Hunter, the group in general:

I will certainly come to Kurt's defense on this, as he has written some of the most objective nationally viewed literature on the subject to date. Most other forms of media have been far more harsh to our side of the story than NPT has. The discussions allowed in this forum are clear evidence of Kurt's willingness to let us speak our piece. His style of moderation is both consistent and fair, as I've only seen/heard of the most heinous posts being deleted. I moderate a forum on NC Political issues myself, and I can tell you it is NOT an easy job.

Do he and I see completely eye-to-eye on this issue, or any of the others that we may discuss? Likely not, but that doesn't stand in the way of having an amicable relationship where we truly listen to one another's points and sympathize with each others passions. One thing that we definitely DO agree on is a general love for our National Parks.

We should all be thankful to have such a place where we can freely express our opinions, within reason, and learn from one another, for in my mind that's what discussion forums are for. Half bully pulpit and Half classroom.

*************************************************************

"This might be an issue of aesthetics and portrayed image as well. National Parks are for most of their supporters very much about wilderness, self restraint, self propelled activity, low impact recreation and the like. Parking a 4x4 truck at the water line and thus bringing with you everything including the kitchen sink to me is a violation of my mental image of a National Park."

MRC,

Duly noted. For those not from the area, the images might come as an affront, but to many of us who frequent the area, these images are things of beauty to us, but I question your assertion that "Most" National Park supporters share your views. Maybe most that you personally know/interact with is more accurate?

Remember that by your own words, parking a 4X4 at the water line is a violation of YOUR mental image of a National Park. That is certainly your right to determine, but I would ask that you keep an open mind as to what others may consider to be their version of the "perfect" park.

Spottail Do you really think before you write? These birds are already nesting on the hot sand you say 4x4's force them into. If indeed you did your research you would also find out these birds nest on top of flat roofed buildings off the main road on the island (that is it, close down the Foodlion)

Also we do not drive on the beach for recreation we drive on the beach to get to recreation.

We need a better informed class of environmentalist, oops no we don't they have lawyers.

“The temperature reading by Dapster only demonstrates why vehicles should be excluded from beaches where birds nest. Studies of nesting American oystercatchers clearly show that 50% fewer chicks survive on beaches where vehicles are allowed. Why? Because the chicks spend their entire day hiding in the hot sand and dunes where they die from overheating, starvation because they can't get to the intertidal zone to forage, or they get eaten by predators. When vehicles are excluded, the chicks spend most of their time in the interttidal zone on the beach. Studies of piping plovers show the same. You made the point quite well Dapster...”

My, spottail, how quickly you latch onto something trivial, spin it, and trumpet it to the heavens!

Please pay attention. That reading was taken in JULY, when the majority of the birds have fledged, and the discussion was impediments to crossing dunes. Plus, I know of a story where shorebirds, (LETE, Maybe? Don’t recall…), where nesting on the roof of a nearby Food Lion, where the aggregate temp’s can reach 150 DF. I guess this nesting pair didn’t get your memo about intertidal zones and all that. The birds are in many cases at the intertidal zone because the NPS refuses to clear vegetation around the salt pond to open up the MOSH habitat that they prefer.

Would you care to share the studies you are referencing? Here’s a few for you on PIPL et al in relation to ORV’s:

**********************************************************************************

Thomsen 2006 Productivity of PIPL on Long Island NY

-Higher productivity appeared to be only slightly correlated with increasing distance from parking lots, roads, residential areas and little to no difference in mean productivity was observed in levels of ORV access.

-When all years pooled together (2003, 2004, 2005) mean productivity was not significantly greater between the levels of ORV access.

-Perhaps more unexpected is the apparent lack of effect of ORV access on productivity. However, even though in some years productivity was quite high in areas of unrestricted ORV access, the success of these nests had little effect on overall productivity.

****************************************************************************

…and another:

Callazo, 1995

-Both parks CAHA and CALO provide nesting habitat for significant portions of regional populations of nesting CWB.

-Protection of nesting sites has allowed beach nesters to be successful most years in spite of heavy use of the beaches by people. This strategy is now being copied by the state of NC at Fort Fisher and is allowing nesting to be successful there as well.

-Growth of vegetation is slowed by frequent overwash and now by the action of ORVs.

-Recommend ORV use be allowed at Cape Point and Hatteras Inlet.

-Found PIPL are only rarely disturbed by encounters with people, ORVs, and planes.

-At present level of park use, park closures would likely have minimal effect on PIPL reproductive success.

-Recommend vegetation removal from Cape Point along the south side of the brackish pond, growth should be monitored and maintained.

-Preservation of interior wet and mud flats on CAHA is critical, otherwise PIPL may only find suitable foraging habitat along the ocean intertidal zone where human disturbance is a likely problem. At present (1995), beach closures are unnecessary and not likely to favorably impact breeding on the islands.

******************************************************************************************

…and another:

Biological Opinion from USFWS 1/2006

-For the past couple of years, ORV corridors have been used in certain areas of CAHA to provide for recreational use and access while insuring areas are also provided for protection of natural resources.

-During territory establishment, foraging adults exibit a preference for MOSH (moist substrate habitat) for foraging, especially intertidal mudflats and sandflats (Keane et al in press). Such habitat has a higher abundance of arthopods than drier zones which sites studies (Hoopes 1993, Loegering and Fraser 1995, Kuklinski et al 1996, Elias et al 2000).

-In 1996, potential human disturbance sources appeared to remain outside the areas, and predation rather than disturbance was considered the major direct threat to reproductive success (Kuklinski 1996)

-The US Atlantic Loggerhead population has increased since listed, from approximately 14150 animals in 1983 (NMFS and USFWS 1991a) to between 32000-56000 by the year 2000 (Ehrhart et al 2003).

-No studies have been done to date (01/2006) to ascertain the actual reasons behind false crawls at CAHA.

-Turtle nest depredation by mammals, birds and ghost crabs may eliminate 100% of productivity on beaches where it is not managed (Natural Resources Council 1990).

-With the presence of trained NPS staff in the areas, CAHA will be able to keep apprised of bird behavior, locations, and also to inform the public of the alternate routes and ways to reduce their effects on PIPL (i.e. removing trash, reducing speed limit, ect).

-The proposed strategy, IMS, would likely benefit chicks given the continuous day time staff obserations until the brood fledeges.

-The proposed strategy, IMS, is likely to have positive effects on PIPL given that the interior areas (non-ORV) at the spits and cape point provide for MOSH, mud flats, algal flats, ephemeral ponds and similar habitat important for PIPL foraging and roosting.

-The management actions that will be implimented, IMS, to protect PIPL, turtles, and or Seabeach Amaranth will also improve and protect CWBs.

-Threats to AMOY are less than 2% ORV

*********************************************************************************************

“The NPS proposes to give away one of our nation's great treasures to appease a minority special interest group who think the only way to enjoy the beach is to drive on it, no matter what they have to kill in the process. And minority indeed: the only objective study of visitors concluded that only 7-11% of the visitors to Cape Hatteras National Seashore drive on the beach--MINORITY. NPS should indeed be ashamed for allowing the abuse of the seashore to go on so long and for proposing that it continue with the DEIS.”

“Give Away”?!?!? Pure hyperbole, as is your continued use of the term “Minority Special Interests”. Does the position of Dare County NC itself on the matter constitute “Minority Special Interests” to you? http://www.preservebeachaccess.org/

Plus, how can a grass-roots, barely funded loose “minority” coalition force the hands of the mighty NPS/DOI to its bidding, when we are up against forces like NC Audobon, Defenders of Wildlife, and the SELC? To suggest so is completely illogical.

How about the fact that several NC and VA Senators, (from both sides of the aisle, BTW), have signed on in support/con-sponsorship of bills HR718/S1557, which seeks to overturn the court ordered Consent Decree? Do you think they would be acting if a majority of their constituents had not enticed them to? If that still means “minority” to you, I can help you to understand the definition no further, other than to say you are completely wrong on this.

“Driving on the beach harms wildlife and is not compatible with our National Seashores (you can change the name if you want but it does not change the mandates).”

No, not compatible with YOUR VERSION of “our” National Seashores, and “harming wildlife” is an overstatement. Shame on YOU for not trusting your NPS officials to do the right thing for all species, including humans. Please also keep in mind that the DEIS was NOT created in a vacuum.

Show me the proof supporting your statements. I have shown you mine.

*********************************************************************

PS:

For those who still might not believe in the existence of the “RA” in CHNSRA, here are some NPS brochures that predate the era when the name was truncated.

1950’s(?)

1960’s(?)

Thanks for the pictures Dapster.Its funny the name Recreation Area did not appear on a HUNTING brochure since that is what we are led to believe was the only reason to change the name.One quick fact from the US Fish and Wildlife website addressing ESA.The Piping Plover is listed as threatened but Oyster Catchers,Lest Terns and other birds are not on the list for North Carolina as some would want you to think.Again I will ask everyone to read the history of CHNSRA on the NPS website as it shows the conflicts that have plagued the seashore since its formation.If only they had written a 800 page definition of recreation some 70 years ago we could all be fishing,swimming,boating,bird watching all together.

Stick to the subject Dapster. We're talking about Cape Hatteras National Seashore, not the world. The NPS does not manage the world, just the Cape Hatteras National Seashore. It matters not one bit how the world's loggerhead population is doing, it only matters how they are doing on Cape Hatteras National Seashore and they had the two highest numbers of nests ever recorded on Cape Hatteras National Seashore during the past 2 seasons. And you're selectively using literature and mixing up species. And you have shown nothing but selective, misrepresented statements from a few scientific publications. Shame on you Dapster for trying to deliberately mislead people. And you are correct that I give no credibility to what Dare County says. So why are the NC legislators introducing a bill to overturn the consent decree? Could it be that this is merely and end-around the legal process because they know they would not have a chance in a court of law? And why would they not have a chance in court? Of course it's because the Interim Plan could not stand the scrutiny of a court of law; it was not consistent with the law, so the only way for the minority special interest vehicle advocates to get their way was to make up a chicken little story and convince the NC legislators to introduce a bill to take over management of Cape Hatteras National Seashore. Great move, now legislators not the NPS, will be managing the Seashore. Luckily, the rest of the legislators in the US are much smarter than that and they know what a bad move that would be.

Once again, go back and do your homework Dapster, and you can call the National Seashore anything you want, but it does not change the law and mandates under which the seashore must be managed and natural resources protected.

I say let's call it Cape Hatteras Recreational ORV Playground and Parking Lot. It seems that is what NPS wants.

Editor's note: OK folks, let's try to stay civil. We really don't like to spend time deleting words that add nothing but only are intended to inflame or belittle.

Whoa spottail! You sure get flustered when someone calls your bluff. I wanna play poker with you!

The half truths you "reference" amount to nothing more than fear mongering. But you probably already know this.

Please work to be more scholarly and less emotional in the future. I'm sure folks on all sides of the issue will appreciated it.

Thanks!

"Stick to the subject Dapster."

Pot, Kettle, Meet Black.

"We're talking about Cape Hatteras National Seashore, not the world. The NPS does not manage the world, just the Cape Hatteras National Seashore. It matters not one bit how the world's loggerhead population is doing, it only matters how they are doing on Cape Hatteras National Seashore and they had the two highest numbers of nests ever recorded on Cape Hatteras National Seashore during the past 2 seasons."

1. That statement runs totally counter to most species-oriented recovery statements I've ever heard.

2. If you dig deeper, you'll see that the entire EAST COAST and other ares of NC and SC had banner years that mirror that of CHNSRA, all without draconian measures.

"And you're selectively using literature and mixing up species. And you have shown nothing but selective, misrepresented statements from a few scientific publications. Shame on you Dapster for trying to deliberately mislead people. And you are correct that I give no credibility to what Dare County says. So why are the NC legislators introducing a bill to overturn the consent decree? Could it be that this is merely and end-around the legal process because they know they would not have a chance in a court of law? And why would they not have a chance in court? Of course it's because the Interim Plan could not stand the scrutiny of a court of law; it was not consistent with the law, so the only way for the minority special interest vehicle advocates to get their way was to make up a chicken little story and convince the NC legislators to introduce a bill to take over management of Cape Hatteras National Seashore. Great move, now legislators not the NPS, will be managing the Seashore. Luckily, the rest of the legislators in the US are much smarter than that and they know what a bad move that would be."

1. Sorry you don't care for my science, but it stands on its own nonetheless. Collazzo was referenced extensively during the Reg-Neg process on the Enviro side. I still have yet to see yours, by-the-by.

2. I'm not surprised you disagree with the stance of an entire County Commission.

3. The Interim Plan was NEPA approved, I believe, and in place way before Environmental NGO's did their own little "End-Around". While the effort is likely to fail, it goes far to illustrate the collective will of the American Citizens of this region. Marginalize them at your peril.

4. Great move indeed. Now a Federal Judge, the NC Audobon Society, Defenders of Wildlife, and the Southern Environmental Law Center are effectively running CHNSRA.

"Once again, go back and do your homework Dapster, and you can call the National Seashore anything you want, but it does not change the law and mandates under which the seashore must be managed and natural resources protected.

I say let's call it Cape Hatteras Recreational ORV Playground and Parking Lot. It seems that is what NPS wants."

Homework done months ago! You can wrap yourself in the Organic Act all you like, but the wording of the Enabling Legislation of the park, coupled with Cultural & Traditional land useage aspects alone give this issue a strong enough case to stand up well in any courtroom, and possibly even prevail. Ask the Inuet about that one...

I fully expect we shall all soon see the final chapter of this played out precisely there, in a court of law.

There was an interesting conversation today in my constitutional law class about trying to read too much into legislative intent (eg - what Congress did or didn't mean by Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreation Area). The discussion was prompted by this passage in Justice's Scalia's dissenting opinion in Edwards v Aguillard, a case the Supreme Court heard in the 1980s regarding evolution, creation, and religion in schools:

"But the difficulty of knowing what vitiating purpose one is looking for is as nothing compared with the difficulty of knowing how or where to find it. For while it is possible to discern the objective "purpose" of a statute (i.e., the public good at which its provisions appear to be directed), or even the formal motivation for a statute where that is explicitly set forth (as it was, to no avail, here), discerning the subjective motivation of those enacting the statute is, to be honest, almost always an impossible task. The number of possible motivations, to begin with, is not binary, or indeed even finite. In the present case, for example, a particular legislator need not have voted for the Act either because he wanted to foster religion or because he wanted to improve education. He may have thought the bill would provide jobs for his district, or may have wanted to make amends with a faction of his party he had alienated on another vote, or he may have been a close friend of the bill's sponsor, or he may have been repaying a favor he owed the majority leader, or he may have hoped the Governor would appreciate his vote and make a fund-raising appearance for him, or he may have been pressured to vote for a bill he disliked by a wealthy contributor or by a flood of constituent mail, or he may have been seeking favorable publicity, or he may have been reluctant to hurt the feelings of a loyal staff member who worked on the bill, or he may have been settling an old score with a legislator who opposed the bill, or he may have been mad at his wife, who opposed the bill, or he may have been intoxicated and utterly unmotivated when the vote was called, or he may have accidentally voted "yes" instead of "no," or, of course, he may have had (and very likely did have) a combination of some of the above and many other motivations. To look for the sole purpose of even a single legislator is probably to look for something that does not exist.....Because there are no good answers to these questions, this Court has recognized from Chief Justice Marshall, see Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch 87, 130 (1810), to Chief Justice Warren, United States v. O'Brien, supra, at 383-384, that determining the subjective intent of legislators is a perilous enterprise. See also Palmer v. Thompson, 403 U.S. 217, 224-225 (1971); Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. at 113 (Black, J., concurring). It is perilous, I might note, not just for the judges who will very likely reach the wrong result, [p639] but also for the legislators who find that they must assess the validity of proposed legislation -- and risk the condemnation of having voted for an unconstitutional measure -- not on the basis of what the legislation contains, nor even on the basis of what they themselves intend, but on the basis of what others have in mind."

Moral to the story: Let's not focus on 'intent' behind the name of Cape Hatteras, whatever you believe it to rightly be. Let's focus on the laws that are actually on the books and the impact(s) that ORV have on the park and its resources.