The recent publication of an article about Sharp Park in Pacifica, featuring a photo of this sign has inspired us to consider the recreational access restrictions that often accompany native plant and animal conservation projects.
In this case, an 18-hole golf course in Sharp Park is at stake. A coalition of environmental organizations (1) recently sued the City of San Francisco to close this golf course, based on their claim that the golf course violates the Endangered Species Act by harming two endangered species (Red-legged frog and San Francisco garter snake). The City of San Francisco claims that the golf course can be reconfigured to accommodate these species. Meanwhile, conservation efforts requiring closure of recreational areas, according to this sign, are continuing.
The organizations that have sued San Francisco also claim that the closures they demand will actually improve recreational opportunities. This claim is based on an assumption that the preferred form of “recreation” is standing on a trail or boardwalk behind a fence, looking at wildlife through binoculars. Naturally, people who play golf see it otherwise.
We don’t claim to know the needs of these particular endangered species. However, based on similar claims in other parks, we are skeptical. In our experience, environmentalists—and sometimes park managers—often claim that animals are more fragile than scientific evidence or actual experience suggests. We therefore suspect that animals are sometimes used by environmentalists and park managers to justify closing recreational areas.
Loss of recreational access at Fort Funston, San Francisco
In a series of closures from 1997 to 2000, the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA) fenced visitors out of more than 28 acres of Fort Funston (about 15% of total acreage), claiming the land was “bank swallow habitat” and that the swallows needed the closures for protection of their breeding colony. In fact, the fenced land is not bank swallow habitat. The swallows do not nest, breed, feed, roost, or do any of the normal activities a bird does in its habitat, inside the closures. The swallows fly over it on their way from their nests on the cliff face above the beach to Lake Merced where they feed on insects. The GGNRA sponsored a study(2) of wildlife in the fenced areas during the breeding season of the swallows, when the swallows were present. The study included a census of all birds observed inside the enclosure and reported not a single bank swallow.
A swallow expert, William M. Shields, SUNY Professor of Biology, said of the closures, “I do not believe that a closure of the size and type described by the park service is required or even would benefit the Bank Swallow at all.” He said that the closure was based on “…their [GGNRA’s] misrepresentations about the needs and safety of the Bank Swallows breeding in the cliffs.” Dr. Shields classified GGNRA’s claims of providing improved feeding habitat as, “…a major stretch and smacks of special pleading to me.”
The bank swallows nest in burrows in the cliff faces at Fort Funston, where they are out of reach of recreational visitors who seldom even notice the presence of the birds. Furthermore, as Dr. Shields notes, “The Bank Swallow like other swallows is quite suited to live with humans and their pets.” Another swallow expert, Barrett Garrison says in his monograph Bank Swallow, “Bank Swallows appear relatively insensitive to moderate levels of human-induced disturbance.” Garrison lists documented land uses around Bank Swallow colonies: hydroelectric power generation, irrigation, recreational boating, commercial agriculture, vehicular and pedestrian traffic, and livestock grazing.
When the public was fenced out of large areas of Fort Funston, the bank swallow was just a phony excuse. We try to avoid speculating about the motivation of others, but in this case the massive native plant “restoration” that followed the closure seems the likely goal of the closure.
Loss of recreational access at Albany Bulb in the East Bay
In 2008, 8 acres of the Albany Plateau (the flat area at the east end of the Albany Bulb) was fenced at a cost of $125,700. The stated purpose of this fenced enclosure was to create habitat for the burrowing owl, although owls had never been seen nesting there. Three years later there are still no burrowing owls in this fenced enclosure. In fact, there is nothing in this fenced area and nothing is happening there. Update: Ten years later, no owls have been seen nesting there. November 2017
How did we lose this recreational resource? That is a fascinating story: “During the planning process for the Eastshore State Park…the demonstration of community need for sports fields led to the designation of the eastern side of the Albany Plateau as “active recreation” land use category. This was problematic because of its proximity to the Albany Mudflats State Sanctuary and because State Parks is not in the practice of operating formal sports fields facilities.”(3) Consequently, the Tom Bates Regional Sports Complex south of Golden Gate Fields was approved for development as sports fields. Unfortunately one burrowing owl had been seen (but was not nesting) in that area two years before. Therefore, environmentalists demanded “mitigation” for the development of a sports field in that area. The “mitigation” was the creation of the 8-acre fenced enclosure on the Albany Plateau. So far, burrowing owls have not elected to use the fenced area.
But why would a burrowing owl choose to nest on the Albany Plateau when it has a nesting area just a few miles down the road at the Cesar Chavez Park? Burrowing owls can be seen nesting at Cesar Chavez Park every year from October to April. There are post-and-rope fences that designate their nesting area, but those fences are not impenetrable as is the chain link fence on the Albany Plateau. People (often with their dogs on leash) walk on trails within 20 feet of the owls. The owls don’t seem disturbed by this activity and apparently prefer the busy Cesar Chavez Park to the fenced Albany Plateau.
Are animals being used as tools to restrict recreational access?
We wish the animals could speak for themselves. Do they require the enclosures that environmentalists demand for them? We think the answer to that question is sometimes “NO!” And when environmentalists make these claims repeatedly, do they lose their credibility when the evidence indicates that such restrictions are in fact not needed? In other words, are environmentalists crying wolf? Or do they accomplish their true goals by successfully fencing people out of our parks? Is their goal an example of Fortress Conservation or a sincere effort to protect animals from harm? Do park managers prefer parks without people?
(1) Wild Equity Institute, Sierra Club, Audubon Society, National Parks Conservation Association, Center for Biological Diversity
(2) “Evaluating Wildlife Response to Coastal Dune Habitat Restoration in San Francisco, California” by Will Russell, Jennifer Shulzitski and Asha Setty, Ecological Restoration, Vol. 27, No. 4, 2009
(3) City of Albany City Council Agenda Staff Report
9 thoughts on “Fortress Conservation: The loss of recreational access”