Residents of a coastal town in Massachusetts expressed their discontent after being informed that displaying a flag on their property might go against the Endangered Species Act, just ahead of the nation’s 250th anniversary.
Homeowners on Plum Island received a notice from the Town of Newbury stating they were aware of efforts to deter sandpipers from local beaches and dunes.
The letter mentioned items like “Mylar streamers, flags,” and noted a “reflector” as an example of such deterrents.
According to the letter, any efforts to prevent protected shorebirds from accessing suitable habitats could be seen as harassment, which is illegal under both state and federal laws. Violating these laws may lead to serious regulatory or financial penalties.
The town urged residents to adhere to relevant wildlife protection laws, emphasizing that non-compliance could lead to enforcement actions.
Longtime residents were taken aback by the letter, interpreting the mention of “flags” as a direct affront to Independence Day festivities.
Mark Sarkadi, a 30-year island resident, voiced his frustration. “Are you serious?” he said. “Are you really saying I can’t display the American flag for our 250th anniversary?”
Sarkadi pointed out that the area has “around 10 miles of open beaches” where birds can roam without obstruction.
“This is a nature reserve,” he added. “It seems like everyone could just be a bit more reasonable.”
However, town officials clarified that they are not putting a ban on the display of patriotic symbols.
Tracy Brace, the Newbury Town Administrator, stated that the town has never sought to limit property owners’ rights to celebrate in typical patriotic ways.
Brace argued that the letter was simply a reminder of the responsibilities residents have in a unique ecological area, not a threat or claim of liability.
The town reassured residents they were free to celebrate the anniversary and emphasized that the letter didn’t imply otherwise.
Sarkadi and fellow residents had already begun a grassroots initiative before receiving the letter, distributing American flags and signs reading “Plum Island Honors America” in honor of the anniversary.
“We’re just trying to unite this island,” Sarkadi explained. “This isn’t about politics; it’s about people coming together.”
He remarked that this isn’t the first time residents and local officials have clashed over decorations. He recalled a similar incident last year when neighbors faced similar issues for displaying flags on their properties.
In that case, a state official allegedly threatened a neighbor with significant penalties if she didn’t comply—an assertion denied by state officials.
Sarkadi said this neighbor felt pressured to remove her flags out of fear of fines or worse. “It felt very threatening,” he remarked.
In response, a spokesperson for MassWildlife stated that there are no restrictions on displaying the American flag and that they haven’t issued any violation notices.
Recently, Sarkadi and two neighbors received an updated notice from the town advising them to contact the Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) for support.
The PLF then sent a letter to the town’s conservation agent questioning the legal grounds behind the town’s claims regarding flags and other displays.
They also sought clarification on how state and federal endangered species laws applied to private waterfront properties.
Notably, PLF mentioned that no court has ever found homeowners liable under these laws for simply displaying decorations.
Mark Miller, director of environmental litigation at the PLF, noted that flying flags on Independence Day is a deeply American tradition. He suggested that suggesting otherwise would infringe on First and Fifth Amendment rights.
Miller commented on the nature of the letter from government officials, saying, “If it reads like a threat, it’s understandable that people perceive it that way.”
It’s interesting to note that Plum Island in Massachusetts shares its name with another name-sake island off the coast of Long Island, New York, but the two are distinctly separate, with the government owning the latter for research purposes.
