Sorry the Nature Conservancy wasn't listed.
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Price <mprice at mindlink.net>
To: <bcintbird at egroups.com>; VANBIRDS <bcvanbirds at egroups.com>; BCINTBIRD
<bcintbird at egroups.com>; TWEETERS <tweeters at u.washington.edu>
Cc: TONY GREENFIELD <t_greenfield at sunshine.net>; BRYAN GATES
<bgates at pacificcoast.net>
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2000 12:08 AM
Subject: Re: [bcintbird] BOUNDARY BAY ACCESS THREATENED!!!


> Hi All.
>
> Damn, I swore I wasn't going to do this anymore, but the particular
> circumstance demanded comment.
>
> At 06:34 AM 06/18/2000 -0700, WAYNE WEBER wrote:
> >Birders,
>
> The following quote is the song a chicken sings when, after a long trip,
it
> settles comfortably to its roost. Also an illustration of consequences.
>
> >The north side of Boundary Bay, located in the Municipality of Delta,
> >B.C., is an outstanding birding area which has been used by birders
> >for decades. It hosts huge wintering populations of waterfowl and
> >Dunlin and many wintering raptors (including Snowy and Short-eared
> >Owls). In spring and fall, it has impressive shorebird migrations.
> >Rare shorebirds which have been seen here include Far Eastern Curlew,
> >Bar-tailed, Hudsonian and Marbled Godwits, Snowy Plover, American
> >Avocet, Buff-breasted Sandpiper, and Red Phalarope, as well as more
> regular species.
>
> >I have lived in Delta for 11 years, and am very familiar with the
> >situation. Although there have been occasional traffic and parking
> >problems, they have been blown out of proportion by local farmers, and
> >these parking restrictions ARE NOT JUSTIFIED. The 3 roads where a
> >total parking ban is planned are those which are the best access for
> >shorebirds! Delta Council has heard little if any from birders on the
> >subject, and is not aware of the serious impact this will have on our
> >ability to enjoy our hobby.
> (snip)
>
> There is a historical context and an ironic footnote to the above. Forgive
> me if I live in the past during this posting, but the present consequences
> derive from historical decisions.
>
> I likewise am--well, now it's much more accurate to say 'was'; I never go
> to the place any more for reasons which will become obvious--very familiar
> with Boundary Bay, sufficiently so to have authored an article sometime in
> the late 1980's or early '90's, 'An Annotated Checklist of the Shorebirds
> of Boundary Bay', for Discovery, the journal of the Vancouver Natural
> History Society--I don't remember the volume or issue number--that appears
> to have been of use to some people, and to have contributed the 'Boundary
> Bay' section of the Vancouver BC bird-finding guide. At one time, though
my
> knowledge was only of the surface-scratching type, I knew Boundary Bay and
> its birds probably as well as anyone did, and yet was aware there was a
> vast amount of further knowledge there, waiting to be learned, but only if
> Boundary Bay could be conserved against non-nature-related uses for long
> enough.
>
> At one time, in the early to mid-1980's, before the onslaught of
> urbanisation and off-leash dog-owners, Boundary Bay was the birding jewel
> of western Canada and, properly developed, could have become one of the
> top five birding tourist destinations in North America. In the late 1970's
> and early 1980's, its main attractions were winter raptor- and waterfowl
> birding (and let me make my manners and thank Michael Force publicly for
> introducing me to Boundary Bay), and very few birders went there in
summer,
> Roy Phillips being a regular there and by his own admission he didn't go
> often. I know this because I was there a lot during the summer of 1980 and
> after, after Paul Yorke and I discovered its east end was chockful of rare
> shorebirds that summer even after the northbound migration had passed
> through, and that they passed the grassy spit just east of 112th Street as
> the tide came in almost as if in review. In the remainder of that summer,
> it was extremely rarely that we met another birder at the best daily
> tide-related shorebird times, the most likely time to meet one. Vancouver
> birders' main attention was paid to Iona Island, the Reifel Refuge,
> Crescent Beach (a small estuary and migrant-trap at the E end of the Bay),
> and Roberts Bank, and in the early 1980's no one I talked to seemed to
know
> much about the place except for John Ireland and and a couple other Brit
> banders who had done shorebird-ringing there.
>
> I also noted the relative ease of access, and the fact that it was close
to
> Vancouver and several suburban communities with their extensive tourist
> infrastructure, the fact that the timing of its specialty, the southbound
> shorebird migration, corresponded almost point-for-point with the summer
> tourism season. In other words, Boundary Bay, with its stunningly high
> wildlife values, was a potential nature-tourist goldmine, the equal of the
> best in North America, and superior to most. That's not opinion, by the
> way: Boundary Bay got very high scores on all the criteria which define an
> vital or important site. Comparing between different sites such as
Manomet,
> Montauk, Point Reyes on such things as species totals, rates of
> rarity-species occurrence as a proportion of regular-species occurrence,
> sheer numbers and the role of the area in providing an important summering
> area for non-migrant adolscent shorebirds, waterfowl, and seabirds as well
> as hosting massive numbers of migrants and wintering birds, it was clear
> the Bay was one of the top such sites of North America.
>
> The equivalent Washington State site, Bowerman Basin, was an hours-long
> drive from any major city and, once there, was--relative to Boundary
> Bay--difficult to reach, and there was little tourist infrastructure once
> there, but most importantly, was based more or less on the migration
> dynamics of one species, Western Sandpiper Calidris mauri, yet was highly
> popular. Boundary Bay had much more and was comparatively within walking
> distance. And it was clear that, whether shorebird, raptor, or waterfowl,
> the astounding species mix *itself* was the draw of such a site. There
were
> birding destinations with far less that were very successful. Then,
> Boundary Bay would have ranked in the top five or ten sites in North
> America, up there with Pelee and Montauk, and without having to lift a
> finger to do more that put in some viewing towers and boardwalks. If
> nothing else, it could have become a stellar Bird Observatory. It was all
> there, ours for the losing.
>
> Vancouver birders began to pay frequent and sustained attention to the
> north side of Boundary Bay in the early 1980's *only after* it became
clear
> that it was a generator of shorebird rarity sightings equalling even Iona
> Island, and with a far larger shorebird species mix (I believe that the
> shorebird species total for Boundary Bay is now at fifty-one or fifty-two,
> with thirty to thirty-five annually-occurring species of varying degrees
of
> abundance from very common to quite rare). As I said, I was there during
> those years and I *saw* how little attention birders paid to the place:
any
> other version would be crude revisionism. But usage also increased
> throughout the 1980's as more birders moved from Vancouver to the suburbs
> nearer the Bay. It's worth remembering that for about ten years beginning
> in the early 1980's birders were not only the largest full-time user group
> of Boundary Bay's resources, far larger than the hunters' association,
they
> were throughout the year virtually its only such group, and had they
> represented themselves aggressively *then*, many of the problems
> experienced since, including this one, might not have or would not have
> occurred.
>
> And, you know, we could have had it. One of the best shorebirding sites in
> western Canada could have been saved for just that purpose, and--with the
> fact that this was Canada's best wintering raptor location and there were
> enormous flocks of waterfowl and seabirds of great variety, with many
> rarities, in large migrant and wintering flocks--turned into a big tourist
> money-spinner as well. In the early 1980's the owner of the house at the
> end of 112th Street died, and his widow was willing to sell the property
> there to any conservation group willing to buy it. At first, she hadn't
> considered the possibility, but in frequent conversations with her as I'd
> straggle back from the 112th Street Spit she came to see the Bay's value.
> Well, I went to Canadian Wildlife Service: not interested; BC Wildlife:
not
> interested; Vancouver Natural History Society: not interested. No one was
> interested. The widow died in 1983, and the opportunity came and went, and
> everything devolved from then on into its present dog-and-pony political
> stasis and tokenism, where one or two government players for years have
> skillfully played the many minor interest-groups off against each other,
> and done it well enough that most have been well-coopted into the process,
> rendering them less threatening. Nothing is more subtle, nor a bigger
waste
> of taxpayers' money and conservationists' time, than a sleek Ottawa-based
> naturecrat wearing a suit which cost as much as you and I make in a month
> at what he's pleased to call his work.
>
> It's that last organisation cited, the VNHS, that--given the context of
> this request--contains the ironic component. When I proposed the idea of a
> birding park along the lines of Point Pelee at Boundary Bay to the Bird
> Committee of the Vancouver Natural History Society, without whose approval
> the proposal--vital to any such initiative--would go no further in that
> organisation, I was told by that Committee's senior member, whose opinion
> normally carried the most weight in that organisation on birding matters
> and on whom the executive of that group would rely for endorsement or
> rejection of a birding issue, and I stress this is a verbatim quote, and
> one I'll never forget, "Michael, Stanley Park is *far* more important than
> Boundary Bay!" And the proposal was discussed no further. The irony is
that
> the author of that remark is now the author of the impassioned appeal to
> make birders' voices heard to maintain access to the very area of the Bay
> he dismissed as unimportant in the years crucial to its protection, years
> that were then wasted.
>
> Well, it appears from the quoted posting that there has been a change of
> heart, not to say an appropriation of what I was been trying to sell
people
> for all those years since 1980: buy the land, and keep the dogs out. It's
> worth remembering that the parking issue is actually a dog-control one:
for
> every birder parking at the S end of one of the Bay roads, there's vastly
> more dog-owners, the largest user-group of Boundary Bay since the
> mid-1990's. But, there's more joy in Heaven: personal enlightment is
better
> late than never.
>
> But, politically, this appeal comes far too late to help birding at
> Boundary Bay's best areas. Years too late. For want of action *then*, and
> it could have been done, Boundary Bay has degraded since. There is the
> deliberate intrusion of helicopter training in the Bay's *most* sensitive
> part, at its east end in Mud Bay, whatever its protected designation, and
> expansion of the Boundary Bay Airport to handle regular jet traffic (the
> federal Department of Transport showing its normal perennial and
> comprehensive contempt for wildlife, Canadian Wildlife Service and BC
> Wildlife Branch their equally-eternal impotence in the face of the more
> powerful ministry, and nature organisations their deep-dyed reluctance to
> enter actual confrontation when the interests of wildlife are arrogantly
> overridden by government), by hordes of off-leash dog owners, by
> ATV-drivers, by windsurfers on the Bay, all kinds of nature-destructive
> activities that have corroded the Bay's wildlife values to a shade of its
> former self. Only a small token section, overrun by off-leash dogs, at the
> opposite end of the Bay from the best parts (which are 104th Street east
to
> Mud Bay/Crescent Beach) is designated as a public nature site. The answer
> to the question of who actually does what to protect Boundary Bay's
> birdlife is simple: nobody, and nothing.
>
> Birder apathy and perverse decison-making over the years have directly led
> to this situation. To those involved, a hearty 'Well Done!'. Watching the
> degradation of Boundary Bay over the last two decades has been one of the
> bitterest experiences of my life, and--not to say it can't be done--but it
> is hugely difficult for me to find forgiveness in my soul for those who
had
> decisional control and did not use it during those crucial years when
> actual protection was possible before other, much more aggressively
> self-interested interest groups appropriated the agenda of Boundary Bay
> usage by default. Off-leash dog owners, not the least of them.
>
> Well, off the top of the head, here's a possible solution to the
North-side
> access problem. Have a responsible local organisation make a request *at
> the organisation level* to the Delta AirPark at the S end of 104th Street
> to lease annually a part of their parking lot for birder-parking, and set
> up some kind of fee structure to charge birders to use it, and birder
could
> then walk the 3 km east to the 112th Street Spit. Decide whether to use a
> per-car or per-occupant fee or both. Approach area farmers and see if a
> similar deal can't be worked out. Decide to charge it up-front or roll it
> into the membership fee of the organisation. A smart organisation would
set
> up a system of preferential parking, then advertise it as a membership
perk.
>
> >From my old 1980's proposal for a Pelee-style nature park at Boundary
Bay,
> here's a suggestion for access to such a spread-out location: because of
> the distances involved, set up with the GVRD a small electric shuttle
along
> the dyke such as they run at Point Pelee, usable by anyone for, say, a
buck
> a ride; and maybe get a local business or businesses to sponsor its
> purchase &/or maintenance &/or operation, and--this is important--yes,
> allow advertising on it, and use the money and business connections made
to
> expand services. At the organisational--*not* individual--level, make the
> hospitality industry aware of what a potential tourist resource they have
> here right under their noses (don't tell them how fast it's going) and get
> them onside. When a single birder calls for enforcement of leash-laws,
> civic bodies ignore that person, but if the hotel industry makes the same
> recommendation, those bodies tend to pay attention. In time, they'll be
the
> ones to promote the resource. Why shouldn't they? Having Boundary Bay as a
> big, dependable birding tourist destination is far better for local
> business and for the birds than the Regional District running Boundary Bay
> as Greater Vancouver's biggest dog shitter.
>
> Instead of taking everyone and everything for granted as we have for so
> many years, and thinking government will give us access just because we
> birders are morally superior to all those nasty other interest groups,
> instead of taking that free ride as though it'll last forever, while
others
> organise and fund-raise to protect their interests, look for solutions
that
> work. That means money, usually, and competent organisation and management
> (note I say management, and not administration: from what I've seen and
> experienced, most nature groups strangle from a from a dearth of the
former
> and an overabundance of the latter, where, unless you're part of the top
> clique, it would take fourteen committee and sub-committee meetings and
> eighteen months for the executive to decide just which hand they'll let
you
> use to scratch your butt). From what I've seen over the last twenty years,
> birders have now gone to the bottom of the pile in Greater Vancouver, even
> as they're gaining that long-overdue political and economic ascendancy in
> some other venues. Here, I'll save you the cost of a consultant's fee: get
> some aggressive, smart, responsible leadership--even if you have to pay
for
> it: competence is rarely free--and start making up for lost time. Who
> knows, in time, with enough grit, savvy and push, you might even get a
> piece of the best Boundary Bay areas back for birders' use. For now, take
> the punishment, lick the wound, learn the lesson.
>
> Best of luck.
>
> Michael Price
>
> PS: I know there are going to be screams of self-justifying rage and
> protest from some involved in the above historical process. I don't care:
> I'm not interested in either private or public vindictiveness or
> butt-covering revisionism on this subject, so save your time & bandwidth.
> Instead, put your energy into looking for practical solutions and ways to
> prevent such situations from re-occurring, and try to recover some of the
> damage caused by past indifference and inactivity.
>
>
> And take upon us the mystery of things,
> As if we were God's spies...
>
> --Wm. Shakespeare, King Lear