A CONSENT decree establishing protections for vulnerable species of birds and sea turtles on the Outer Banks may need tweaking, but it's a job best left to the National Park Service, islanders and conservationists - not Congress.
On Wednesday, three North Carolina Republicans - U.S. Sens. Elizabeth Dole and Richard Burr, and U.S. Rep. Walter Jones - introduced bills that would scuttle a court agreement reached by environmentalists, a local coalition of off-road vehicle users, federal park officials and others in April.
The agreement, approved by a federal judge, settled a lawsuit filed by the National Audubon Society and the Defenders of Wildlife to set up temporary boundaries around wildlife nesting areas.
Critics contend the new rules are too restrictive; to a degree, they have a point. When U.S. District Judge Terence Boyle signed off on the deal, few anticipated that acts of vandalism would threaten to undermine the fragile compromise.
On separate occasions, someone has knocked down fences and signs around protected areas, triggering automatic expansions of areas off-limits to ORVs and pedestrians. We've argued that those expansions should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
The legislation proposed by Dole, Burr and Jones goes much further - and too far. They're asking for reinstatement of a weaker interim plan that prompted the lawsuit by environmentalists.
The consent decree isn't popular with some island residents and visitors, including people who've engaged in a longstanding Outer Banks tradition of driving up to the shoreline and casting a fishing line. But the boundaries aren't onerous, and they're designed to change as shorebirds and sea turtles come and go.
According to a National Park Service report dated June 5, approximately 12 miles of the Cape Hatteras National Seashore Park were closed because of the consent decree. Another 32 miles were off-limits because of safety or seasonal closures. But ORV drivers still had access to 22 miles, and pedestrians were free to roam roughly 55 miles more, according to the Park Service report.
Environmentalists say they're already seeing benefits. After years of declines in nesting, the number of breeding pairs of piping plovers has increased by at least one and the number of breeding pairs of American oystercatchers has risen by 11.
The restrictions are undoubtedly an inconvenience for people accustomed to driving on the beach nearly anywhere they pleased.
But the facts remain that (1) President Nixon ordered the National Park Service to institute a management plan for off-road vehicles at the seashore park more than 35 years ago, and (2) a long-overdue interim plan, belatedly set in place last summer, was insufficient to protect the park's wildlife.
Under terms of the consent decree, the Park Service has until Dec. 31, 2010, to adopt a long-term management plan. At the agency's Internet site, officials say they hope to work with residents and conservationists to find a way to end "decades of conflict and uncertainty" over ORV use and wildlife management at the park.
It's difficult to envision how Congress could wade into these murky waters and improve the situation.
The legislation introduced Wednesday is a political response to a political controversy. The management plan is better left where Judge Boyle wisely placed it - in the hands of National Park Service scientists, islanders and conservationists.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
More Lack of Homework
Southern_s_1,
You must have learned how to do homework at the same school with the editor.
The REG-NEG committee appointments were made in Dec 07, the first formal meeting held in Jan 08. The request for injunction was filed in the court in Feb 08.
Salvo Jimmy
I agree. Taking the position opposed to common sense and popular views is the only way to keep this paper in print. It is being run like a business, not unlike the Enquirer and similar operations. I'll accept the Sunday edition in my driveway, take out the coupons, and use the rest to line the cat box. BTW, I appreciate all of the hard work, reasearch and information you provide in other, more informed and balanced, forums. Be well.
Bill designed to get votes
Senators Burr and Doyle will need all the political support they can get in the next election. Their bill is designed to get votes.
Environmentalist filled their injunction before their appointment to negotiated rulemaking, which is why DOI has not removed them. Dare County and the others who intervened should have be removed from the negotiated rulemaking process as they have violated the rules of the committee.
OBX current economic state is more a reflection of the national economic state. The business that adapt and educate their customers will end up doing ok. The businesses that don’t are in trouble. OBX currently is a great resort destination with something for everyone. The inaccurate scare tactics by a few make this summer is a great time to buy a home or vacation here.
ORV fight is no place for Congress
We applaud the actions of Senators Burr and Dole and Representative Jones to restore public participation in the effort to establish long-term protection of beach wildlife and reasonable beach access at Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area. Last year, under federal direction, all the parties, including the National Audubon Society and Defenders of Wildlife, agreed to a negotiated rule making process to develop a long-term beach access plan that protected wildlife. Despite their involvement, Defenders and Audubon circumvented the process and filed suit in federal district court to force their solution on all parties. They got an injunction resulting in a consent decree that closed miles of beach to the best surf fishing on the eastern coast. The entire economy of this historic beach community, which depends on tourism and ORV access, is now in danger of collapse.
The federally owned beach
ORV leaders and local Park managers will do well to consider the laws of the land and the mission of the National Parks before they strike a compromise that doesn’t take into consideration non-profit organization like Audubon and DOW constituent’s legitimate concerns. The federally owned beach does not belong to just the local inhabitants and ORV enthusiasts to manage as they see fit. They are responsible for the current situation not the environmental groups.
Editing
The 750 character limit is what is getting us hatterasnc. The editor can spout on for pages but we are limited. The DUMB site does not tell you that you are over the limit on submittal so you have to do a grade school count before submittal.
Probably spaces, even double spaced lines, count.
Commenting on this stuff now almost seems a waste of time because of the space limit.
I'm even wondering if the editor is really "fishing" to keep controversy up and thus readership which probably translates into advertising revenue.
Mr. Schechter
interesting...only dissenting comments are edited. Then again...all comments were dissenting. How many were not approved by "staff"? There were no repeat posters. The comments attached to your flawed opinion piece are some of the most heartfelt and well-reasoned comments ever to be presented on this site. It is truly a shame that you had to go back and edit (censor) these comments.
Congressional Action Required In OBX ORV Fight
You say “It’s a job best left to the NPS, islanders and conservationists.” The congressional bills do that by removing the federal courts from the process.
In 1952, the NPS promised the people of the Outer Banks “there will always be access to the beach.” Now rich environmental groups bring suit to ban people they don’t like. This is about urban aesthetics, not conservation – environmentalists can’t stand SUVs.
If it was about conservation, they would work with the NPS and the island community to build on the decades long successful coexistence of vehicles and wildlife on the beaches of the Outer Banks.
Support S 3113 and HR 6233. Draw a line in the sand before environmentalists commandeer your favorite recreational area as well.
Posting guidelines
We do our best to enforce the 750-character per comment limit.
When a user tries to circumvent that rule by posting multiple, consecutive posts, we remove all but the first post.
Our boards are extremely active and many people want to post their opinion and have it seen.
Please make you point and then allow other users to make theirs.
Once others have had a chance to comment, you can post again or expand on your original post.
Fred Schecker Senior Producer
Interesting...on the way
Interesting...on the way back from the airport this morning at 5:30AM, I discussed with my bride that the Pilot had one last chance to keep my subscription...that there would be a paper in the driveway when we got there. Since:
1. They have proven, as another astute poster pointed out elsewhere, that they will review the preponderance of educated, factual public opinion and take the antithetical view just to generate web traffic and keep interest/advertising,
2. They will not follow an investigative reporter's file of facts (thanks, Cate K...I was wrong in excoriating you) but rather resort to #1 above,
3. The quality of the paper and web stories, in terms of proper grammar, punctuation and sentence structure indicates that they are coming to grips with the least common denominator on hires,
4. (AND MOST IMPORTANTLY) the paper is supposed to hit my driveway before 0530. Tired of throwin
Privitization of Cape Hatteras beaches is unconstitutional
I disagree with the designating critical habitat for wintering piping plovers. The information provided thus far is outdated, inaccurate, erroneous & very misleading. Nationally the Plovers numbers are up, not down & on the Atlantic coast the Piping Plover numbers have increased from 790 pairs in 1986 to 1,386 pairs in 1999 (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service). Also according to this document: http://fresc.usgs.gov/products/ppl/ "Overall winter numbers were very high..." & "Breeding season numbers also appear higher than 2001 in general". I would like to know 2 things: 1) Why has the final report of the Piping Plover census not been available for public review? 2) Why has the 2006 Piping Plover Census not been published & presented for public review? This goes way beyond ORV driving on the beach & arguments over replacing the Herbert C. Bonner Bridge (which the funding has been approved
congress & orv access
The legislation proposed by Dole,Burr & Jones seeks to eliminate the OUTLANDISH consent decree that has seriously affected our way of life and economy here on the Outer Banks; hopefully this legislation by our Senators and Congressmen will pass and restore balance and common sense to beach access.I'm extremely grateful for their support and action on this most important issue. Audubon and Defenders of Wildlife have put enough "spin" on the topic to attempt to convey a sense of urgency in their mission. Their research has not been scientifically supported, their data is flawed and there is not one shred of compassion for the residents and visitors to our island and the adverse affect that this action of theirs has had on our community. Our government was founded on principles that support our rights as citizens to life , liberty and the pursuit of happiness, to due process of law,freedom
Unbalanced result
This beach closure debacle isn't about fishermen vs. threatened species (turtles, too, by the way). It's about the process of having outsider special interest groups using their influence and power to close down beaches without allowing a proper compromise to be formulated by all appropriate parties.
These closures are affecting everyone that has anything to do with this beautiful area. We should protect all species, including humans, and we should do it intelligently. Not only fishermen are affected, but what about those people who have elderly relatives, handicapped folks, small children? They often cannot walk to these beautiful beaches. Very few walkways exist and the dunes are often protected. What about the people who eek out a living from the tourism on this island?
No solid, independently-found scientific evidence was used. Important parties were left out of the proce
Recreation Area Not A Bird Sancturary
The Cape Hatteras National Seashore "Recreation" Area was established over 50 years ago to insure that all people would always have access to the beaches of Hatteras & Ocracoke Islands, whether it be walking or driving on the beach. What the Audubon, The Defenders of Wildlife & Southern Environmental Law Center have done is taken away the rights & privileges of all of the users under the guise of protecting Piping Plovers, Oystercatchers & Turtles. The way this lawsuit came about was behind closed doors & legal maneuvering, it was sneaky, underhanded & with out any public participation. The NPS has closed approx. 44 miles of beach for 7 nesting pairs of Plovers & left 22 accessible miles for the people. I challenge you to get in your ORV & see how far you get before approaching a nesting area.
This Decree is causing economic hardship on all the locals & small businesses. I for one am so glad that
Congress
I live in Cape Hatteras. I applaud Congress for introducing legislation on our behalf. Why do you have a problem with it? Get your facts. When you only get your facts from one side, one can only wonder why? Ask your
enviro spin doctors how many animals were trapped and killed that were "potential predators". I have checked the facts. Hundreds. Yes,Defenders of Wildlife, cats, foxes, raccoons, OSPREY,MINK,RIVER OTTERS AND A DOG.Some of the above are endangered .How would you like it if the enviro groups got a federal judge to close most of Virginia Beach because birds might land and nest. No concern to what that would do to your economy. If you clear any beach of all people and all predators, of course the birds will come. Would you plead with your elected officials for help?Would you feel as if your rights had been violated?Would you be worried about paying your bills? THIS IS NOT ABOUT ORV's.
ORV Access
Of the 22 miles that are "open", considerable portions of that are not accessible. Think of this, if you have a 2-mile beach with access only from two ramps, and the ends are closed, what good is the middle. What about dune areas and vegatation that is "open" but you dont drive on anyway.
Science. No real science is used for the consent decree. I challenge anyone to explain what science states a plover needs a buffer of 3 Nimitz class carriers in EVERY direction from its nest. This ship carries 5000 people and a pair of birds needs 3 of these in every direction?
Bottom Line. People are losing jobs, property, their lives. All of this over 7 pair of plovers. The plover is the only bird that is protected as threatened. I applauded Congress for wanting to place the interest and economic concerns of thousands of people above 7 pairs of birds.
Recommended Reading for Editor Due to Lack of Homework
US Code, Title 16, Chap 1, Sub Chap LXIII, Sec 459 (The 1930s enabling legislation for the Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area)
Here is a quote from the 1930s enabling legislation Sec 459a-2
[QUOTE]
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, the said area shall be permanently reserved as a primitive wilderness and no development of the project or plan for the convenience of visitors shall be undertaken which would be incompatible with the preservation of the unique flora and fauna or the physiographic conditions now prevailing in this area
[UNQUOTE]
The environmentalist like to leave out the first part of the sentence and focus on the wilderness part only. So t
ORV Reply
Just a few thoughts from a different perspective.
In 1972 it is a fact that the President made the order to develop a comprehensive plan for ORV use. As a matter of fact, that plan was developed, submitted and then "lost" by government officials. The interim plan and reg neg were addressing the issue. Both Audubon and DOW have seats at reg neg and chose to step away from the table and file a lawsuit anyway. By the way, our tax dollars reimbursed the special interest groups lawyer’s fees for this suit.
The seashore is actually Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreation Area. Many years ago, private citizens and North Carolina donated much of this area, Pea Island, as a wildlife refuge. It was understood at the time the remainder would be a National Park AND Recreation Area. Their financial security depended on that then, as they do now. ORV use has always been a large part of the economy. Neither t
Congress has a lot to do
Congress has a lot to do with this ORV issue at The Cape Hatteras National Recreational Seashore. This is a federal park we are talking about and the lopsided mismanagement that threatens to ruin the islands economy. If you want to talk about something congress has no business messing with how about steroids in baseball.
Beach Driving
These "environazis" will be the doom of rational thinking. Closing sections of passable beach access for 1 bird is wrong. There are and have been for years,more than enough area for these birds to nest and fledge their young. The Enviromentalist will not be happy until we surrender our right of way 100% across the board, not just on the beach but everywhere. We can still enjoy the beach access as we have for the last 25 years and not harm the bird population. This is not the only area on the east coast where these birds breed and hatch young. I could maybe understand it if it were but this is not the case. The good lord gave us bigger brains than these birds for a reason, lets use them for that reason and find a way around this hastily enacted "fix". If it means asking congress to strike down the ruling then so be it. Maybe us rationally thinking people can actually get something worth a durn for our tax dollars.
Again, people keep referrng
Again, people keep referrng to the fact that the closures are all about beach access by motorized vehicle. Not true. Under the current consent decree, all access is denied- even to pedestrians.
At the current time the rules for the park are basically whatever the environmental groups want them to be. Management of the park has been taken out of the hands of those who are educated and paid (by your tax dollars) to do what they know to be best. Why in the world would you assume that the facts and idea presented by the extreme environmentals are based on sounder science or more truthful information that the National Park Service?
The Interim Management Plan was not weak. There was plenty of protection for the nesting birds!
Kudos to the elected officials who are willing to take a stand for the HUMANS of Hatteras Island!
Thank You
Dr. Tabor. That is the most logical, well-reasoned and informed post on the root of this topic I have read. That's for the reminder and the primer to all.
Here Here, Mr. Tabor. I'm
Here Here, Mr. Tabor.
I'm beginning to think the VA Pilot's editorial staff needs a refresher in Civics 101.
Why the VA Pilot continues to opine with cut and paste pieces directly from press releases by this group of so called "conservationists" amazes and dissapoints me. Why not do your own research on the issue?
Remedial Constitution
The powers we give to government are divided among the three branches for good reason. The Legislative branch determines what policy is to be, the executive carries out those policies, and the courts settle disputes about whether those policies are being carried out as intended.
In this case, environmentalists disagreed with the Park Service(executive branch)and recreational users of the beaches, as to whether the laws establishing the refuge were being adequately enforced and sought interpretation by the courts. The resulting decision and consent decree has only added to the confusion about the intent of the original law.
In such cases, it is the duty of the Congress to clarify its intent, or to redefine the proper balance between protection of shore birds and recreational use. This clearly a policy decision, not a matter of interpretation, and the legislative branch is the prop