Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Ordinance 2317-2008 prohibits trespassing in the dune areas

  1. #1

    Default Ordinance 2317-2008 prohibits trespassing in the dune areas

    Below is an excerpt from an article in today's Peninsula Clarion. It's nice to see the city is making some progress in managing their lands and protecting the dune areas.

    "During his manager's report, Koch said he was considering alternatives to the orange plastic fencing material placed around the north beach dunes to keep people from trespassing through the ecologically sensitive area.

    He said Mayor Pat Porter suggested possibly building elevated walkways over the dunes, including some viewing platforms, and posting signs directing pedestrian traffic away from the sensitive dune areas. Koch said he has located a potential $600,000 grant funding source, though he said the walkways probably would not cost nearly that much.

    Earlier in the meeting, the council unanimously passed Ordinance 2317-2008, which prohibits trespassing in the dune areas. Violations would be punishable with a fine.

    City Attorney Cary Graves said the fine range is zero to $500, but if the city stipulates a standard amount, the courts would be somewhat limited in what amount could be imposed. The council agreed to have the standard fine be $500."

    Full article:
    http://www.peninsulaclarion.com/stor...13225952.shtml

  2. #2

    Default Dune protection may be extended

    Here is another excerpt from an article in today's Peninsula Clarion. This time protecting the dune area on the southern beach.


    Dune protection may be extended
    By Phil Hermanek | Peninsula Clarion
    A public hearing is scheduled tonight to determine whether the Kenai City Council should extend recently approved dune protection to the south beach.

    If approved, Ordinance 2324-2008 would prohibit trespassing in the environmentally sensitive dune areas of south beach and would allow the city to fine people $500 for violating the law.

    Because the protection is especially targeted at dune damage caused during the popular dipnetting fishery set to open July 10, the council would need to approve the ordinance unanimously to move it to the required second reading at tonight's meeting, according to City Manager Rick Koch.

    "What this does is allow seasonal enforcement officers to write citations (on south beach)," Koch said.

    "Right now, seasonal hires and uniformed law enforcement officers can write citations on north beach, but only uniformed officers can cite people on south beach," he said.

    Temporary fencing is being installed around the sensitive dune areas on south beach this week. "No trespassing" signs also will be posted.

    The council also is expected to introduce an ordinance amending the city's code violation fine schedule to set the dune trespassing fine at $500.

    Koch said the council members agreed to set the fine at that amount, but city administration would prefer having a lesser fine amount of $150 apply if the trespassing does not cause physical damage to the dunes.

    "If it's just some kids walking in the dunes, that's one thing, but if people are in there tearing it up with four-wheelers or someone sets a fire in there ...," Koch said, not completing his sentence.

  3. #3
    Member JOAT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Soldotna, ALASKA since '78
    Posts
    3,720

    Default

    Saying the phrase "environmentally sensitive dunes" over and over again does not make it so. Big time overreaction to a silly non-issue if you ask me.
    Winter is Coming...

    Go GeocacheAlaska!

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    690

    Default Amen brother...

    Quote Originally Posted by JOAT View Post
    Saying the phrase "environmentally sensitive dunes" over and over again does not make it so. Big time overreaction to a silly non-issue if you ask me.
    Doesn't really matter if you ask me; the wind tosses around the sand and to call such a small area a threatened or "environmentally sensitive area" is kinda dumb. Not to mention a waste of the tax payer's money to even entertain an issue that small in public offices. Why not spend the time and money on something more prudent like waste mediation?
    "He who is slow to anger is better than the mighty, and he who rules his spirit is better than he who takes a city." ~ Proverbs 16:32

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,533

    Default again statement without knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Back Country Robb View Post
    Doesn't really matter if you ask me; the wind tosses around the sand and to call such a small area a threatened or "environmentally sensitive area" is kinda dumb. Not to mention a waste of the tax payer's money to even entertain an issue that small in public offices. Why not spend the time and money on something more prudent like waste mediation?
    Well, just for the record, as if that will do any good, here is the issue. This is from the City of Kenai private engineer reports and the Corp of Engineers. The dunes reduce the action of the waves on the bluffs which in turn reduces the erosion rate which in turn protects millions of dollars of development by the City. So the dunes serve a functional purpose that is very important to the tax payers in Kenai and to those of us who pay federal income tax. The City is looking for 20 million dollars or more to stablize the bluff area and if the dunes go this will go up by millions more. So a little protection now saves lots of money and that does not speak to the environmental value of the dunes as part of an ecosystem

    So to those of you who think you can go into someone else's backyard and destroy their property - which is what you are doing in Kenai there is a self interest reason to protect the dunes - to keep your fishery. The City only has to close the access points, which they control including via water and the fishery is over. I would take care of the dunes if I was in your shoes and not dismiss this issue.

  6. #6
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    ...... to keep your fishery. The City only has to close the access points, which they control including via water and the fishery is over. I would take care of the dunes if I was in your shoes and not dismiss this issue.
    I agree. And it isn't just the bluffs the city is trying to protect. It's the right to continue fishing PU from the limited area ADFG has allowed, it's income from PU fishermen, and as a mitigating reaction to the likes of Jim Butler and his gang.

  7. #7
    Member thewhop2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    2,366

    Thumbs up Agreeing with Nerka/ cold days in haidi

    I must say that for the first time I totally agree with Nerka. I believe in leaving a place better than I have found it. If I can't do more to save the dunes while dipnetting, I can help monitor my friends and other dipnetters and suggest they stay clear if I see violations. I'm not a cop but we must police our own if we want to be welcomed back with open arms.
    May I also suggest that if you see people leaving trash, remind them to take it out. Last year I was thirty pounds heavier when leaving the beach. I hauled out garbage that other idiots left behind. So I ask everyone to do their part. Ken , Southcentral Alaska dipnetters association

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    690

    Default Destruction?

    Okay, so by walking on the sand; that's destruction?

    I agree with preserving the environment but I have an issue with foot traffic being solely blamed for the erosion/destruction of the SAND dunes. Am I the only one that gets that they are made of SAND? It blows around, moves around when rained on, etc. The only way you are going to get sand to stay still is to cover it. THAT's what I'm not getting here. I can appreciate the need to preserve and the urgency in which to do it: but I can't agree that folks walking through a short part of it is going to do anything that detrimental. If the sand needs to stay as it is; then build the boardwalks... it's easier to walk on anyway. And the other part of this message is that I'm not 100% sure; but I think that all bodies of water moving or not are property of the State.

    I'm not much for pi**ing contents and I treat everyone with the same respect I want. I just got back from Kasilof's beach and I decided to contribute some cleaning since I wasn't doing anything: I started a fire and burned quite a bit of trash and picked up a few other non-burnable items and got rid of them. I know you didn't direct the "backyard destruction" comment specifically at me and I agree that thrashers should be dealt with, but I wanted to make it clear to all that I'm not an anti-environmentalist (is there such a critter?)
    "He who is slow to anger is better than the mighty, and he who rules his spirit is better than he who takes a city." ~ Proverbs 16:32

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,533

    Default some more information

    Quote Originally Posted by Back Country Robb View Post
    Okay, so by walking on the sand; that's destruction?

    I agree with preserving the environment but I have an issue with foot traffic being solely blamed for the erosion/destruction of the SAND dunes. Am I the only one that gets that they are made of SAND? It blows around, moves around when rained on, etc. The only way you are going to get sand to stay still is to cover it. THAT's what I'm not getting here. I can appreciate the need to preserve and the urgency in which to do it: but I can't agree that folks walking through a short part of it is going to do anything that detrimental. If the sand needs to stay as it is; then build the boardwalks... it's easier to walk on anyway. And the other part of this message is that I'm not 100% sure; but I think that all bodies of water moving or not are property of the State.

    I'm not much for pi**ing contents and I treat everyone with the same respect I want. I just got back from Kasilof's beach and I decided to contribute some cleaning since I wasn't doing anything: I started a fire and burned quite a bit of trash and picked up a few other non-burnable items and got rid of them. I know you didn't direct the "backyard destruction" comment specifically at me and I agree that thrashers should be dealt with, but I wanted to make it clear to all that I'm not an anti-environmentalist (is there such a critter?)
    You are correct in one aspect and misunderstanding a second point. First, sand does move and once the vegetation is gone the sand will blow away or be eroded by water. So in that aspect you are correct. The issue is that walking on the dunes destroys the vegetation that holds them in place. The issue therefore is the destruction of the vegetation not sand per se.

    There is a great PBS special on the Outer Banks of North Car. which shows in time laspe photography just how vegetation gets established and then holds the sand in place. It aired a week or two ago. So if anyone is interested watch it when it airs again.

    The destruction is collective so the comment about destruction was not personal - hope you did not take it that way.

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    690

    Default No worries...

    Got it; vegitation good, sand erosion bad. Vegitation needs sand. Sand needs vegitation to be an effective sand dune.

    Maybe some permanent structures would be good? The concrete barricades, large boulders... I dunno.

    If preservation of the dunes for their protective features is the key then some re-evaluation of the priorities needs to be arranged. If you are protecting something with an unstable material then the obvious choice is to replace it with something that would work better.
    "He who is slow to anger is better than the mighty, and he who rules his spirit is better than he who takes a city." ~ Proverbs 16:32

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,533

    Default yes and no

    Quote Originally Posted by Back Country Robb View Post
    Got it; vegitation good, sand erosion bad. Vegitation needs sand. Sand needs vegitation to be an effective sand dune.

    Maybe some permanent structures would be good? The concrete barricades, large boulders... I dunno.

    If preservation of the dunes for their protective features is the key then some re-evaluation of the priorities needs to be arranged. If you are protecting something with an unstable material then the obvious choice is to replace it with something that would work better.
    The dunes serve a protective function but they also serve a biological function. The dunes with the vegetation and associated seeds feed certain birds. In addition, nesting takes place for some specialized speices in the dune vegetation or near it - Arctic terns are nesting on the south side of the Kenai River right now in the dune area.

    So you are correct that hard structures can provide the protection but they cannot provide the ecological value. Also, why spend thousands or millions of dollars for structures when mother nature will do it for free?

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •