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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)