let's take deliberate
steps and state exactly what we hope to accomplish with
these new restrictions - and base our conclusions on those
things which can be empirically evaluated 7 years from now.
What we have, so far, in the draft plan
are some rather loosely defined intentions with regrard
to camping. And we know it's not easy to define every step
in this process untill you actually dig in and begin to
work out the nuts and bolts of implimentation.
We have already communicated our concerns
about some of the items that need to specified before we
can go forward with this plan - and we are grateful to have
been, informally, invited to be a part of this process when
the time comes.
We have asked for clarification on several
issues including the distinction between permits and licensing
- and how that distinction affects the notion of a "first
come / first serve" policy. We have asked about the
viability of defining individual, permanent campsites -
when the location of campsites are almost always determined
by wind and weather conditions.
So there are some things that still need
to be worked out and defined -
And you are all invited to visit our website at shellkey.org
to read our suggestions in more detail.
We campers are ready and willing to do our
part - to contribute to the goal of harmony between conservation
and public use. But we want to know that our success or
failure will be measured fairly and objectively when we
are all here again next time.
