Around 50 American flags and 100 signs reading “Plum Island Honors America” went up across Plum Island, Massachusetts, in a neighbourhood push to mark the nation’s 250th anniversary. Then the town sent a letter.
The notice came from the Town of Newbury. It said the town had “become aware of the use of devices and materials intended to deter” protected shorebirds from beach and dune areas, and it named “mylar streamers, flags, [and] reflective materials” as examples. Activity meant to keep birds away from suitable habitat, the letter said, “may be viewed as harassment or disruption of normal feeding, nesting, or migratory behavior,” which both the state and federal Endangered Species Acts prohibit. It added that violations “carry significant regulatory and financial penalties.”
Residents read the word “flags” as aimed at their Fourth of July displays. Marc Sarkady, who has lived on the island more than 30 years and organised the flag giveaway, said he was angry. “Are you serious? You’re telling me I can’t fly American flags on my property to celebrate America 250?” He pointed out that roughly “10 miles of open beach” with no houses on it is already available to the birds. “It’s a nature preserve,” he said.
The town’s answer
Newbury says that is not what the letter means. Town Administrator Tracy Blais told Fox News Digital the town is “not in any way attempting to interfere with the property owner’s rights” to use their property “for ordinary and patriotic purposes.” She said Newbury had simply agreed to a MassWildlife request to help “spread the word” about protecting endangered species, and that the letter “merely recited provisions of the law.”
MassWildlife made a similar statement. It is “not prohibiting residents from displaying American flags on their property,” a spokesperson said, and has not sent violation letters to these landowners or moved to impose or threaten penalties.
A lawyers’ letter, and an earlier complaint
Sarkady and two neighbours got the notice and called the Pacific Legal Foundation. On Wednesday, the group wrote to the town’s conservation agent, Mason Ferrick, saying the demands raised “significant concerns” about property rights. It asked Newbury to say whether it claims homeowners are legally barred from showing flags, streamers or reflective materials on private land, and to cite the legal basis for applying the endangered species acts to privately owned beachfront. According to the foundation, no court has found a homeowner liable under those laws for putting up decorations.
Mark Miller, the group’s director of environment and natural resources litigation, said that “when governments send letters that look like threats, sound like threats and walk like threats, they shouldn’t be surprised when people take them as threats.”
Sarkady said it was not the first such clash. Last year, he claimed, a state wildlife official sent a nearly identical letter to a neighbour who had hung ornamental banners on her beachside lawn, then phoned to warn of fines and possible arrest. She took the display down, he said. The state agency flatly denies it.
