This article contains some truth but also a great deal of liberty with the facts. To debunk all of the fallacies would be an article of almost equal length. It is written for Aububon to serve their agenda which is understandable in their magazine. The statements about how access restrictions have improved breeding results is IMO absolute bunk and, at very best, even in the viewpoints of closure advocates, unproven. Months of closure at the Point resulted in fewer than a handful of fledglings in 2014. Despite extensive turtle closures the actual nests were 50% of the 2013 number.
Weather, natural cycles and other factors are much more in play than signs and strings!
The island is, for sure, dynamic - like every barrier island everywhere.
Perhaps they sold their beach front inheritance to developers because they figure it is going to wash away?
Here we goooooooooooooo ... Your quote: "Despite extensive turtle closures the actual nests were 50% of the 2013 number.
Weather, natural cycles and other factors are much more in play than signs and strings!"
Yes, weather, natural cycles play a part in yearly shorebird and sea turtle nesting hence 2013 vs 2014 and other years vary; however the temporary seasonal closures help prevent human interaction AFTER the nests are laid. Closures for threatened and Endangered sea turtle are ONLY done for active nests, NOT areas where there is no sea turtle nesting. Ergo the entire beach area of CHNS is NOT closed.