The spit of sand that buffers the North Carolina coast from the worst the Atlantic Ocean can toss at it carries an array of contentious issues that seemingly have no easy answers. Foremost among the issues at Cape Hatteras National Seashore these days is the use of off-road vehicles to negotiate beaches that are either far from parking lots or which are just far enough from those lots to make it difficult to carry all your gear for a weekend fishing trip.
Cape Hatteras, authorized as America's first national seashore in 1937 but not actually established until 1953, is a beach lover's jewel. The heart of North Carolina's Outer Banks, the cape offers some of the best beaches in the country, is renowned for its surf fishing, has some of the East Coast's best waves for surfing, and has a decided tinge of wildness that is a welcome respite from the Mid-Atlantic's metropolitan areas.
Off-road vehicles long have been allowed on the national seashore. Unfortunately, the seashore hasn't had a formal off-road management plan in place, and that's why discussions centered on Cape Hatteras often grow heated.
The hot button is the fact that the cape's beaches and dunes attract wildlife: of late much has been made of the nesting shorebirds and sea turtles and whether off-road vehicles are impacting them. The divisions over that question are well-defined. Perhaps no topic other than guns in the parks illicits as many comments to the Traveler as ORVs and Cape Hatteras.
Are ORVs out of control, as the lower photo used by the Southern Environmental Law Center might suggest, or does the top photo provided by A. Pitt better capture ORV use on the cape?
Mr. Pitt has been visiting the cape since 1972 and owns land in Frisco that provides him and his family a welcome escape from their Richmond, Virginia, home. He's well-versed on the ongoing dispute surrounding ORVs on Cape Hatteras; since April he's written hundreds of members of Congress to try provide an ORVer's viewpoint of the ongoing debate and to question points raised by Defenders of Wildlife and the National Audubon Society, the two groups who, through the Southern Environmental Law Center, sued the National Park Service for its failure to develop an ORV management plan for the national seashore.
The lawsuit was settled earlier this year when all involved signed a consent decree that was designed to provide short-term management of ORV and pedestrian traffic in shorebird and sea turtle habitat while a long-term plan is developed. Unfortunately, not everyone is thrilled with the consent decree's provisions. Anglers and families that long have used ORVs to reach their favorite spots on the seashore complain that the decree is too restrictive and over-reaching.
What's important for all to remember is not only that ORVs long have been permitted at the national seashore and more than likely will continue to be allowed access in some fashion, but also that there is wildlife habitat on the seashore that needs protection because it is utilized by species protected under the Endangered Species Act.
"I have a vested interest in the area," says Mr Pitt. "It's truly my paradise! Most of the folks who speak out on this issue are fishermen/women. I speak out for beach access for any reason, whether it be fishing, surfing, or just sitting there playing Parcheesi.
" ... I support BOTH species protection AND ORV access, as do most beach users in this area," adds Mr. Pitt. "I truly believe that they can both be attained, if the 'eco' groups will indeed negotiate in good faith."
To some, "ORV" is a pejorative, a word that equates with four-wheelers charging willy-nilly across the landscape. Is that the case at Cape Hatteras, or are the "ORVs" there more likely to be pickup trucks and SUVs their owners use to reach beaches that otherwise would take walks ranging from perhaps a half-mile to nearly 5 miles to reach?
As the attached map shows, there are quite a few ORV and pedestrian restrictions between May 15 and September 15 to protect shorebird and sea turtle nesting habitat. Are those restrictions excessive? There certainly are hard opinions on both sides of that question.
While that question will continue to generate heated comments, let's hope all those involved will arrive at an acceptable solution through the National Park Service's long-term ORV management plan and not insist on a legislated solution from Washington.
Comments
The title of the article is intended to bring about suggestions for solutions to the ongoing debate about the long-term prognosis for the health of the ecosystem, not the convenience of tourists, locals, and those hell-bent on some off-roading adventure.
I am guessing the ecosystem you are protecting is to be enjoyed by no one? Without the people you reference this wonderful place would be a bunch of empty islands off the coast of North Carolina. Those hell bent on an off-roading adventure do not come to Cape Hatteras. Even the above pictures show PARKED vehicles not matter how distorted the picture by SELC’s finest. People use the beach to access the shore for fishing, shell collecting and enjoyment of the Nations Recreational Seashore.
Some of the topics raised in this thread point to a general "personal interest" rather than a sound overall understanding of factors to be considered in proposing some legitimate possible modifications, if such be required, to maintain at the very least, the current status of the area.
SEE your post for a prime example!
Golf courses across the nation provide "bag drop" areas conveniently located, generally right next to the club house, for anyone who cares to leave the bag at the door while they park their vehicle. I'll bet a similar circumstance could be arranged for the ocean fishers as well. Leave your gear and one person behind to watch it if you feel the need. Short-term lockers are another notion. There are ways this could easily be overcome.
Man you just resolved the issue completely. Let’s just put lockers on top of the plover nests so we can keep the gear for thousands of fisherman locked up tight until needed. OOPS the next hurricane will wipe this off the map. Let’s just pave a parking lot over the plover nests and build a large structure to protect the lockers. OOPS that won’t work as we had to move an entire lighthouse because it was unsafe there. Wouldn’t we still have to drive on the beach to use a drop off area? How is that different than just parking out there? Brilliant minds really do exist, No really?!?
The issue of temporary closure of segments of beaches while they are enlisted as nesting areas by certain species is bothersome? I read this as saying the area simply isn't big enough for more than just bipedal mammalians.
We have been dealing with these closures for years. I am guessing since you have not been there since the dark ages you have not heard of this. We never complained or sued to have them removed. We simply coexisted with the closures. If you think that the SELC and friends only want Temporary closures you really are in the dark.
Maybe protected nesting grounds aren't important to you personally. That can indeed be your opinion as is your right to express such. If you want the hard science behind the protected zones required by any given species, and are willing to read the studies conducted on any particular species, who all have a wide variance in their particular "comfort zone / personal space" during times of reproduction, and are actually of broad enough intellect to understand those reports, these data are readily available to you. The last comment is not intended to be a “dis” at anyone in particular. Scientific publications, especially statistical studies and the related data analysis such as of the manner typically conducted by wildlife biologists, is quite difficult to comprehend by the general public who have little or no training in the methods of scientific reading. But the information which you half-heartedly seek is indeed there for your perusal at a time and place of your convenience.
You, the Autobahn, the Defenders of Wildlife, and the SELC really need a crash course in reading as well. Please also note that it has been documented that the conditions in Cape Hatteras are not exactly what I would call IDEAL for the piping plovers. They build a teacup size nest on a beach that has sustained winds year round that can and do cover the tracks of any SUV within hours. This makes it ideal for humans as it keeps most of the bugs away, but it covers plover nests even faster. Please note there are places that these birds if needed could succeed try Cora June Dredge Island and Pea Island to name a few as there are no human interferences. They do not succeed there either as the conditions for these little creatures are not IDEAL.
From the ORV crowd, most of what I've read is that they don't /can't drag their coolers, etc. miles from the parking areas to the beach. I guess well-stocked backpacks aren't an option. Sounds more like you want these access areas closer to the endpoint due to convenience rather than necessity. However, there exists a segment of society who CANNOT, as in physically unable to, make the journey from those remote areas to the beach, and thereby have quite justifiable reasons for the use of limited "convenience" areas. But to apply these same rules across the board is ludicrous. Maybe, just maybe, one should take a closer look at the inventory of supplies one is toting to the beach, as one is forced to when embarking on an extended backpacking sojourn. There I go, raining on your parade. Shame on me for planning ahead.
WOW again a home run of ideas. Let’s drag or even get pull carts to take our gear out to the point. OOPS that will not work as the tracks and drag marks left (per the SELC) will prevent Turtles from getting to the sea and prevent the plovers for accessing the feeding areas. Well let’s eliminate some of our inventory we THINK we need to survive. Well since they are too heavy to carry we can eliminate handicapped Uncle Joe, the kids and even Grandpa. There go some great memories down the drain. OOPS we can just photo shop them into our memories while they waste away on the couch playing Parcheesi (sorry Mr. Pitt) or video games about fishing. Well I got off track now back to lessening my load. I can pack a couple of fishing poles and some extra hooks, but I will need bait. Well that is another pole to catch bait with. What about food and water. Well I could bring dehydrated water, but what would I add? I could bring a desalination system out there I guess now for food. My options are either some healthy granola bars, like a lone hiker would choose, or just eat plover.
BOY OH BOY you people make it too easy. We should sign you up to represent the ENVIROS at the REG NEG committees and this thing would be long over.
Customary and Traditional Uses and Rights
An aspect of the issue of vehicles on the beaches of Cape Hatteras & environs that is at times overshadowed by other arguments, is that this is a 'customary & traditional' pattern of usage. People started doing this soon as cars came along. I expect the archives will yield photos of Model T Fords lined up on the sand, not unlike today's SUVs. They may well have done the same with horses & buggies, before Ford!
Does that history of usage 'count' or 'matter', or not?
Certainly, the words 'customary' and 'traditional' have significant legal import these days. We hear phrases made up of those words often, especially regarding Native Peoples. Such language is familiar to the public, and is well-understood.
Does the consideration of customary & traditional factors apply only to Aboriginal Peoples, and is it facetious to claim 'tradition' for internal combustion propelled machines?
The answer to both those question is No.
The famous case of subsistence in Alaska, including (but not limited to) Parks, is explicitly not race-based. The practice of subsistence (based on customary & traditional usage) applies equally to all residents of a region where it occurs. The "preference" is for rural residency, people who live in the regions where the traditions were practiced (newcomers 'inherit' the rights of a region). Subsistence is not a right of Indians, withheld from White folks. On the contrary, approximately half of subsistence activity is by non-Natives, and half by Tribal members.
In Alaska, machines including ATVs are recognized as traditional and customary. Airplanes, outboard motors, nylon fish nets, and most of modern equipage, are likewise fully qualified as traditional & customary. Machines have the same basic history in Alaska as anywhere else.
Some people are inclined to object that Alaska is a 'special case', and that what goes on there has no meaning or impact in the conterminous States. However, what is really different about events in Alaska is simply that they are the most recent of our large-scale National trends. They should be viewed as harbingers of legal & social things to come, rather than as anomalies or sub-arctic aberrations. (Alaska should be view as - gulp! - the next California!)
The accurate way to view what has happened in Alaska is not that it is a 'special' resolution that applies only in some far-off and atypical place - but rather that it embodies the most recent - and future - evolution of Federal law & jurisdiction ... some parts of which will increasingly be expressed & applied in regions & cases beyond the Alaska scene.
The solid & established reality is, 'customary & traditional' does count - and includes practices on Cape Hatteras. Furthermore, there are many other cases across the United States where customs & traditions have been deprecated. Some of those abrogations will most likely hold permanently, but in other cases the legitimacy of claims to now-suppressed patterns of usage will be brought forward and reexamined to determined whether a "right" of usage had been established, and if so, some may be permitted & protected in the future.
Indeed, the handling of the controversy at Cape Hatteras suggests that it is being managed as potential precedent for the address of customary & traditional practices elsewhere.
Does custom & tradition mean bird & turtle nests don't warrant protection? No more than bird & turtle nests mean that established usage ought to be stopped. Neither is legitimately a weapon against the other.
As my time as a Senior volunteer at a National Park has taught me "Mitigation funding" is something you come to both love and hate, and thanks to the current adminstration the NPS's increasing reliance on it has become a serious problem.
Lonehiker,
Thanks for the agreement on the fishing issue. The state of NC indeed has both salt and fresh water fishing license requirements, as well as min.-max. size limits per species. The money collected from these fees goes to good uses throughout the state.
The area of the highest contention in this issue is the ‘”Cape Point” to “South Beach” areas that run from Buxton to Frisco, NC. These areas lie between 2 access ramps over the dunes that are numbered 44 to the North and 49 to the south of the “Point”.
This part of the barrier island is the largest landmass in the whole chain. The only highway in the area departs from the Atlantic seaboard at Buxton, and closely follows the opposite coast along the Pamlico Sound. There simply are no hard surface roads in the area at all, with the exception of the two roads that lead to aforementioned ramps.
As you stated, you have not been to the OBX in some time, although I can find no reference to the “Jam” period. That being the case, please go to this website, provided by the CHNSRA NPS and ‘Google Earth”:
http://www.nps.gov/caha/planyourvisit/googleearthmap.htm
The ramps are numbered as I have indicated for easy reference. Please look at the large wilderness area known as “Buxton Woods” that borders the entire Cape Point/South Beach seaboard. Note the total lack of buildings and/or roads. Note the relative distances from road ends to beachfront. Now take into account that the sand is more like deep snow than hardpack. Also consider that the sand reaches temperatures well over 100 degrees F on a typical sunny summer day. A hike from the closest parking area to the point would be a tough job for a marine, much less a family with young children. There are no public showers, no public areas in which to house lockers as you suggest. Any and all structures near the coastline are subject to destruction from storms that range from Nor’ Easters all winter and spring to Hurricanes most of the summer and fall. Any infrastructure required by your suggestions would be swept into the sea again and again.
Once the barrier island leaves the point area, it becomes quite narrow again, many times just a few hundred feet wide. In these areas, public parking is provided at occasional “turnouts”, and wooden walkovers are employed for beach access. These areas are far and few between, however, and would not work for the Cape area proper.
As to the amount of education we Beach Access proponents possess about these matters, especially in relation to the species in question would surprise you. If there has been one good thing, in my opinion, to come out of the mess that is the Consent Decree, is that we are ALL much, much more learned about birds and turtles and their conservation.
However, I will state that the ORV/Fishing/Beach Access public has been talked down to by just about every one on the other side of this issue since day one, and you sir, continue in that same vein. Do not dare to question the intelligence and comprehension abilities of these folks. If they can read and discern what is relevant in all the legal documentation concerning the Consent Decree, as well as the original NPS charters and such, then they can do as well with scientific biological reports. Most of these same people are not fishermen by vocation, it’s just what they love to do away from their jobs. They are employed in every faction of the working world imaginable. Please do not add the insult of being called uneducated to the injury of these folks already losing their access rights to their favorite places in this country.
No one wants to cause harm to any of the species in question. We just ask that a democratic approach be taken in these matters, and that public opinion AND peer-reviewed science come into play. To say that the Audobon Society and the Defenders of Wildlife are the one and ONLY authorities on species conservation is absurd. Yet their mandates are exactly what is running the CHNSRA today. They simply refuse cross examination and sue if they find their way to their means blocked. That, Sir, should bother you as well.
The Interim Plan that was killed by the Consent Decree was making great strides in species protection, and numbers were on the increase due to it. On that basis alone, the SELC could not have sued. However, they found the “chink in the armor” in the guise of the NPS/DOI’s failure to submit their “Final” ORV/Species management plan for 30+ years. There, our government officials failed us big time, and allowed for all that we are currently discussing to ensue. Had the final plan been in place for years, I sincerely believe we would not be having this discussion. I also firmly believe that ALL species, including humans, would be flourishing on these beaches, ORV’s and all.
As I sat on South Beach last weekend, watching my nearly 2 year old son frolic in the sand and surf, a thought came to me. I realized exactly what it is that makes this area so special to me and thousands of others: It’s place where the common man, through no more means than owning a 4WD vehicle, can provide for his family beachfront living that is usually only available to the very wealthy, if just for the day.
Lastly, let’s just suppose it were indeed possible to make the hike to the point while laden with fishing gear and all sustenance needed for a family of three just for the day, using good packing techniques as you suggest.
You might just find a sign in your way, once there, excluding pedestrians as well.
Chris,
Your quote:
"As my time as a Senior volunteer at a National Park has taught me "Mitigation funding" is something you come to both love and hate, and thanks to the current adminstration the NPS's increasing reliance on it has become a serious problem."
Can you please explain what you know about this situation? That's new terminology to me, and I would like to know how it might come into play in the CHNSRA issue. Thanks in advance!
****************************************
Beamis, You hit that nail on the head, Sir.
The Piping Plover's Southernmost summer range is, you guessed it, Southern N.C.! They are more a northern bird, and are apparently prolific in the Cape Cod area, as well as parts of the Great Lakes shorelines, and the Canadian Maritimes. They are sadly being used as a "Poster Child", or political football, as you put it, in this game we now play. They have a very hard time making it on the Cape against nature alone. Overwash, storms, and predation all have a larger impact on their ability to survive than humans and ORV's will ever have. Predation is actually UP this year due to the lack of humans to scare them away! Therefore, the NPS is now either trapping and "relocating" or outright killing predator species including Foxes, Muskrats, Nutria, Opposum, Feral Cats and Dogs, and Raccoons, just to name a few. Some are "relocated" into a dumpster at Ramp 44. Does this border on playing God? I certainly believe it does.
I've heard of similar situations to the Prairie Dog issue you brought up. Apparenty the same thing is happening with Osprey nesting in trees along privately owned waterfront property, where landowners are clearcutting trees along the shoreline to prevent nesting. If an Osprey does indeed nest, the property owner cannot build any structures that nesting year or the next, as the birds must be allowed the ability to renest the following season per EPA rules. This, and your example as well, are but a few instances where these wacky rules are actually hurting the species that they set out to protect.
Ah, GoogleEarth, one of my favorite new toys of the past 5 years!!!
First a most needed clarification. As noted in my initial post, I most certainly was not inferring any regional illiteracy exists, whether selectively unique to this issue or in any other manner. But I don't agree with the "if A, then B" theory pertaining to an ability to sort out legal briefs beings the equivalent to proper dissection of scientific publications. The major difference between the two is the rendering of credibility through the use of multiple citations in scientific publications, generally referencing specific previous findings; some hypothetical, some theoretical, some accepted laws or postulates. Without prior knowledge of the entirety of those works, dissemination of the final data sets supported / contradicted within any given paper is difficult at best, impossible at worst. True, legal decrees often site "State vs. So-and-So" as a precedent for a finding or opinion. These are most always far more limited in number than in the typical sci-publication, as legal briefs tend more toward a legal outcome, while publications in science are intended to present findings as a piece of evidence, similar in scope to supporting / denying a small piece of a 1000+ puzzle. More often than not these findings are first subjected to internal professional review by a committee comprised of disciplines both pertinent to and different from the group who conducted the study (alleged to be more objective than simple "peer review") and then by external forces who in many cases have a "pro or con" ax to grind regarding the inferences of those data. Comprehension of these papers in nothing as simple or enjoyable as sitting down with Beowulf of The Iliad. It's more akin to finding the true author's intent in biblical verses. Often, the interpretation of these data are variable from reader to reader, or from reading to reading, and it takes quite literally dozens and dozens of attempts at various papers to begin to be able to grasp the overall scientific process; understand the scope of the experimental design, determine validity of such, determine if methods, controls, instrumentation and general "lab" conditions were properly controlled and maintained throughout the study, check to see if graphs, charts and calculations are accurate representations of data or otherwise manipulated to, intentionally or not, falsify data.......the list is quite complex. It's not as easy as turning to the "conclusions" section of the paper and seeing what the author(s) have to say about their study. If only..........
In addition, back to my post, I wasn't claiming that the simple proposals were the only acceptable options. Obviously, without a detailed survey and a few competent CE's, the structures that could be acceptable and their locations are completely arbitrary suggestions on my part. The suggestion, as put forth by someone, of placing them directly over existing nesting grounds was foolish and emotionally charged, and not the least bit objective. Neither am I supporting any "enviro" group's stance and itinerary by intent. These groups have political agendas with which I do not stand in allegiance, period. If my "lame" notions have been previously discussed and dismissed, through political pandering, objective studies, or whatever the case, so be it. Sorry to bother you, it won't happen again. But at least try and maintain some objectivity in your long-term plans, as did I, and realize that two sides working to achieve a suitable solution stands a better chance at success than two sides dug in and fortifying the trenches.
Back to some intelligent and insightful references by dapster, I fear the "democratic process" as it pertains to this issue is being clouded by too much disinformation from both sides. While I personally don't own an ORV, I can't say that I've never utilized them from time to time either. I find the pollution issues raised by some as dubious fabrications, but at the same time, vehicle owners being what we are, I'll willing to bet that some oil-leakers have made it out to the beaches. Probably a vast minority, however, but allowing for the use of the "broad brush" stereotyping by the opposition. I submit I am not in possession of the ideal compromise, but at this moment in time I doubt one exists. If as you say, back in the days of my last visit, the "proper" paperwork had been on file, this discussion would be mute.
Funny you should mention the snow / sand metaphor. I've trekked through both; gimme the sand, anytime. True story about the difficulty for the kids though. They prefer to fall in drifting snow banks, for sure. I always found the heated soil motivation to keep myself moving at a brisk pace! But I no more favor the preservation of your local migrants over humans in the OBX than I favor elimination of bald eagle nesting grounds from an island in the Mississippi River to build a condo complex 100 miles SW of Chicago, so that those who purchase the condos can boat upriver to commuter train stations to help alleviate interstate highway congestion. Am I an over-the-edge environmentalist? I believe not, but I tend not towards the first idea placed in my lap, either.
Beamis, I think the doggie colony is partial to the dumpsters behind the Wendy's on the SE corner.
Good stuff dapster and beamis. Very well put. It's funny how the folks that want you off your beaches stop talking when the truth about the critters starts coming up. But, I guess they don't really care about the critters in the first place.
Kurt, thank you for this forum and your article on this issue
I'd also like to remind everyone that the consent decree is illegal.
As JohnAB put it, "the law is the law". The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is also a law. One thing it requires is public comment periods when new or updated environmental policy is proposed. The consent decree is new environmental policy for CHNSRA. It replaced the Interim Species Management Plan for CHNSRA. The Interim Species Management Plan followed the NEPA process. The consent decree did not. A few entities coming up with an agreement called a consent decree is hardly public comment. Therefore it is illegal. I think everyone should be able to agree on that.
Lone Hiker,
Thank you for your kind words, and also in taking the time to look at Google Earth in relation to this issue. It certainly is a wonderful tool! I hope that a flyover of the area gave you and other readers a better understanding of the logistical complexities that all possible access related options face on this part of the island.
Yes, you did disclaim yourself as to not “Dissing” (sp?) anyone as to their intellect in your original post, but many others have not been so kind in the past. The pro access folks really have taken a verbal beating over this issue, and have been called everything from rednecks to fish-lip-rippers. I only took up that issue out of respect for their hard work in attempting to educate themselves and others to better understand what’s going on and why. I surely meant no offense. I get emotionally charged over this issue daily as well, and have to continually remind myself to remain objective. Otherwise, I get “all wound up” too. Not so easy to do, sometimes!
I agree with your statement concerning peer review/professional committee review of data. There have been many independent studies of the area made. The SELC et al choose to rely on their own data, and simply will not compromise. The Reg-Neg board is apparently at a standstill due to the SELC’s unwavering demands for even MORE beach closures than the consent decree provides. Many of these closures would be year-round and permanent. Here’s a quote from the “Island Free Press” that details what’s happening in that arena:
“Negotiated rulemaking has become increasingly contentious and polarized as the two major stakeholder groups have put their requirements on the table. Also playing into the process is the consent decree that became effective April 30 to settle a lawsuit against the National Park Service over ORV regulation. The groups that sued have a seat at the table, and beach access groups feel increasingly that the “victory” of the environmental groups with the consent decree gives them little motivation to compromise.
Cape Hatteras National Seashore Superintendent Mike Murray has asked the Department of the Interior to evaluate whether, considering the increased polarization, negotiated rulemaking process should be pursued for seashore ORV rulemaking.”
There’s even been talk about bringing Federal Environmental mediators in to help sort things out. That might be the only way to keep it moving forward, or it could make matters worse. I also think that it is way too early in the study of this decree for the SELC to claim “Victory”. For them to state that a one-summer snapshot is adequate enough time to complete a study of this magnitude is insanity. Next year’s numbers on species AND economic/tourism impacts will tell the true tale. Tourists with reservations already made for this year could not change their plans, even if they were lucky enough to know anything about it before arriving on the island. Next year, they will be aware and may choose to vacation elsewhere.
Your comment about entrenchment is absolutely accurate on both sides. The pro access folks, myself included, feel that they have had this whole issue shoved down their throats, especially since there was no public comment allowed or even requested. The Consent Decree, while agreed to by both sides, was basically a “Gun to the head” of the pro-access groups. NOT signing it would have resulted in TOTAL beach closures for the 3-year decree timeline, and quite possibly forever. However, the Eco groups have used this in their favor inferring that “Well, you guys went along with it, so what’s your beef now?”. I believe that to be a terrible injustice, and just plain immoral. There is a great and very realistic fear that if we do not fight as hard as possible, with every means available, that we will simply be steamrolled over and the entire area will become another NWR, and the villages will be turned into ghost towns. Independent mediation of some sort may be the only way to end the warfare, though I fear that option as well.
There has been some debate as to just what NOT signing would have produced. Many believe that total closures would have brought about a counter-suit and/or more national attention, and that the decree would have been reversed. Others have stated that the judge at the center of this, (Federal Judge Terrance Boyle), has one of the lowest reversal rates around, and to be overturned would not be a possibility. Personally, I won’t take a stand on either side of that issue, as I was not present in the meetings that lead to this, and will not try to second guess their wisdom. While I have not been happy about the amount of areas closed and which areas were closed, I have been pleased to have at lease SOME access this summer. For this I thank them for signing. No access would be truly heartbreaking…
I don’t have the solution for this issue either. I wish I did. I firmly believe that a compromise can be reached that would allow both ORV access as well as serious species conservation.
Whether or not that compromise WILL be reached is another matter.
As Dave Vachet posted, the Consent Decree is certainly illegal. The biggest hope of Congressional Bill # HR6233/S3113 is that the illegality of the decree will be seen through the smoke-screen of half truths and fuzzy data the Mr. Derb Carter of the SELC has already put into public record during a recent Senate Subcomitte meeting on this bill. Thanks for your nice comments as well, Dave. It is indeed funny how some run for the bushes once science, logic, and truth appear on the scene.
Thanks again to Kurt, and all of you that have taken the time read about and/or comment on this very important issue!
dap