American Kitefliers Association

Clearly you're right about the changing control of the land changing the policy, however, I can't see any logic in the claim that birds who've been nesting between the runways of an active military base would be disturbed by kite buggiers using those same runways.

You're trying to apply logic to a government agency? Chuck, you know better than that.

Unfortunately, shorebird management seems to follow a blanket policy, instead of tailoring specific management plans to specific areas. For instance, on my local beach I'm not allowed to fly a kite or walk my dog, but it's OK if I want to drive a big pickup truck back and forth to find the best fishing spot. Could it be because the fishermen have a strong political voice and pay for beach driving permits? When was the last time a bunch of kitefliers showed up at a city council meeting to lobby, and paid for a kiteflying permit?

kitephil wrote:

You're trying to apply logic to a government agency?

And therein lies the rub.

Another fact:

I don't know why the beaches referred to in the original posted article limit access to between the low tide and high tide lands.

Yet another fact:

BUT, in California, that is a compromise between the "socialist" "provide public space" faction and the "right wing" "sacred property rights" faction.  If the private property rights advocates had their way, there would be NO public access to many CA beaches.  Actually, in a way, I understand their point very well.  Unfortunately, in California, many beaches (e.g. Malibu) are privately owned.  So, the compromise was to take away (? I don't know when the rules were instigated) the private property owner's rights beyond the mean high tide line.  Don't blame the "socialists" or the "environmentalists" for the access restrictions in CA.

As I understand it, Oregon does not allow private ownership of ocean beaches at all.

Cape Cod, MA …. Plymouth beaches have the same issue….

Greg

Every state is different. In general, legal precedent limits private ownership only to the beach above the mean high tide line (so theoretically, you can walk along the water's edge at low tide, anywhere, anytime). But there are different rules regarding access to the water's edge, and there's no federal standard. This issue really has nothing to do with wildlife, it's entirely a property rights thing. In New Jersey, there are numerous ongoing lawsuits about this, from landowners who think that the government is "taking" their property if a flood-controlling dune is built or a public access walkway is installed. In Oregon, beaches are considered public roads.

Yes, private property rights.

But the conservative bloggers, like the initially referenced article, will throw a bunch of facts and partial facts together into an anti-liberal or anti-environmental rant.  They like to blame everything on the L's and E's, even when the root of some of the items are property rights, safety, or business concerns.

Although they serve a purpose by raising red flags and initiating discussion (such as this), I'm inclined to believe they do more damage by their fog.

A letter to the editor in the SW Washington state local weekly paper expressed disgust with the increased state park fees - blaming it on the "socialist government".  I did not know whether to laugh or to cry at the incredible ignorance being spawned by the right wing media.  (By media I don't mean the quoted paper, that area of the country and its media are solidly liberal.)

[In case someone doesn't "get it", government provided public parks are a socialist friendly idea.  Charging fees sufficient to cover the cost of running recreational facilities is a capitalist friendly idea.  Conservatives cut the budget, and the liberals get blamed for the result!]

OTOH - having lived in CA near a coast where the snowy plover was considered endangered, I did find it hard to justify the draconian measures taken to protect them.  I suspect the coastal populations are a lost cause.  (The last I read, the inland populations are fairly healthy?) Development (most or all the beaches in LA county are regularly groomed by machine) and invasive European beach grasses have destroyed most of their natural habitat.  There comes a point where we probably need to say - Woops, sorry about that, and try to avoid future problems before they become so critical and expensive to solve.

I hope kitephil is successful in making his point through science.  Much more useful than all the speculative, half-informed rants such as mine.

Thanks for sharing the info!  I cannot imagine beaches without kites!!
Happy Trails
gsw