# They really HAVE Paved Paradise and Put Up a Parking Lot



## sm4him (Mar 4, 2014)

Last year, one of my very favorite local spots--Seven Islands Wildlife Refuge--was named Tennessee's first State Birding Park.  Everyone clamored about it. Except me. I said then, I have a very bad feeling about this
because I knew that in an attempt to make the area more "accessible" to everyone they would in all likelihood destroy what made it unique.

Sure enough, today I learned that they have bulldozed a huge area at the front of the refuge to make room fora parking lot.  This area always had a HUGE Sunflower field and attracted an enormous variety of birds, along with all sorts of other critters.  Now, it will only attract "tourists" in their big SUVs, who want to "see" nature and get out and "enjoy" the refuge, but don't want to actually have to do anything as strenuous as walk more than a few feet in order to do so.  

So today's theme song is Joni Mitchell, telling it like it is:





I've probably posted these before, but here's a couple of my favorite views from Seven Islands. These aren't the area they've bulldozedYET. But I just wonder how long it'll take before this beautiful area is completely destroyed by the efforts to attract tourists to it.




April20_7022editweb by sm4him, on Flickr




7IslandsOct 20 (27)web by sm4him, on Flickr

This is the part where I normally say, "As usual, C&C, general comments and witty banter are greatly appreciated." 
But not today. This is a SAD day. So--no C&C, no witty banterjust requiems for the loss of my beloved wilderness spot. 

Okay, maybe ONE witty comment. Or two. But mostly, just tears and sadness, m'kay??


----------



## tirediron (Mar 4, 2014)




----------



## pgriz (Mar 4, 2014)

What's that saying that the road to hell is paved with good intentions?


----------



## Overread (Mar 4, 2014)

yeah stupid people


----------



## bribrius (Mar 4, 2014)

urban sprawl. everyone hates it, but everyone does it. Its human nature.  where you live used to be wildlife too. Imagining you don't live in a tent in the woods.


----------



## Dagwood56 (Mar 4, 2014)

So sad. I live in an area that used to be mostly farmland and woods, and in the last 17 years, way too much of it has been sold off and made into more access roads in to the miles of townhomes built on it for city folk who want to live in the country - then complain about area cow farms smelling bad when they get here. I hate to see wild areas destroyed and in your case its even worse because it a wildlife refuge. I'm sure the numbskull who decided to make the parking lot figured all they were giving up to do so was a patch of flowers, with little thought to the wildlife that feed from those flowers. Hope they don't destroy the entire place.


----------



## grafxman (Mar 4, 2014)

You'd be bawling your eyes out every day if you lived in Florida. All the places in my neighborhood have been turned into condos and houses. Here's a few samples of animals I recorded about 15 years ago with my old Sony DV video camera:

redhead6 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Red Head WP feeding babies1 d5 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

pileated1 d5 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Cedar Waxwings1 d10 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

yellow bellied sapsucker1 d23 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

None of these birds have been seen in my neighborhood for several years now. All the fields where I used to go snake hunting are gone. The trees are mostly gone. Colonies of feral cats have moved in. Some crazy lady the next street over dumps bags of cat food in her driveway. I've stopped feeding birds because all I get are cats and cat manure. I'm so fed up with what used to be my nice neighborhood that I bought another house 20 miles from here with an acre of ground and I'm in the process of moving. You should be thankful they haven't started building apartment complexes instead of just a parking lot.


----------



## wyogirl (Mar 4, 2014)

I give you my deepest sympathies.  I love Tennessee, but you are right.... it keeps getting destroyed so people can see what makes it beautiful.


----------



## bribrius (Mar 4, 2014)

wahhhhhhhhhhhh. 
look at this thread. of course people don't like to kill wildlife or the planet in general. But im wondering, where do you all park YOUR cars. 
It isn't what THEY did. People in general, populate. And spread. EVERYONE takes a part. It is inherent to human breeding. stop acting all innocent. geez......

All these people probably feel the same way. Then they donate to the wildlife fund and go and park their cars. We are all guilty.
View attachment 68040


----------



## Rick58 (Mar 4, 2014)

I live in Berks county Pa, which is an agricultural county. Sooo many farms and prime farmland have been bulldozed over to make room for more and more housing developments.
People see it and people complain about it, yet it continues and it will continue until it's too late and WE are the country having to import our food.
I feel your pain everytime I drive by a cookie cutter housing development that once grew food and raised livestock.


----------



## Gavjenks (Mar 4, 2014)

> where do you all park YOUR cars.


Obviously not at that parking lot, since he said it was his favorite spot long before the parking lot was built...
There is this cool thing called walking, and if you do it for awhile when you want to go see nature anyway, you lose out on nothing (walking in nature was your GOAL), and it requires far fewer more isolated parking lots.


----------



## bribrius (Mar 4, 2014)

Gavjenks said:


> > where do you all park YOUR cars.
> 
> 
> Obviously not at that parking lot, since he said it was his favorite spot long before the parking lot was built...
> There is this cool thing called walking, and if you do it for awhile when you want to go see nature anyway, you lose out on nothing (walking in nature was your GOAL), and it requires far fewer more isolated parking lots.


it doesn't sound handicapped accessible and could create a safety concern. potential lawsuit. where would you expect everyone to park their cars? on the road? sounds like a traffic problem in the making. The ones I have been to, having the parking on the designated land. As, the land is designated. They cant park cars for the place on someone elses land they don't own it. The cars have to stay on the designated site (land). so im trying to understand where you are going with this walking thing...


----------



## Gavjenks (Mar 4, 2014)

bribrius said:


> Gavjenks said:
> 
> 
> > > where do you all park YOUR cars.
> ...



Here, I will write it out in a convenient step by step list of instructions:
1) Park at the nearest existing parking lot or other parking area open to you. This might be 5 miles away.
2) Walk to the bird area. This might take an hour or a little more.
3) Shoot some photos of birds / enjoy your destination.
4) Walk back to your car
5) Go home.

Rarely does any government not own some sort of property within 5 miles of something else in pretty and populated regions. Or a local business owner who hopes to sell you some refreshments when you get back.
And if they don't? Boo hoo, walk 7 miles.



> it doesn't sound handicapped accessible


No, it's not. 
But nature is ALSO not handicap accessible if you bulldoze nature to make it accessible to handicapped people, because it doesn't exist anymore.
So handicapped people aren't accessing it either way, and this is a silly excuse.



> potential lawsuit.


Driving is *significantly *more  dangerous than walking.


----------



## bribrius (Mar 4, 2014)

Gavjenks said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > Gavjenks said:
> ...



now you know that is dreaming and wont happen. They probably have a designated footage allotment allowed by government regulations on exactly where the parking lot has to be in proximity to the site just to avoid legal issues on handicapped accessibility and for emergency personnel. 
what I am wondering, is if the o.p knows it could get worse than this. I seen one wildlife refuge, which not only made parking lots but also came up with opened and closed times of years and hours. His ability to travel on that land may (not definite but may) end up somewhat restricted.


----------



## sm4him (Mar 4, 2014)

bribrius said:


> urban sprawl. everyone hates it, but everyone does it. Its human nature.  where you live used to be wildlife too. Imagining you don't live in a tent in the woods.



HEY!! That does not sound much like sympathy and solace, which is the appropriate response here. That sounds more like C&C on my refuge spot&#8230; 
I'm just messing with you. Yes, it happens. At my age, it is certainly not the first time I've witnessed it nor the first time I've been directly affected by it.

As for the tent in the woods&#8230;well, how did you THINK I was getting all those bird shots?  :lmao:



Gavjenks said:


> > where do you all park YOUR cars.
> 
> 
> Obviously not at that parking lot, since he said it was his favorite spot long before the parking lot was built...
> There is this cool thing called walking, and if you do it for awhile when you want to go see nature anyway, you lose out on nothing (walking in nature was your GOAL), and it requires far fewer more isolated parking lots.



^She, but yeah, other than that, what he said&#8230;there's also a cool thing called bike riding.



bribrius said:


> it doesn't sound handicapped accessible and could create a safety concern. potential lawsuit. where would you expect everyone to park their cars? on the road? sounds like a traffic problem in the making. The ones I have been to, having the parking on the designated land. As, the land is designated. They cant park cars for the place on someone elses land they don't own it. The cars have to stay on the designated site (land). so im trying to understand where you are going with this walking thing...



It is absolutely NOT handicapped accessible. Well, there is ONE road that runs through it--a driveway really, more than a road. The road is closed to vehicles but could be used by wheelchairs and the like to at least see SOME of the area.

But you know what? Hiking trails on the AT aren't very handicapped accessible either. Some things you just really CAN'T  make "accessible" without destroying them.


----------



## sm4him (Mar 4, 2014)

bribrius said:


> Gavjenks said:
> 
> 
> > bribrius said:
> ...



Oh, believe me, I know. It not only COULD get worse than this, it will. This is just the tip of the iceberg, which is really why I'm upset about it. Heck, I'd be HAPPY to give 'em that one big field, if I thought that was the end of it.
Last year when the area was named as the first State Birding Park, most people were pretty happy about it. I expressed my concern then that this could be a very bad thing unless they largely left it alone. Well, they are not leaving it alone, clearly.
So really, my qualm is more about it ever having gotten this designation which may have been signing its own death warrant, in the first place.


----------



## sm4him (Mar 4, 2014)

grafxman said:


> You'd be bawling your eyes out every day if you lived in Florida. All the places in my neighborhood have been turned into condos and houses. Here's a few samples of animals I recorded about 15 years ago with my old Sony DV video camera:
> 
> redhead6 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
> 
> ...



Oh, it's here too. My childhood home is gone, just in the last few years and in its place is a "gated community." A whole "community" of houses/condos where my HOUSE used to be! Granted, we lived on about 15 acres.

But the particular IRONY of this situation is what kinda gets to me. It's one thing when they bulldoze nature and put a mall, or tear down a 100-year-old house and put up condos.  Progress&#8230;as several said or alluded to, none of us want the old things to be gone, but we ALL use the paved streets and the garages, and visit the restaurants that those things were torn down for.

But in this instance, the state saw this beautiful refuge, which is one of the top places in the state in terms of the diversity of birds it attracts, and they said, "Wow, what a beautiful place. We should NAME IT as our first BIRDING STATE PARK." And then&#8230;we should immediately bulldoze over one of the biggest reasons that birds are attracted to this park.
When they START the process like that&#8230;well, you just know it's only gonna get worse from there.


----------



## Gavjenks (Mar 4, 2014)

States don't have laws saying every square inch of public land must be handicapped accessible. What state has laws like that?

Where are the big caution-taped ramps going up to the top of the Flatirons in Boulder?
Where is the wheelchair elevator going to the bottom of the Grand Canyon?
Is the government obligated to parachute drop you onto George Washington's head on Mt. Rushmore if you want?

If they don't need to make things like that accessible (the first two of which are already "unfairly" accessible by non-handicapped), then they certainly don't NEED to do anything to make wilderness accessible.


----------



## Gavjenks (Mar 4, 2014)

Sm4, maybe the plan is that people can take really up-close photos of whatever birds fly there needing to eat sunflower seeds for the winter and starve to death conveniently on the asphalt.


----------



## bribrius (Mar 4, 2014)

sm4him said:


> grafxman said:
> 
> 
> > You'd be bawling your eyes out every day if you lived in Florida. All the places in my neighborhood have been turned into condos and houses. Here's a few samples of animals I recorded about 15 years ago with my old Sony DV video camera:
> ...


next is the cutting trees for walks and designated picnic areas. widening and extending roads to meet state safety guidelines. porta potties. 9-5 hours and a 5 dollar admittance fee. oh yah....
you'll see more people than wildlife.


----------



## DarkShadow (Mar 4, 2014)

Gavjenks said:


> States don't have laws saying every square inch of public land must be handicapped accessible. What state has laws like that?
> 
> Where are the big caution-taped ramps going up to the top of the Flatirons in Boulder?
> Where is the wheelchair elevator going to the bottom of the Grand Canyon?
> ...


The Grand canyon has a elevator,It's a Air Elevator, you jump in the air and down you go.


----------



## bribrius (Mar 4, 2014)

Gavjenks said:


> States don't have laws saying every square inch of public land must be handicapped accessible. What state has laws like that?
> 
> Where are the big caution-taped ramps going up to the top of the Flatirons in Boulder?
> Where is the wheelchair elevator going to the bottom of the Grand Canyon?
> ...


not every inch, no. But course it has to be accessible or made a effort to be accessible. Think about what you are saying. you want a hundred million people that pay taxes for this stuff to the government who CANT walk seven miles or climb two hundred feet to not have access to what they pay taxes for in the country they live in?  And it isn't wilderness now. IT is a state park.  If it was wilderness it wouldn't have to be accessible.


----------



## DarkShadow (Mar 4, 2014)

Humans ruin everything, knock it down and build,build,build. Poor wildlife is running out of room to live,everything is turning to black top. Soon the animals will share the same side walks as we do and sitting at star bucks having coffee.I actually think I seen a deer just the other day having a bagel in  Dunkin Donuts.


----------



## bribrius (Mar 4, 2014)

DarkShadow said:


> Gavjenks said:
> 
> 
> > States don't have laws saying every square inch of public land must be handicapped accessible. What state has laws like that?
> ...



Accessibility - Grand Canyon National Park (U.S. National Park Service)

*Many of the facilities at Grand Canyon are historic* and built before current accessibility standards were set.


----------



## Gavjenks (Mar 4, 2014)

> not every inch, no. But course it has to be accessible or made a effort to be accessible.


You're not understanding the basic principle here -- *it is IMPOSSIBLE to make the birds accessible to handicapped people.* Because the improvements you have to install to make that possible _will drive the birds away._
So no, it shouldn't be made more accessible. To handicapped people OR to non-handicapped people, because doing so defeats the whole purpose and is really stupid.



> you want a hundred million people that pay taxes for this stuff to the government


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.


----------



## bribrius (Mar 4, 2014)

Gavjenks said:


> > not every inch, no. But course it has to be accessible or made a effort to be accessible.
> 
> 
> You're not understanding the basic principle here -- *it is IMPOSSIBLE to make the birds accessible to handicapped people.* Because the improvements you have to install to make that possible _will drive the birds away._
> ...


sounds like you believe they shouldn't make it a park then, or a wild life refuge. Keep in mind, if they don't give it some status someone can come along and build condos or a minimall on it. wont change a thing. Doing nothing means it doesn't get preserved at all. 

.....
And. why do you think this has anything to do with the birds? It doesn't matter if there is a single bird left there in five years. One of the wildlife parks here, "wildlife preserve" I haven't seen a single animal in it. What matters is if their are walks, picnic tables, accessibility, a bird park title for tourism, so jo bob and linda lu can go have a picnic with the opportunity they MIGHT be able to let little Leroy see a bird. And if little Leroy don't see a bird, that doesn't matter either because he had access and the opportunity so legal, legal, all is good. The actual birds don't matter.


----------



## Gavjenks (Mar 4, 2014)

> why do you think this has anything to do with the birds?


You really just asked, "Why does the first State Birding Park have anything to do with birds?"

Wow, okay. I'm gonna stop feeding you now.


----------



## bribrius (Mar 4, 2014)

Gavjenks said:


> > why do you think this has anything to do with the birds?
> 
> 
> You really just asked, "Why does the first State Birding Park have anything to do with birds?"
> ...


im just trying to help you see it from a governmental system, realistic perspective .Realism.  you seem to be a idealist. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing but I bet most of your viewpoints never actually transpire in reality. And im still wondering how many animals lived where you park your car.


----------



## RunJZ (Mar 4, 2014)

It will probably be viewed odd but in all honesty Bribrius is right. We as humans suck. We suck the life out of everything. 

I understand the frustration of the OP. I work in wildlife conservation and have dealt with this same issue time and time again. It blows to see habitat continually destroyed. Unfortunately there is no area in the US that isn't dealing with this problem. Until human growth and sprawl is considered second, then it will continue to happen. More and more. Even if it is "in the name of good birding" or "good stewardship".


----------



## NancyMoranG (Mar 6, 2014)

The Eagles have a song with a line in it that sums it up, "call someplace paradise, kiss it goodby".
Yes, Sharon this is SO ironic that they are paving and defeating the purpose of the park! Utterly amazing.

i heard an old 'story'.... There was a need of a gate somewhere so they hired a gate keeper. Can't have an employee without a boss, hire a boss. Now you need a HR dept to handle employees, then a tax dept, etc.
now they decide this gate is costing too much money, SOOOO they fire the gate keeper. ;}
Nancy


----------



## grafxman (Mar 6, 2014)

Gavjenks said:


> 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.


----------



## limr (Mar 6, 2014)

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 (Mar 6, 2014)

> 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 (Mar 6, 2014)

Gavjenks said:


> > 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."
> ...



^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 (Mar 6, 2014)

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 (Mar 8, 2014)

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


----------

