I've mentioned before, the community that has formed on these beaches. Made up of all kinds of people from all walks of life, we all find common ground here and share a common love of the narrow strip of sand that makes up these two islands.
Years ago I "met" a guy from New Hampshire (or New Hamster as he's known to refer to the place) on one of the local fishing boards here on Hatteras. It took a while for us to put a face to a name as his crew would be here and I'd be stuck in Virginia or the other way around. When we finally met, I had the pleasure of also meeting his lovely wife and their two children and of course the dog who could consume a blog post of his own.
We'd go out and hook up with even more friends, find a spot to fish, and proceed to have a great time. Part of what made it so much fun and even funny at times were the kids. They were usually really into this fishing thing and none more so than his boy who at even five years old would walk down to the waters edge and start throwing lures for bluefish and such. Over the years since then Ive watched his cast get straighter, longer and more precise.
I just saw those two a few weeks back and that boy is still at it, still thrilled to fish, and enjoying the whole Seashore experience.
Being part of this war for access got me smack dab in the middle of one of the most frustrating experiences I've ever had or been party to. I'd be lying if I said that I'd never contemplated quitting the fight all together as some have done. The truth though, is that every time I've started thinking about throwing in the towel, I think about those two children and the joy on their faces as they share the experience and wonders of this special place and any thought of quitting goes right out the window.
I am resolved that these two wonderful kids will always have this Seashore to call "home" just as their father does, and their grandfather too.
Tomorrow I have the extraordinary pleasure of meeting the new son of two more great friends who will be making his first visit to these beaches. And I know as I look across the sand and see the hundreds of signs marking the closures that prohibit all access I'm going to get angry. But with that anger will come resolve and the strength to continue this fight with but one objective, to win.
I once sat on the beach in a circle of friends during the late summer when fishing was particularly slow. One of my friend's significant other had a couple of daughters who always accompanied them to the Seashore. As we were sitting around telling tales and whatnot, the girls got up, grabbed a five gallon bucket and proceeded to walk off into the distance. Nobody was worried about where they were headed, they were of driving age and were good kids, besides, we all thought they were going shelling.
Two hours later they quietly sauntered back and produced a bucket half full of trash that was recovered as they walked the sand. Not one single adult had ever suggested that they do this. No, they took it upon themselves because they had learned just how important it is for all of us to care for this resource and these two, even at such a young age, understood. To this day, I remain amazed at the action of these two children and have written about it many times.
With all that considered, it's no surprise that as a user group, we've been so stalwart and efficient at taking care of this place. And here, first hand, I witness how the love of this Seashore and its wonders are passed from one generation to another and at the same time see the love of freedom that we enjoy as Americans.
As I thank Geoff and Fawn, Phil, Athena, and Rich for passing this love onto their children, I again thank them for providing me the inspiration to never give up. And to all of you who have passed on this love and respect for this place, my greatest thanks.
Somewhere this night is a tired, hungry, soldier who daily risks his or her life to defend us here at home. Somewhere, that soldiers family lives with the knowledge that they may never see their child again as he or she fights to protect our freedoms, our system of government, and our lives.
Our fight here, sadly, is a fight against the very government these fine people risk their lives to protect.
I sure hope we win our fight so that when Dave or John, Cindy, and all come home and want to bring their kids to this place, they'll still be able to.
Tight Lines,
Wheat
Friday, May 28, 2010
Monday, May 24, 2010
Ok Kurt, I'll Play The Game
I reckon I'm back..sorry gang, I needed a brain break which of course, didn't work.
Believe it or not, just because the DEIS comment period is over, many continue to pour over the document and find errors, inconsistencies and outright mis-truths.
Last week I mentioned an article by Kurt Repanshek at national parks Traveller and when the rain started this morning I whipped out a response. I'd definitely classify his article as recommended reading if only for the wealth of information contained within the comments though the article has merit also. Some of the comments I find hilarious and uninformed, but there's a few in there that are spot on. It can be found at:
http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/2010/05/cape-hatteras-national-seashore-dispute-places-birds-turtles-and-humans-small-strip-sand5867
And here is my response.
Kurt,
I want to thank you for the article as it is perhaps the most moderate piece you’ve written on this exhausting subject. Many are the issues that make up the fight for access to this amazing place.
You stated that development of the Seashore “might have been a grand idea in the 1930s” as though it were no longer true. Those of us that live within the bounds of the Seashore and those that visit are very glad that it was established; else we would be just another Nags Head or Myrtle Beach with wall to wall motels, malls, and chain stores. Though the boundaries of the villages were expanded to allow for future growth to accommodate the anticipated visitation, mentioned by former NPS director, Conrad Wirth, the community is still small and 98% of the businesses on the Islands are “mom and pop” shops with less than a dozen employees. It’s fun to think that I’m 70 miles away from fast food and 100 miles from Wal-Mart.
I think if you’re going to mention plovers at the Seashore it behooves you give light to the fact that since the plover first arrived on these beaches in 1960, not one single plover death or destroyed nest can be attributed to an ORV. For decades we shared the same beach areas with these birds as they nested and all without harm. I think you should also mention that 100% of all documented plover mortality at the Seashore has been to either storms or predation.
You should also mention that the Atlantic population of charadrius melodus, aka, the Piping Plover, is just over one hundred breeding pair away from being eligible for delisting from the Endangered Species Act. USFWS sets the target population at 2000 breeding pair which will likely be achieved this year or next, as last year’s count was 1889 pair.
Though the plover has become a symbol in this war for access, I don’t know anybody who wishes harm to these birds. As a community, I think we’re collectively very proud of the fact that no harm has come to these birds as a result of our use of this resource. However, the concept, indeed reality, of a 771 acre closure for a single plover chick is beyond reasonable.
If you’re going to talk turtles, I feel it’s important to mention that here at the Seashore, we have a better false crawl to nest ratio than USFWS sets for a completely undisturbed beach. Also that it has been documented that almost 40% of the turtle nests at the seashore are lost here annually because of storms, predation, and the refusal by NPS to move nests that are prone to washout and flooding in high risk areas which is completely unrelated to ORV use at the Seashore.
Kurt, apparently you need to make a trip to the Seashore. You mention “rip-rap, seawalls, groins, and jetties”. We one set of jetties or what used to be jetties as they have decayed to the point of almost non existence. We don’t have seawalls, rip-rap or groins here, we have sand. Your inclusion of these terms in your article implies that such things exist here when in fact they don’t, not within the Seashore, not on the ocean beaches. This isn’t Myrtle Beach.
You just have to love Chris Canfield, President of Audubon N.C. For the last few years he’s been screaming about increased ORV use, and that we’re crowding the Seashore, etc. Now he’s quoting the Voglesong study (again) to give the impression that only a minute portion of the visitors to the Islands come to access the beaches by ORV. At issue is that when Voglesong was peer reviewed as required, those that gave their opinion deemed the study essentially worthless and not worthy of further review as the data and its collection was flawed so horribly.
And yes, Mr. Canfield, we know it’s about birds other than the plover. The question is do you know that in N.C. ”species of concern” means nothing more than the state wants to know more about the birds? Are you aware of the DEIS public comment made by Gordon Myers, Chairman of the North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission, whose policies effectively dictate wildlife management policy to NPS here at the Seashore stating: “State-listed "species of concern," - such as the American oystercatcher - do not require the extensive buffers and beach closures mandated for federally listed species such as the piping plover.” And, “To treat it as synonymous with threatened and endangered is not congruent”?
Canfield also probably didn’t tell you about the beachfront property on Bodie Island that Audubon just sold for 25 million dollars. The area was supposed to be reserved as a nature area and being beachfront is subject to tern and oystercatcher nesting. They sold it so it could be developed and the plans have just been approved. Nice job Mr. Canfield!
You’d think that somebody from the National Parks Conservation Assn. might learn a little about the Seashore before they make comment. Kristen Brengle clearly has no idea of how this seashore operates. Her assumption that “we” close the beaches in front of the villages for tourism dollars is patently false. The seasonal closures are “safety” closures enacted by NPS because of the number of pedestrians on those beaches and prevent all but NPS vehicles and perhaps commercial fisherman from entering these areas. Nobody has an issue with this.
If Ms. Brengle had any idea as to how the closures have come to be under the consent decree and the tremendous loss of access and the resulting economic impact on the islands, she would know that her statements “So to say that now, with the closures specifically for off-road vehicles use, they’re not used to it, I don’t think that that’s a true statement”, and, “And to make it seem like a closure here and there to protect some turtle and bird nesting is such a concept that’s wildly out of sync with how things have been managed down there is incorrect” are utterly ridiculous. She apparently fails to realize that these closures not only affect ORV’s, but all access, period.
And then there was this comment by Mike Murray, Superintendent of Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area. “So, lack of parking is a big root cause to the dilemma we face today,” he says. “People have become dependent upon driving and parking on the beach.” With all due respect Mike, that is absurd and you know it.
I was there at the “meet and greet” meeting you held at the Cape Hatteras Anglers Club when you described the times you spent as a child with your family driving on the beaches of the Seashore. I was there in that standing room only meeting when you stated that “as far as I’m concerned, beach driving is a traditional form of access”, words I will never forget.
To suggest that the use of the Seashore for vehicular access and parking is because of the lack of parking along the roadside and within the villages is a blatant attempt at re-inventing the intended purpose of this resource which is apparently in vogue within NPS these days and contradicts your own experience and opinion, Mike.
About the numbers you quoted, the 2.2 million visitors NPS reports is an invalid number as it incorporates visitor use of Fort Raleigh and the Wright Brothers site as well neither of which are part of the Seashore and are in fact miles away. The reality of the majority of businesses on the Islands reporting 40 to 60% percent loss of sales since the inception of the consent decree and the subsequent beach closures is in argument with that number. For that number to be true, six thousand visitors would have been on the Islands every single day of the year last. And yet for the first time in my memory of visiting here for 30 years and living here for four, mid morning, all summer long, I could drive from Buxton to Avon and never pass another vehicle. What normally would have been the busiest stretch of road on the island was empty day after day, virtually all day.
The revenue figure you report is distorted and misleading though no fault of your own I’d think. It’s almost as though there were two Dare Counties, Kurt. There’s upper Dare which includes the incorporated, populated, and heavily developed areas like Nags Head or Kitty Hawk and then there’s the Seashore and the villages contained within. What goes on up there, 70 miles away, is no reflection on what happens down here.
That figure also falsely reports the spending of locals within the county as it is included and is not tourist income. The other distorting factor comes in that Dare is now taxing services like extra pillows, roll away beds and such where prior to the consent decree, they were not.
Whether you wish to factor all of these things into the equation or not, one thing cannot be denied, since the inception of the consent decree, Dare County has gone from being the number two “donor” county in the state to that with the highest unemployment rate.
The impairment issue is moot as after years of study to try and prove impairment by various and sundry methods, both the government and environmental groups have yet to show that traditional use of the Seashore has caused such. An unfortunate and yet ridiculous trend that is beginning to emerge as a result of the long, failed, attempt at showing harm is the call by anti-access groups that we, as users of this resource, should be required to conduct study to prove that we in fact aren’t harming the environment or the wildlife. This effectively requests us to prove a negative and if decades of study cannot produce evidence of harm, there is no need to attempt to prove no harm is done.
Before I close, I’d like to address your use of the enabling legislation in a reply you posted, Kurt. Your view that the latter portion would be seized and used by environmental groups is correct. They’ve been doing that for years in attempt to claim that the intended purpose of the Seashore was “to be reserved as primitive wilderness” and protect the “unique flora and fauna now contained within this area”.
You’re forgetting the exemption and what it says. Oddly, it was included in your quote. Let’s have a look at that.
“Except for certain portions of the area, deemed to be especially adaptable for recreational uses, particularly swimming, boating, sailing, fishing, and other recreational activities of similar nature, which shall be developed for such uses as needed,”
Here the Congress tells NPS in very simple terms that this area is to be developed for recreational use “as needed”. In other words, when the people come to enjoy their resource it shall be made available to them for the above mentioned activities and “other recreational activities of a similar nature”.
It is because of this statement that the Congress used the term “reserved” as opposed to “preserved” as “primitive wilderness” in the remaining phrase in this portion of the enabling legislation. Use of the word “preserve” would have negated the first portion of the section where Congress implores the NPS to develop the area as needed.
Now before anybody starts screaming that I advocate no protection for the wildlife that nests here at the Seashore, I’ll come right out and state that I do believe that reasonable and warranted protections should be in place when necessary. What I don’t agree with is the draconian closures that are part of the consent decree or the NPS proposed Alt. (F) as neither can be justified by sound, peer reviewed science, federal law, or the use history of this resource. Without the ability to show that visitor usage has caused or is causing real harm or impairment to the area, these very real and proposed devastating closures are patently unwarranted.
Thanks Kurt,
Tight Lines,
Wheat
Believe it or not, just because the DEIS comment period is over, many continue to pour over the document and find errors, inconsistencies and outright mis-truths.
Last week I mentioned an article by Kurt Repanshek at national parks Traveller and when the rain started this morning I whipped out a response. I'd definitely classify his article as recommended reading if only for the wealth of information contained within the comments though the article has merit also. Some of the comments I find hilarious and uninformed, but there's a few in there that are spot on. It can be found at:
http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/2010/05/cape-hatteras-national-seashore-dispute-places-birds-turtles-and-humans-small-strip-sand5867
And here is my response.
Kurt,
I want to thank you for the article as it is perhaps the most moderate piece you’ve written on this exhausting subject. Many are the issues that make up the fight for access to this amazing place.
You stated that development of the Seashore “might have been a grand idea in the 1930s” as though it were no longer true. Those of us that live within the bounds of the Seashore and those that visit are very glad that it was established; else we would be just another Nags Head or Myrtle Beach with wall to wall motels, malls, and chain stores. Though the boundaries of the villages were expanded to allow for future growth to accommodate the anticipated visitation, mentioned by former NPS director, Conrad Wirth, the community is still small and 98% of the businesses on the Islands are “mom and pop” shops with less than a dozen employees. It’s fun to think that I’m 70 miles away from fast food and 100 miles from Wal-Mart.
I think if you’re going to mention plovers at the Seashore it behooves you give light to the fact that since the plover first arrived on these beaches in 1960, not one single plover death or destroyed nest can be attributed to an ORV. For decades we shared the same beach areas with these birds as they nested and all without harm. I think you should also mention that 100% of all documented plover mortality at the Seashore has been to either storms or predation.
You should also mention that the Atlantic population of charadrius melodus, aka, the Piping Plover, is just over one hundred breeding pair away from being eligible for delisting from the Endangered Species Act. USFWS sets the target population at 2000 breeding pair which will likely be achieved this year or next, as last year’s count was 1889 pair.
Though the plover has become a symbol in this war for access, I don’t know anybody who wishes harm to these birds. As a community, I think we’re collectively very proud of the fact that no harm has come to these birds as a result of our use of this resource. However, the concept, indeed reality, of a 771 acre closure for a single plover chick is beyond reasonable.
If you’re going to talk turtles, I feel it’s important to mention that here at the Seashore, we have a better false crawl to nest ratio than USFWS sets for a completely undisturbed beach. Also that it has been documented that almost 40% of the turtle nests at the seashore are lost here annually because of storms, predation, and the refusal by NPS to move nests that are prone to washout and flooding in high risk areas which is completely unrelated to ORV use at the Seashore.
Kurt, apparently you need to make a trip to the Seashore. You mention “rip-rap, seawalls, groins, and jetties”. We one set of jetties or what used to be jetties as they have decayed to the point of almost non existence. We don’t have seawalls, rip-rap or groins here, we have sand. Your inclusion of these terms in your article implies that such things exist here when in fact they don’t, not within the Seashore, not on the ocean beaches. This isn’t Myrtle Beach.
You just have to love Chris Canfield, President of Audubon N.C. For the last few years he’s been screaming about increased ORV use, and that we’re crowding the Seashore, etc. Now he’s quoting the Voglesong study (again) to give the impression that only a minute portion of the visitors to the Islands come to access the beaches by ORV. At issue is that when Voglesong was peer reviewed as required, those that gave their opinion deemed the study essentially worthless and not worthy of further review as the data and its collection was flawed so horribly.
And yes, Mr. Canfield, we know it’s about birds other than the plover. The question is do you know that in N.C. ”species of concern” means nothing more than the state wants to know more about the birds? Are you aware of the DEIS public comment made by Gordon Myers, Chairman of the North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission, whose policies effectively dictate wildlife management policy to NPS here at the Seashore stating: “State-listed "species of concern," - such as the American oystercatcher - do not require the extensive buffers and beach closures mandated for federally listed species such as the piping plover.” And, “To treat it as synonymous with threatened and endangered is not congruent”?
Canfield also probably didn’t tell you about the beachfront property on Bodie Island that Audubon just sold for 25 million dollars. The area was supposed to be reserved as a nature area and being beachfront is subject to tern and oystercatcher nesting. They sold it so it could be developed and the plans have just been approved. Nice job Mr. Canfield!
You’d think that somebody from the National Parks Conservation Assn. might learn a little about the Seashore before they make comment. Kristen Brengle clearly has no idea of how this seashore operates. Her assumption that “we” close the beaches in front of the villages for tourism dollars is patently false. The seasonal closures are “safety” closures enacted by NPS because of the number of pedestrians on those beaches and prevent all but NPS vehicles and perhaps commercial fisherman from entering these areas. Nobody has an issue with this.
If Ms. Brengle had any idea as to how the closures have come to be under the consent decree and the tremendous loss of access and the resulting economic impact on the islands, she would know that her statements “So to say that now, with the closures specifically for off-road vehicles use, they’re not used to it, I don’t think that that’s a true statement”, and, “And to make it seem like a closure here and there to protect some turtle and bird nesting is such a concept that’s wildly out of sync with how things have been managed down there is incorrect” are utterly ridiculous. She apparently fails to realize that these closures not only affect ORV’s, but all access, period.
And then there was this comment by Mike Murray, Superintendent of Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area. “So, lack of parking is a big root cause to the dilemma we face today,” he says. “People have become dependent upon driving and parking on the beach.” With all due respect Mike, that is absurd and you know it.
I was there at the “meet and greet” meeting you held at the Cape Hatteras Anglers Club when you described the times you spent as a child with your family driving on the beaches of the Seashore. I was there in that standing room only meeting when you stated that “as far as I’m concerned, beach driving is a traditional form of access”, words I will never forget.
To suggest that the use of the Seashore for vehicular access and parking is because of the lack of parking along the roadside and within the villages is a blatant attempt at re-inventing the intended purpose of this resource which is apparently in vogue within NPS these days and contradicts your own experience and opinion, Mike.
About the numbers you quoted, the 2.2 million visitors NPS reports is an invalid number as it incorporates visitor use of Fort Raleigh and the Wright Brothers site as well neither of which are part of the Seashore and are in fact miles away. The reality of the majority of businesses on the Islands reporting 40 to 60% percent loss of sales since the inception of the consent decree and the subsequent beach closures is in argument with that number. For that number to be true, six thousand visitors would have been on the Islands every single day of the year last. And yet for the first time in my memory of visiting here for 30 years and living here for four, mid morning, all summer long, I could drive from Buxton to Avon and never pass another vehicle. What normally would have been the busiest stretch of road on the island was empty day after day, virtually all day.
The revenue figure you report is distorted and misleading though no fault of your own I’d think. It’s almost as though there were two Dare Counties, Kurt. There’s upper Dare which includes the incorporated, populated, and heavily developed areas like Nags Head or Kitty Hawk and then there’s the Seashore and the villages contained within. What goes on up there, 70 miles away, is no reflection on what happens down here.
That figure also falsely reports the spending of locals within the county as it is included and is not tourist income. The other distorting factor comes in that Dare is now taxing services like extra pillows, roll away beds and such where prior to the consent decree, they were not.
Whether you wish to factor all of these things into the equation or not, one thing cannot be denied, since the inception of the consent decree, Dare County has gone from being the number two “donor” county in the state to that with the highest unemployment rate.
The impairment issue is moot as after years of study to try and prove impairment by various and sundry methods, both the government and environmental groups have yet to show that traditional use of the Seashore has caused such. An unfortunate and yet ridiculous trend that is beginning to emerge as a result of the long, failed, attempt at showing harm is the call by anti-access groups that we, as users of this resource, should be required to conduct study to prove that we in fact aren’t harming the environment or the wildlife. This effectively requests us to prove a negative and if decades of study cannot produce evidence of harm, there is no need to attempt to prove no harm is done.
Before I close, I’d like to address your use of the enabling legislation in a reply you posted, Kurt. Your view that the latter portion would be seized and used by environmental groups is correct. They’ve been doing that for years in attempt to claim that the intended purpose of the Seashore was “to be reserved as primitive wilderness” and protect the “unique flora and fauna now contained within this area”.
You’re forgetting the exemption and what it says. Oddly, it was included in your quote. Let’s have a look at that.
“Except for certain portions of the area, deemed to be especially adaptable for recreational uses, particularly swimming, boating, sailing, fishing, and other recreational activities of similar nature, which shall be developed for such uses as needed,”
Here the Congress tells NPS in very simple terms that this area is to be developed for recreational use “as needed”. In other words, when the people come to enjoy their resource it shall be made available to them for the above mentioned activities and “other recreational activities of a similar nature”.
It is because of this statement that the Congress used the term “reserved” as opposed to “preserved” as “primitive wilderness” in the remaining phrase in this portion of the enabling legislation. Use of the word “preserve” would have negated the first portion of the section where Congress implores the NPS to develop the area as needed.
Now before anybody starts screaming that I advocate no protection for the wildlife that nests here at the Seashore, I’ll come right out and state that I do believe that reasonable and warranted protections should be in place when necessary. What I don’t agree with is the draconian closures that are part of the consent decree or the NPS proposed Alt. (F) as neither can be justified by sound, peer reviewed science, federal law, or the use history of this resource. Without the ability to show that visitor usage has caused or is causing real harm or impairment to the area, these very real and proposed devastating closures are patently unwarranted.
Thanks Kurt,
Tight Lines,
Wheat
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Good Stuff On The Web And A Note About Wading To The Point
You have to love the weather out here in the ocean..you never know what you're gonna get in spite of the forecast. I'd describe the day so far but by the time I finished, it will have changed again and it would consume the entire post. Suffice it to say, at the moment its so hot and muggy that the birds quit singing.
Lots of neat stuff today about access.
When I got up this morning I went to the email thingy and had received a couple of interesting notes.
The first was a response by CCA NC. and their response to the DEIS which can be found here:
http://www.ccanc.org/news/news.php?xnewsaction=getcomments&newsarch=052010&newsid=2
The next was a story written by longtime environmentalist and relatively anti-access author Kurt Repanshek on the National Parks Traveller website which for a change is fairly moderate though inaccurate. I have issues with his and Murray's comments. Anyway, its here:
http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/2010/05/cape-hatteras-national-seashore-dispute-places-birds-turtles-and-humans-small-strip-sand5867
The American Sport-fishing Association weighed in on the DEIS as well (post # 19):
http://forum.reddrumtackle.com/showthread.php?t=19565
And OBPA announced our newest fundraising effort:
"The OBPA (Outer Banks Preservation Association) is gearing up for its 3rd annual “Stand in the Sand” fundraiser scheduled for Friday, June 25 from noon until dark at the Fessenden Center in Buxton.
Just like the two previous events, the fundraiser will sell dinner pork and chicken barbeque dinners, and will also feature guest speakers, music, silent auction, 50/50 raffle, beach access information booths, play area for children and several local artists.
It takes a lot of man power to make this event happen and there are many different types of jobs that need volunteers to fill. To find out what you can do to help, contact Ginger at ginger3168@live.com. Many hands make light work.
Stand in the Sand is one of our largest fundraisers of the year. All the money that the OBPA raises is used to pay the all the legal challenges for maintaining reasonable beach access for everyone.
This fundraiser is always a fun-filled day for the community. Each one of us can be a part of preserving our beach heritage. The Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area is worth fighting for. Please help!"
I know its a lot of reading but reading all this stuff is the only way to get a grip on how messed up this situation really is.
And a note about access to Cape Point. The Point proper is still technically open though you cant get there unless you wade through the surf about a half mile. The rule is, you have to stay below the mean low tide line though since not one human on this planet can determine exactly where this is, your feet have to be in the water for the entire walk.
Got this from Ted Hamilton:
This from the NPS 26 Jun 2008 Beach Access Report
[quote]
News on the “water boundary... See More” issue: We frequently hear the question – “Can I walk in the water around a full beach closure to access those stretches of beach that are open beyond the closure (with restricted access)?” According to the DOI Solicitor’s Office, from a legal point of view, the NPS jurisdictional boundary on the ocean shoreline, in most cases, is the mean low water mark. However, “on the ground” in the field, when it is NOT low tide, it is not clear how the public, (or the rangers who enforce the regulations for that matter) can determine the exact location of mean low tide at that precise time. For all practical purposes, unless otherwise posted*, passage by a resource closure is permitted if the closure is small enough in length for a person to see the opposite posted boundary (less than a half mile) and if one is able to walk at least knee deep in the low tide (surf) zone the entire distance and re-enter into an open area. Visitors must use their own discretion as to whether it is safe to walk this close to the pounding surf zone and if the distance passing through the closure in the surf zone is of short enough distance to the opposite closure boundary that they feel they can safely bypass the protected area of the beach. Rule of thumb: If you are on the shore, i.e., if your feet aren’t wet, within these closed areas, then you are violating the closure and are subject to the relevant penalties. Under NO circumstances are pets allowed through these areas. In addition, this is not recommended for small children.
*In some cases, there will be signs to prohibit any access past a given point. These areas will be signed accordingly with “Shoreline closed at all tides to pedestrians and ORVs.”
On paragraph 22 of the Consent Decree, it states that “NPS retains discretion at all times to enforce more protective closures or take other measures, if considered necessary, consistent with its obligations under law and this Consent Decree.” Please understand that violations of these resource closures will result in more stringent interpretation of this admittedly difficult situation. NPS staff continues to work with the Solicitors and the U.S.Attorney’s Office to come to terms with this issue. It is safe to say “when in doubt, avoid entering these areas.” Entry into clearly marked, posted protection areas is a violation of the Consent Decree and park regulations and may result in court charges.
[unquote]
Which means that nobody that's handicapped, such as myself, can go and fish the Point
If you're not an experienced Point "washing machine" wader, don't even go there, don't even think about it. The east facing beach has a wicked drop off this Spring. But be sure to wave at the NPS employees and our friend Derb as they ride through the closures in trucks and walk where they please.
Soundside, remember that NPS jurisdiction extends 150 feet out into the water but their signs don't, so be careful.
And Thanks Ted!
Tight Lines,
Wheat
Lots of neat stuff today about access.
When I got up this morning I went to the email thingy and had received a couple of interesting notes.
The first was a response by CCA NC. and their response to the DEIS which can be found here:
http://www.ccanc.org/news/news.php?xnewsaction=getcomments&newsarch=052010&newsid=2
The next was a story written by longtime environmentalist and relatively anti-access author Kurt Repanshek on the National Parks Traveller website which for a change is fairly moderate though inaccurate. I have issues with his and Murray's comments. Anyway, its here:
http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/2010/05/cape-hatteras-national-seashore-dispute-places-birds-turtles-and-humans-small-strip-sand5867
The American Sport-fishing Association weighed in on the DEIS as well (post # 19):
http://forum.reddrumtackle.com/showthread.php?t=19565
And OBPA announced our newest fundraising effort:
"The OBPA (Outer Banks Preservation Association) is gearing up for its 3rd annual “Stand in the Sand” fundraiser scheduled for Friday, June 25 from noon until dark at the Fessenden Center in Buxton.
Just like the two previous events, the fundraiser will sell dinner pork and chicken barbeque dinners, and will also feature guest speakers, music, silent auction, 50/50 raffle, beach access information booths, play area for children and several local artists.
It takes a lot of man power to make this event happen and there are many different types of jobs that need volunteers to fill. To find out what you can do to help, contact Ginger at ginger3168@live.com. Many hands make light work.
Stand in the Sand is one of our largest fundraisers of the year. All the money that the OBPA raises is used to pay the all the legal challenges for maintaining reasonable beach access for everyone.
This fundraiser is always a fun-filled day for the community. Each one of us can be a part of preserving our beach heritage. The Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area is worth fighting for. Please help!"
I know its a lot of reading but reading all this stuff is the only way to get a grip on how messed up this situation really is.
And a note about access to Cape Point. The Point proper is still technically open though you cant get there unless you wade through the surf about a half mile. The rule is, you have to stay below the mean low tide line though since not one human on this planet can determine exactly where this is, your feet have to be in the water for the entire walk.
Got this from Ted Hamilton:
This from the NPS 26 Jun 2008 Beach Access Report
[quote]
News on the “water boundary... See More” issue: We frequently hear the question – “Can I walk in the water around a full beach closure to access those stretches of beach that are open beyond the closure (with restricted access)?” According to the DOI Solicitor’s Office, from a legal point of view, the NPS jurisdictional boundary on the ocean shoreline, in most cases, is the mean low water mark. However, “on the ground” in the field, when it is NOT low tide, it is not clear how the public, (or the rangers who enforce the regulations for that matter) can determine the exact location of mean low tide at that precise time. For all practical purposes, unless otherwise posted*, passage by a resource closure is permitted if the closure is small enough in length for a person to see the opposite posted boundary (less than a half mile) and if one is able to walk at least knee deep in the low tide (surf) zone the entire distance and re-enter into an open area. Visitors must use their own discretion as to whether it is safe to walk this close to the pounding surf zone and if the distance passing through the closure in the surf zone is of short enough distance to the opposite closure boundary that they feel they can safely bypass the protected area of the beach. Rule of thumb: If you are on the shore, i.e., if your feet aren’t wet, within these closed areas, then you are violating the closure and are subject to the relevant penalties. Under NO circumstances are pets allowed through these areas. In addition, this is not recommended for small children.
*In some cases, there will be signs to prohibit any access past a given point. These areas will be signed accordingly with “Shoreline closed at all tides to pedestrians and ORVs.”
On paragraph 22 of the Consent Decree, it states that “NPS retains discretion at all times to enforce more protective closures or take other measures, if considered necessary, consistent with its obligations under law and this Consent Decree.” Please understand that violations of these resource closures will result in more stringent interpretation of this admittedly difficult situation. NPS staff continues to work with the Solicitors and the U.S.Attorney’s Office to come to terms with this issue. It is safe to say “when in doubt, avoid entering these areas.” Entry into clearly marked, posted protection areas is a violation of the Consent Decree and park regulations and may result in court charges.
[unquote]
Which means that nobody that's handicapped, such as myself, can go and fish the Point
If you're not an experienced Point "washing machine" wader, don't even go there, don't even think about it. The east facing beach has a wicked drop off this Spring. But be sure to wave at the NPS employees and our friend Derb as they ride through the closures in trucks and walk where they please.
Soundside, remember that NPS jurisdiction extends 150 feet out into the water but their signs don't, so be careful.
And Thanks Ted!
Tight Lines,
Wheat
Monday, May 17, 2010
HEY DERB, I Have A Question
Its Monday morning and I'm waiting for the rain err, car-wash but for the last 24 hours, all of the rain has stopped once it hits the western side of the Pamlico Sound, leaving us dry as a bone. Fishing's been slow as the ocean water temps are rather cool and holding alot of the fish we seek both offshore and many miles to the south. Of course, the other effect that this cooler water has is to delay turtle nesting and its entirely possible that this one factor alone could result in much lower nesting numbers than we had last year.
Throughout our collective experience under the consent decree, Derb and the "darkside" have continued to publish statements aimed not only at their supporters but the media as well. Always they claim that the results of the court sanctioned consent decree are outstanding with increased nesting etc. They also skew data relevant to the economic impact on the Islands and claim that its minimal which is utter horse-poop. Whats been interesting, even mildly encouraging, is that some in the media have begun to see through the "spin" and are beginning to openly question the validity of Derb's tripe. In spite of this, I'm still confident that we'll have more of the same at the end of this season.
But I'm curious Derb, what are you going to say this time? Its mid May 2010 and plover numbers are down this year. Already two nests have been lost to...wait for it...storms and predation. Did I mention that Oystercatchers haven't increased this year from last and in fact they have lost a pair of nests also, already?
JUST ASKING
Tight Lines.
Wheat
Throughout our collective experience under the consent decree, Derb and the "darkside" have continued to publish statements aimed not only at their supporters but the media as well. Always they claim that the results of the court sanctioned consent decree are outstanding with increased nesting etc. They also skew data relevant to the economic impact on the Islands and claim that its minimal which is utter horse-poop. Whats been interesting, even mildly encouraging, is that some in the media have begun to see through the "spin" and are beginning to openly question the validity of Derb's tripe. In spite of this, I'm still confident that we'll have more of the same at the end of this season.
But I'm curious Derb, what are you going to say this time? Its mid May 2010 and plover numbers are down this year. Already two nests have been lost to...wait for it...storms and predation. Did I mention that Oystercatchers haven't increased this year from last and in fact they have lost a pair of nests also, already?
JUST ASKING
Tight Lines.
Wheat
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Native Or Not?
This morning as I sit here enjoying my coffee I began to peruse the inter-web and ended up checking out a post on the Frank and Frans website that asked about the hypocrisy between a statement made by the Defenders of Wildlife and their advocacy of the slaughter of "predators" here on the Islands. His post (in part) goes like this:
"Defenders of Wildlife is dedicated to the protection of all native animals and plants in their natural communities. With more than 1 million members, supporters and subscribers, Defenders of Wildlife is a leading advocate for innovative solutions to safeguard our wildlife heritage for generations to come. For more information visit www.defenders.org. "(defenders statement)
"How can this be when they allow, even support, the killing of hundreds of "predators" is an opossum not a native animal? how about foxes? The fact is their entire statement bothers me, but how on earth is it okay for one group, or in this case 3, to play god, deciding which of his creatures can live, and which must die? And how can these groups then call themselves "conservationists?""
Well Chris, Let me take a crack at answering your question.
As I'm sure you know, there's a rather substantial difference between the DOW/Audubon version of environmentalism and conservationism.
Though DOW/Audubon profess to be "conservators" of nature and wildlife, their brand advocates the removal of "man" from the environment, excepting them of course. And they have no qualms at altering the balance of nature in order to achieve a single goal and they call it science. Along the way they will blame the presence of man for, in our case, the lack of nesting success of the birds and turtles at the seashore. Of course to do this, at least in the case of the Seashore, they MUST ignore any and all possible explanations
for nesting failure except for mankind. But since little or no record exists indicating that we are harming wildlife here, they must resort to speculation. This is why virtually all of their so called "science" is fraught with "could have, may have, might, possibly" ad infinitum and our documented science must be ignored else they could not advance their agenda.
Conservationists believe in preservation of species as well, but believe that man and nature can coexist within a given environment. Within the ranks of conservationists are tens of thousands of sportsmen who contribute millions of dollars annually, in one form or another to wildlife conservation efforts around this nation and are in large part are directly responsible for the recovery of many species.
Plovers are a textbook case of this ignorance of both fact and sound scientific reasoning. The environmental rhetoric claims that a continued increase in ORV use was responsible for declining plover numbers at the Seashore though there are records I have seen that indicate a decline in ORV use after '02-'03.
In a study authored by David Wilson that mirrors a study done by a friend of mine, Scott, a couple years ago, a well documented, direct correlation is drawn between plover numbers at the Seashore and the frequency of storms both here and within their wintering grounds. To sum it up, when mother nature puts a weather smack-down into play, plover numbers drop. Its a good, short read and can be found at:
http://www.preservebeachaccess.org/landingnew/news.html
Last year, both Cape Lookout and Delaware plovers got dose of the weather and the majority of their nests were lost. Now Derb isn't stupid enough to blame that on ORVs here but he'd likely use that as justification for the 1000 meter, 771 acre plover buffers. The reasoned science mentioned above, however, will be ignored.
This relates to your question in that rather than deal with a reasoned approach that utilizes sound science, a selective, biased, and speculative campaign is waged by these groups to both advance their agenda and of course raise funds while hiding the truth from the public.
Having engaged in repeated public debate with those that would advance the dark-sides agenda about predation, particularly by the possum and raccoon, I have been repeatedly told that neither are native to the Islands and are here only because of the presence of man.
I find this to be absurd.
Though I'm certain that any study regarding either beast would show an increase in population around human settlement, it must be taken into account that these animals are a part of nature and exist in areas within this nation with little or no human population. And as it is the recognized nature of life to fill every available niche within the environment, I find it extraordinarily difficult to accept that without the presence of man, these animals would not be here.
Its speculated that the Islands have existed for up to 17,000 years and even within documented history have repeatedly been connected and disconnected from the mainland. These animals are both native to North Carolina and thrive sound side on the mainland but apparently are native to everywhere but here.
So, I'm left with this mental image that at some point in the distant past, the native Americans that lived here and across the sound, built an ARK and transported all of these animals here, oh wait, just the raccoons and 'possums. Somehow, all of the other animals here (the ones that don't eat baby birds) got to these shores on their own.
In the lawn this morning was a box turtle. A friend Kevin found one at his place the other day. Another friend tells the same story just hours before. So now we have an established population of at least three box turtles on Hatteras island.
I'm not aware of the readers personal experience with 'coons and 'possums but my experience is that they are right crafty critters. I have yet to meet a box turtle that I could describe as crafty but there was one in my yard.
If a box turtle could find its way from the mainland down seventy odd miles of seashore and end up in Buxton, I think its rather likely that a crafty mammal could do the same.
I was once told of a survey conducted a hundred years ago or so that claimed that there were no raccoons on Ocracoke. It wasn't all that long ago the Supreme Court heard the TVA vs. Hill case that claimed that protection for the snail darter outweighed the need for a dam to generate hydroelectric power. The environmental lobby claimed that the effected darter population was all that existed in the world and had to be saved.
The point of the story is that after SCOTUS ruled in favor of Hill, somebody actually went looking for these fish and found that in fact there were bunches of them all over the place. As dynamic and wind swept as these Islands are, it's no wonder no critters were found on O'coke.
Its this argument, that these animals are not native, that NPS uses to justify the slaughter of not just 'coons and possum but mink and otter as well.
Both mink and otter will eat snakes. Take those two out of the food chain and guess what happens. SNAKES!
A friend, Kim, called me a couple summers ago and was wondering if I had noticed the absence of rabbits on my way out to the beach. In the mornings and evenings, the road used to be lined with them. Though we don't have many snakes here large enough to engulf a full grown rabbit, we have a mazillion that are quite capable of consuming their young.
Has NPS altered the balance of nature? I don't know for sure but what I do know is that such a claim would probably bear more scientific weight than all of the DOW/Audubon "science" claims made to date. At least it makes sense and is actually relevant to the Seashore.
What NPS is doing is wrong. Particularly considering that under the enabling legislation they are required to protect and preserve the unique flora and fauna "now contained within this area" (which incidentally excludes plovers) within the area "reserved"as primitive wilderness.
I don't know if that answers your question or not, Chris. I tried.
Tight lines,
Wheat
"Defenders of Wildlife is dedicated to the protection of all native animals and plants in their natural communities. With more than 1 million members, supporters and subscribers, Defenders of Wildlife is a leading advocate for innovative solutions to safeguard our wildlife heritage for generations to come. For more information visit www.defenders.org. "(defenders statement)
"How can this be when they allow, even support, the killing of hundreds of "predators" is an opossum not a native animal? how about foxes? The fact is their entire statement bothers me, but how on earth is it okay for one group, or in this case 3, to play god, deciding which of his creatures can live, and which must die? And how can these groups then call themselves "conservationists?""
Well Chris, Let me take a crack at answering your question.
As I'm sure you know, there's a rather substantial difference between the DOW/Audubon version of environmentalism and conservationism.
Though DOW/Audubon profess to be "conservators" of nature and wildlife, their brand advocates the removal of "man" from the environment, excepting them of course. And they have no qualms at altering the balance of nature in order to achieve a single goal and they call it science. Along the way they will blame the presence of man for, in our case, the lack of nesting success of the birds and turtles at the seashore. Of course to do this, at least in the case of the Seashore, they MUST ignore any and all possible explanations
for nesting failure except for mankind. But since little or no record exists indicating that we are harming wildlife here, they must resort to speculation. This is why virtually all of their so called "science" is fraught with "could have, may have, might, possibly" ad infinitum and our documented science must be ignored else they could not advance their agenda.
Conservationists believe in preservation of species as well, but believe that man and nature can coexist within a given environment. Within the ranks of conservationists are tens of thousands of sportsmen who contribute millions of dollars annually, in one form or another to wildlife conservation efforts around this nation and are in large part are directly responsible for the recovery of many species.
Plovers are a textbook case of this ignorance of both fact and sound scientific reasoning. The environmental rhetoric claims that a continued increase in ORV use was responsible for declining plover numbers at the Seashore though there are records I have seen that indicate a decline in ORV use after '02-'03.
In a study authored by David Wilson that mirrors a study done by a friend of mine, Scott, a couple years ago, a well documented, direct correlation is drawn between plover numbers at the Seashore and the frequency of storms both here and within their wintering grounds. To sum it up, when mother nature puts a weather smack-down into play, plover numbers drop. Its a good, short read and can be found at:
http://www.preservebeachaccess.org/landingnew/news.html
Last year, both Cape Lookout and Delaware plovers got dose of the weather and the majority of their nests were lost. Now Derb isn't stupid enough to blame that on ORVs here but he'd likely use that as justification for the 1000 meter, 771 acre plover buffers. The reasoned science mentioned above, however, will be ignored.
This relates to your question in that rather than deal with a reasoned approach that utilizes sound science, a selective, biased, and speculative campaign is waged by these groups to both advance their agenda and of course raise funds while hiding the truth from the public.
Having engaged in repeated public debate with those that would advance the dark-sides agenda about predation, particularly by the possum and raccoon, I have been repeatedly told that neither are native to the Islands and are here only because of the presence of man.
I find this to be absurd.
Though I'm certain that any study regarding either beast would show an increase in population around human settlement, it must be taken into account that these animals are a part of nature and exist in areas within this nation with little or no human population. And as it is the recognized nature of life to fill every available niche within the environment, I find it extraordinarily difficult to accept that without the presence of man, these animals would not be here.
Its speculated that the Islands have existed for up to 17,000 years and even within documented history have repeatedly been connected and disconnected from the mainland. These animals are both native to North Carolina and thrive sound side on the mainland but apparently are native to everywhere but here.
So, I'm left with this mental image that at some point in the distant past, the native Americans that lived here and across the sound, built an ARK and transported all of these animals here, oh wait, just the raccoons and 'possums. Somehow, all of the other animals here (the ones that don't eat baby birds) got to these shores on their own.
In the lawn this morning was a box turtle. A friend Kevin found one at his place the other day. Another friend tells the same story just hours before. So now we have an established population of at least three box turtles on Hatteras island.
I'm not aware of the readers personal experience with 'coons and 'possums but my experience is that they are right crafty critters. I have yet to meet a box turtle that I could describe as crafty but there was one in my yard.
If a box turtle could find its way from the mainland down seventy odd miles of seashore and end up in Buxton, I think its rather likely that a crafty mammal could do the same.
I was once told of a survey conducted a hundred years ago or so that claimed that there were no raccoons on Ocracoke. It wasn't all that long ago the Supreme Court heard the TVA vs. Hill case that claimed that protection for the snail darter outweighed the need for a dam to generate hydroelectric power. The environmental lobby claimed that the effected darter population was all that existed in the world and had to be saved.
The point of the story is that after SCOTUS ruled in favor of Hill, somebody actually went looking for these fish and found that in fact there were bunches of them all over the place. As dynamic and wind swept as these Islands are, it's no wonder no critters were found on O'coke.
Its this argument, that these animals are not native, that NPS uses to justify the slaughter of not just 'coons and possum but mink and otter as well.
Both mink and otter will eat snakes. Take those two out of the food chain and guess what happens. SNAKES!
A friend, Kim, called me a couple summers ago and was wondering if I had noticed the absence of rabbits on my way out to the beach. In the mornings and evenings, the road used to be lined with them. Though we don't have many snakes here large enough to engulf a full grown rabbit, we have a mazillion that are quite capable of consuming their young.
Has NPS altered the balance of nature? I don't know for sure but what I do know is that such a claim would probably bear more scientific weight than all of the DOW/Audubon "science" claims made to date. At least it makes sense and is actually relevant to the Seashore.
What NPS is doing is wrong. Particularly considering that under the enabling legislation they are required to protect and preserve the unique flora and fauna "now contained within this area" (which incidentally excludes plovers) within the area "reserved"as primitive wilderness.
I don't know if that answers your question or not, Chris. I tried.
Tight lines,
Wheat
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Illegitimi non carborundum
Another day of chores (including fishing stuff) for me this day.
Had a few comments on my last post which was cool and a call about it too. Without revisiting that rant, I have only to say that when NPS finally publishes the comments that were submitted, Its going to be interesting to see the names of those that made comment relative to those that complain the most about what is or isn't being done about access. My guess, alot of them will be missing from the list.
So today I check my email and a friend has sent me a copy of a joint Defenders of Wildlife, Audubon, Southern Environmental Law Center, press release that discusses their submission of public comment to NPS.
Once again, they solicit opinion and comment from persons and other environmental organizations that have no connection or knowledge of the Seashore which falls right in line with the vast majority of so called "science" that they have submitted to NPS for consideration. No surprise there. I'm sure that the "Ascutney Mountain Audubon Society" is as well versed in the dynamics of the Seashore and the relevant wildlife as they are familiar with a six-dicked newt that breeds in Madagascar.
All through this fight we have continued to provide real science and documentation of same which they have blown off in favor of their own undocumented, speculative and often false claims. If these people played the game as we do, they wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
Taken directly from their press release comes the following statement:
"Both wildlife numbers and park visitation numbers are up under the 2008 consent decree's temporary management of ORVs in the park. The last two years had record numbers of turtle nests and the highest number of nesting piping plovers since 1998, as well as a net average increase of nearly 100,000 park visitors in 2008-2009 during months affected by the consent decree, compared to the same time period during the three previous years, 2005-2007. Not only did park visitation remain solid, but Dare County rental occupancy for both 2008 and 2009 reached a record high over a 15 year period despite two years of a nationwide economic recession."
Just when you thought you'd heard it all comes forth this piece of absolute bullshit. I'm sorry for the language, I realize that its not "professional" but it serves purpose and helps me vent.These people are so full of excrement that they should be required to posses a permit from the EPA to handle it and spew it forth else they contaminate the planet.
"Both wildlife numbers and park visitation numbers are up under the 2008 consent decree's temporary management of ORVs in the park."
This is utterly false particularly when taken in context with the economy of the Islands that comprise the majority of the Seashore. Upper dare County may have had a good year last year but down here it was all about layoffs and empty motels and angry visitors that were upset because 67% of all the beaches on the Seashore were closed to all access, not just ORV traffic. Not to mention the fact that the recession began here with the advent of the consent decree, a full year before the rest of the nation began taking a hit and dare County as a whole has gone from the status of the #2 donor county in N.C. to being the county with the highest unemployment rate in the entire state. Not to mention the fact that the visitation numbers that these people refer to include visitors to the Wright Brothers memorial as well as the Lost Colony site in Manteo, N.C., both of which are NOT located within the Seashore and are 80 odd miles from where I sit which could be considered "Seashore Central".
"The last two years had record numbers of turtle nests and the highest number of nesting piping plovers since 1998, as well as a net average increase of nearly 100,000 park visitors in 2008-2009 during months affected by the consent decree, compared to the same time period during the three previous years, 2005-2007.
WHAT?
WHAT?
Y'all make ACORN look like saints!
Fact is that in the turtle nesting season of the summer of '08 turtle nest numbers did hit record levels here at the Seashore just as they did along the entire East Coast of the U.S. which had nothing to do with the "consent" decree.Since then, nesting numbers have declined. Fact is, that the best plover year in recent memory was also in '08 but the birds were here prior to the implementation of the draconian closures stipulated by the decree. Since the decree was put in place, plover numbers have declined and predation of colonial waterbirds has increased. And considering the number of plovers nesting on the Seashore this year, Its likely that the numbers will fall yet again, or possibly remain stable but they damn sure wont increase without an act of God.
I've already discussed nesting numbers in a previous post so I wont bother to repeat it. Nesting numbers (as in numbers of nests) are no accurate indication that the birds are "recovering" by virtue of the way they are calculated. The only number that matters is how many chicks fledge from the nests; same with turtles.
If it was illegal to lie, these people would have been relegated to living under the jail a long time ago.
Why cant you just tell the truth Derb, Jason and Walker? Why not? Wait, what? It would cut off your federal funding? It would prevent you from profiting from lawsuits that the american taxpayer has to pay for? We have a 13 trillion dollar deficit and Ive got to pay your lying ass to destroy an economy and take my job away so that you can lie and present to the public, err, shove down the public's throat, some bullshit plan that has already been proven an absolute failure; all so that you can get a new pair of Birkenstocks?
Yea, I saw your whining post about how we're fighting you tooth and nail. That's what this country is about you bastards. We will be free to enjoy whats ours and we will prevail in this fight as the law is on our side!
As you are all so adept at handling and shovelling out bullshit, I suggest a better career choice would be on a cattle farm in Wyoming though the good people out there would probably have no use for you either.
End 'O Rant
Tight Lines,
Wheat
Had a few comments on my last post which was cool and a call about it too. Without revisiting that rant, I have only to say that when NPS finally publishes the comments that were submitted, Its going to be interesting to see the names of those that made comment relative to those that complain the most about what is or isn't being done about access. My guess, alot of them will be missing from the list.
So today I check my email and a friend has sent me a copy of a joint Defenders of Wildlife, Audubon, Southern Environmental Law Center, press release that discusses their submission of public comment to NPS.
Once again, they solicit opinion and comment from persons and other environmental organizations that have no connection or knowledge of the Seashore which falls right in line with the vast majority of so called "science" that they have submitted to NPS for consideration. No surprise there. I'm sure that the "Ascutney Mountain Audubon Society" is as well versed in the dynamics of the Seashore and the relevant wildlife as they are familiar with a six-dicked newt that breeds in Madagascar.
All through this fight we have continued to provide real science and documentation of same which they have blown off in favor of their own undocumented, speculative and often false claims. If these people played the game as we do, they wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
Taken directly from their press release comes the following statement:
"Both wildlife numbers and park visitation numbers are up under the 2008 consent decree's temporary management of ORVs in the park. The last two years had record numbers of turtle nests and the highest number of nesting piping plovers since 1998, as well as a net average increase of nearly 100,000 park visitors in 2008-2009 during months affected by the consent decree, compared to the same time period during the three previous years, 2005-2007. Not only did park visitation remain solid, but Dare County rental occupancy for both 2008 and 2009 reached a record high over a 15 year period despite two years of a nationwide economic recession."
Just when you thought you'd heard it all comes forth this piece of absolute bullshit. I'm sorry for the language, I realize that its not "professional" but it serves purpose and helps me vent.These people are so full of excrement that they should be required to posses a permit from the EPA to handle it and spew it forth else they contaminate the planet.
"Both wildlife numbers and park visitation numbers are up under the 2008 consent decree's temporary management of ORVs in the park."
This is utterly false particularly when taken in context with the economy of the Islands that comprise the majority of the Seashore. Upper dare County may have had a good year last year but down here it was all about layoffs and empty motels and angry visitors that were upset because 67% of all the beaches on the Seashore were closed to all access, not just ORV traffic. Not to mention the fact that the recession began here with the advent of the consent decree, a full year before the rest of the nation began taking a hit and dare County as a whole has gone from the status of the #2 donor county in N.C. to being the county with the highest unemployment rate in the entire state. Not to mention the fact that the visitation numbers that these people refer to include visitors to the Wright Brothers memorial as well as the Lost Colony site in Manteo, N.C., both of which are NOT located within the Seashore and are 80 odd miles from where I sit which could be considered "Seashore Central".
"The last two years had record numbers of turtle nests and the highest number of nesting piping plovers since 1998, as well as a net average increase of nearly 100,000 park visitors in 2008-2009 during months affected by the consent decree, compared to the same time period during the three previous years, 2005-2007.
WHAT?
WHAT?
Y'all make ACORN look like saints!
Fact is that in the turtle nesting season of the summer of '08 turtle nest numbers did hit record levels here at the Seashore just as they did along the entire East Coast of the U.S. which had nothing to do with the "consent" decree.Since then, nesting numbers have declined. Fact is, that the best plover year in recent memory was also in '08 but the birds were here prior to the implementation of the draconian closures stipulated by the decree. Since the decree was put in place, plover numbers have declined and predation of colonial waterbirds has increased. And considering the number of plovers nesting on the Seashore this year, Its likely that the numbers will fall yet again, or possibly remain stable but they damn sure wont increase without an act of God.
I've already discussed nesting numbers in a previous post so I wont bother to repeat it. Nesting numbers (as in numbers of nests) are no accurate indication that the birds are "recovering" by virtue of the way they are calculated. The only number that matters is how many chicks fledge from the nests; same with turtles.
If it was illegal to lie, these people would have been relegated to living under the jail a long time ago.
Why cant you just tell the truth Derb, Jason and Walker? Why not? Wait, what? It would cut off your federal funding? It would prevent you from profiting from lawsuits that the american taxpayer has to pay for? We have a 13 trillion dollar deficit and Ive got to pay your lying ass to destroy an economy and take my job away so that you can lie and present to the public, err, shove down the public's throat, some bullshit plan that has already been proven an absolute failure; all so that you can get a new pair of Birkenstocks?
Yea, I saw your whining post about how we're fighting you tooth and nail. That's what this country is about you bastards. We will be free to enjoy whats ours and we will prevail in this fight as the law is on our side!
As you are all so adept at handling and shovelling out bullshit, I suggest a better career choice would be on a cattle farm in Wyoming though the good people out there would probably have no use for you either.
End 'O Rant
Tight Lines,
Wheat
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
The "My Bones Are Sore And Tired" Rag And Rant. Key of C, 3/4 Time, lol
When I woke up this morning, I was sore. Sore in the sense that I felt that this aging body had spent the previous day in some vigorous activity though knowing that it was the comment I made to NPS yesterday that had me tense. No Fishy For YOU!..LOL On today's agenda is re-spooling reels, tying some rigs and relaxing after the federal trials and tribulations.
So I begin to peruse the inter-web and I visit the website of a local tackle shop with which I am familiar and I see a debate about whether it's fair for one person to ask another "what have you done for access?" Subsequently, the individual that asked the question to another was being summarily bashed.
Another person I know and consider a friend, writes a post stating something to the effect that nothings been done about access because no lawsuit has been filed.
And quite frankly, both thoughts just piss me off.
So, excuse the rant, please.
Near the beginning of the year, a relatively small group of people got together donating their time, expenses, and efforts to compose what became the position statement of The Coalition For Beach Access. These people spent literally thousands of hours and thousands of dollars of their own money to establish a sensible option for management of Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area.
Once the DEIS was published by NPS, these same people, in some cases travelling from as far away as central Virginia at their own expense, met to hammer out a concise set of "talking points"so that those who had neither the time or ability to fully examine the issues incorporated within the DEIS, could still make educated and effective comment.
Again, thousands of man hours and thousands of dollars of personal money were spent by these dedicated people in the fight to promulgate the first sensible approach in managing the Seashore. And as somebody that's been fighting this fight for a long time, when I was invited to join this group, I was humbled not just by the people that made up the group but the wealth of knowledge and experience with which I was suddenly faced.
I was only invited into this esteemed group toward the end. But, I will tell you, these people had been meeting several times a week since the beginning of the year and had managed to hammer out some extraordinary information and a definitive science based management policy. Something that neither NPS nor the assorted environmental groups that would deny access to ALL Americans at the Seashore, have ever been able to do.
So to say that nothings been done because no lawsuit has been filed is, quite frankly, ignorant. Not only did these volunteers spend their own time and money to provide you with sound science based information, they drove for miles at their own expense to hold public meetings in Hampton, Raleigh, Buxton, KDH, and Ocracoke to educate the people about the DEIS, something that NPS failed to do.
As it happens, the feller that asked "what have you done for access?" is one of the people who have donated so much of their own money and time to this cause for many years and surely went out of his way these last months as part of the group I mentioned.
Was the question "what have you done?" fair?
Damn right!
With all due respect, and I'm honestly not trying to offend anybody, seriously! If your savvy enough to locate a fishing forum here on Hatteras Island, and you profess knowledge of this place and publicly state that you are a proponent of access, then when somebody asks "what have you done for access?", you should be able to respond with examples rather than bashing the person that asked the question. Especially when that person has worked so tirelessly and at their own expense as did the individual in question.
Again, with respect to the individual that was offended by the above question, there's a tremendous difference between asking a question because you don't know the answer and asking a question because you're to damn lazy to look it up.
Its not up to me to figure out where you fit into that thought process but if you enjoy this Seashore I propose you involve yourself in the fight and process to save it for public access.
Tight lines,
Wheat
So I begin to peruse the inter-web and I visit the website of a local tackle shop with which I am familiar and I see a debate about whether it's fair for one person to ask another "what have you done for access?" Subsequently, the individual that asked the question to another was being summarily bashed.
Another person I know and consider a friend, writes a post stating something to the effect that nothings been done about access because no lawsuit has been filed.
And quite frankly, both thoughts just piss me off.
So, excuse the rant, please.
Near the beginning of the year, a relatively small group of people got together donating their time, expenses, and efforts to compose what became the position statement of The Coalition For Beach Access. These people spent literally thousands of hours and thousands of dollars of their own money to establish a sensible option for management of Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area.
Once the DEIS was published by NPS, these same people, in some cases travelling from as far away as central Virginia at their own expense, met to hammer out a concise set of "talking points"so that those who had neither the time or ability to fully examine the issues incorporated within the DEIS, could still make educated and effective comment.
Again, thousands of man hours and thousands of dollars of personal money were spent by these dedicated people in the fight to promulgate the first sensible approach in managing the Seashore. And as somebody that's been fighting this fight for a long time, when I was invited to join this group, I was humbled not just by the people that made up the group but the wealth of knowledge and experience with which I was suddenly faced.
I was only invited into this esteemed group toward the end. But, I will tell you, these people had been meeting several times a week since the beginning of the year and had managed to hammer out some extraordinary information and a definitive science based management policy. Something that neither NPS nor the assorted environmental groups that would deny access to ALL Americans at the Seashore, have ever been able to do.
So to say that nothings been done because no lawsuit has been filed is, quite frankly, ignorant. Not only did these volunteers spend their own time and money to provide you with sound science based information, they drove for miles at their own expense to hold public meetings in Hampton, Raleigh, Buxton, KDH, and Ocracoke to educate the people about the DEIS, something that NPS failed to do.
As it happens, the feller that asked "what have you done for access?" is one of the people who have donated so much of their own money and time to this cause for many years and surely went out of his way these last months as part of the group I mentioned.
Was the question "what have you done?" fair?
Damn right!
With all due respect, and I'm honestly not trying to offend anybody, seriously! If your savvy enough to locate a fishing forum here on Hatteras Island, and you profess knowledge of this place and publicly state that you are a proponent of access, then when somebody asks "what have you done for access?", you should be able to respond with examples rather than bashing the person that asked the question. Especially when that person has worked so tirelessly and at their own expense as did the individual in question.
Again, with respect to the individual that was offended by the above question, there's a tremendous difference between asking a question because you don't know the answer and asking a question because you're to damn lazy to look it up.
Its not up to me to figure out where you fit into that thought process but if you enjoy this Seashore I propose you involve yourself in the fight and process to save it for public access.
Tight lines,
Wheat
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
finally done...whew
Your comments were successfully submitted.
May 11, 2010 05:31 PM Mountain Time
Michael B. Murray, Superintendant:
Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area
May 2, 2010
Dear Mr. Murray,
I am writing to express my disappointment and rejection of the various provisions set forth within the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) that was prepared by your agency, The National Park Service (NPS or the Service) in an effort to promulgate a rule for Off Road Vehicle (ORV) access to the Recreational Area here at Cape Hatteras as required by Executive Order 11644 (Nixon 1972).
Having reviewed the contents of the DEIS, I find that the Service has ignored the traditional uses and values associated with the Seashore in direct conflict with NPS policy and congressional mandate.
I find that the proposals for wildlife management and protection are excessive and have been proposed with the use of little sound, peer reviewed science as is required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
The Service has failed to provide a properly studied and vetted Economic Impact Statement also required by NEPA.
The Service has failed to account for diminished visitor experience that will occur if any of these provisions are enacted, particularly alternatives D and F. I find that all of the proposed alternatives include provisions that will produce negative visitor experience.
I also find that most of the proposals contained within the DEIS are in direct conflict with existing Congressional legislation mandating policy and practice to be followed by NPS specifically at Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area, in addition to being in direct conflict with various published management policies of the Service itself.
As the Service has announced that proposed Alternative F of the DEIS is the policy that NPS would prefer to enact, my focus will, of course, follow this proposal as even sixty days is not enough time to prepare meaningful and informative comment on the remaining five alternatives presented by the Service.
Before I begin my discourse about NPS preferred Alternative F, I would like to address the lack of a suitable public comment period.
The National Park Service took approximately 38 years from the issuance of the aforementioned E.O. 11644 to draft a proposal for a final ORV management plan. At 810 pages in length, this often contradictory document is, and has been, difficult for even the most knowledgeable members of the public to understand and formulate comment. For those members of the public without comprehensive understanding of the various and sundry issues related to access, wildlife management, and the future of the Seashore, a sixty day comment period is simply not enough time. This is especially true since at no point has the Service made any attempt at educating the public about the contents and ramifications of the proposed alternatives. By virtue of the fact that the as of yet incomplete economic impact study has not been proffered for public scrutiny, I believe that public comment should be extended until at least sixty days after the DEIS has been completed. Proposed extension has been requested numerous times by elected federal and state representatives, our community leaders and the public at large. If the Service is genuine in its appeal for comment as is required within a NEPA process, then NPS needs to respect the request for additional time and provide for such.
It is with great dismay that I notice the title of the DEIS utilizes the term Cape
Hatteras National Seashore. I would be remiss were I not to remind the Service that
the true and proper name of this area is Cape Hatteras National Seashore
Recreational Area as mandated by Congress within 16USC459 which states: (in
part) “said area shall be, and is, established, dedicated, and set apart as a
national seashore recreational area for the benefit and enjoyment of the people and
shall be known as the Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area.”
Though the Service chose to drop the full name during the 1970’s as it was
considered cumbersome, all but the most mundane of documents are still supposed
to carry the full title.
When Congress began to formulate the legislation that created the nation’s first National Seashore, and as these bills were signed into law, nowhere was included anything that resembles NPS preferred Alternative (F).( Hereafter referred to as Alt. (F).) This proposal by the Service will have the effect of changing the stated mission of the Seashore and severely impact the economy of the Islands that comprise the bulk of this area and Dare and Hyde Counties as a whole.
It was the stated goal of Congress to establish an area for the people to come where they would be able to pursue recreational activities on these beaches and away from developed areas as debate began about the creation of this Seashore. When their eyes fell upon this area, they found a place steeped deep in history, tradition, and miles of pristine beach that had remained relatively free of development as it is so remote. Though Congress provided a dual mandate to NPS at the Seashore, it is recreation, not the protection of flora and fauna that is consistently mentioned within the relevant portions of the Organic Act (16USC459), although this too, is an important function of the Service.
What’s clear is that at Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area, Congress established an area wherein recreation was to be the dominant activity. This same legislative body determined that the Service was to develop this area for such uses as needed by the public.
16USC459 Sec.4 states: (in part)
“Except for certain portions of the area, deemed to be especially adaptable for recreational uses, particularly swimming, boating, sailing, fishing, and other recreational activities of similar nature, which shall be developed for such uses as needed” (emphasis added). This is in direct conflict with proposed and preferred Alt. (F) as introduced by NPS which will effectively un-develop important areas of the Seashore. Here Congress tells NPS that as the people come to the Seashore to recreate, NPS is to develop the area to accommodate the recreational needs of the visitor. This is not a hint, it’s not asking NPS to consider making the area accessible. No, it states quite plainly "which shall be developed for such uses as needed"
Had Congress intended that the area become a wildlife refuge, the provision included within the enabling legislation discussing any “lands and waters now or hereafter included in any migratory-bird refuge” found in 16USC459 Sec.5 would not have been included as part of this legislation. The NPS preferred Alt. (F), by permanently shutting down vast areas of the seashore under the auspices of protecting wildlife, will effectively transform the Seashore into a “preserve” status without actually calling it so. And as such, violates the intent of Congress and its legal dictates relevant to this area, and published NPS management policy.
Further evidence of the intent of Congress to develop an area for recreational purpose can be discovered within 16USC459 Sec.3. Here Congress guarantees the right of the legal residents of the Islands the right to make a living by fishing “subject to such rules and regulations as the said Secretary may deem necessary in order to protect the area for recreational use as provided for in this Act." (emphasis added).
This provision resulted in the creation of an area of the Seashore that was set aside specifically for the “protection and enhancement of recreational sports-fishing”. 36CFR7.58.21.b. (6) (in part) – Specifically identifies boundaries “A zone is established for the protection and enhancement of recreational sport-fishing commencing at Beach Access Ramp No. 22 and continuing south and west along the ocean shore, including Cape Point (Cape Hatteras), to Beach Access Ramp No. 30. Within this zone commercial fishing, as specified in the Act of August 17, 1937 (50 Stat. 669), is permitted.” Of note is that with the Beach Access Ramp number re-designation that has occurred since this statute was enacted, the aforementioned Ramp 30 is now designated as Beach Access Ramp No. 45.
Enacting NPS preferred Alt. (F) will result in the closure of the majority of the above mentioned area without scientific justification or the ability to show that ORV and pedestrian use of the Seashore has caused harm sufficient to warrant the drastic measures outlined within the preferred proposal.
As I have mentioned numerous times before, it is not just federal law that conflicts with preferred Alt. (F) but a collection of Service policy indicates that NPS is attempting to stray from its mission as a division of the Department of the Interior.
In example, the following is extracted from NPS policy.
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
ADMINISTRATIVE POLICIES
for the Recreation Areas of the National Park System
FEDERAL EXECUTIVE BRANCH POLICY GOVERNING THE SELECTION,
ESTABLISHMENT, AND ADMINISTRATION OF NATIONAL RECREATION
AREAS BY THE RECREATION ADVISORY COUNCIL
Circular No. 1, March 26, 1963
(in part)
The system of National Recreation Areas should:
1. “Provide for Federal investment in outdoor recreation that is more clearly responsive to recreation demand than other investments that are based primarily upon considerations of preserving unique natural or historical resources, the need to develop and conserve public lands and forests, or the requirements of major water resource development undertakings;”
PRIMARY CRITERIA FOR SELECTION OF NATIONAL RECREATION AREAS
6. “Within National Recreation Areas, outdoor recreation shall be recognized as the dominant or primary resource management purpose. If additional natural resource utilization is carried on, such additional use shall be compatible with fulfilling the recreation mission, and none will be carried on that is significantly detrimental to it.” (emphasis added)
SECONDARY CRITERIA FOR SELECTION OF NATIONAL RECREATION AREAS
3. “National Recreation Areas may include within their boundaries scenic, historic, scientific, scarce or disappearing resources, provided the objectives of their preservation and enjoyment can be achieved on a basis compatible with the recreation mission.” (emphasis added)
5. “Whenever possible, National Recreation Areas should be selected, developed, and managed to provide maximum compatibility with the recreation potential of adjacent rural areas in private ownership.”
Furthermore, considering that the intent of Congress was to create an area within which the public could pursue ventures, “particularly swimming, boating, sailing, fishing, and other recreational activities of similar nature” (16USC459 Sec.4), the following NPS published policy must also be considered when management considerations are being developed for application within the bounds of the Seashore.
NPS Management Policies 2006 handbook, Introduction; “Hierarchy of Authorities” (in part) - “It is especially important that superintendents and other park staff review their park’s enabling legislation to determine whether it contains explicit guidance that would prevail over Service-wide policy.”
NPS Management Policies 2006 handbook, Para 1.4.4 (in part) – “The impairment of park resources and values may not be allowed by the Service unless directly and specifically provided for by legislation or by the proclamation establishing the park. The relevant legislation or proclamation must provide explicitly (not by implication or inference) for the activity, in terms that keep the Service from having the authority to manage the activity so as to avoid the impairment.”(emphasis added)
NPS Management Policies 2006 handbook, Para 8.1 (in part) – “The 1970 National Park System General Authorities Act, as amended in 1978, prohibits the Service from allowing any activities that would cause derogation of the values and purposes for which the parks have been established (except as directly and specifically provided by Congress)”(emphasis added)
Clearly, even at this point, those that read this letter must agree that proposed Alt. (F) is in direct conflict with the above mentioned statutes and published policy. The derogation of the above described intended mission of the Seashore suggested within Alt. (F) infringes upon the guaranteed right of the legal residents of Hatteras and Ocracoke Islands to make a living by fishing. 16USC459 Sec.3 clearly provides: (in part)
“That the legal residents of the villages referred to in section 1 of this Act shall have the right to earn a livelihood by fishing within the boundaries to be designated by the Secretary of the Interior, subject to such rules and regulations as the said Secretary may deem necessary in order to protect the area for recreational use as provided for in this Act."
Neglected within Alt. (F) are measures to insure that this right, bestowed by Congress, is respected. The law does not indicate that this is a privilege that can be arbitrarily waived by NPS; but must be treated as what it truly is, a right guaranteed by Congress that is as important and legally defensible as is the freedom of speech asserted by Congress within the Bill Of Rights.
In order for a fisherman to make a living by fishing, his nets must be set where the fish are likely to be found. As the structure of the beaches at Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area change daily, so do the locations of the targeted fish. The closures proposed by NPS preferred Alt. (F) will prevent the exercise of this right as provided by Congress and is, as such, a violation of federal law.
I would choose to close this section of my comment with yet one more reminder to the Service of their responsibilities as directed by Congress, the only body of our government with the authority to write law and dispose of public property as provided by the Constitution Of the United States.
16USC459 1a-1 (in part)” Congress further reaffirms, declares, and directs that the promotion and regulation of the various areas of the National Park System . . . shall be consistent with and founded in the purpose established by section 1 of this title to the common benefit of all the people of the United States. The authorization of activities shall be construed and the protection, management, and administration of these areas shall be conducted in light of the high public value and integrity of the National Park System and shall not be exercised in derogation of the values and purposes for which these various areas have been established, except as may have been or shall be directly and specifically provided by Congress.” (emphasis added)
I submit that the Service has no authority to alter the mission of this Seashore from a recreational area as provided within 16USC459 CHNSRA (in part) “.said area shall be, and is, established, dedicated, and set apart as a national seashore recreational area for the benefit and enjoyment of the people and shall be known as the Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area..”, (emphasis added) as NPS has no Congressional authorization to do so and as such, NPS preferred Alt. (F) carries the potential to be, and will be if enacted, in violation of federal law.
Remember, Congress clearly stated that the mission of this Seashore was for recreational purpose and specifically stated that it was to be developed for such use as needed.
In examining Alt. (F), I am struck with the similarities proposed by NPS with the conditions set forth within the current “consent decree”. It appears that ALT. (F) is no more than thinly veiled attempt at making a much more restrictive version of the consent decree become codified federal regulation.
As a service, NPS must balance between the traditional and historic uses of the seashore, the rights of the public, and sound resource management. The public has been imbued with law enacted by Congress, the promises made by the government through NPS Director Conrad Wirth to the people of the Outer Banks, and deep tradition and traditional cultural use patterns that NPS is required to respect and protect. NPS preferred Alt. (F) as proposed, fails to do this. National environmental policy dictates that NPS must make sound, science based management choice while ensuring that the pendulum does not sway too far to one side when attempting to strike a balance between access and resource management.
Currently, the members of the public including the residents of Hatteras and Ocracoke Islands, as well as the citizenry of both Dare and Hyde Counties are experiencing the economic effect of the pendulum swinging well to far to the protection side as a result of the consent decree. No where within the DEIS is a substantive study detailing the effects of this decree upon the economies that are dependent upon beach access to survive. Considering that NPS preferred ALT. (F) is considerably more restrictive than the current court sanctioned NPS management policy, the devastation to the local economy at present will pale in comparison to what will occur if proposed Alt. (F) is enacted. Already, the economic impact of the consent decree far outweighs the projected impact of Alt.(F) as stated within the DEIS. And within the DEIS, the Service admits that the Economic Impact Study is incomplete and as such calls into question the legitimacy and legal defensibility of this document as a whole.
The NPS preferred Alt. (F) buffer distances are largely based upon USGS protocols which have to have been properly peer reviewed even by USGS standards. In some cases the cited studies were in fact “peer reviewed” by the authors themselves in direct conflict with USGS peer review regulation. In many cases these so called studies had nothing to do with the Seashore at all. When examining these documents, the names Walker Golder and J.B. Cohen arise, and yet both of these individuals have actively participated in efforts within the Negotiated Rulemaking process and in the case of Golder, the lawsuit that promulgated the consent decree, to close the seashore for recreational use.
These protocols have yet to be shown as emanating from specific scientific, peer reviewed study and in fact by the governments own admission, “This report does not establish NPS management protocols but does highlight scientific information on the biology of these species to be considered by NPS managers who make resource management decisions at CAHA." As such, NPS preferred Alt. (F) is considerably flawed.
Of particular note and dismay, are the buffer distances and duration of closures as stipulated within Alt. (F) as they are excessive and not based upon sound peer reviewed science. The Service seeks, within Alt. (F), to provide a mechanism wherein species listed in the State of North Carolina as “species of concern” are given protections normally only directed at federally listed endangered or threatened species. Recently, the North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission objected to this proposal contained within Alt. (F). Gordon Myers, executive director of the commission stated “State-listed "species of concern," - such as the American oystercatcher - do not require the extensive buffers and beach closures mandated for federally listed species such as the piping plover.” And, “To treat it as synonymous with threatened and endangered is not congruent”.
The proposed closures in respect to Piping Plovers are excessive. Nowhere does sound peer reviewed science exist that suggests that a 1000 meter closure around a plover chick is warranted. These proposed buffers have been effectively field tested during the last two nesting seasons here at the Seashore and yet plover numbers have declined. Never in the history of the Seashore can a plover death be attributed to either an ORV or pedestrian.
The restriction on pets within the Seashore as proposed by Alt. (F) is well beyond excessive and not only will it induce negative visitor experience it will result in further economic loss to this community. Again, there is no sound peer reviewed science that will support the theory that even if a dog is on an NPS mandated six foot leash, it will disturb a piping plover or American Oystercatcher nesting a mile away. As such, this portion of the rule should be discarded as junk science.
Furthermore, NPS, in calculating both wildlife counts and pedestrian only access at the Seashore, needs include bird, turtle, and available pedestrian only access in the area known as Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge. (PINWR) This refuge was created by Executive Order a year after the enabling legislation that created the Seashore was passed into law. 16USC459 Sec. 5 states: (in part)
“Not withstanding any other provisions of this act, lands and waters now or hereafter included in any migratory-bird refuge under the Jurisdiction of the Secretary of Agriculture, within the boundaries of the national seashore, as designated by the Secretary of the Interior under section 1 hereof, shall continue as such refuge under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Agriculture for the protection of migratory birds, but such lands and waters shall be a part of the aforesaid national seashore and shall be administered by the National Park Service for recreational uses not inconsistent with the purposes of such refuge and under such rules and regulations as the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture may jointly approve.”
Even within the 2006 Interim Management Strategy for PINWR as filed into the federal register, USFWS admits that PINWR is only an “overlay” of the Seashore. NPS has refused to recognize this in spite of clear and concise federal mandate.
Turtle management as proposed within Alt. (F) will, in all likelihood, result in a documented and stable, nearly 40% loss in viable nests. It is ironic that within PINWR, though still within the Seashore, an entirely different set of protocols are observed with a much higher nest success rate. Turtle management at CHNSRA needs be proactive. Our beaches change daily, though in some cases are seasonally predictable in form. When turtles nest in high risk areas, we as a community attempt to inform NPS that a given nest needs relocating. We have usually been ignored only to see the Service plow the nest into the sea because it was collectively deceased. The Service has a long history of ignoring local knowledge which is in conflict with its own policy. In spite of this rejection of local knowledge and in spite of years of night driving on the beaches of CHNSRA, the Seashore still presents a better false crawl ratio than that USFWS expects from a totally undisturbed beach.
It is imperative that NPS consider all of the factors that make up what Cape Hatteras National Seashore is to the visitor as well as the residents of the islands that comprise the bulk of the Seashore. Impact to the economy as well as visitor experience are as much, if not more, a part of the NPS mission as directed by Congress. It is imperative that NPS recognizes the traditional cultural aspects and values that the results of any decision made by the Service might inflict upon residents and visitors alike. Of no small consequence is the rule of law as established by the Congress; which NPS seems wont to ignore.
With all of the above considered in detail, and with a sufficient review on NPS preferred Alt. (F), and the remaining portions of the DEIS, I find the entire document to be flawed and in all likelihood, illegal in nature.
The most sensible approach to Seashore management will incorporate a balance between nature and access. NPS preferred Alt. (F) fails to do this.
The most sensible approach to date has been proffered by the Coalition for Beach Access within the position statement published at:
http://www.obpa-nc.org/position/statement.pdf
I strongly agree that this is the most practicable approach to satisfying the consistent recreational mandates directed by Congress to NPS while at the same time ensuring adequate protection of wildlife and providing access to these beaches, “which shall be developed for such uses as needed”, by the public as directed by federal law.
Furthermore, I recommend that NPS turtle management policy be amended to reflect local knowledge and experience. This requirement can easily be met at the Seashore by adopting the proposed policies recommended by Larry Hardham and Robert Davis as these individuals have more collective knowledge of sea turtle nesting at CHNSRA than probably any employee of the Service or NCWRC.
Their approach is adaptive and sound. Similar approach has been shown to be highly successful. It must be remembered, its not the number of nests that ultimately count but the number of hatchlings that make it to the sea. Their work can be found at: http://www.obpa-nc.org/turtles/TurtleMgmtProgram.pdf
I hope that the service will come to its senses and recognize the law relevant to the Seashore, the traditional cultural values, traditional uses, and will recognize the extraordinarily devastating impact that proposed Alt. (F) will have on the already fragile economy that suffers immeasurably as a result of just the consent decree.
Jeffrey Golding
Buxton,
Hatteras Island,
Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area,
North Carolina,
27920
May 11, 2010 05:31 PM Mountain Time
Michael B. Murray, Superintendant:
Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area
May 2, 2010
Dear Mr. Murray,
I am writing to express my disappointment and rejection of the various provisions set forth within the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) that was prepared by your agency, The National Park Service (NPS or the Service) in an effort to promulgate a rule for Off Road Vehicle (ORV) access to the Recreational Area here at Cape Hatteras as required by Executive Order 11644 (Nixon 1972).
Having reviewed the contents of the DEIS, I find that the Service has ignored the traditional uses and values associated with the Seashore in direct conflict with NPS policy and congressional mandate.
I find that the proposals for wildlife management and protection are excessive and have been proposed with the use of little sound, peer reviewed science as is required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
The Service has failed to provide a properly studied and vetted Economic Impact Statement also required by NEPA.
The Service has failed to account for diminished visitor experience that will occur if any of these provisions are enacted, particularly alternatives D and F. I find that all of the proposed alternatives include provisions that will produce negative visitor experience.
I also find that most of the proposals contained within the DEIS are in direct conflict with existing Congressional legislation mandating policy and practice to be followed by NPS specifically at Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area, in addition to being in direct conflict with various published management policies of the Service itself.
As the Service has announced that proposed Alternative F of the DEIS is the policy that NPS would prefer to enact, my focus will, of course, follow this proposal as even sixty days is not enough time to prepare meaningful and informative comment on the remaining five alternatives presented by the Service.
Before I begin my discourse about NPS preferred Alternative F, I would like to address the lack of a suitable public comment period.
The National Park Service took approximately 38 years from the issuance of the aforementioned E.O. 11644 to draft a proposal for a final ORV management plan. At 810 pages in length, this often contradictory document is, and has been, difficult for even the most knowledgeable members of the public to understand and formulate comment. For those members of the public without comprehensive understanding of the various and sundry issues related to access, wildlife management, and the future of the Seashore, a sixty day comment period is simply not enough time. This is especially true since at no point has the Service made any attempt at educating the public about the contents and ramifications of the proposed alternatives. By virtue of the fact that the as of yet incomplete economic impact study has not been proffered for public scrutiny, I believe that public comment should be extended until at least sixty days after the DEIS has been completed. Proposed extension has been requested numerous times by elected federal and state representatives, our community leaders and the public at large. If the Service is genuine in its appeal for comment as is required within a NEPA process, then NPS needs to respect the request for additional time and provide for such.
It is with great dismay that I notice the title of the DEIS utilizes the term Cape
Hatteras National Seashore. I would be remiss were I not to remind the Service that
the true and proper name of this area is Cape Hatteras National Seashore
Recreational Area as mandated by Congress within 16USC459 which states: (in
part) “said area shall be, and is, established, dedicated, and set apart as a
national seashore recreational area for the benefit and enjoyment of the people and
shall be known as the Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area.”
Though the Service chose to drop the full name during the 1970’s as it was
considered cumbersome, all but the most mundane of documents are still supposed
to carry the full title.
When Congress began to formulate the legislation that created the nation’s first National Seashore, and as these bills were signed into law, nowhere was included anything that resembles NPS preferred Alternative (F).( Hereafter referred to as Alt. (F).) This proposal by the Service will have the effect of changing the stated mission of the Seashore and severely impact the economy of the Islands that comprise the bulk of this area and Dare and Hyde Counties as a whole.
It was the stated goal of Congress to establish an area for the people to come where they would be able to pursue recreational activities on these beaches and away from developed areas as debate began about the creation of this Seashore. When their eyes fell upon this area, they found a place steeped deep in history, tradition, and miles of pristine beach that had remained relatively free of development as it is so remote. Though Congress provided a dual mandate to NPS at the Seashore, it is recreation, not the protection of flora and fauna that is consistently mentioned within the relevant portions of the Organic Act (16USC459), although this too, is an important function of the Service.
What’s clear is that at Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area, Congress established an area wherein recreation was to be the dominant activity. This same legislative body determined that the Service was to develop this area for such uses as needed by the public.
16USC459 Sec.4 states: (in part)
“Except for certain portions of the area, deemed to be especially adaptable for recreational uses, particularly swimming, boating, sailing, fishing, and other recreational activities of similar nature, which shall be developed for such uses as needed” (emphasis added). This is in direct conflict with proposed and preferred Alt. (F) as introduced by NPS which will effectively un-develop important areas of the Seashore. Here Congress tells NPS that as the people come to the Seashore to recreate, NPS is to develop the area to accommodate the recreational needs of the visitor. This is not a hint, it’s not asking NPS to consider making the area accessible. No, it states quite plainly "which shall be developed for such uses as needed"
Had Congress intended that the area become a wildlife refuge, the provision included within the enabling legislation discussing any “lands and waters now or hereafter included in any migratory-bird refuge” found in 16USC459 Sec.5 would not have been included as part of this legislation. The NPS preferred Alt. (F), by permanently shutting down vast areas of the seashore under the auspices of protecting wildlife, will effectively transform the Seashore into a “preserve” status without actually calling it so. And as such, violates the intent of Congress and its legal dictates relevant to this area, and published NPS management policy.
Further evidence of the intent of Congress to develop an area for recreational purpose can be discovered within 16USC459 Sec.3. Here Congress guarantees the right of the legal residents of the Islands the right to make a living by fishing “subject to such rules and regulations as the said Secretary may deem necessary in order to protect the area for recreational use as provided for in this Act." (emphasis added).
This provision resulted in the creation of an area of the Seashore that was set aside specifically for the “protection and enhancement of recreational sports-fishing”. 36CFR7.58.21.b. (6) (in part) – Specifically identifies boundaries “A zone is established for the protection and enhancement of recreational sport-fishing commencing at Beach Access Ramp No. 22 and continuing south and west along the ocean shore, including Cape Point (Cape Hatteras), to Beach Access Ramp No. 30. Within this zone commercial fishing, as specified in the Act of August 17, 1937 (50 Stat. 669), is permitted.” Of note is that with the Beach Access Ramp number re-designation that has occurred since this statute was enacted, the aforementioned Ramp 30 is now designated as Beach Access Ramp No. 45.
Enacting NPS preferred Alt. (F) will result in the closure of the majority of the above mentioned area without scientific justification or the ability to show that ORV and pedestrian use of the Seashore has caused harm sufficient to warrant the drastic measures outlined within the preferred proposal.
As I have mentioned numerous times before, it is not just federal law that conflicts with preferred Alt. (F) but a collection of Service policy indicates that NPS is attempting to stray from its mission as a division of the Department of the Interior.
In example, the following is extracted from NPS policy.
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
ADMINISTRATIVE POLICIES
for the Recreation Areas of the National Park System
FEDERAL EXECUTIVE BRANCH POLICY GOVERNING THE SELECTION,
ESTABLISHMENT, AND ADMINISTRATION OF NATIONAL RECREATION
AREAS BY THE RECREATION ADVISORY COUNCIL
Circular No. 1, March 26, 1963
(in part)
The system of National Recreation Areas should:
1. “Provide for Federal investment in outdoor recreation that is more clearly responsive to recreation demand than other investments that are based primarily upon considerations of preserving unique natural or historical resources, the need to develop and conserve public lands and forests, or the requirements of major water resource development undertakings;”
PRIMARY CRITERIA FOR SELECTION OF NATIONAL RECREATION AREAS
6. “Within National Recreation Areas, outdoor recreation shall be recognized as the dominant or primary resource management purpose. If additional natural resource utilization is carried on, such additional use shall be compatible with fulfilling the recreation mission, and none will be carried on that is significantly detrimental to it.” (emphasis added)
SECONDARY CRITERIA FOR SELECTION OF NATIONAL RECREATION AREAS
3. “National Recreation Areas may include within their boundaries scenic, historic, scientific, scarce or disappearing resources, provided the objectives of their preservation and enjoyment can be achieved on a basis compatible with the recreation mission.” (emphasis added)
5. “Whenever possible, National Recreation Areas should be selected, developed, and managed to provide maximum compatibility with the recreation potential of adjacent rural areas in private ownership.”
Furthermore, considering that the intent of Congress was to create an area within which the public could pursue ventures, “particularly swimming, boating, sailing, fishing, and other recreational activities of similar nature” (16USC459 Sec.4), the following NPS published policy must also be considered when management considerations are being developed for application within the bounds of the Seashore.
NPS Management Policies 2006 handbook, Introduction; “Hierarchy of Authorities” (in part) - “It is especially important that superintendents and other park staff review their park’s enabling legislation to determine whether it contains explicit guidance that would prevail over Service-wide policy.”
NPS Management Policies 2006 handbook, Para 1.4.4 (in part) – “The impairment of park resources and values may not be allowed by the Service unless directly and specifically provided for by legislation or by the proclamation establishing the park. The relevant legislation or proclamation must provide explicitly (not by implication or inference) for the activity, in terms that keep the Service from having the authority to manage the activity so as to avoid the impairment.”(emphasis added)
NPS Management Policies 2006 handbook, Para 8.1 (in part) – “The 1970 National Park System General Authorities Act, as amended in 1978, prohibits the Service from allowing any activities that would cause derogation of the values and purposes for which the parks have been established (except as directly and specifically provided by Congress)”(emphasis added)
Clearly, even at this point, those that read this letter must agree that proposed Alt. (F) is in direct conflict with the above mentioned statutes and published policy. The derogation of the above described intended mission of the Seashore suggested within Alt. (F) infringes upon the guaranteed right of the legal residents of Hatteras and Ocracoke Islands to make a living by fishing. 16USC459 Sec.3 clearly provides: (in part)
“That the legal residents of the villages referred to in section 1 of this Act shall have the right to earn a livelihood by fishing within the boundaries to be designated by the Secretary of the Interior, subject to such rules and regulations as the said Secretary may deem necessary in order to protect the area for recreational use as provided for in this Act."
Neglected within Alt. (F) are measures to insure that this right, bestowed by Congress, is respected. The law does not indicate that this is a privilege that can be arbitrarily waived by NPS; but must be treated as what it truly is, a right guaranteed by Congress that is as important and legally defensible as is the freedom of speech asserted by Congress within the Bill Of Rights.
In order for a fisherman to make a living by fishing, his nets must be set where the fish are likely to be found. As the structure of the beaches at Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area change daily, so do the locations of the targeted fish. The closures proposed by NPS preferred Alt. (F) will prevent the exercise of this right as provided by Congress and is, as such, a violation of federal law.
I would choose to close this section of my comment with yet one more reminder to the Service of their responsibilities as directed by Congress, the only body of our government with the authority to write law and dispose of public property as provided by the Constitution Of the United States.
16USC459 1a-1 (in part)” Congress further reaffirms, declares, and directs that the promotion and regulation of the various areas of the National Park System . . . shall be consistent with and founded in the purpose established by section 1 of this title to the common benefit of all the people of the United States. The authorization of activities shall be construed and the protection, management, and administration of these areas shall be conducted in light of the high public value and integrity of the National Park System and shall not be exercised in derogation of the values and purposes for which these various areas have been established, except as may have been or shall be directly and specifically provided by Congress.” (emphasis added)
I submit that the Service has no authority to alter the mission of this Seashore from a recreational area as provided within 16USC459 CHNSRA (in part) “.said area shall be, and is, established, dedicated, and set apart as a national seashore recreational area for the benefit and enjoyment of the people and shall be known as the Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area..”, (emphasis added) as NPS has no Congressional authorization to do so and as such, NPS preferred Alt. (F) carries the potential to be, and will be if enacted, in violation of federal law.
Remember, Congress clearly stated that the mission of this Seashore was for recreational purpose and specifically stated that it was to be developed for such use as needed.
In examining Alt. (F), I am struck with the similarities proposed by NPS with the conditions set forth within the current “consent decree”. It appears that ALT. (F) is no more than thinly veiled attempt at making a much more restrictive version of the consent decree become codified federal regulation.
As a service, NPS must balance between the traditional and historic uses of the seashore, the rights of the public, and sound resource management. The public has been imbued with law enacted by Congress, the promises made by the government through NPS Director Conrad Wirth to the people of the Outer Banks, and deep tradition and traditional cultural use patterns that NPS is required to respect and protect. NPS preferred Alt. (F) as proposed, fails to do this. National environmental policy dictates that NPS must make sound, science based management choice while ensuring that the pendulum does not sway too far to one side when attempting to strike a balance between access and resource management.
Currently, the members of the public including the residents of Hatteras and Ocracoke Islands, as well as the citizenry of both Dare and Hyde Counties are experiencing the economic effect of the pendulum swinging well to far to the protection side as a result of the consent decree. No where within the DEIS is a substantive study detailing the effects of this decree upon the economies that are dependent upon beach access to survive. Considering that NPS preferred ALT. (F) is considerably more restrictive than the current court sanctioned NPS management policy, the devastation to the local economy at present will pale in comparison to what will occur if proposed Alt. (F) is enacted. Already, the economic impact of the consent decree far outweighs the projected impact of Alt.(F) as stated within the DEIS. And within the DEIS, the Service admits that the Economic Impact Study is incomplete and as such calls into question the legitimacy and legal defensibility of this document as a whole.
The NPS preferred Alt. (F) buffer distances are largely based upon USGS protocols which have to have been properly peer reviewed even by USGS standards. In some cases the cited studies were in fact “peer reviewed” by the authors themselves in direct conflict with USGS peer review regulation. In many cases these so called studies had nothing to do with the Seashore at all. When examining these documents, the names Walker Golder and J.B. Cohen arise, and yet both of these individuals have actively participated in efforts within the Negotiated Rulemaking process and in the case of Golder, the lawsuit that promulgated the consent decree, to close the seashore for recreational use.
These protocols have yet to be shown as emanating from specific scientific, peer reviewed study and in fact by the governments own admission, “This report does not establish NPS management protocols but does highlight scientific information on the biology of these species to be considered by NPS managers who make resource management decisions at CAHA." As such, NPS preferred Alt. (F) is considerably flawed.
Of particular note and dismay, are the buffer distances and duration of closures as stipulated within Alt. (F) as they are excessive and not based upon sound peer reviewed science. The Service seeks, within Alt. (F), to provide a mechanism wherein species listed in the State of North Carolina as “species of concern” are given protections normally only directed at federally listed endangered or threatened species. Recently, the North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission objected to this proposal contained within Alt. (F). Gordon Myers, executive director of the commission stated “State-listed "species of concern," - such as the American oystercatcher - do not require the extensive buffers and beach closures mandated for federally listed species such as the piping plover.” And, “To treat it as synonymous with threatened and endangered is not congruent”.
The proposed closures in respect to Piping Plovers are excessive. Nowhere does sound peer reviewed science exist that suggests that a 1000 meter closure around a plover chick is warranted. These proposed buffers have been effectively field tested during the last two nesting seasons here at the Seashore and yet plover numbers have declined. Never in the history of the Seashore can a plover death be attributed to either an ORV or pedestrian.
The restriction on pets within the Seashore as proposed by Alt. (F) is well beyond excessive and not only will it induce negative visitor experience it will result in further economic loss to this community. Again, there is no sound peer reviewed science that will support the theory that even if a dog is on an NPS mandated six foot leash, it will disturb a piping plover or American Oystercatcher nesting a mile away. As such, this portion of the rule should be discarded as junk science.
Furthermore, NPS, in calculating both wildlife counts and pedestrian only access at the Seashore, needs include bird, turtle, and available pedestrian only access in the area known as Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge. (PINWR) This refuge was created by Executive Order a year after the enabling legislation that created the Seashore was passed into law. 16USC459 Sec. 5 states: (in part)
“Not withstanding any other provisions of this act, lands and waters now or hereafter included in any migratory-bird refuge under the Jurisdiction of the Secretary of Agriculture, within the boundaries of the national seashore, as designated by the Secretary of the Interior under section 1 hereof, shall continue as such refuge under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Agriculture for the protection of migratory birds, but such lands and waters shall be a part of the aforesaid national seashore and shall be administered by the National Park Service for recreational uses not inconsistent with the purposes of such refuge and under such rules and regulations as the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture may jointly approve.”
Even within the 2006 Interim Management Strategy for PINWR as filed into the federal register, USFWS admits that PINWR is only an “overlay” of the Seashore. NPS has refused to recognize this in spite of clear and concise federal mandate.
Turtle management as proposed within Alt. (F) will, in all likelihood, result in a documented and stable, nearly 40% loss in viable nests. It is ironic that within PINWR, though still within the Seashore, an entirely different set of protocols are observed with a much higher nest success rate. Turtle management at CHNSRA needs be proactive. Our beaches change daily, though in some cases are seasonally predictable in form. When turtles nest in high risk areas, we as a community attempt to inform NPS that a given nest needs relocating. We have usually been ignored only to see the Service plow the nest into the sea because it was collectively deceased. The Service has a long history of ignoring local knowledge which is in conflict with its own policy. In spite of this rejection of local knowledge and in spite of years of night driving on the beaches of CHNSRA, the Seashore still presents a better false crawl ratio than that USFWS expects from a totally undisturbed beach.
It is imperative that NPS consider all of the factors that make up what Cape Hatteras National Seashore is to the visitor as well as the residents of the islands that comprise the bulk of the Seashore. Impact to the economy as well as visitor experience are as much, if not more, a part of the NPS mission as directed by Congress. It is imperative that NPS recognizes the traditional cultural aspects and values that the results of any decision made by the Service might inflict upon residents and visitors alike. Of no small consequence is the rule of law as established by the Congress; which NPS seems wont to ignore.
With all of the above considered in detail, and with a sufficient review on NPS preferred Alt. (F), and the remaining portions of the DEIS, I find the entire document to be flawed and in all likelihood, illegal in nature.
The most sensible approach to Seashore management will incorporate a balance between nature and access. NPS preferred Alt. (F) fails to do this.
The most sensible approach to date has been proffered by the Coalition for Beach Access within the position statement published at:
http://www.obpa-nc.org/position/statement.pdf
I strongly agree that this is the most practicable approach to satisfying the consistent recreational mandates directed by Congress to NPS while at the same time ensuring adequate protection of wildlife and providing access to these beaches, “which shall be developed for such uses as needed”, by the public as directed by federal law.
Furthermore, I recommend that NPS turtle management policy be amended to reflect local knowledge and experience. This requirement can easily be met at the Seashore by adopting the proposed policies recommended by Larry Hardham and Robert Davis as these individuals have more collective knowledge of sea turtle nesting at CHNSRA than probably any employee of the Service or NCWRC.
Their approach is adaptive and sound. Similar approach has been shown to be highly successful. It must be remembered, its not the number of nests that ultimately count but the number of hatchlings that make it to the sea. Their work can be found at: http://www.obpa-nc.org/turtles/TurtleMgmtProgram.pdf
I hope that the service will come to its senses and recognize the law relevant to the Seashore, the traditional cultural values, traditional uses, and will recognize the extraordinarily devastating impact that proposed Alt. (F) will have on the already fragile economy that suffers immeasurably as a result of just the consent decree.
Jeffrey Golding
Buxton,
Hatteras Island,
Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area,
North Carolina,
27920
Sunday, May 9, 2010
FYI
Outer Banks Preservation Association (OBPA)
North Carolina Beach Buggy Association (NCBBA)
Cape Hatteras Anglers Club (CHAC)
May 7, 2010
The OBPA, NCBBA, and CHAC announce today their endorsement of the resource management proposals documented in “Sea Turtle Management – A Common Sense Approach for the Cape Hatteras Seashore Recreational Area”. Larry Hardham and Bob Davis, both from Buxton, North Carolina, are the authors of this document which proposes a turtle management plan for the Recreational Area that will maximize protection of the threatened loggerhead sea turtle, endangered green sea turtle, endangered leatherback sea turtle and provide reasonable beach access to pedestrians and ORV users. This document reflects years of analysis within the Recreational Area, as well as research of best practices along the eastern seaboard and the Gulf of Mexico.
The proposals within this document are consistent with the recently published “Coalition for Beach Access – Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area ORV Access Environmental Impact Position Statement”. The document supports the Coalition’s position that access restrictions which are proposed in the National Park Service’s “Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement” and attributed to sea turtle protection needs are not warranted.
The OBPA had published this document electronically on behalf of Mr. Hardham and Mr. Davis at the following web address:
http://www.obpa-nc.org/turtles/TurtleMgmtProgram.pdf
Tight Lines,
Wheat
North Carolina Beach Buggy Association (NCBBA)
Cape Hatteras Anglers Club (CHAC)
May 7, 2010
The OBPA, NCBBA, and CHAC announce today their endorsement of the resource management proposals documented in “Sea Turtle Management – A Common Sense Approach for the Cape Hatteras Seashore Recreational Area”. Larry Hardham and Bob Davis, both from Buxton, North Carolina, are the authors of this document which proposes a turtle management plan for the Recreational Area that will maximize protection of the threatened loggerhead sea turtle, endangered green sea turtle, endangered leatherback sea turtle and provide reasonable beach access to pedestrians and ORV users. This document reflects years of analysis within the Recreational Area, as well as research of best practices along the eastern seaboard and the Gulf of Mexico.
The proposals within this document are consistent with the recently published “Coalition for Beach Access – Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area ORV Access Environmental Impact Position Statement”. The document supports the Coalition’s position that access restrictions which are proposed in the National Park Service’s “Draft Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement” and attributed to sea turtle protection needs are not warranted.
The OBPA had published this document electronically on behalf of Mr. Hardham and Mr. Davis at the following web address:
http://www.obpa-nc.org/turtles/TurtleMgmtProgram.pdf
Tight Lines,
Wheat
Of The Law And NPS
Ah, its almost 2am and once again I'm up scouring over research, various and sundry laws, comments sent to me for review by some friends, and this God awful Draft Environmental Impact Statement aka, the consent decree on crack. Speaking today with Jim Keene, president of the North Carolina Beach Buggy Association, I found that I wasn't the only one with this issue. Perhaps we should start a support group.
Ever since this latest round of argument related to this Seashore began which was heralded by the arrival of our first permanent superintendent since Lawrence Belli, I began to question the disparity between NPS management policy here and the laws enacted by congress that indicate to NPS how this place is to be run and its purpose.
As I examine the DEIS and the NPS preferred alternative (F), I find that what congress intended and directed that this area should be and what NPS is proposing are polar opposites.
So I'm asking for your assistance.
Apparently I somehow, somewhere, missed the legislation or executive order that says that NPS has authority over the United States Congress and can arbitrarily ignore the rule of law in order to further an agenda.
If you find a link to this information, please send it my way. Thank You!
In the interim, I must continue to operate under the assumption that when the Congress writes a bill and its signed by the President, it becomes law. And when said law is directed at a specific governmental agency such as NPS for example, said agency is required to follow that law whether it fits their employees personal agendas or not.
I also work under the assumption that the US Constitution is still a valid document and that as provided within, only Congress has the authority to write federal law and that only Congress has the authority to dispose of public property.
The Seashore was created in 1937 within amendment to "The Organic Act of 1916" which among other things, created the National Park Service. Specifically, Title 16 United States Code 459 or as it appears in "lawyerese", 16USC459.
The first part of the section that deals with how the Seashore is to be managed and the intent of Congress reads:
"Except for certain portions of the area, deemed to be especially adaptable for recreational uses, particularly swimming, boating, sailing, fishing, and other recreational activities of similar nature, which shall be developed for such uses as needed"
This is where congress tells NPS that as the people come to the Seashore to recreate, NPS is to develop the area to accommodate the recreational needs of the visitor. This is not a hint, its not asking NPS to consider making the area accessible. No, it states quite plainly "which shall be developed for such uses as needed"
Mike Murray needs reminded of this LAW.
Section 3 of the same Act of Congress provides (in part):
"That the legal residents of the villages referred to in section 1 of this Act shall have the right to earn a livelihood by fishing within the boundaries to be designated by the Secretary of the Interior, subject to such rules and regulations as the said Secretary may deem necessary in order to protect the area for recreational use as provided for in this Act."
This one is rather self explanatory. Of note is that Congress provides guarantee that the legal residents of the Islands have the right to make a living by fishing these beaches. This is a right, not a privilege that can arbitrarily be waved by NPS. You cannot make a living if you cant get to the fish because of closed beaches.
The fact that Congress mentions concern about protecting the area for recreational uses further affirms that the Seashore was created for recreational purpose and that this was the primary use for this area.
Mike Murray needs reminded of this LAW.
36CFR7.58.21.b. (6) (in part) – Specifically identifies boundaries “A zone is established for the protection and enhancement of recreational sport-fishing commencing at Beach Access Ramp No. 22 and continuing south and west along the ocean shore, including Cape Point (Cape Hatteras), to Beach Access Ramp No. 30. Within this zone commercial fishing, as specified in the Act of August 17, 1937 (50 Stat. 669), is permitted..”
This piece of codified federal regulation (CFR) was established for the protection and enhancement of recreational sports fishing. Many say that this was to protect rec fishing from the commercial fisherman. Hogwash I say! Read the last sentence. and we're just days away from seeing most of the area closed. Apparently NPS doesn't understand "protection and enhancement of recreational sport-fishing"
Mike Murray needs reminded of this LAW.
And straight from the horses mouth comes:
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
ADMINISTRATIVE POLICIES
for the Recreation Areas of the National Park System
FEDERAL EXECUTIVE BRANCH POLICY GOVERNING THE SELECTION,
ESTABLISHMENT, AND ADMINISTRATION OF NATIONAL RECREATION
AREAS BY THE RECREATION ADVISORY COUNCIL
Circular No. 1, March 26, 1963
(in part)
The system of National Recreation Areas should:
1. Provide for Federal investment in outdoor recreation that is more clearly responsive to recreation demand than other investments that are based primarily upon considerations of preserving unique natural or historical resources, the need to develop and conserve public lands and forests, or the requirements of major water resource development undertakings;
PRIMARY CRITERIA FOR SELECTION OF NATIONAL RECREATION AREAS
6. Within National Recreation Areas, outdoor recreation shall be recognized as the dominant or primary resource management purpose. If additional natural resource utilization is carried on, such additional use shall be compatible with fulfilling the recreation mission, and none will be carried on that is significantly detrimental to it.
SECONDARY CRITERIA FOR SELECTION OF NATIONAL RECREATION AREAS
3. National Recreation Areas may include within their boundaries scenic, historic, scientific, scarce or disappearing resources, provided the objectives of their preservation and enjoyment can be achieved on a basis compatible with the recreation mission.
5. Whenever possible, National Recreation Areas should be selected, developed, and managed to provide maximum compatibility with the recreation potential of adjacent rural areas in private ownership.
Mr Murray need reminded that this is NPS administrative policy.
16USC459 CHNSRA Enabling Legislation (In Part) – Specifically mandates that “.said area shall be, and is, established, dedicated, and set apart as a national seashore recreational area for the benefit and enjoyment of the people and shall be known as the Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area..”
Benefit of the people and enjoyment of the people is what this law says. It also sets the name of the Seashore in stone which NPS is now refusing to acknowledge. NPS policy says all but the most mundane documents related to the Seashore must bear the full name. Its not on the DEIS and that's horse poop.
Remind Mr Murray that this is a Recreational Area, with a real name that he's required to use, that Congress said was for the benefit and enjoyment of the people, not a wildlife refuge and that this too, is law.
NPS also needs reminded that in spite of the designation of Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge, the area contained within is still part of CHNSRA by law. To wit:
16USC459 “SEC. 5. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this act, lands and waters now or hereafter included in any migratory-bird refuge under the Jurisdiction of the Secretary of Agriculture, within the boundaries of the national seashore, as designated by the Secretary of the Interior under section 1 hereof, shall continue as such refuge under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Agriculture for the protection of migratory birds, but such lands and waters shall be a part of the aforesaid national seashore and shall be administered by the National Park Service for recreational uses not inconsistent with the purposes of such refuge and under such rules and regulations as the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture may jointly approve.
As such the 13 miles of pedestrian only access in this are must be considered by NPS in their calculations and that all nesting birds and turtles must be counted as part of the Seashore's breeding populations as well.
More directly from NPS:
NPS Management Policies 2006 handbook, Introduction; “Hierarchy of Authorities” (in part) - “It is especially important that superintendents and other park staff review their park’s enabling legislation to determine whether it contains explicit guidance that would prevail over Service-wide policy.”
NPS Management Policies 2006 handbook, Para 1.4.4 (in part) - The impairment of park resources and values may not be allowed by the Service unless directly and specifically provided for by legislation or by the proclamation establishing the park. The relevant legislation or proclamation must provide explicitly (not by implication or inference) for the activity, in terms that keep the Service from having the authority to manage the activity so as to avoid the impairment.
NPS Management Policies 2006 handbook, Para 8.1 (in part) - The 1970 National Park System General Authorities Act, as amended in 1978, prohibits the Service from allowing any activities that would cause derogation of the values and purposes for which the parks have been established (except as directly and specifically provided by Congress)
I don't think this needs any further explanation.
And then there's the Redwoods Amendment:
16USC459 1a-1 (in part)Congress further reaffirms, declares, and directs that the promotion and regulation of the various areas of the National Park System . . . shall be consistent with and founded in the purpose established by section 1 of this title to the common benefit of all the people of the United States. The authorization of activities shall be construed and the protection,management, and administration of these areas shall be conducted in light of the high public value and integrity of the National Park System and shall not be exercised in derogation of the values and purposes for which these various areas have been established, except as may have been or shall be directly and specifically provided by Congress.
Ok Mr Murray, wheres your direct and specific permission from congress to change the mission of the Seashore? You don't have the authority by law to do this. You cant legally rape our economy and turn away the American People from the Seashore which is theirs to enjoy. Congress told you that you must develop these areas as they were needed for recreational use. Not un-develop them for the purpose of protecting wildlife especially since you cant show that we, as users of this resource, cause harm to these animals and plants. Even then you still need congressional authorization to do so and you don't have it Mr. Murray!
Take that damn DEIS back to Colorado and re-write it. Come back when you get the name right and comply with federal law and the above mentioned NPS policy. Then, we'll talk.
Tight Lines Everybody,
Wheat
Ever since this latest round of argument related to this Seashore began which was heralded by the arrival of our first permanent superintendent since Lawrence Belli, I began to question the disparity between NPS management policy here and the laws enacted by congress that indicate to NPS how this place is to be run and its purpose.
As I examine the DEIS and the NPS preferred alternative (F), I find that what congress intended and directed that this area should be and what NPS is proposing are polar opposites.
So I'm asking for your assistance.
Apparently I somehow, somewhere, missed the legislation or executive order that says that NPS has authority over the United States Congress and can arbitrarily ignore the rule of law in order to further an agenda.
If you find a link to this information, please send it my way. Thank You!
In the interim, I must continue to operate under the assumption that when the Congress writes a bill and its signed by the President, it becomes law. And when said law is directed at a specific governmental agency such as NPS for example, said agency is required to follow that law whether it fits their employees personal agendas or not.
I also work under the assumption that the US Constitution is still a valid document and that as provided within, only Congress has the authority to write federal law and that only Congress has the authority to dispose of public property.
The Seashore was created in 1937 within amendment to "The Organic Act of 1916" which among other things, created the National Park Service. Specifically, Title 16 United States Code 459 or as it appears in "lawyerese", 16USC459.
The first part of the section that deals with how the Seashore is to be managed and the intent of Congress reads:
"Except for certain portions of the area, deemed to be especially adaptable for recreational uses, particularly swimming, boating, sailing, fishing, and other recreational activities of similar nature, which shall be developed for such uses as needed"
This is where congress tells NPS that as the people come to the Seashore to recreate, NPS is to develop the area to accommodate the recreational needs of the visitor. This is not a hint, its not asking NPS to consider making the area accessible. No, it states quite plainly "which shall be developed for such uses as needed"
Mike Murray needs reminded of this LAW.
Section 3 of the same Act of Congress provides (in part):
"That the legal residents of the villages referred to in section 1 of this Act shall have the right to earn a livelihood by fishing within the boundaries to be designated by the Secretary of the Interior, subject to such rules and regulations as the said Secretary may deem necessary in order to protect the area for recreational use as provided for in this Act."
This one is rather self explanatory. Of note is that Congress provides guarantee that the legal residents of the Islands have the right to make a living by fishing these beaches. This is a right, not a privilege that can arbitrarily be waved by NPS. You cannot make a living if you cant get to the fish because of closed beaches.
The fact that Congress mentions concern about protecting the area for recreational uses further affirms that the Seashore was created for recreational purpose and that this was the primary use for this area.
Mike Murray needs reminded of this LAW.
36CFR7.58.21.b. (6) (in part) – Specifically identifies boundaries “A zone is established for the protection and enhancement of recreational sport-fishing commencing at Beach Access Ramp No. 22 and continuing south and west along the ocean shore, including Cape Point (Cape Hatteras), to Beach Access Ramp No. 30. Within this zone commercial fishing, as specified in the Act of August 17, 1937 (50 Stat. 669), is permitted..”
This piece of codified federal regulation (CFR) was established for the protection and enhancement of recreational sports fishing. Many say that this was to protect rec fishing from the commercial fisherman. Hogwash I say! Read the last sentence. and we're just days away from seeing most of the area closed. Apparently NPS doesn't understand "protection and enhancement of recreational sport-fishing"
Mike Murray needs reminded of this LAW.
And straight from the horses mouth comes:
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
ADMINISTRATIVE POLICIES
for the Recreation Areas of the National Park System
FEDERAL EXECUTIVE BRANCH POLICY GOVERNING THE SELECTION,
ESTABLISHMENT, AND ADMINISTRATION OF NATIONAL RECREATION
AREAS BY THE RECREATION ADVISORY COUNCIL
Circular No. 1, March 26, 1963
(in part)
The system of National Recreation Areas should:
1. Provide for Federal investment in outdoor recreation that is more clearly responsive to recreation demand than other investments that are based primarily upon considerations of preserving unique natural or historical resources, the need to develop and conserve public lands and forests, or the requirements of major water resource development undertakings;
PRIMARY CRITERIA FOR SELECTION OF NATIONAL RECREATION AREAS
6. Within National Recreation Areas, outdoor recreation shall be recognized as the dominant or primary resource management purpose. If additional natural resource utilization is carried on, such additional use shall be compatible with fulfilling the recreation mission, and none will be carried on that is significantly detrimental to it.
SECONDARY CRITERIA FOR SELECTION OF NATIONAL RECREATION AREAS
3. National Recreation Areas may include within their boundaries scenic, historic, scientific, scarce or disappearing resources, provided the objectives of their preservation and enjoyment can be achieved on a basis compatible with the recreation mission.
5. Whenever possible, National Recreation Areas should be selected, developed, and managed to provide maximum compatibility with the recreation potential of adjacent rural areas in private ownership.
Mr Murray need reminded that this is NPS administrative policy.
16USC459 CHNSRA Enabling Legislation (In Part) – Specifically mandates that “.said area shall be, and is, established, dedicated, and set apart as a national seashore recreational area for the benefit and enjoyment of the people and shall be known as the Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area..”
Benefit of the people and enjoyment of the people is what this law says. It also sets the name of the Seashore in stone which NPS is now refusing to acknowledge. NPS policy says all but the most mundane documents related to the Seashore must bear the full name. Its not on the DEIS and that's horse poop.
Remind Mr Murray that this is a Recreational Area, with a real name that he's required to use, that Congress said was for the benefit and enjoyment of the people, not a wildlife refuge and that this too, is law.
NPS also needs reminded that in spite of the designation of Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge, the area contained within is still part of CHNSRA by law. To wit:
16USC459 “SEC. 5. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this act, lands and waters now or hereafter included in any migratory-bird refuge under the Jurisdiction of the Secretary of Agriculture, within the boundaries of the national seashore, as designated by the Secretary of the Interior under section 1 hereof, shall continue as such refuge under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Agriculture for the protection of migratory birds, but such lands and waters shall be a part of the aforesaid national seashore and shall be administered by the National Park Service for recreational uses not inconsistent with the purposes of such refuge and under such rules and regulations as the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture may jointly approve.
As such the 13 miles of pedestrian only access in this are must be considered by NPS in their calculations and that all nesting birds and turtles must be counted as part of the Seashore's breeding populations as well.
More directly from NPS:
NPS Management Policies 2006 handbook, Introduction; “Hierarchy of Authorities” (in part) - “It is especially important that superintendents and other park staff review their park’s enabling legislation to determine whether it contains explicit guidance that would prevail over Service-wide policy.”
NPS Management Policies 2006 handbook, Para 1.4.4 (in part) - The impairment of park resources and values may not be allowed by the Service unless directly and specifically provided for by legislation or by the proclamation establishing the park. The relevant legislation or proclamation must provide explicitly (not by implication or inference) for the activity, in terms that keep the Service from having the authority to manage the activity so as to avoid the impairment.
NPS Management Policies 2006 handbook, Para 8.1 (in part) - The 1970 National Park System General Authorities Act, as amended in 1978, prohibits the Service from allowing any activities that would cause derogation of the values and purposes for which the parks have been established (except as directly and specifically provided by Congress)
I don't think this needs any further explanation.
And then there's the Redwoods Amendment:
16USC459 1a-1 (in part)Congress further reaffirms, declares, and directs that the promotion and regulation of the various areas of the National Park System . . . shall be consistent with and founded in the purpose established by section 1 of this title to the common benefit of all the people of the United States. The authorization of activities shall be construed and the protection,management, and administration of these areas shall be conducted in light of the high public value and integrity of the National Park System and shall not be exercised in derogation of the values and purposes for which these various areas have been established, except as may have been or shall be directly and specifically provided by Congress.
Ok Mr Murray, wheres your direct and specific permission from congress to change the mission of the Seashore? You don't have the authority by law to do this. You cant legally rape our economy and turn away the American People from the Seashore which is theirs to enjoy. Congress told you that you must develop these areas as they were needed for recreational use. Not un-develop them for the purpose of protecting wildlife especially since you cant show that we, as users of this resource, cause harm to these animals and plants. Even then you still need congressional authorization to do so and you don't have it Mr. Murray!
Take that damn DEIS back to Colorado and re-write it. Come back when you get the name right and comply with federal law and the above mentioned NPS policy. Then, we'll talk.
Tight Lines Everybody,
Wheat
Saturday, May 8, 2010
Rally Report
The Rally For Access went rather well this day. I do wish there had been more in attendance but with everything being done with such a short time left to make comment it was good that a bunch of folks showed up on a Saturday morning. One really neat thing was that OBPA had managed to get a couple laptops set up with wireless access so that public comment could be made on the spot. I was pleased to see that many chose to do just that. I was disappointed to hear that those that made the walk to the rally from the fire hall were honked at and flipped off by a passing motorist and passenger. Apparently they are to uninformed to realize that if this place gets shut down, they wont be able to come here either.
When I was asked to speak at the gathering my first question was "about what"?. The DEIS weighs eight pounds and change and is 810 pages long and covers a virtual smorgasbord of issues about access for everybody, not just someone driving their truck out to fish.
Law. I chose the law as it was written by Congress. The reason being is this incessant debate about where the actual recreational area is supposed to be, and what was intended as the mission for the Seashore.
How anybody could be confused by whats contained within the congressional legislation that created this Seashore is beyond me. And the debate is tantamount to an argument over whether a stop sign actually means STOP! Quite frankly I'm tired of federal law being ignored for the purpose of advancing an agenda whose test run, the Decree of Forced Consent, has already proven itself a failure. No benefit to wildlife but one heck of a cost to the American Taxpayer and devastating impact upon the economy of the Islands and Dare County, N.C. as a whole.
For those of you that have never been here, Hatteras and Ocracoke Islands, you better do it soon if you plan on going to the beach during your visit. Even if your just walking, the proposed NPS plan will keep you off this sand and some of the most spectacular spots anywhere in this country.
My next post this day will deal with the laws in question. For now, I think I'd better go out and tie the house down. Its blowing again and this place is shaking worse than a hundred Hula dancers in a Volkswagen. All part of the fun that comes with living in a house on sticks!
Tight Lines,
Wheat
When I was asked to speak at the gathering my first question was "about what"?. The DEIS weighs eight pounds and change and is 810 pages long and covers a virtual smorgasbord of issues about access for everybody, not just someone driving their truck out to fish.
Law. I chose the law as it was written by Congress. The reason being is this incessant debate about where the actual recreational area is supposed to be, and what was intended as the mission for the Seashore.
How anybody could be confused by whats contained within the congressional legislation that created this Seashore is beyond me. And the debate is tantamount to an argument over whether a stop sign actually means STOP! Quite frankly I'm tired of federal law being ignored for the purpose of advancing an agenda whose test run, the Decree of Forced Consent, has already proven itself a failure. No benefit to wildlife but one heck of a cost to the American Taxpayer and devastating impact upon the economy of the Islands and Dare County, N.C. as a whole.
For those of you that have never been here, Hatteras and Ocracoke Islands, you better do it soon if you plan on going to the beach during your visit. Even if your just walking, the proposed NPS plan will keep you off this sand and some of the most spectacular spots anywhere in this country.
My next post this day will deal with the laws in question. For now, I think I'd better go out and tie the house down. Its blowing again and this place is shaking worse than a hundred Hula dancers in a Volkswagen. All part of the fun that comes with living in a house on sticks!
Tight Lines,
Wheat
Friday, May 7, 2010
Environmental Rhetoric v. A Sample Of Reality
Found today on the SELC page was a post by one Wanda Morris who clearly has swallowed all that she's read from these folks. I had to comment, so here's what I said. Her statements are in par-ens and mine in bold.
" There should be no Off Road Vehicles allowed on public lands. It causes erosion."
That may be true elsewhere but at Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area its the ocean and the wind that dictate erosion. If you had been here for any length of time, you would know this.
" ORV's run over piping plover"
Never in the history of the Seashore has there been one single Piping Plover mortality due to an ORV or pedestrian. That's almost 40 years of ORV use on the same exact beach that plovers have been nesting on and yet no known fatality including crushed plover eggs.
" and cause large ruts in which sea turtle hatchlings get stranded in on their way to the ocean."
For years NPS policy has closed the area in front of turtle nests all the way to the water. As such no such tire ruts exist around the nests.
"They also uproot important plants that provide shelter and food for certain species"
First of all, we don't drive on the dunes or the vegetation that lives on these beaches. That's against the law. I do however find it hilarious that you on the one hand wish to ban ORV traffic and at the same time provide even more habitat for predators. Apparently what you don't realize is that the more vegetation, the more cover for the animals that like to eat baby birds and eggs.
I suggest you stop concentrating on one sides view and look at both.
Make a comment!
Rally Tomorrow In Downtown Buxton!
http://www.preservebeachaccess.org/
Tight Lines!
Wheat
" There should be no Off Road Vehicles allowed on public lands. It causes erosion."
That may be true elsewhere but at Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area its the ocean and the wind that dictate erosion. If you had been here for any length of time, you would know this.
" ORV's run over piping plover"
Never in the history of the Seashore has there been one single Piping Plover mortality due to an ORV or pedestrian. That's almost 40 years of ORV use on the same exact beach that plovers have been nesting on and yet no known fatality including crushed plover eggs.
" and cause large ruts in which sea turtle hatchlings get stranded in on their way to the ocean."
For years NPS policy has closed the area in front of turtle nests all the way to the water. As such no such tire ruts exist around the nests.
"They also uproot important plants that provide shelter and food for certain species"
First of all, we don't drive on the dunes or the vegetation that lives on these beaches. That's against the law. I do however find it hilarious that you on the one hand wish to ban ORV traffic and at the same time provide even more habitat for predators. Apparently what you don't realize is that the more vegetation, the more cover for the animals that like to eat baby birds and eggs.
I suggest you stop concentrating on one sides view and look at both.
Make a comment!
Rally Tomorrow In Downtown Buxton!
http://www.preservebeachaccess.org/
Tight Lines!
Wheat
Help Keep Your Beaches Open!
On the morrow, a bunch of folks will gather at the Buxton fire hall and proceed to march north to the Fessenden Center just a few hundred yards up the road as a show of solidarity and protest against the as yet incomplete NPS Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
Today I learn that already this year we've lost a plover nest to overwash from the ocean and an Oystercatcher nest as a result of predation. So far this season, the numbers of nesting pair hasn't really changed in spite of the immense draconian beach closures and the economic devastation that has been the result. Today we lost yet another beach access ramp. Ramp 23 is now closed until probably August for non endangered, non threatened birds that breed all over the place.
Next week it will be ramp 44 and maybe ramp 43 as well. All because in somebody's twisted mind a single piping plover chick needs 771 acres of room. And once this happens, Cape Point is closed and the islands economy will go straight down the drain for another summer. Already, Hatteras Village and all of Ocracoke suffer these effects. Already people arrive from around the country and become angry because of the closures. Already various message boards are littered with postings that proclaim cancellations and the intent to go elsewhere, some never to return or so they profess.
State Sen. Marc Basnight and Rep. Tim Spear addressed this issue on May 4th in their comments to the Park Service on the DEIS.
"Before commenting on the contents of the document, we would like to call attention to the shocking exclusion of useful data to determine the potential economic impact of Alternative F. The DEIS suggests “F” will have revenue impacts on small businesses “at the low end of the estimated range rather than the high end.” From our conversations with small business owners on Hatteras Island, any restriction in access will have severe economic impacts to their families, as the closures in the past years have. In an already disastrous economy, the actions taken by the Court and the Service have proved devastating to all businesses and residents on Hatteras Island. For anyone to claim differently would be either a misguided statement of ignorance or just a pure falsification of the truth. The last names of the original settlers of Hatteras Island can be found in the phonebook to this day. These families have been rooted in this community even before the founding of our nation. Today, their livelihoods are being threatened by that government."
"The key to any management plan is flexibility. Without the ability to change user patterns while keeping access open, the Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area will become but a memory to generations of users from across the globe. We would say that nowhere in our great nation can individuals enjoy the beauty and sereneness of our coast as in the Seashore. For decades, families have been coming to Hatteras and Ocracoke Islands to utilize this area as President Roosevelt envisioned."
Now that's all about calling it like it really is. For the full text go to http://outerbanksvoice.com/2010/05/05/legislators-dispute-access-studys-economic-claim/#more-9170
Its worth a read.
I'll post again in a bit...have to break for a few.
Tight Lines!
Wheat
Today I learn that already this year we've lost a plover nest to overwash from the ocean and an Oystercatcher nest as a result of predation. So far this season, the numbers of nesting pair hasn't really changed in spite of the immense draconian beach closures and the economic devastation that has been the result. Today we lost yet another beach access ramp. Ramp 23 is now closed until probably August for non endangered, non threatened birds that breed all over the place.
Next week it will be ramp 44 and maybe ramp 43 as well. All because in somebody's twisted mind a single piping plover chick needs 771 acres of room. And once this happens, Cape Point is closed and the islands economy will go straight down the drain for another summer. Already, Hatteras Village and all of Ocracoke suffer these effects. Already people arrive from around the country and become angry because of the closures. Already various message boards are littered with postings that proclaim cancellations and the intent to go elsewhere, some never to return or so they profess.
State Sen. Marc Basnight and Rep. Tim Spear addressed this issue on May 4th in their comments to the Park Service on the DEIS.
"Before commenting on the contents of the document, we would like to call attention to the shocking exclusion of useful data to determine the potential economic impact of Alternative F. The DEIS suggests “F” will have revenue impacts on small businesses “at the low end of the estimated range rather than the high end.” From our conversations with small business owners on Hatteras Island, any restriction in access will have severe economic impacts to their families, as the closures in the past years have. In an already disastrous economy, the actions taken by the Court and the Service have proved devastating to all businesses and residents on Hatteras Island. For anyone to claim differently would be either a misguided statement of ignorance or just a pure falsification of the truth. The last names of the original settlers of Hatteras Island can be found in the phonebook to this day. These families have been rooted in this community even before the founding of our nation. Today, their livelihoods are being threatened by that government."
"The key to any management plan is flexibility. Without the ability to change user patterns while keeping access open, the Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area will become but a memory to generations of users from across the globe. We would say that nowhere in our great nation can individuals enjoy the beauty and sereneness of our coast as in the Seashore. For decades, families have been coming to Hatteras and Ocracoke Islands to utilize this area as President Roosevelt envisioned."
Now that's all about calling it like it really is. For the full text go to http://outerbanksvoice.com/2010/05/05/legislators-dispute-access-studys-economic-claim/#more-9170
Its worth a read.
I'll post again in a bit...have to break for a few.
Tight Lines!
Wheat
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Of Fog And Drum
What a day. I woke up to a fog thick enough to hide a hundred herds of elephants in. The fog here can be rather amazing at times. After I did my daily chores, I was outbound to the beach. Off to Red Drum Tackle for some bait and ice I ventured out expecting the same weather on the sand as we had in Buxton, just three or four miles away from Cape Point, my destination.
The funny part was that the weather this morning showed a severe fog alert but that it would dissipate by 9am. For probably the first time in my extended memory, the weather folks nailed it. I swear that as predicted, at 9am this morning, at my place the fog disappeared and I was looking at clear blue skies. It was amazing!
Then i got to RDT and ran into a friend Tony. He tells me that its foggy out on the sand. Tony has a good sense of humor so at first I thought he was joking. Now this feller has been fishing these beaches for years and has probably caught every fish you can catch from the sand and then some. He wasn't kidding.
From the time I crossed ramp 44, it was soup. I proceeded at the mosey and eventually ended up on the SW side, on the lee side of the bar.
I have never in my life been in a hot fog excepting a sauna. That is, until today. Usually the fog around these parts is cool, almost chilly. Not today, no soup for you! It was hot enough to steam snow peas without any water. BRUTAL!
However dot com, from time to time the fog would lift a bit and I could see the water and the structure. The first time it lifted, a friend of mine Lynne P. (some of y'all know him) had shown up and we proceeded to put out some bait. Suddenly of the corner of my eye I saw red in the water. "check it out, its a school of Drum" I said. And sure enough, he and I sat there and watched an enormous school of these beautiful fish swim toward the shoals. They were tailing, fining and rolling in the waves and the water was gin clear. What a sight! It was a disappointment that the fog returned and never really went away. I'd bet there were more schools behind that one, just to far to cast.
Its sad that in just a few days no one will be allowed where I stood this day. No folks out having fun, no kids playing in the surf, nobody allowed.
If you can make it to the rally in Buxton this Saturday, please do so. Its a short trip from Tidewater and eastern N.C. Help us out if you would.
http://www.preservebeachaccess.org/
Tight Lines,
Wheat
The funny part was that the weather this morning showed a severe fog alert but that it would dissipate by 9am. For probably the first time in my extended memory, the weather folks nailed it. I swear that as predicted, at 9am this morning, at my place the fog disappeared and I was looking at clear blue skies. It was amazing!
Then i got to RDT and ran into a friend Tony. He tells me that its foggy out on the sand. Tony has a good sense of humor so at first I thought he was joking. Now this feller has been fishing these beaches for years and has probably caught every fish you can catch from the sand and then some. He wasn't kidding.
From the time I crossed ramp 44, it was soup. I proceeded at the mosey and eventually ended up on the SW side, on the lee side of the bar.
I have never in my life been in a hot fog excepting a sauna. That is, until today. Usually the fog around these parts is cool, almost chilly. Not today, no soup for you! It was hot enough to steam snow peas without any water. BRUTAL!
However dot com, from time to time the fog would lift a bit and I could see the water and the structure. The first time it lifted, a friend of mine Lynne P. (some of y'all know him) had shown up and we proceeded to put out some bait. Suddenly of the corner of my eye I saw red in the water. "check it out, its a school of Drum" I said. And sure enough, he and I sat there and watched an enormous school of these beautiful fish swim toward the shoals. They were tailing, fining and rolling in the waves and the water was gin clear. What a sight! It was a disappointment that the fog returned and never really went away. I'd bet there were more schools behind that one, just to far to cast.
Its sad that in just a few days no one will be allowed where I stood this day. No folks out having fun, no kids playing in the surf, nobody allowed.
If you can make it to the rally in Buxton this Saturday, please do so. Its a short trip from Tidewater and eastern N.C. Help us out if you would.
http://www.preservebeachaccess.org/
Tight Lines,
Wheat
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Beach Access Rally Saturday In Buxton...Be There!
Well folks, its free car-wash day here in Buxton and all the salt that had accumulated on my truck tackle box during the recent blow has been removed. In other words, its raining. And that makes for a good day to do chores and continue to work on comment about the Draft Environmental Impact aberration.
Comments must be submitted by 2am EST a week from today and are very important. If you're having trouble with all this, please visit http://www.preservebeachaccess.org/ where you will find a wealth of information and help with comment material and process. With just a little of your time, you can help shape the nature of the Seashore over the next decade and change.
The ability to make multiple comments over the course of the "comment period" means you can nitpick rather than having to write a novel. Please take the time to do so.
This fight is far from over. Comment that has been submitted by you and me must be reviewed by NPS. And we'll have yet another comment period when the final plan is released, probably in December. This is the one that counts the most though. Here we can influence what comes. So don't sit and wait for the final rule. We need to comment now. One week to go and the clock is ticking fast.
I'd like to take the opportunity to invite all of you to a gathering here in beautiful downtown Buxton. On Saturday, May 8th, a rally will be held at the Fessenden center in support of beach access. It begins with a 9:30 am march from the fire hall to the athletic field at the center (a few hundred yards) and will feature an assortment of speakers as well as volunteers versed in DEIS to assist in making your comments. It promises to be a good time. Yours truly has been asked to speak as well. So you might get a kick out of that one.
So come on down and enjoy the day as we fight the good fight and take some time to enjoy the beach and the variety of shops and excellent restaurants we have here. It'll be worth the trip!
Tight Lines,
Wheat
Comments must be submitted by 2am EST a week from today and are very important. If you're having trouble with all this, please visit http://www.preservebeachaccess.org/ where you will find a wealth of information and help with comment material and process. With just a little of your time, you can help shape the nature of the Seashore over the next decade and change.
The ability to make multiple comments over the course of the "comment period" means you can nitpick rather than having to write a novel. Please take the time to do so.
This fight is far from over. Comment that has been submitted by you and me must be reviewed by NPS. And we'll have yet another comment period when the final plan is released, probably in December. This is the one that counts the most though. Here we can influence what comes. So don't sit and wait for the final rule. We need to comment now. One week to go and the clock is ticking fast.
I'd like to take the opportunity to invite all of you to a gathering here in beautiful downtown Buxton. On Saturday, May 8th, a rally will be held at the Fessenden center in support of beach access. It begins with a 9:30 am march from the fire hall to the athletic field at the center (a few hundred yards) and will feature an assortment of speakers as well as volunteers versed in DEIS to assist in making your comments. It promises to be a good time. Yours truly has been asked to speak as well. So you might get a kick out of that one.
So come on down and enjoy the day as we fight the good fight and take some time to enjoy the beach and the variety of shops and excellent restaurants we have here. It'll be worth the trip!
Tight Lines,
Wheat
Sunday, May 2, 2010
Did The Consent Decree Claim Its First Human Life??
I've got to tell you, from time to time these access issues become so ridiculous that I have a hard time writing about them. Its the anger and frustration that get the better of me.
Yesterday a man lost his life at Hatteras Inlet when the charter boat he was in was struck by a rouge wave and capsized. Luckily, another charter captain noticed the upturned hull on his way through these treacherous waters and began to contact others to initiate a search for survivors. Still missing is the dog that accompanied the group as they headed out to fish.
The full story can be found at: http://www.islandfreepress.org/
What pisses me off is that were it not for these draconian closures that have eliminated all human access to the beaches at the inlet, somebody would have been there on the beach and would have probably seen the accident as it happened and called 911 immediately, perhaps saving this mans life. Likely considering that the Coast Guard base is located right by the inlet.
The same environmental groups that have demanded these closures also prevent the replacement of the aging Bonner Bridge that has a safety rating of 4 out of a possible 100. How many more lives will be lost when it finally collapses?
Are you happy now Derb? It was your insidious consent decree that likely cost this man his life. I guess its not enough to suck the taxpayer out of his money and to line your pockets without benefit to wildlife. I guess its ok to put people at risk driving over a bridge that should have been replaced years ago but that your meddling has stalled again and again.
A very angry Wheat.
Tight Lines.
Yesterday a man lost his life at Hatteras Inlet when the charter boat he was in was struck by a rouge wave and capsized. Luckily, another charter captain noticed the upturned hull on his way through these treacherous waters and began to contact others to initiate a search for survivors. Still missing is the dog that accompanied the group as they headed out to fish.
The full story can be found at: http://www.islandfreepress.org/
What pisses me off is that were it not for these draconian closures that have eliminated all human access to the beaches at the inlet, somebody would have been there on the beach and would have probably seen the accident as it happened and called 911 immediately, perhaps saving this mans life. Likely considering that the Coast Guard base is located right by the inlet.
The same environmental groups that have demanded these closures also prevent the replacement of the aging Bonner Bridge that has a safety rating of 4 out of a possible 100. How many more lives will be lost when it finally collapses?
Are you happy now Derb? It was your insidious consent decree that likely cost this man his life. I guess its not enough to suck the taxpayer out of his money and to line your pockets without benefit to wildlife. I guess its ok to put people at risk driving over a bridge that should have been replaced years ago but that your meddling has stalled again and again.
A very angry Wheat.
Tight Lines.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)