Cape Hatteras National Seashore Dispute Places Birds, Turtles, and Humans on Small Strip of Sand

Cape Hatteras National Seashore long has attracted surf casters. Cape Point, in the lower photo, wasn't always crowded with vehicles. NPS photos.

A diminutive shorebird and a string of villages both dependent on the same necklace of barrier islands off the coast of North Carolina are being pinched in a precarious setting that demonstrates the folly of trying to control nature.

While the idea of a national seashore along the Outer Banks of North Carolina might have been a grand idea in the 1930s, before the advent of roads on the barrier islands of Bodie, Hatteras, and Ocracoke, before sport utility vehicles, and before summer vacations sent millions of Americans to the beach, 21st-century realities are dealing a harsh blow to wildlife species and local communities alike.

In the landscape of Cape Hatteras National Seashore, a landscape accustomed to being shoved around by the Atlantic Ocean, shrinking habitat for both the piping plover and for surf fishermen has generated a controversy for the National Park Service, one threatening to rival that which has swirled around snowmobiles and Yellowstone National Park for more than a decade.

While three species of sea turtles -- threatened green sea turtles, endangered leatherback sea turtles, and loggerhead turtles, which are proposed to be listed as endangered -- have come ashore to nest at Cape Hatteras, it is a tiny bird that seemingly casts the greatest shadow over the seashore’s management.

Piping plovers, grayish-white birds with a black neck band, yellow legs, and a distinctive chirp, are somewhat curious in their preference for nesting habitat. They make small depressions in the sand to lay eggs that blend in so well they can easily be overlooked and, unfortunately, easily crushed by feet and tires and available to predators. Unfortunately, for Cape Hatteras beach-goers, these birds nest from late spring through July, and restrictions imposed to protect the birds block some stretches of seashore from those who prefer to drive their vehicles on the beach.

No one -- not the National Park Service, not the environmental and conservation groups in the community, nor the off-road vehicle organizations -- denies that a plan is needed to manage off-road vehicle traffic on the seashore. But that’s about all they seem to agree on.

“Are we providing for the birds, or are we missing providing for the people who want to come down here and use it as a recreational area?” wonders John Couch, the president of the Outer Banks Preservation Association that supports more off-road vehicle use of the seashore than the Park Service proposes to allow.

To continue the Yellowstone analogy, imagine if the Old Faithful complex, Lake Village, Tower-Roosevelt, Grant Village, Mammoth Hot Springs, and West Thumb all were unincorporated communities surrounded by Yellowstone. Those communities, if they existed, would be just as deeply concerned about Yellowstone management decisions as those who live along Cape Hatteras are concerned about the national seashore’s management choices.

And like the Yellowstone snowmobile debate, which has raged for more than a decade at a cost to the Park Service of more than $10 million in environmental studies, the Cape Hatteras dispute, brought to a boil in 2007 when environmental groups sued the Park Service because it never formally developed an ORV management plan, won’t likely be settled when seashore officials deliver their management plan late this year.

“It’s clear that both sides are lined up, and we’re not going to be able to avoid completing the plan and regulation this time,” says Mike Murray, who upon his arrival at the seashore as its superintendent in 2005 was handed the mess. “I think it’s likely to result in litigation.”

* * * * *

Conflicts don’t normally arise overnight, and the one at Cape Hatteras certainly didn’t. This one slowly evolved as more and more Americans came to enjoy beach vacations.

When World War II broke out, piping plover populations along the Atlantic coast were peaking and the national seashore was little more than an idea on paper. At war’s end, though, the birds and the seashore headed in different directions.

Cape Hatteras, which was officially established in 1953, soon became a name brand for summer vacations, an attraction that nurtured tiny villages along the Outer Banks with vacation rentals, grocery stores, restaurants, service stations, fishing, and surf-pounded beaches.

Piping plovers, though, lost more and more habitat up and down the Atlantic seaboard to development and recreational pressures and declined precipitously, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. On January 10, 1986, the bird that blends in so well with its beach habitat was officially designed as “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act.

Today it seems that more than a few Outer Bank residents would also describe themselves as threatened due to the conflict created by the seashore’s popularity and the bird’s need for beach-front habitat.

Those who envisioned the Cape Hatteras National Seashore in the 1930s were in some cases ahead of their times. While the Wilderness Act was still three decades away from being signed into law, the seashore’s founders saw the seashore containing stretches of “pristine wilderness.” At the same time, the lack of paved roads along Cape Hatteras led those who wished to fish the surf to drive through the dunes and along the beaches. But in the early days, beach traffic was minimal compared to today’s numbers.

Down through the decades, more and more surf casters turned to their vehicles to reach prime fishing spots along the seashore, with Cape Point due south of Buxton and to the east of Frisco being one of the most popular. During the summer high season there are times when an estimated 400 vehicles are parked along a 1-mile stretch of the point, according to the Park Service.

It was just this sort of traffic levels that spurred Defenders of Wildlife and the National Audubon Society to sue the Park Service in 2007 for lacking an official ORV management plan -- something both President Nixon and then President Carter had directed be done for federal lands -- one that took the nesting shorebirds and sea turtles into consideration.

“You know, it’s not the plover alone. It’s the other nesting birds,” says Chris Canfield, executive director of Audubon North Carolina. “Audubon has had a presence in the region for 100 years, and when we really decided we had to do something, including the court case, it was because the numbers had reached lows that were below anything we could find on record.”

Mr. Canfield agrees with Mr. Couch and other ORVers that a lot of factors are behind the downfall of breeding plovers at Cape Hatteras.

“You can talk about predators, you can talk about weather. Well, we have to control all the 'controllables' we can,” he says. “We can’t control the weather. We can do something about predators, and the Park Service tries. But we certainly can control the people factor, so that’s what we’re also trying to do.”

One of the things that definitely can’t be controlled, however, is the nature of barrier islands and Atlantic hurricanes, storms that some say are becoming more potent as the climate changes.

Installing permanent structures on coastal barrier beachfronts such as Cape Hatteras amounts to a declaration of war on one of nature's most powerful processes. The hurricanes, nor'easters, and other great storms that thrash the coast pack vast amounts of energy. Coastal barriers and the tidal marshes behind them function as the mainland's first line of defense, absorbing the impact of ferocious winds and surging water.

Huge amounts of sand get pushed around (some of it moving offshore), new channels are cut by overwash, and in these and other ways the coastal barriers get rearranged. By destroying dunes and constructing beachfront structures -- including defenses such as rip-rap, seawalls, groins, and jetties -- developers work directly against these natural processes and place property and people at exceptional risk.

The National Park Service began to realize this in the 1970s when it decided to halt its longstanding practice of building up and maintaining sand dunes along Cape Hatteras. It was a practice that helped maintain North Carolina 12, which runs the length of the seashore and connects the villages, but one that also was forever at conflict with nature.

The man-made dunes, in effect, tried to create a landscape contrary to that of a barrier island, one that can shift with storms that move sands around. Not only do these dunes need constant maintenance to withstand the Atlantic Ocean, but they create steep drop-offs that have narrowed the seashore’s beaches in places and, in many cases, left behind small stretches of habitat that are favored both by the piping plover and many surf fishermen.

* * * *

A federal judge in 2008 approved a consent decree that required the Park Service to come up with an acceptable ORV management plan. Arguably before the ink dried on that order, the Park Service staff at Cape Hatteras found itself navigating treacherous waters in its role as referee, peacemaker, and rule-maker bound by the Endangered Species Act and the National Park Service Organic Act.

“Certainly, there have been instances of it getting ugly,” says Superintendent Murray, who has seen a lot of controversy in a Park Service career that has taken him through Yellowstone, Yosemite, Everglades and Cape Cod National Seashore. “When we had our advisory committee, basically a federal advisory committee, some of the local environmental representatives got threats. I don’t know if they were death threats. Some of them got nails in their driveways, they were put on ‘Wanted’ posters all across the island with directions to their house, ‘This guy wants to shut down beach access, go let him know what you think.’

“We had to relocate meeting locations. We had been trying to meet at Hatteras Island, but we didn’t have any Park Service-controlled venues, and so we had demonstrations and unruly behavior and some reports of vandalism of members’ cars while there were in meetings,” the superintendent continues. “In our public hearings there’s certainly a lot of angry language.

“One of the newspaper articles said I was threatened. I don’t recall. There were so many angry statements I’m not sure I picked up on which one was threatening me. Certainly we receive hate mail, our employees are refused service on Hatteras, and the community has mixed feelings about it.

“They do nothing to stop it, but some community and ORV leaders express regret that it’s come to that.”

For a year in the lead-up to the agency’s draft ORV plan and accompanying environmental impact statement, a committee with representatives from both the environmental and ORV communities met regularly over the course of a year-and-a-half, but met with little success in finding compromise.

“The committee worked really hard,” points out Superintendent Murray. “We had 11 formal meetings, which was 20 total meeting days. Every couple months there would be a two-day meeting. But we had seven subcommittees that worked on different parts of the plan. They had conference calls and subcommittee meetings and on and on and on.

“They made progress on stuff,” he goes on, “but it kind of boiled down to, after all this effort, the parties on the committee were able to agree to the easy things, like speed limits, or vehicle requirements. They couldn’t agree to the hard things, like how are we going to manage ORV use in the real sensitive bird nesting areas?

“So, towards the end of the process, we created a special subcommittee, called the integration group - sort of three from each side and three sort of neutral parties - to try to work out the final recommendation for the committee to consider. And they couldn’t do it. They couldn’t agree to anything.”

As a result, the seashore’s planning staff came up with a half-dozen alternatives that went into the DEIS, alternatives that ranged from no changes in management to the preferred alternative, which was culled from much of the committee’s work, and which has brought howls from both ORVers and environmentalists.

“We expected that nobody would like the preferred alternative, and it seems like it’s turning out to be true,” says Superintendent Murray.

* * * * *

Indeed, neither the conservation groups nor the ORV organizations like the preferred alternative.

While the conservationists say the 16 miles of beach that would be permanently closed to ORV use is too little, the ORV groups say it’s too much.

Seashore officials, meanwhile, point out that at various times throughout the year more, and less, of the remaining 52 or so miles of beaches will be closed, or opened, depending on nesting seasons.

At the National Parks Conservation Association, Kristen Brengel, director of legislative and government relations, believes too much is being made by ORV groups over the proposed closures. After all, she notes, beach closures along Cape Hatteras are nothing new to the national seashore as many of the seashore’s villages routinely close sections of beach to ORV traffic to accommodate pedestrian beach-goers.

“In terms of just the off-road vehicle use, there have been seasonal closures for a long time specifically to enhance tourism. The fact of the matter is is that Cape Hatteras and the villages and towns throughout it have been handling seasonal closures for a very long time,” Ms. Brengel says. “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.

“I find it kind of disingenuous to say that they’re not used to this when they specifically do it to get tourism dollars during the summer. That’s their bread-and-butter,” she adds. “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. If they do it for people and sunbathers, why can’t they do it for birds and turtles when the Park Service is legally required to do the latter?”

Mr. Canfield at Audubon North Carolina also notes that relatively few of the seashore’s visitors want to drive on the beaches. In his group’s comments to the draft ORV plan it’s noted that, “A 2003 visitor survey at Cape Hatteras estimated that between 2.7 percent and 4 percent of all visits to the park included beach driving. Even positing significant error in the survey data, and that number is double the maximum reported, then we are still left with the estimate that under 10 percent of all visitors to the seashore choose to drive on the beach during their visits.”

* * * * *

You can’t discuss the future of recreation and wildlife on Cape Hatteras National Seashore without citing numbers:

* 1,000 meters -- That’s the distance of a buffer zone surrounding plover nests with unfledged chicks that ORVs must honor; the buffer for pedestrians is 300 meters. The 1,000-meter buffer, notes Mr. Couch, “is bigger than the parking lot of the New Orleans Superdome.”

* ~70 and 16 -- Approximate miles of coastline within the seashore, and miles that would be closed year-round to ORV access, a number criticized as too low by environmental groups and two high by ORV interests.

* 2.2 million -- Approximate number of visitors to Cape Hatteras annually.

* $777.41 million -- Tourism spending recorded in Dare County in 2008, an increase of 1.9 percent from 2007.

Other numbers that raise eyebrows were produced by the U.S. Fish and WIldlife Service when it analyzed piping plover habitat from Cape Lookout National Seashore north to Cape Cod National Seashore as part of its work on developing a recovery plan for the birds. The study looked at the quality of piping plover habitat across those seaside landscapes and assessed the potential number of birds it could support. Cape Hatteras, the agency said, had the potential to support 30 breeding pairs.

“Many of the seashores have met or exceeded that predicted potential,” notes Superintendent Murray. “Cape Hatteras is the only one that’s had significant declines since the late ‘80s. All the other areas have had significant improvements.”

According to the USFWS findings, whereas Cape Cod National Seashore had 15 breeding pairs in 1989, by 2007 they had 85; Fire Island National Seashore had three breeding pairs in 1992, and 25 in 2007; Breezy Point, part of Gateway National Recreation Area, had 14 pair in 1989 and 19 in 2007; Sandy Hook, another part of Gateway, had 19 pairs in 1989, and 30 in 2007; Assateague Island National Seashore had 20 pairs in 1989, 64 in 2007; Cape Lookout, just south of Cape Hatteras, had 34 pair in 1989, and 45 in 2007.

“Cape Hatteras in 1989 had 15 pair, 2007 we had six,” said Superintendent Murray. “And the six was an improvement. 20032, 2004, 2005 we had about two pair. So 2006 was the first under the interim (management) plan, it improved to six. It was six again in 2007. 2008, 2009 under the consent decree it increased to 11 in 2008, and then nine pair in 2009, so some improvement both under the interim strategy and then under bump in improvement under the consent decree.”

From his vantage point, Mr. Couch believes the answer for the comparatively poor plover production at Cape Hatteras is obvious to anyone who walks the seashore’s beaches.

“Cape Hatteras National Seashore, the unit area that we are in, represents a marginal area. It is a peripheral area of nesting and wintering birds. Right on the edge. So typically numbers that are within more of the center of a particular area are going to have greater numbers,” he said.

As for the better bird production at Cape Lookout, which is further south, he points out the lack of man-made infrastructure on that seashore.

“They didn’t have any man-made interference. They don’t have the dunes. All the dunes here are man-made. And typically our topography is just like their’s, except the CCC came back in 1933 under Roosevelt and built the dunes,” he said. “They don’t have that here. We don’t have those wash-over areas that plovers seem to like and feed on. Surf comes up and it rolls right back into the ocean.”

And while Cape Hatteras is more built-up than Cape Lookout, with eight villages dotting the seashore, and sees more human and vehicle traffic, Mr. Couch contends that “human interference, whatever it is, is less than 3 percent of what’s going on there (in terms of impacting plover production). By far it is predation and natural causes.”

* * * * *

No doubt, a large part of the problem at Cape Hatteras is a lack of parking. While more than 2 million folks descend on the national seashore annually, finding a parking spot that’s not on the beach can be difficult if not impossible at times.

“There’s no public beach access parking in the villages. They didn’t think of it. They didn’t provide for it,” says Superintendent Murray. “And the seashore has about 1,000 parking spaces spread over 70 miles.”

During the 2007 season, he notes, the lack of parking led to 3,000-4,000 vehicles parking on the beaches.

“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.”

Over at the Outer Banks Preservation Association, Mr. Couch agrees there’s a great need for additional parking, a problem he says the Park Service has ignored.

“There’s just not that motivation and initiative out at the Park Service,” he said. “They can cry the money woes and stuff like that, but there is no champion of access in the Park Service these days. I think they give too much time and effort into bird restrictions and closing off areas.”

* * * * *

While seashore officials say they’re trying to satisfy both sides in their management planning, they also point to the laws and regulations they have to follow in managing the seashore.

“We know, and certainly we’re hearing in our public comments loud and clear, that Cape Hatteras is important to the local economy,” says Superintendent Murray, but “We have got to remember the purpose of the parks as stated in the (National Park Service) Organic Act. You know, ‘provide for the enjoyment of same in such manner and such means that will leave them unimpaired.’

“And there’s numerous lawsuits and case law and philosophical statements from great conservation leaders over the years that the rights of future generations, when it comes to parks, the rights of future generations are more important than the immediate desires of the present. Frederick Law Olmstead said that in 1865 regarding Yosemite, and that’s never more true than it is today,” the superintendent adds.

“And that’s the challenge, and we want parks to be relevant to people’s lives in this and future generations so they have to have the ability to experience them. ... Finding that balance -- and it’s not necessarily a perfect balance -- resource protection is to be predominant so that they’ll be available for future generations. That should be the basis that we make decisions.”

Comments

"the folly of trying to control nature" - Kurt Repanshek

If you truly believe this, then it seems to me you should start wielding your word hammer on the pro-access side. NPS, at the enviros whim, attempts to control nature by slaughtering hundreds of so-called predator mammals every year. Imho, it proves the bottom line for the enviros is money.

SAVE THE RACCOONS!

dapster, Just to correct one thing...the Virginia side of Assateague Island is a National Wildlife Refuge. It is not a National Seashore. The NPS and FWS work together on that portion even though is a Refuge. The Maryland side of the island is the National Seashore

Kurt, I think it important at this point to reiterate that most of us did not expect you to 'get it 100% right' from the beginning. Heck, Nobody has so far. I think most will agree that you have been fair. I for one have been pleasantly surprised. This has been a terriffic discussion. You know I am pro-access and I for one have appreciated the opportunity you have afforded us to make our case known. I think others will agree. I attempt to keep an open mind and look at things from all sides and especially from the adversaries standpoint. And though I totally expect you would try and maintain a neutral position, I hope that the pro-access responders just may have broadened your knowledge a little and hopefully in our favor. For if we have, then maybe others of your followers have been reached also. This would mean a lot to us. And for this you will have my undying gratitude.

Ron

Whoops!

Thanks for the correction, Ranger Lady, as I was in error. I still worry that similar measures may one day be enacted in either PINWR of CHNSRA, and the DEIS has clearly shown a tendancy towards putting such measures in place concerning a bird that is not federally listed. Time will tell, I suppose....

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

Ron,

I also wish to thank Kurt for supplying this venue in which to have this discussion! His objectivity and willingness to listen to differing opinions has always impressed me, and though we might not always agree, we generally find enough middle ground on the subject to allow the debate to move forward.

Kurt has mentioned a possible trip to CHNSRA next spring, for a mixture of both recon and relaxation, I would assume! I very much hope to meet with him, and show him my concerns in person, as well as having the pleasure of meeting someone I have come to respect very much.

Cheers, Kurt! I hope we get the chance to shake hands on my favorite strip of sand next year. Again, thanks for all that you do in the name of our National Parks!

dap

No problem dapster. It is a very confusing little island with 2 different federal agencies and 1 state park. I worked there for awhile so I had it drilled into my head every day

I’m miffed about where I’m being disingenuous, Dapster admits to purposely framing the picture for best effect and brags about fighting fire with fire while posting an old picture he says is from an environmental group misrepresenting Cape Point (not my pix dude). Don’t see what the big deal is because to me the picture looks exactly like Cape Point on a crowded day. Then one of Daps buddies piles on about bird closure when I am clearly referring to a very small resource closure for turtles, not birds, a closure that did not impact anyone’s access while it was in place. (Was it a 100 feet of shoreline for a week or so?)

I thought it obvious I was speaking to a national audience. The local ORV groups do not care about what is important to me nor do they represent my feelings on the management of the National Seashore.

Here is some additional information for visitors who have not visited CHNS. In CHNS people access the beach from many different points of the 68 miles of beach. Some ways of accessing the Seashore besides driving an ORV include: walking over the boardwalk ramp that crosses the dune from any of from the 6 villages. Thousands of people access the beach this way every year. It is private property and there are no designated public parking facilities I know of, but people do access the Park beach in the villages that are not renting houses, particularly in the off-season. You can park on the side of Highway 12 in many places and legally walk over the dunes in the Seashore. The sand paths that people make through the dunes have not been a problem with erosion as one good storm can and has a much greater impact than the footpaths. There are parking lots on the west side of the NPS ORV ramps and you can park there and access the beach by foot. However I don’t suggest you use these ORV beaches because the beach is an unsightly mess of ruts and ORV tracks that makes the beach unnatural to walk on. There are no designated pedestrian trails on ORV beaches unless you walk in or next to the dunes. It is not the experience one expects to find in a National Park. The ORV beaches are not inviting to pedestrians. There are plenty of convenient parking spaces in Buxton at the old lighthouse site. Hopefully the Pro ORV lobbies won’t succeed in opening all or some of the 1-mile of beach outside of Buxton to ORV access as they have been advocating for. There are 2 parking areas between Frisco and Hatteras villages off of Highway 12 for pedestrians to park and access the beach. The beach there is narrow and you can hear vehicle traffic from route 12. The high tide line is 100 feet from the road in places but there are no vehicles. I am not as familiar with the beaches on Ocracoke Island but know there are some long established pedestrian access only beaches there.

I am all for more parking facilities for pedestrian to access vehicle free beaches.

Just because Cape Hatteras National Seashore was one time called Cape Hatteras National Seashore and Recreation Area (no one but the ORVers refers to it as that nowadays) that is not a mandate to bring all the recreational items you can legally use to the beach in an ORV.

There are places in CHNS where it is difficult to get to by foot: the North side of Oregon Inlet, Cape Point, South Beach between Cape Point and Frisco, North Hatteras Inlet and South Point on Ocracoke Island. By most hiking standards none of these would be considered a difficult or strenuous hike. Having to hike to these places to fish would certainly put a burden on old, infirmed and the very young but there should be some compromise. You can’t set the vehicle carrying capacity at 1 car for every 20 feet of shoreline and not significantly change the mandate and historical nature of this park.

In addition one of the problems with pedestrian access is that the ORV access community (definitely the most vocal with the most to loose) doesn’t acknowledge a recreational conflict with pedestrians on “their” beach. They believe and advocate that if a footpath is established around a closure then an ORV trail could also be established. Pedestrian access to some of the valuable recreational (fishing) does not have their support.

Google earth has a pretty good view of the Outer Banks and CHNS. Take a look at just how easy it is to access this park without an ORV

Hey Kurt, What is going to happen at Yellowstone. Used to do a little skiing out that way and would tie in a trip to the park, a little ice fishing on Lake Hebgen and always finish off with a meal & short one at Enos. Hope you've been there, everyone should experience that place at least once (could tell you some stories). The snowbile trip into Old Faithful was awesome, getting to associate with the Bison up close. What a beautiful place and the rangers and staff were great. The town of West Yellowstone was neat and the nicest people. I can see a similarity here as I write this. Only the weather is entirely different. I was up there last, just after a big forrest fire. That was something to see. Maybe your thoughts on how the two compare in your mind. I have not kept up with that area but, am not surprised if there is contraversy taking place there. All I do know is that snowmobilers were very considerate of the wildlife there. Remember passing an occassional Bison on the main road in, they always were in the middle for some reason, up close and personal. I got the feeling they liked getting a close look at us. Think I was a bit more nervous than he was. really neat experience.
Ron

Ron,

I fear the Yellowstone snowmobile issue is going to keep lawyers in business for quite a while. I believe the park is currently working on its fourth full-blown EIS in an effort to come up with an acceptable winter-use plan surrounding snowmobiles. They expect to have a draft in spring of 2011, with a new plan in place for 2011-2012.

Expect a lawsuit within days of that final plan.

I'm thinking of a piece that makes some comparisons. Stay tuned.

I would sure be interested in that as I'm sure others would too. I have a couple of photos you might find interesting From a few years back. Would like to send them if you could tell me how to do it.

Ron

Annony-mouse, I'm going to have to call you out on this one....

First of all, you complain about the photo of Bodie Island spit that Dapster posted. That photo showed up on many a web site dedicated to limiting access to the Seashore and, as Dap pointed out is debunked. No that's not what a crowded day on Cape Point looks like. We're not all ten feet tall driving twelve foot tall trucks.
The image in question was compressed horizontally to give the impression of overcrowding.

I will agree that parking is at the minimum along Rt 12 as it passes through the eight (not six) villages that are within the Seashore and more is needed however the dynamics of the Islands may well preclude much more than what is currently available.

Living here has shown me repeatedly that your comment about what a storm can do as opposed to a foot-path is somewhat true. However, each step you take up the side of a dune can displace upwards of 300 pounds of sand and its through these footpaths that a lot of the destruction we experience, starts.

Your complaint about the lack of pedestrian only access is not well founded in that there are many areas within the Seashore that are set aside as pedestrian only during the course of the year. The entirety of the beaches in front of Buxton are pedestrian only year round. Thirteen miles of uninterrupted pedestrian only access exist at Pea Island. All of the villages have seasonal pedestrian only access and are that way as I write.

You will find plenty of pedestrian only access but one thing you will never find on this Seashore is ORV only access.

You said:"Just because Cape Hatteras National Seashore was one time called Cape Hatteras National Seashore and Recreation Area (no one but the ORVers refers to it as that nowadays) that is not a mandate to bring all the recreational items you can legally use to the beach in an ORV".

I say: Actually, you have it backwards. When the Seashore was created in 1937, it was called Cape Hatteras National Seashore. In 1940, to further reinforce the purpose and intent of the creation of this area, the United States Congress passed the following law:

16USC459 CHNSRA (in part) “said area shall be, and is, established, dedicated, and set apart as a national seashore recreational area for the benefit and enjoyment of the people and shall be known as the Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area..”

And no, that's not a mandate to carry all you can out on the sand with an ORV but even the National Park Service understood from the inception of the Seashore that taking ones belongings to the beach to enjoy fishing, sailing, swimming and "other recreational activities of a similar nature" in a vehicle, was not only desirable but a traditional form of access. That's why Conrad Wirth, former director of NPS discussed the building of ramps. Unfortunately, since 1979, 29% of those ramps have been closed.

One thing you need to understand about this access issue is that its not all about ORV use. Its about all access to the seashore. I'm handicapped and need a vehicle to get out to the sand and carry my tackle to fish. The proposed closures are going to keep pedestrians off the beach as well. Come down now, have a look, I'll show you miles of beach you cant legally set foot on this day, and for many days to come, not without ending up in federal court.

Wheat

Wheat

Dear Miffed,

At least we know what to call you now! Thanks for clearing that up for the group.

In large part, see what my good friend Wheat had to say, as he states it better than I ever could.

Otherwise, I’ll take you to task on some of your other key points that were directed specifically to me, such as:

“I’m miffed about where I’m being disingenuous, Dapster admits to purposely framing the picture for best effect and brags about fighting fire with fire while posting an old picture he says is from an environmental group misrepresenting Cape Point (not my pix dude).”

At least I admit it. The SELC Cartel would never have the guts to do so. My choice of vantage does not change the simple fact that there were 17 signs in that “viewshed” on that day in August, 2009. Personally, I find them terribly unsightly, and they do detract from my “visitor experience”. Didn’t say it WAS you pic either, that is unless you’re actually Sidney incognito.

Bragging? Poor choice of words on your part, as that was intended more as a warning. Plus, nothing you or anybody else says will stop me from doing what I do best: Debunking untrue statements with pictures of the reality that exists in CHNSRA today. If you can’t deal with that reality, I suggest you stick to your delusions and keep yourself north of Oregon Inlet.

“Don’t see what the big deal is because to me the picture looks exactly like Cape Point on a crowded day”

Of COURSE you don’t see the big deal in THEIR picture, (Which supports your stance), only in mine. How very hypocritical of you!

Here’s a mosaic of how said picture looks untampered, just for fun: (Supplied by another NPT poster in 2008)

Quite a difference, wouldn't you say? Not only did THEY pick a vantage for maximum impact, but they also altered it for evern MORE effect. SPIN is the SELC's second acronym! Also, considering this was likely taken on either Memorial Day or 4th of July, it is only representative of MAXIMUM high-season density, and not an every-weekend occurrence as the SELC spin team would have the masses believe it to be.

“Then one of Daps buddies piles on about bird closure when I am clearly referring to a very small resource closure for turtles, not birds, a closure that did not impact anyone’s access while it was in place. (Was it a 100 feet of shoreline for a week or so?)”

100 feet, for just a few days? Very Small?!?! Is that what you claim a turtle closure past the 50-day window to be? Pure fantasy on your part. Have you ever actually SEEN a full-beach turtle closure? It would appear not, so here ya go:

Complete with totally clueless and uneducated pedestrian violator from one of the villages! I see this all the time. ORV users know better than to enter one of these, the average house-dwelling tourist, not so much. By-the-by, these closures go into effect at day 50 and stay in place until the nest hatches, or until it is excavated to determine why the nest did not hatch. It’s not unheard of for a nest to sit 75+ days before an excavation takes place (That’s 2.5 MONTHS, in case you were wondering….)

“I thought it obvious I was speaking to a national audience. The local ORV groups do not care about what is important to me nor do they represent my feelings on the management of the National Seashore.”

What does “…speaking to a national audience” have to do with the price of eggs in China? (Answer: About as much as it does to this discussion). You’re also totally wrong in your opinion about that the pro-access groups, (let’s call them what they really are), do not have your best interests as a pedestrian in mind in this as well, because your user group is affected by these closures as well. See one last picture of an SMA below for proof.

Nor do you care about what is important to the ORV groups, so we have equity on that point, as well as the fact that we are both equally closed-minded on this subject.

Dapster, Sure hope you get on the beach with a pole and a cool one this weekend. We both could use it. Better yet, if you're going to be stopping in at the ncbba meet, I'll buy you one. Look me up. I'll be there.

Ron

Ron,

I plan to do all three this weekend! My wife has given the proper permissions to make the meeting, now we'll have to see if our son me gives his clearance to go as well. So many sandcastles, so little time....

Hope to see you and our other pro-ACCESS friends there!

dap

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

Addendum, 3:47 PM EDT:

A friend and colleague pointed out something that everyone has missed in the Bodie Island Spit pictures we have been discussing, and that is how well behaved the park visitors are in relation to the pre-nesting closure that they surround.

If you look closely, you can just make out a line of signs on stakes arcing away between the moist center of the spit and the shoreline. See below picture, with green line roughly marking the closure boundary:

This is not high, dry sand, as the darker color illustrates, and there is not one tire track, pedestrian violator, or any evidence that the ORV user group pictured have done anything more than to abide by the closure on one of the busiest weekends of the summer season.

On the other hand, I witnessed a group of pedestrians attempt to walk to Cape Point from the south over Easter weekend, who apparently entered the beach on foot at either Ramp 49 or at the Frisco village junction. (I first encountered them in the vicinity of the ramp crossing, so I cannot say where they originated, only that they were sans vehicle).

Our family found a place to the north of the ramp, roughly between it and a Species Management Area, (SMA), to the north, which precludes all travel to Cape Point. Some time later I observed the group pass, and noted that they were the same folks from earlier.

We decided to drive northward up the beach to the edge of the SMA, in hopes of enticing our son into a nap, but when we got there, we observed this event unfolding:

Someonce had to have called the ranger in on this, as we had passed him going in the other direction on our way north.

From what I could make out, this group of 5 were ticketed for their trangressions, after learning about SMA's from the responding ranger. I still do not know if they were allowed to retrace their steps back through this closure to get back to their point of origin, but I would guess not. (In this groups defense, it was low tide, and the signage was quite a distance from the water's edge but ignorance is no excuse, right?)

I showed all that to make this point once again:

A large majority of the pedestrian closure violations occur when uneducated, beach house dwelling tourists decide to take a long walk on the beach, and their lack of education is a direct result of the NPS' lack of signage in these areas.

These are the only signs in place where the ped beaches meet the ORV beaches. Every ORV ramp on the seashore has a myriad of signs listing all the rules and reg's that apply to everyone, not just the orv user group.

Until the NPS decides to rectify this problem and educate ALL park visitors in the same way the ORV user groups will be required to once the Final Rule is in effect, (We'll have to pass a test), pedestrian closure violations will be counted, and in many cases used as fodder against the pro-access folks by certain large special interest groups. (And you know who you are...)

Let's make sure everyone on-island is aware of their duties while within this park.

Those were great examples dapster. I often saw the same thing on Assateague, people crawling under the ropes to go get a closer view of the baby plover. On Pony Swim day (God that was torture!) I started counting the number of times a person walked past the "Do not walk on dunes" sign and finally lost count just past 100...and that was in 30 minutes. Unfortunately it isn't one user group that disregards the closures, but a certain type of person (on foot or vehicle) that thinks that rule doesn't pertain to them. There was one guy who drove into a closed area and ended up getting a flat tire. The ranger cited him for the infraction and the very next day he was in there again! This time to go get the flat he left there. The second time he ended up squashing a nest of baby skimmers. These closures wouldn't be needed if only everyone learned to respect the rules, but I don't see that happening anytime soon. I always liken it to being back in kindergarden. One kid breaks the rules so the rest of us lose recess.

Thanks, RangerLady! Pictures don't lie.....

I see the kind of behavior you describe as well. I have always wanted to go to the Pony Swim, but have stayed away simply because of the zoo atmosphere that you describe.

Pedestrian and pet violations are our number one issue in CHNSRA. It's something I'm going pro-active on, starting this Memorial Day weekend. I'm hoping to receive an official document from CHNSRA staff that I can hand out to folks with dogs off-leash, (If not I'll come up with my own...), because simply telling folks of the rules and asking them to comply has gotten more than one of us a hearty "F-U, Pal. Who do you think you are?" response. There's just not enough rangers available to police this, so we regulars are going to take this to task ourselves.

Scenes as shown below must come to an end, otherwise our pets may be banned from the sheashore entirely, which is something I cannot abide. That would be the one thing that would make me uproot and go elsewhere, which ias another thing that I cannot abide.

Wish me luck...

I do wish you luck. At Chincoteague NWR (Assateague) they have banned dogs entirely, again, because people cannot follow the rules. There was a man in Shenandoah who refused to listen to rangers when he was told to put the dog on a leash. The dog ended up chasing a rabbit and going over the edge. Obviously not going to happen at CHNSRA, but it's a good example that dogs do have instincts and will do crazy things at times.

There are numerous problems identified in this article, and some of those could be solved. Yet there appears to be a real lack of "community" action to solve any of them. No one is donating their land for parking; no one is on the beach educating visitors; no one is having fund raisers to support tax money that is supposed to support national government actions. Don't people realize that it is going to take everyone's action to make the situation liveable, not just the park service, not just the bird groups, not just the fishermen, not just the locals?! I don't live or pay taxes here but I sure do love coming to Hatteras. What can I do to help...everyone who enjoys this beautiful place on our earth should be willing to do something to help. Want a $ donation? Want me to pick up trash on beach? Want me to pass out flyers to fellow fishermen? Want me to help install dog poop bag dispensers? Want me to help put up turtle nest or bird nest markers and fencing? These may be oversimplifications, but the point is that the people embroiled in the battle need to figure out what the rest of us can do to help instead of spending so much time and energy arguing. I guess it's easier to make excuses instead of really do something about the problems. What a shame!

It started with Cape Cod National Seashore in Massachusetts more than 25 years ago. Now, the National Park Service seems hell-bent on banning the public from most of our national parks and seashores that have traditionall provided public access for fishing, etc.

It's happening on the west coast too.

Bill Hubbard

What do we do? How do we force out the NPS/DOI regime that is causing this?

At the NPS CHNSRA park I routinely hear of locals and business that reside within the park boundaries that want the NPS to removed. They want the State or anyone but the NPS/DOI to manage the park before they loose it all. These outrageous new restrictions, permits, and closures of recreational areas do not promote tourism which in turn does not help the economy of island residents and business owners.

If Jarvis is trying force everyone out by killing the economy of the Island, then he's doing a good job.

I love this part of the NPS gloats on their website:
"We are proud that tribes, local governments, nonprofit organizations, businesses, and individual citizens ask for our help in revitalizing their communities, preserving local history, celebrating local heritage, and creating close to home opportunities for kids and families to get outside, be active, and have fun."

The local communities of CHNSRA are asking for help in revitalizing their community but NPS is doing exactly the opposite. The NPS is closing large stretches of recreational area which has and will continue to negatively affect the tourism and economy of the communities. They are forcing recreational users into smaller and smaller locations, greatly increasing user conflict. They are ruining the historic CHNSRA use and experience under guise of "protecting wildlife" which they yet to show actually needs any additional protections. They are turning recreational areas into refuges with no factual basis of need.

I just don't understand why they feel need for such drastic measures. They've yet to show any proof of negative impact, only maybes or possibles. There was an Interim Plan in mostly in place with all sorts of pre-nesting closures and restrictions that most everyone was in agreement. Then SELC/AS/DOW extremist groups came in and demanded the most restrictive measures possible. But again fail to show any proof that it is needed.

I will contend to the day I die, that a place like CAHA would be mostly private beaches, and wall to wall high rise condos if not for the protection provided by the NPS.

this is not telling me about the tourists and how they affected the area

If you read the comments posted here (in particular those from Dapster) you will see pedestrians in the enclosed areas, dogs not on leashes, pictures doctored to misrepresents crowded areas, and beaches entirely closed to all humans!

This affects tourist like this:

Pedestrians in an enclosed area that are caught will force the NPS to close more beaches 50 meters at a time.

Dogs not on leashes can lead to a fine and if they also intrude on the enclosed areas this equals more beach closed.

Doctored pictures are examples of the lies portrayed to the blind masses that follow these organizations along with the junk science the spew.

Beaches closed to all humans is enough said ( I think)

OOPs forgot to mention the dead mammals that live there are missing and some of us enjoy watching nature take its coarse.

And I forgot the fact the scenic beauty is taken away by thousands of signs, string and wooden posts throughout the entire seashore.