We have added a new page to the Fermata weblog – Avitourism and Birding. This page details our work in birding, and provides links to both our research articles and reports as well as to the various macro-level surveys of birders (NSRE, USFWS, Outdoor Foundation). In the next few weeks we will post a “crib sheet” with bullet points that every birder and conservationist should know, as well as a PowerPoint with voice that can be used to argue the economic case for bird conservation.
The first decade of the millennium is past. How will those ten years be remembered? WW II is the 1940s, the cultural revolution is the 1960s, a roaring economy is the 1920s. How will we label the 2010s?
For many 9/11 will be the moment that brands the decade. Perhaps the wars in the Middle East will give 9/11 a run for its money, although all of these events bleed together, literally. For many, though, I suspect that the decade is the period when we were all greened.
This nation (and world) has passed through conservation eras before. The late 1890s and early 1900s were Roosevelt years. In nine short years Theodore Roosevelt (with help from Pinchot, Garfield, and Lacy) set aside over 230 million acres and established the standard for the world (I should mention, though, that Grant preserved Yellowstone, creating the world’s first national park). The early 1970s brought the environmental years, with Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring spurring the movement to clean our air and water. We often forget that it was President Nixon who brought about the Clear Water Act, Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act, and NEPA.
How ironic that the two most momentous periods in Amiercan conservation and environmental history were guided by Republican presidents. Times do change.
In most cases these eras can be tied to a single or series of catalyzing events. The 1929 Wall Street collapse, Pearl Harbor, the Selma march, the Tet offensive, and 9/11 were prelude to immense social and political change. In the case of 9/11, we are still in the midst of that shift.
Conservationists and environmentalists have similar cataclysmic events to point to. The Cuyahoga River Fire in 1969, Love Canal, the first Earth Day, and Three Mile Island all led to significant changes in public perception and policy. I still remember W. Eugene Smith’s vivid images in Life Magazine showing the effects of mercury poisoning in Minamata, Japan. Humans often need a dramatic event to crystallize the issues that are otherwise amorphous and poorly defined. The current lack of public concern about global climate change is a perfect example. Perhaps when Manhattan or Miami goes under the public will finally take note.
By “greened” I am referring to the popularization of environmental concerns. “Green” is a marketing term, a way of branding a product or act. A brand may well be a promise, but that promise is not always kept. In this past decade PR, marketing, and company flacks convinced the county (and the world) that a new age of sustainability had arrived. And, as with so much of marketing, no one actually took the time to look beyond these promises to see actual proof. Remember, in the green decade British Petroleum morphed into Beyond Petroleum. Now we see the proof that belies that claim in the Gulf of Mexico.
Let’s look past the hype and to the numbers. According to a recent article in New Scientist “the average fuel efficiency of the US vehicle fleet has risen by just 3 miles per gallon since the days of the Ford Model T, and has barely shifted at all since 1991.”
These are the conclusions reached by Michael Sivak and Omer Tsimhoni at the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute in Ann Arbor. They analysed the fuel efficiency of the entire US vehicle fleet of cars, motorcycles, trucks and buses from 1923 to 2006. Progress has stalled since then, though, despite growing environmental concerns. From 1991 to 2006 the average efficiency improved by only 1.8 per cent to 17.2 mpg (7.31 km/l).
The average size of a North American suburban home in 1950 was 800 sq ft, in 1970 it was 1500 sq ft, and in 2000 it was 2266 sq ft. According to the US Census Bureau, the average size of a US home as of 2006 is 2,469 square feet. In the same period, the average household size (number of people) dropped from 3.54 to around 2.5. Houses grow larger, and families grow smaller. Here is another scrap to remember – since at least 2005, there have been more TVs per household on average than people per household. I guess we need the TV’s to fill that extra space.
Surely public involvement in environmental issues is an area that showed an increase during the green decade? Here are the numbers.
The latest Gallup survey shows a decline in the percentage of people who are active in or sympathetic toward the environmental movement, and a doubling of those who are unsympathetic. Yes, environmental supporters still outnumber opponents by a wide margin, but wouldn’t we have expected growth in the age of green?
Even more dramatic is the decrease in the percentage of the American public that believes that the environmental movement is doing more harm than good.
We rail about the oil industry, yet refuse to take the steps necessary to dramatically raise the average fleet mileage (and a CAFE standard of 34.1 by 2016 is hardly dramatic). We have smaller families to feed yet larger houses to heat, cool, and decorate. We buy green, yet act gray. What gives?
Let’s begin with awareness. Just how aware are Americans about the details of our environmental challenges? Young adults today are among the first to have taken environmental education classes (they were certainly absent when I attended school). We now have environmental learning centers, environmental educators, environmental tv channels, environmental cartoon shows, and environmental organizations constantly pushing environmental education. Shouldn’t we see a higher level of environmental knowledge and literacy than in the past?
But for most Americans, it [environmental literacy] falls far short. Most people accumulate a diverse and unconnected smattering of factoids, a few (sometimes incorrect) principles, numerous opinions, and very little real understanding. Research shows that most Americans believe they know more about the environment than they actually do. For example, 45 million Americans think the ocean is a source of fresh water; 120 million think spray cans still have CFCs in them even though CFCs were banned in 1978; another 120 million people think disposable diapers are the leading problem with landfills when they actually represent about 1% of the problem; and 130 million believe that hydropower is America’s top energy source, when it accounts for just 10% of the total. It is also why very few people understand the leading causes of air and water pollution or how they should be addressed…NEETF, Roper
If Americans struggle with the details, green marketers are more than willing to gloss over the facts for them. According to the American Marketing Association, green marketing is the marketing of products that are presumed to be environmentally safe. But what do they mean by presumed? What is safe? Who is sitting in judgment about what is or is not “green?” The auto industry gave Americans SUVs and Hummers splashing through wetlands on your television set while killing the electric car. The same industry has opposed meaningful CAFE standards since first considered. Exxon may donate to an environmental group, but then gives millions to global warming deniers. Check this for more information about greenwashing, and this older (but still germane) article about green marketing.
This is not to say that green marketing, PR, and communications can’t contribute. I will argue that given the American public’s penchant to buy what is being hawked, green marketing and communications could be a powerful voice and force for good. But to be such a force for good, marketers will need to be accurate, honest, and transparent. In other words, don’t use BP as the model for honest green PR.
Being greened, though, involves more than outside forces (the industries and their marketers). More importantly, we, the public, must be complicit for greenwashing to work. We have to suspend common sense and buy into the shtick.
Americans have been led to believe (and are willing to follow) that change can happen without sacrifice. To even mention sacrifice in American politics is certain death. We do not mention raising taxes (we fight our wars on credit), we do not talk about dramatic changes in transportation systems (we offer virtually meaningless mileage standards), and we want to keep our automobile culture without sacrificing clean beaches and safe seafood. We want all for nothing.
Here is an analogy. Drug consumption in the U.S. is well on its way to destroying a neighboring country – Mexico. Without our consumption, there is no drug war. Gas consumption in this U.S. works the same way, and its reach is global. The oil spilling onto our Gulf beaches is like cocaine washing ashore in Florida.
In this confusing, conflictive time, Americans are looking to their leaders for guidance. In the past, we have found answers from our clergy, elected officials, and the press. Now the clergy is either muted by scandal, or is itself politicized by social campaigners that link abortion, gay marriage, and the environment. The traditional press, the 4th Estate, is in economic meltdown, and environmental writers are an endangered species themselves. Want proof? After a 14-year run, Columbia has suspended its environmental journalism program. Congress has always been relatively easy to influence, but with increased campaign spending access is becoming even easier to buy. If you doubt this, just check campaign donations from the oil industry.
Who is left? What about advocacy groups, the nonprofits that campaign for social change? Remember that perfect storm? The green groups, I fear, have contributed to this blow up as well.
In the 1970’s groups such as the Sierra Club were instrumental in forcing the environmental legislation that shifted both American policy and perception. Losing their tax exempt status in those early skirmishes, the Sierra Club continues today with a concerted political effort. However, most environmental and conservation groups now steer clear of advocacy. In part this is due to their 501 (c) 3 IRS status which restricts political activity. But even in areas where they are able to act most have chosen not to. Why?
Perhaps in part this failure to act is because the environmental movement has calcified, and become unable to march to the front. I suspect in part it is due to an honest desire to avoid confrontation, to be “good citizens.” I also believe that in part the green groups quickly embrace those initiatives that are conflict free, and avoid those that may entail blood on the carpets. Notice how many green groups have rushed to the Last Child in the Woods campaign, a feel-warm-all-over effort if ever there was one. Of course we want our kids and grandkids to grow up with an appreciation for nature and the outdoors. But, honestly, will issues such as the Deepwater Horizon gulf gusher wait for 4th graders to be able to vote? And, more importantly, is there any proof that this environmental education effort will be any more effective than those of the past?
In the U.S. there are over 1 million 501 (c) 3 charity organizations, one for every 300 American men, women, and children. Between 1998 and 2008 the number of these organizations grew by over 64%. Of course not all are conservation groups (many are churches and religious groups), but the growth is remarkable nevertheless. In the environmental world, nonadvocacy organizations such as land conservancies and land trusts have enjoyed spectacular growth as well. We now have more and more groups competing for what is generally a same-sized pie. To survive, many have chosen to focus on local land and planning initiatives, and avoid politics. Even international groups such as The Nature Conservancy prefer to stand back from political advocacy. As a result we have more green groups and fewer green acolytes.
Of course all of these groups are desperate for funding, and many of the extractive industries (oil and gas, timber, mining) have responded by filling some of the gap. BP has donated millions to The Nature Conservancy, and ConocoPhillips has supported Audubon and conservation efforts around the country. Perhaps they are simply being good corporate citizens. But in an essay published in the Wall Street Journal, the influential neoconservative Irving Kristol counseled that “corporate philanthropy should not be, and cannot be, disinterested,” but should serve as a means “to shape or reshape the climate of public opinion.”
Most of the groups will deny (testily, I might add) any link between the money they receive and the purity (as one recently put it) of the mission. Perhaps. But an exchange between a donor and a recipient involves at least an implied quid pro quo. The company donates money, and receives, in turn, at least the good will and good name of the recipient. And, of course, those “good names” have been more than helpful in greening the American public.
Edward Abbey said, “the idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders.” At no time in my life has this been more true. The Gulf gusher shows that no matter how much land you conserve, you can never buy enough. If you could buy enough, you can never adequately protect it from the outside world. Isolationism does not work in international policy or conservation. The defenders of nature must be advocates, engaged in a political system that makes decisions daily (such as whether or not to exempt a proposed well from an EIS) that directly impact the resources we strive to protect.
As Zaradic, Pergams, and Kareiva recently noted, “Ultimately, the fate of biodiversity and intact ecosystems may depend less on rates of habitat loss or invasive species, than on public perception of whether conservation should be supported at all.” In order to stem this tide of change, the green groups will need to slip outside of their skins and embrace their neighbors rather than just their fellow members and donors.
Abraham Lincoln said that “public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it nothing can succeed.” The environmental movement must reenlist the public, and invite both their involvement and their sentiment. Perhaps the existing structures should be altered. Shellenberger and Nordhaus, in The Death of Environmentalism, argued that “above all else, we need to take a hard look at the institutions the movement has built over the last 30 years. Are existing environmental institutions up to the task of imagining the post-global warming world? Or do we now need a set of new institutions founded around a more expansive vision and set of values?”
Whatever is needed, the change will be forced from the outside rather than come from inside the current structure. Can the Tea Party be the only current movement that understands the power of grassroots activism? Shellenberger and Nordhaus believe that “we need to take an urgent step backwards before we can take two steps forward.” If this step backwards is one returning the movement to the basic concepts of public engagement and grassroots organizing, then I agree. Absent strong political (particularly presidential) leadership, there is no other choice.
Ted Eubanks
Austin and Galveston, Texas
14 June 2010
The BP/Deepwater Horizon/Transocean/Halliburton farce continues. Farce is a poor choice of words, since a farce, in the theatrical sense, is humorous. The Gulf gusher is not farce, or funny. It’s despicable.
Birds have taken front stage in this disaster, at times overshadowing the loss of human lives. The images of birds floundering, drenched in a coppery gelatin ooze, are gut-wrenching. No, we shouldn’t forget the eleven men killed in the initial explosion. Yet I believe it human nature to reach out to those creatures that are helpless in their own right. I suspect that the media will continue to stream the grim images of the dead and dying birds
Good. The world needs to see.
As the gusher continues to blow its toxic mix into the deeps of the Gulf, the toll is mounting. We have all seen the glassy eyed brown pelicans, cormorants, gulls, and terns as they convulse on the beaches. But what does the average Joe really know about these birds, or the whales, dolphins, turtles, manatees, fish, crabs, oysters, and such that are equally vulnerable? The public knows only what it can see. If a bird is oiled, washes to a beach, and then is photographed by a press generally restricted from the area, it counts. The rest, the 99.9999% that never surfaces, is imaginary. A dead bird, fish, turtle, or whale out of sight is out of the public’s mind.
Here is what is at risk, what is dying as I write these words.
Waterbirds is an appropriate term for many of these coastal birds (I avoid the word species since it depersonalizes them). They breed, nest, feed, preen, loaf, forage, hide, display, and fly over and around these waters. The two, water and birds, are inextricable. Oil in water means oil on birds.
This is a tricolored heron, once called (much more appropriately) the Louisiana heron. Scientist tend to squeeze the life out of bird names. Least sandpiper. Lesser yellowlegs. Black tern. Red knot. Where is the magic? Where is the poetry in these names?
This heron is neck-deep in the waters of the Laguna Madre. The city of South Padre Island discharges fresh water from its waste water treatment plant near their convention center, and this spot has become popular for birds and birders. Birds such as this heron need fresh water to drink and bathe in, and in the hypersaline Laguna fresh water is hard to find.
Remember that point. All water is not equal. Some birds have enlarged salt glands that allow them to actually drink salt water. Some tolerate brackish water, and some demand only fresh water. All die when their preferred water is fouled with oil.
Look closely into this heron’s eyes. This is a living, breathing, pulsating creature, a unique individual, who, like tens of thousands of its kind, is now looking down the barrel of a gun. At the turn of the last century herons and egrets were decimated by hunters who shot them for their plumes. A feather or skinned bird atop a woman’s hat was in vogue then. Early conservationists such as Theodore Roosevelt, George Grinnell Bird, and Frank Chapman began the Audubon Movement to stop the slaughter. The guns have been silenced, but not the death.
Roosevelt conserved over 230 million acres in his nine years in office, including the first 51 bird reservations (now national wildlife refuges). Many of the earliest refuges are along the Gulf coast. How ironic that these same refuges are now threatened by a menace unknown in his time (although he did have the foresight to break Standard Oil into pieces).
Roseate spoonbills were not prime targets of the plume hunters since their feathers fade. The brilliant pink of a spoonbill is from the crustacea they filter out of the rich Gulf waters. But since spoonbills nested in the same rookeries as the other herons and egrets, their young were lost as well when the hunters came. Over the past century these waterbirds have begun to slowly recover from the millinery slaughter, yet they now face another threat. We have shot them, drained their marshes, and now pollute their waters.
Here is another egret you should know – the reddish egret. The reddish is the egret of the immediate Gulf, rarely ranging any distance inland. Audubon estimates that this bird has a continental population of around 12,000 (no more than 70,000 globally). At this moment these birds are nesting along the coast, with the next generation not yet able to fly. During the winter these egrets aggregate in large feeding flocks in the Laguna Madre of south Texas. What if the oil has shifted there? What about the whooping cranes that return to the central Texas coast in October? What about the redheads that winter in the Laguna, estimated to be 90% of this duck’s entire world population?
The whooping crane is not the only endangered species that winters along the Gulf coast. The piping plovers that breed in the Great Plains winter here as well. In fact, virtually all of the world’s population winters between Florida and Texas.
These birds feed along the beaches and sand flats, spending as long as 8 months gorging on interstitial organisms like polychaetes (worms in the sand). What if this sand is oiled? What if their food supply has been destroyed? Shouldn’t we have thought about this before poking a hole 5000 feet deep in the Gulf? How could the federal government have exempted this well from assessing the potential environmental impacts?
In this gusher (please, this is not a spill) oil permeates the water column. Even the sheen on the surface matters.
This black skimmer at the top of the page does as the name implies. The bird skims the surface of the water with its lower mandible extended into the water. When it feels a small fish, it quickly slams the bill shut. But in oil? What if there are no small fish to skim?
Eventually, the damage will be assessed, and we will begin the inane discussion about the dollar value of what has been lost. Let me ask a simple question. How much is your pet worth? How much would I have to pay you for little Fluffy? I have three cats, and I would never place a value on their lives. The joy they bring to my life is beyond a price.
I value birds in the same way. No sentient human on this planet has lived a life apart from birds. They are with us every day of our lives. We see them soar while driving to work, and we hear their songs while we barbecue in the backyard. Birds are ever present, and the most direct path for humans to find nature.
No, I will not tell you what a bird is worth. But I can tell you the economic value of watching them. According to the US Fish and Wildlife Service, birders spend over $35 billion annually in this country. Yes, that’s billion with a “b.” Of that staggering amount, over $12 billion is trip related, with the remainder ($23 billion) going to equipment and supplies.
Here is how these expenditures break out for the Gulf states:
As you can see, wildlife viewers in Gulf coast states spend nearly $4 billion annually. Of course, not all of this is spent in coastal counties and communities. But Gulf birding is decidedly coastal, therefore it is safe to presume that the majority of the dollars are being at least generated by an interest in coastal birds. Most of the Gulf coast communities lack the retail facilities to adequately capture the sale of equipment and supplies, but certainly the expenditures for food and lodging stay along the coast. Even a conservative assessment would still credit birding with contributing hundreds of millions of dollars to the coastal Gulf.
But gross expenditures do not tell all of the story. The Gulf may be home to the American petroleum and petrochemical industries, particularly the segment of the Gulf between Corpus Christi and Baton Rouge, but one visit to this region will show you that most of that wealth goes somewhere else. Port Lavaca, Palacios, Bay City, Freeport, Clute, Texas City, Baytown, Sabine Pass, Port Arthur, Groves, New Iberia, Morgan City, Houma, and Thibodaux; wander through these coastal communities and follow the money. Where are the billions being earned annually by these immense companies? Why are these coastal communities so downtrodden and poor?
Simple. The dollars leave town. Yes, they do collect in places like Houston, but in general the coast itself is a plantation economy. The impact of the revenues that come from birding, fishing, hunting, and other types of recreation is therefore heightened in these otherwise depauperate communities. Now even this is threatened.
President Theodore Roosevelt, our first and greatest conservation president, said that “the nation behaves well if it treats the natural resources as assets which it must turn over to the next generation increased; and not impaired in value.” In the Gulf of Mexico we have not come remotely close to following his lead. We have drained the swamps, filled the marshes, channelized the rivers, dredged the harbors, polluted the waters with agricultural runoff and urban waste, and now we are suffocating a coast already on life support.
The Gulf coast has value if the birds have value. The coast has worth if its people have worth. For far too long this part of America has been servile, its people content to gather up the scraps from the master’s table. Edward Abbey said “God bless America. Let’s save some of it.” I agree. Why not start with the Gulf?
Ted Lee Eubanks
Galveston, Texas
12 June 2010
The current gusher despoiling the Gulf of Mexico has captured the attention of the world, and no aspect better illustrates the sickening impacts than the birds. Photographs of oiled birds litter the media, and discussions of effects on the coast usually include people and birds. No one can gaze at the grisly photos of brown pelicans completed immersed in toxic goo without feeling both compassion and fury.
No one knows this part of the world more intimately than we do, at least when it comes to the places where birds are to be seen along the Gulf. Since our inception in the early 1990s we have worked on numerous birding projects in the Gulf, including the development of the first birding trail in the world, the Great Texas Coastal Birding Trail. The following is a list of the Gulf of Mexico birding projects we have been involved in, with links to the trails themselves and, in some cases, our reports and products as well.
Mexico
Laguna de Aves (Tamaulipas)
Mesoamerican Ecotourism Alliances (MEA)
RARE invited Ted Eubanks to aid in the original establishment of the Mesoamerian Ecotourism Alliance, or MEA. MEA includes representatives from the Yucatan, thus the connection to the Gulf. Meetings were held in Belize, Guatemala, and Honduras. Through those meetings we met Jon Kohl, who works with Fermata on guide training. This photo, taken by Ted, is from the meeting in Lancetilla (Honduras).
Texas
Madge Lindsay of Texas Parks and Wildlife and Ted met while working on Governor Ann Richards’ nature tourism plan for Texas. After completing the plan the two of them began to plot ways to actually implement the recommendations (including brainstorming at the Watchable Wildlife conference in Corpus Christi in 1993). The result? The Great Texas Coastal Birding Trail, the first in the world.
Nature Tourism in the Lone Star State
Here are the first three trails, in their order of development. The dedication of the first trail took place in Rockport, with Roger Tory Peterson as the guest of honor.
Great Texas Coastal Birding Trail (central coast)
Great Texas Coastal Birding Trail (upper coast)
Great Texas Coastal Birding Trail (lower coast)
British Airways Tourism for Tomorrow Awards 2001
The success of the birding trails led to establishment of the World Birding Center and its partner sites in the Lower Rio Grande Valley (LRGV) of Texas. The following is research that Fermata conducted as part of the feasibility study.
However, another article predated this research that should be mentioned. Earlier Ted, Dick Payne, and Paul Kerlinger published High Island: A Case Study in Avitourism (Birding 25: 415-420. Eubanks, T., P. Kerlinger and R. H. Payne, 1993), an article noteworthy in two aspects. First, this survey is among the first conducted in Texas regarding the economic impacts of birding. Second, in this article Ted coined the word “avitourism,” a word that has come into worldwide usage.
The following are but two of the studies that we completed for the World Birding Center and its member communities. We also completed strategies for Hidalgo, Weslaco (which ultimately led to the creation of the Llano Grande State Park), and Mission. Our economic feasibility study for the South Padre Island WBC resulted in a sizable ($ 1 million) grant from the Texas legislature.
World Birding Center
South Padre Island Birding and Nature Center
Fermata also worked with the Texas Coastal Bend to develop a birding initiative – Bird The Bend.
Fermata has also helped Galveston over the years. Here are a couple of the projects we have been involved in.
Ecotourism in Galveston Bay – – An Economic Opportunity
GINTC
Ted, along with his coauthors, compiled their decades of birding in two landmark publications. The following are the two books, published by Texas A&M University Press.
Birdlife of Houston, Galveston, and the Upper Texas Coast (Texas A&M Press) (Eubanks, Behrstock, and Weeks)
Finding Birds Along the Great Texas Coastal Birding Trail (Texas A&M Press) (Eubanks, Behrstock, and Davidson)
Fermata organized an interpretive exhibit comprised of many of Ted’s bird photographs. The exhibit, Faces of Flight, showed in Galveston as well as Houston Hobby Airport. The interpretive panels that accompanied the exhibit informed the public about the habitats of the Texas coast and the need to protect them.
Fermata also created an interpretive sign for the Galveston Seawall, informing visitors about the birds in the area. During Hurricane Ike volunteers rescued the panel, and stored it until after the storm. Little remained atop that stretch of the seawall, and our sign surely would have been destroyed. It has been reinstalled, and is back to telling people about the incredible birds of the Gulf coast.
Fermata aided The Conservation Fund in the establishment and organization of the Texas Pineywoods Experience. This intiative generally focuses on the woodlands and rivers of East Texas, but it does extend south to Beaumont, Port Arthur, and the Gulf. Andy Jones and the TCF staff have been instrumental in the recent establishment of the Neches River NWR (against withering opposition from Dallas and the water boards), and the expansion of the Big Thicket National Preserve.
Slightly to the west, Fermata completed a study of the nature tourism market along the Trinity River. The river flows south from Dallas to Galveston Bay. Our results are available here.
Trinity River Site Inventory
Trinity River Market Study
Trinity River Recommendations
Two additional Texas coastal projects are still in their nascence. Bird and Bayou is focused on the birds and bayou system of Houston. Buffalo Bayou, where Houston began, flows into Galveston Bay. We are also hopeful that we can get Tides to Tall Timbers off the ground as well. This initiative will connect the Galveston region to the Texas Pineywoods Experience.
Louisiana
Inspired by Texas, Louisiana followed with a series of birding trails of their own. The state engaged Fermata to develop the trail, beginning with the coast. America’s Wetland adopted that trail, and it has become the America’s Wetland Birding Trail. Fermata then completed the remainder of the state.
Louisiana Birding Trails
America’s Wetland Birding Trail
The Mississippi River Birding Trail
The Mississippi River Birding Trail (now known as the Great River Birding Trail) is a highway trail connecting prime birding sites along the Upper Mississippi River. The upper GRBT is a project of the Minnesota office of the National Audubon Society, as well as a number of partners from Minnesota and the adjacent states of Wisconsin, Iowa, Illinois, and Missouri. The coalition contracted with Fermata Inc. to conduct a seminar to give purpose and direction to the project.
The Barataria-Terrebonne National Estuary Program also contracted with Fermata Inc. to conduct an introductory workshop on creating a Louisiana Coastal Birding Trail.
Mississippi and Alabama
Mississippi and Alabama developed their coastal trails around the same time as Louisiana. In Alabama, Fermata aided in the creation of the North Alabama Birding Trail. Mississippi is part of Audubon’s Great River Birding Trail which extends from Minnesota to the Gulf. Ted spoke in Mississippi at a Governor’s rural development conference to aid in the development of their birding trail (as he also did in Minnesota to help in the Great River Birding Trail).
Great River Birding Trail
Coastal Alabama Birding Trail
Florida
The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission has developed a series of spectacular birding trails along their coasts. Staff from Florida met with Fermata early in the project, and we were happy to provide tips on how its done. Ted Eubanks also traveled to Florida and spoke at their annual ecotourism conference about developing birding trails.
Should the oil catch the Loop Current and head up the Atlantic Coast, we have important experiences and projects to share as well. Virgina developed their birding and wildlife trails on the heels of Texas. Representatives from Virginia visited Texas to see how the trails worked, and soon hired Fermata to help develop the trails in their state. These trails, a project of the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, became the first birding trails to encompass an entire state. Of particular interest is the initial trail developed along the coast.
Fermata also worked with the New Jersey Department of Fish, Game, and Wildlife to assess the value of wildlife viewing in Delaware Bay. This study aided the state in better understanding the risks of over harvesting horseshoe crabs and the subsequent decline in red knots. Our report can be downloaded here.
Ted also met with representatives on the Delmarva Peninsula about birding trails on a number of occasions. Jeff Gordon and others have developed a wonderful series of birding trails in Delaware.
Pennsylvania has no Atlantic coastline, unless you consider (as we do) the Chesapeake Bay simply to be an extension of the Susquehanna River. Fermata is currently completing a Conservation Landscape Initiative (CLI) for PA DCNR for the Lower Susquehanna. The final report should be available soon.
Finally, if the oil somehow wanders as far north as Maine, we have been there as well. Fermata assisted the state in developing an implementation plan for nature tourism, including coastal Down East. Here is a link to our recommendations.
We pray that our efforts along both the Gulf and Atlantic coasts aid the public in understanding what is at risk. These are rich, complex, diverse ecosystems that are under assault. As Theodore Roosevelt said, “The nation behaves well if it treats the natural resources as assets which it must turn over to the next generation increased; and not impaired in value.” Each American generation must embrace that responsibility. Will we accept ours?
Political currents steer us all, and at their whim. Since the advent of the Rendell Administration in Pennsylvania Fermata has been working alongside the PA Department of Conservation and Natural Resources in a series of progressive conservation efforts. The initiatives (called CLIs, or Conservation Landscape Initiatives) have matured to a point where they are beginning to influence other states as well the federal government. The CLIs were the brainchild of Michael DiBerardinis, who served as the Secretary of the agency. Secretary DiBernardinis is now Commissioner DiBerardinis of the Philadelphia Parks and Recreation Department. As a native Philadelphian, the Commissioner felt it time to return home from Harrisburg. With a new administration certain (Governor Rendell is at the end of his 2nd term), Commissioner DiBerardinis decided to tackle one more challenge – the reshaping of Fairmount Park, the Philadelphia park system.
Fortunately the Commissioner has asked Fermata to help (i.e., lucky for us). The Commissioner is one of the most progressive and inspiring conservation and recreation leaders in the country, and we are honored to work for him again. Fermata’s Ted Eubanks has now visited Philadelphia on four occasions, and has come away in awe of the history of Fairmount Park. Even though many Philadelphians tire of hearing about their firsts (America’s first hospital, zoo, art museum, free library), we believe it important to remind our public that Fairmount is America’s first park. Over the centuries the park has grown to include the cultural and scientific centers arrayed along Ben Franklin Parkway, the Wissahickon Valley, the Schuylkill trail, East and West Park, and a mind-bending assortment of facilities, lands, staff, and volunteers. Fairmount is America’s largest urban park, and the system offers more park land per capita than any American city over 1 million population.
Consider this. Standing in Love Park, you can walk up Ben Franklin Parkway to the Philadelphia Art Museum and the Water Works, connect to the Schuylkill River Trail and hike or bike to where connects with the Wissahickon Trail, continue up the Wissahickon to Forbidden Drive, follow Forbidden Drive to Northwestern Avenue, and for that entire 16 miles never leave park land. Hiking along Forbidden Road in the Wissahickon Valley you would never know that you are within in a stone’s throw of downtown Philadelphia. Fairmount is America’s great urban park, conserved and nurtured by the people of America’s first great city. For more information, go to Fairmount Park under Current Projects.