The Battle Over a North Carolina Beach Continues
Comments
Hey Ted Williams, Go fuck
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 2012/08/30 - 9:47pm.
Hey Ted Williams,
Go fuck yourself! We are not buying your bullshit.
A Cerebral Comment
Submitted by Ted Williams, Audubon Magazine (not verified) on Sat, 2012/09/01 - 1:05pm.
This comment is more cerebral (by motorhead standards, that is) than the ones I receive on the blog I administer for Fly Rod & Reel magazine. A typical motorhead comment there reads “F…. the Autobahn [sic].” Somehow that precludes productive dialogue. Re. the motorhead mantra that the article is “nothing but lies,” I’d be interested to hear how they explain the photo of the obscene sign that I saw plastered everywhere on the Outer Banks including next to a middle school. And how about the photo of the important stretch of bird habitat owned by me and all Americans where you can barely see the sand for all the ORVs? And how about the quotes from the motorhead groups taken from their own literature? And how about the quotes of ORV advocate negotiators taken from the public record? And how about the comments from the Park Service manager taken from court documents? And how about the economic data taken from published studies available to anyone? If Hatteras motorheads bestirred themselves to read (assuming they can read), they would be less stressed. I urge the literate among them (if they exist) to do so.
Glad to see some positive changes
Submitted by Kathy (not verified) on Thu, 2012/08/30 - 12:00pm.
I've spent many hours driving and fishing along the Outer Banks and I can only say that I hope the trend is moving toward a more wildlife friendly attitude. I spent a summer working there back in the 90's, doing shorebird studies and the rumblings were starting back then. I quit going to Cape Hatteras years ago because it was just too crowded and wasn't fun anymore. My last trip, about 5 years ago, I was so disappointed in the whole area. Too many people, most of them whining about how the piping plover was going to ruin their "way of life". I spent most of the trip biting my tongue. I am more than happy to restrict my driving, and pay for a permit (which most beaches require anyway!) if I'm doing it based on sound reasons, like avoiding nesting areas, saving wildlife, and limiting traffic. Maybe in a few years I'll be drawn back, if I see more positive changes. Until then, I'll keep my vacation money going to places that care about conserving resources instead of destroying them.
What caused the crowding
Submitted by Ginny (not verified) on Thu, 2012/08/30 - 8:28pm.
Bird closures that extended to the water began in 2004. Since that time summer ORV use has been reduced to 12 to 13 miles. So yes, take all the anglers that used to spread out at HI, then Billy Mitchell all the way around the point to the Cape Point Campground, Kinitkeet, and then north of Avon all the way to South of Rhdanthe/Salvo/Waves and corale them into 13 miles and you get crowding. 5 years ago would place your last trip at 2006 or 2007 which would be after resource closures started.
BTW, if you really wanted secluded areas you could have visited the area between Hatteras and Frisco or from the old lighthouse area all the way to the one way road north of the haul over. And the best kept secret in town--13 miles of Pea Island. Now we have added to these vehcile free areas--Hatteras Inlet Spit, the hook, and select areas between each ramp on the nothern villages. You can no longer travel from one ramp to another. You must back track, go back on the highway, then proceed. This adds to beach traffic and guess what, contrary to what another commenter said the VFAs are not at existing parking areas--that is, you must park on the road and walk through dunes or walk through the vehicle areas!
And the best kept secret, much of the VFAs were closed during tourist season. And many required users to stay below the high tide line and prohibted dogs and kites.
Not surprising that these VFAs were basically deserted. In fact, the beaches have been less crowded than I can remember since the whole mess started in 2004. So my question, where are all the visitors that are making this a record year? They are not on the beaches. Based upon the number of vacant rental houses, I say quite simply they are not here!
Not so
Submitted by Avon local (not verified) on Fri, 2012/08/31 - 8:22am.
Actually Ginny doesn't know or have any data or proof of the history, distribution and density of vehicles on the CHNS beaches. If anyone else had suggested something like without the proper peer reviewed science to back it up she or her husband would have stood up at a public meeting and berated the presenter as I have observed her do.
The bigger issue here is that many ORVers see the parks as some type of event where the purpose is to cram as many vehicles and individuals as possible onto the park beaches. They have never really gotten or embraced the mission that this park was viewed as a "primitive wilderness" by the people who created it and wanted those value protected. I personally don't think they find any value in desolate seascapes unless they and their friend are allowed to drive there, which ruins what little primitive wilderness is left for me. With cell phones and message boards even if the entire park was open to ORV use 24/7 a flash mob of vehicles could show up anywhere at any time. When I first started visiting Hatteras Island ORVs on the beaches were a rare sight unless we had walked to Cape Point, yea we really walked (and hitch hiked) our way out there. That was the only place you saw many vehicles. The culture of large number of visitors driving ORVs everywhere in the Park is not historically accurate. Ginny should read the history carefully.
If in fact Ginny's observations are true that no one is using the new VFAs meaning no one is bringing a carload of stuff to camp out as long as they want (outside of sea turtle season) I guess she is right. My friends and I go to the VFAs take a walk, swim, go birding, fishing, surfing then leave. I find a lot of people do use these areas. In any case if some areas get less use because they are closed to ORV use I think that is a good thing. In the new ORV regs the ORV users were assigned all the best fishing, shelling, birding, scenic, dramatic and remote areas of the park, basically all the areas they asked for. The VFA areas I think we're chosen by default rather than design as many of them are on beaches so eroded you can't drive on them or areas that are largely resource areas that are closed for a good part of the year anyway.
FYI Pea Island National Wildlife Refugee is not Cape Hatteras National Seashore. The use of the beach there is not managed by the National Parks or included in CHNS 's beach miles. But I am glad it was brought up. I counted cars parked on Pea Island one day this summer. Counting the parking lots, New New Inlet and the side of the road there were 181 vehicles. All the people in those vehicles were accessing the beach by foot. FWS management seems to be working out pretty good. Driving is not allowed on PINWR beaches.
I do think that the Park should improve facilities on some of the VFA. If there was a bathhouse and larger parking lot on the VFA north of Avon I am sure there would be more use there and likewise one between Avon and Buxton. I also think in the remote parts of the VFA that resource restrictions could be reduced with no detrimental affects. Likewise on some of the ORV areas foot traffic could be allowed at the tideline to access other areas that are not closed while ORV use has been restricted. As far as I can tell the "for access" organisations have never pursued that, there concern continues to be ORV access.
Avon local
Answers
Submitted by Ginny (not verified) on Sun, 2012/09/02 - 12:28pm.
First, no one, I repeat no one has proof of density of use on an average day. That's because Vogelsong botched what could have been a real study.
Now, ask anyone who has been to ramp 43 since the Consent Decree--the little .4 mile area open during most of the season. You can barely find a parking place let alone fish without worrying about hooking someone. It was never that bad in the past. And the more remote less used areas that remained open at ramp 38, 34, 30 (27 and 23 have been mostly closed) usually provided out of the way places for those who use ORVs to access the beach.
As for Pea Island not being part of the seashore, please look it up. It is part of the seashore but the seashore allows USFWS to manage it. And even if it weren't part of the seashore, it is part of the island and provides a true (or at least as close as you will get to) primitive experience.
As for VFA usage, I didn't say not used but very infrequently and at the cost of people deciding not to visit any longer because the areas they used to use are unavailable with the remaining areas way too crowded (I have been hearing this for a few years and it seems to be coming to fruition). Oh, and by the way, two people who did walk from Avon to ramp 34 got stranded when a bird closure went up blocking their return. They reported having to walk through the dunes and vegetation (despite not being dressed for it) to the highway and then either walking the highway or hitching a ride.
As for getting all the best fishing spots--poppy cock. What about the inlet spits and the hook. By the way the latter is only accessible via ORV routes or a long walk from the camp ground.
As for being more lienient on resource protection in VFAs, read the science on which the plan is based. The science states, the birds are bothered more by people than vehicles.
Finally, many of things you request are in the plan--they just have not been implimented. That means, this is not the plan that was reviewed, commented on, presented to OMB, and passed. This is a bastardized version of the plan that went through the reg. neg. process.
1. "So my question, where
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 2012/09/18 - 7:07am.
1. "So my question, where are all the visitors that are making this a record year? They are not on the beaches. Based upon the number of vacant rental houses, I say quite simply they are not here!"
"First, no one, I repeat no one has proof of density of use on an average day."
No one except you?
2. It is to crowded (with ORVs) because there are not realistic carrying capacity limits. (thanks for bringing it to everyone's attention)
3. PINWR is a model of management. All of the north facing beach of Hatteras Island should be managed the way FWS manages the refuge, no vehicles!
4. What are you talking about you can drive your vehicle to Cape Point, Hatteras Inlet, South Point right now.
5. As far as the science of birds and vehicles, that is a good one. As long as you only drive where there are no nesting, resting or feeding birds and you STAY IN YOUR CAR maybe in some situations vehicles might be less obtrusive than pedestrians. Amazing how you all can pick the science you like and condemn the science you don't like. I bet I could pick that paper apart.
What the enabling legislation says
Submitted by Joan (not verified) on Thu, 2012/08/30 - 11:52am.
Doesn't say anything about vehicles driving on the beach.
CHNS enabling legislation
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 . . .
(Aug. 17, 1937, ch. 687, Sec. 4, 50 Stat. 670; June 29, 1940, ch. 459, Sec. 1, 54 Stat. 702; Mar. 6, 1946, ch. 50, 60 Stat. 32.)
ORVs and Wildlife
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 2012/08/30 - 10:59am.
Really is it no different than people running over animals in a national park on the road than running over them on the beach? I do believe there should be some protection against the wildlife that inhabit the beach. I like no driving on the beach during turtle laying/hatching season. Maybe put inplace a speed limit on the beach. (if there is one i've never seen it while driving on the beaches) limit night driving on the beach? set aside areas where ORVs can't go... i'm a huge supporter of Audubon and if they see something wrong i believe that laws and limits should be put in place, but not ban people from driving on the beach entirely, that would be like banning people from driving on the roads/trails in a national park sorta...
Add comment
Most Popular
- 10 Things You Can Do For Birds
- May-June 2013
- Win a Signed Copy of the ‘Crossley ID Guide: Raptors’
- Why Do We Never See Baby Pigeons?
- How to Tell a Raven From a Crow
- 2012 Photo Awards Top 100
- Audubon Priority Bird: American Oystercatcher
- The Big Year According to Birders
- Roseate Spoonbills Send Warning Signs About the Florida Everglades
- What Do Birds Do for Us?
Give me a break
The villages on HI are not dying. It is amazing they are as vibrant as they. About every 5 years a catastrophic hurricane blows through causing major damage. There have been 2 new inlets formed in the last 10 years. Any other economic concern is nothing compared to these events. Occupancy is up on Hatteras Island right this minute. If business are failing or just hanging on it is not because visitors have quit coming or the Park's new regs. All one had to was drive from one of Hatteras Island to the other and open their eyes and look around to see this.
All the animals the park is trapping and killing are either not native to CHNS ecosystem or their population is out of wack due to humans providing more food that I don't know what else the Park can do. But come on, how could anyone be sincerely upset about that in a Park that allows sport fishing and fishing tournaments. When you guys start crying about all the fish being killed and tortured then I'll start believing the spin about the trapping policy.
This kind of deciet is going to be discovered.