They really HAVE Paved Paradise and Put Up a Parking Lot

[grafxman]

Birds don't require any tax dollars to thrive.
In fact, doing anything with tax dollars endangers the birds.
Thus, no. I don't want any handicapped OR non-handicapped people paying taxes for this stuff. I want them to leave it alone which is the healthiest option for wildlife.
Which conveniently solves your equality dilemma. Nobody pays anything = nobody has any expectations for a return on their investment.

No, I'm afraid that's completely wrong. In a perfect world perhaps however, at least in Florida, tax money is what's required for for places like the Everglades, our Wildlife Management Areas, etc. If those places weren't created, set aside then patrolled and protected they would have no trees, wildlife or anything else worth looking at. They would be denuded and used as a dumping ground for trash. That takes money and it comes from taxes.

 

[limr1]

No, not "realism" because realistically, the state parks could have different rules that protect the natural habitats within its borders. I live near state parks that do maintain bike and hiking trails, but the vast majority of the park is not accessible by the trails. And even in the very limited parking and picnic area, it's required that you take all your own garbage with you. The park is busy but only the parts where people are allowed to go. And the number of people that to visit is limited by the fact that they have NOT expanded their parking area.

Things do not have to be managed in order to accommodate the most people at all possible times. It might make it so certain areas are accessible and relatively comfortable, but beyond that, why does anyone have to build massive parking areas for a nature preserve?

"Well, that's just how it is, so why complain?" That's useless complacency. How else does any progress or advancement in human civilization happen? Because slowly, larger and larger numbers of people start realizing that "the way it is" doesn't have to be that way at all, and they make changes.

 

[Gavjenks]

No, I'm afraid that's completely wrong. In a perfect world perhaps however, at least in Florida, tax money is what's required for for places like the Everglades, our Wildlife Management Areas, etc. If those places weren't created, set aside then patrolled and protected they would have no trees, wildlife or anything else worth looking at. They would be denuded and used as a dumping ground for trash. That takes money and it comes from taxes.

Yes, but any amount of such money that was already being spent on basic police coverage and wardens and clerks to keep track of who's building what where, and blah blah doesn't count, though, because it would still be spent with or without a declaration of "State Birding Park."

I see no indication from the OP that the area was in any danger of being trampled or denuded under whatever protections it had BEFORE in its non-specially-designated state. It sounds like the default protections for just basic government land were sufficient, and nothing else was required.



Most those same original costs pretty much would be spent on a random abandoned government field in the middle of a cloverleaf with no notable wildlife. So It's hard to make much of an argument that this area needed to be treated specially or have access that any other random government place doesn't get.

 

[sm4him]

No, I'm afraid that's completely wrong. In a perfect world perhaps however, at least in Florida, tax money is what's required for for places like the Everglades, our Wildlife Management Areas, etc. If those places weren't created, set aside then patrolled and protected they would have no trees, wildlife or anything else worth looking at. They would be denuded and used as a dumping ground for trash. That takes money and it comes from taxes.

Yes, but any amount of such money that was already being spent on basic police coverage and wardens and clerks to keep track of who's building what where, and blah blah doesn't count, though, because it would still be spent with or without a declaration of "State Birding Park."

I see no indication from the OP that the area was in any danger of being trampled or denuded under whatever protections it had BEFORE in its non-specially-designated state. It sounds like the default protections for just basic government land were sufficient, and nothing else was required.



Most those same original costs pretty much would be spent on a random abandoned government field in the middle of a cloverleaf with no notable wildlife. So It's hard to make much of an argument that this area needed to be treated specially or have access that any other random government place doesn't get.

^Yes, I understand that there are many, many areas that would have long ago been turned into malls and parking lots and condos if not for creating areas like the Everglades, and our own Great Smoky Mountains National Park. In those instances, it's kind of a balancing act--having the government declare them state or national parks means preserving them in one sense (no one can come in and buy 10,000 acres of the Smokies Nat'l Park area and turn it into condos) but on the other hand, a certain portion of it is destroyed for roads and such.

This area was a bit unique. As Gavjenks suggested, this area was already quite well protected--it was formerly private property that had been donated to the county, on the condition that it had to remain as a refuge area; the county couldn't just sell it to some for-profit company. The county had, for years, done a GREAT job of maintaining this place as one of the FEW *true* refuges in our area. Most of our "refuges" anymore are really WMAs (Wildlife Management Areas), meaning people can hunt on the land. This area had been left as completely natural as possible, to allow the wildlife a true sanctuary. There was one SMALL, dirt parking lot area at the very front. There was also ONE "road" (drive, really) that led to the original homestead. This is where the refuge caretaker resides now. The public was not allowed to drive down that road at all.

Well, in this case, the county did SUCH a great job of maintaining it as a true refuge, that it became quite diverse in the number of bird species found there. That's when the State began to take notice, and decided to name it their first State Birding Park. That was last year, and when they did that, I knew it very likely spelled trouble.
Because the problem is, there is absolutely NO way to develop this area into something more accessible and "tourist friendly" without destroying what it IS. It would be like trying to make the entire length of the Appalachian Trail wheelchair-friendly and "accessible." The only way to do that would be to change the AT to a ROAD, and ruin it forever.
That's what is going to happen to this place, I fear.

 

[sm4him]

This sums it all up quite well, I think (Credit where credit is due: my brother wrote the following paragraph, not me)

"Just wait, after the parking lot will come the 'accessible' pathways and ramps and observation points and such. Then the interpretive visitors' center and the signs along the paths with information about the birds that used to be seen here. The audio guides will allow to actually hear what the birds sounded like. Perhaps in the not-too-distant future they will be able to use 3-D projectors to make semblances of the birds seem to appear before you! Why, it may not be long before they can turn all that nature into a truly interactive experience!"

 

[BillM]

With any luck they will start charging for parking and or admittance, then the causal tourist will stop going. Unless of course they put in a tram so these "nature loving vacationers" don't have to walk more than a few feet to get out and experience nature