Recent comments

  • Will Second Century Commission Succeed With Its National Parks Assessment and Recommendations?   6 years 4 weeks ago

    Michael,

    I don't disagree with your characterization of The Nature Conservancy, which unless it has changed practice from the Washington Post expose written several years ago, is borderline corrupt and more of a money front for the large corporations that make up its board.

    What I have an issue with again is one of process. If we already know the kinds of people we would like on a commission, we must already have a good idea of what we think the answers need to be coming out of the commission (not that there aren't specific questions to go at - like the kind Rick has outlined). This emphasizes the point I made elsewhere that commissions aren't really important for their substance but as part of an advocacy process toward largely pre-ordained outcomes. I think in some specific fields, they may serve their use; however, in the world of parks, they only exacerbate some of the key problems.

    The word "commission" for whatever reason has some cache - the idea of an independent, god's eye view on things. But, that strikes me as silly when we are talking about parks. The supposedly ultimate grounds for holistic interaction, for engaging with beings in terms of their of whole environment are reduced to the most detached, atomistic way of considering problems. That these commissions are neither independent nor have a god's eye makes it seem all the sillier. Can't we advocate in a sounder way than this?

    Jim Macdonald
    The Magic of Yellowstone
    Yellowstone Newspaper
    Jim's Eclectic World

  • Will Second Century Commission Succeed With Its National Parks Assessment and Recommendations?   6 years 4 weeks ago

    Kurt,

    A couple of points.

    why are no large conservation-oriented NGOs, such as The Nature Conservancy, Conservation International, or the World Wildlife Fund, represented on the commission?

    The Nature Conservancy has been less and less supportive of national parks in recent years. For example, they are unsupportive, if not openly opposed to the Maine Woods National Park proposal. They prefer the private land protection route. That is their right, but they are not advocates for public lands and national parks. Conservation International and WWF do some great work on parks in other countries, but virtually nothing in the U.S. They have not shown leadership on this, so why should they be on the commission? In fact, no U.S. conservation organization -- except for NPCA -- has taken any significant leadership on national park issues for more than a decade. It is a good idea to consult with these organizations, but they should not be on the commission.

    And are there any concerns that the existence of the commission will be an impediment to the administration's Centennial Initiative in that some congressfolk and potential donors might withhold their support pending the commission's report?

    The administration's Centennial Initiative is severely flawed and we would be better off if it goes nowhere in its current form. It greatly increases dependence on private and corporate funding instead of direct federal appropriations -- continuing the unhealthy privatization of our parks. It does not roll back the shift toward funding national park units through user fees -- a harmful trend that is undermining congressional appropriations and needs to be reversed. And it barely even mentions new or expanded national parks at all. But what else would we expect from the anti-park Bush administration? I'd be delighted if members of Congress wait for the commission report and take legislative action in the next session, when we might get a much better Centennial Initiative.

  • The Wild Trees: A Story of Passion and Daring   6 years 4 weeks ago

    An update to my previous post ...

    After photographing the Grove of Titans which are described in The Wild Trees, I afterward determined the boundaries of Atlas Grove and acquired images from there as well. The photos are all provided at the same page listed earlier:

    http://www.mdvaden.com/grove_of_titans.shtml

    In addition, some VIDEO from both groves has been included.

    The book also spends time describing "Adventure Tree", and the page provided includes that one as well.

    Last week, I was at the base of "Fog Valley" where Hyperion the tallest redwood lives, to get a feel for the terrain. That will probably be next year's adventure. The edges of the main river in the area - Redwood Creek - are where camping is allowed, and it meets the creek tributary coming down from where Hyperion is.

  • Pruning the Parks: Six National Parks Acquired via Transfer in 1933 Were Subsequently Abolished   6 years 4 weeks ago

    Beamis,

    Early in 1970 I shipped out of skid row Seattle on the Greyhound Line to work the Burlington Northern railroad tie-gang refurbishing track through Montana.

    While our camp-cars were parked on a siding near at a spot called Whitehorse (or Whitehall?) along the Jefferson River, I spent off-time & weekends hiking down into the river-canyon, and overland into the surrounding hills.

    One day I was a few hours back in the hills, came around a bend and here below me was an out-of-place fancy asphalt road, and off in the distance some kind of facility. I walked up the road and it was the Lewis & Clark Caverns, then a Nat'l Park. I had no inkling it was there!

    Montana now has a nice webpage for the Caverns. Photographs, information, maps ... and links for all the little & big critters of the area, into a Field Guide they have posted. (Notice that they are using hydrologic data-layers for their distribution-maps ... hmm!)

    But I agree, the cavern was just as well handled as a local feature, and nothing in particular indicated a need for Federal involvement. (I'm one of those who feel that we are better off if the Federal echelon handles only those matters which really require centralized authority, and all other matters be left to lower/local authorities & jurisdictions).

    It was said the Native Tribes (and earlier inhabitants) hadn't used the cavern, and didn't even know about it ... something that always seemed unusual to me. Maybe more has come to light over the years...

    I was really glad to spend a season in Montana!

  • Pruning the Parks: Six National Parks Acquired via Transfer in 1933 Were Subsequently Abolished   6 years 4 weeks ago

    I have no problems delisting, as pruning a tree sometimes increases the overall health of the plant.

    Unless they've changed the rules, archeological sites don't qualify for National Park status solely on the basis of local or regional antiquity. Those types of sites come under the protective umbrella of other agencies and Lord knows the NPS can't afford to be in the business of protecting every site of presumed historical import, be it of recent vintage or pre-Cambrian Era.

    It the NPS planning on going subterranean? I know their budget is........

  • What's the Solution For Cape Hatteras National Seashore?   6 years 4 weeks ago

    I'll admit that I personally haven't set foot on the Outer Banks since the North Carolina Jam era, and back then this issue was a non-factor. But the whole ORV transgression versus environmental impact raised during multiple tangents to this central theme is growing rather tedious. 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. 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. Examples:

    The whole idea of limiting or eradicating fishing is just silly. Fishing is permitted in many NPS units, such as those in which the Colorado River cuts a swath through the landscape. Indeed, temporary out-of-state fishing licenses, including trout stamps, aimed specifically at the tourist market, are available within the boundries of the parks. Insofar as the supplies required to do a decent day of surfcasting......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.

    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. 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.

    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.

  • Pruning the Parks: Six National Parks Acquired via Transfer in 1933 Were Subsequently Abolished   6 years 4 weeks ago

    Now as time went some sites actual were of national value and later became National Landmarks, namely the one in Georgia. I am not a fan of delisting but I will conseed in some areas. For example, the park I volunteer at, Boston Harbor Islands, should be both expanded and downsized, mainly two or three islands should be looked at to be delisted and the park should be expanded to include the ship wrecks and undisturbed areas of the sea floor. Also, In case any one is wondering the park is important because of its military history, the fact it is one of (I think) 4 drowned drumlin fields in the world, and the fact that they hold the oldest human remains ever found in New England (4,000 year old human remains were found on one of the islands).

  • Grand Canyon National Park "Short Haul" Operations   6 years 4 weeks ago

    Try contacting the Red Cross at: www.redcross.org

    They have a search page for locating rescued people: https://disastersafe.redcross.org/

  • What's the Solution For Cape Hatteras National Seashore?   6 years 4 weeks ago

    Rangertoo,

    Please note that the NPS is banning killing and trapping (what they do after the animals are trapped is up for debate) any animal (including banning humans) that poses a threat to a couple of birds. This my friend is playing with forces of nature. When you play with these forces they will come back to haunt you. Just ask the birds that are lost every year to storms. Fishing my friend is only one form of recreational activity performed on the beaches. There is also swimming, shell collecting, and sand castle building. Would you also go to the extreme of stopping children from having access to the sand due to the fact that they are not complying to building codes and constructing a building in a national park. These types of remarks like eliminating fishing from the parks just proves who the real uneducated folks are in this little issue. Thanks again fro proving our point!!!!

  • Pruning the Parks: Six National Parks Acquired via Transfer in 1933 Were Subsequently Abolished   6 years 4 weeks ago

    There are still others today that could be pruned, producing benefits for both the park system and the individual units in question.

    Glad to have some historical perspective on this issue.

    Didn't Platt National Park get delisted into an NRA?

    Anyone remember Sully's Hill National Park or Lewis and Clark Caverns?

  • What's the Solution For Cape Hatteras National Seashore?   6 years 4 weeks ago

    Rangertoo,

    To the fish killing rant you so recently went on: Sir, are you a strict vegan? Do you eat no meat products yourself? This is America, pal. As far as I know, it’s legal to take and consume fish from the majority of bodies of water in this country, especially the North Atlantic Ocean! If you have an issue with a few surf fishermen taking a handful of fish whose numbers run in the millions, then I must wonder how you feel about commercial fishing. But please, spare me…

    You’re way off base, and purposely detracting from the original content of this thread, which happens to be Beach Access.

    Pursuant to your only partially correct definition of “Marxism” from earlier yesterday, when taken in the context to the thread that we are all commenting on, these definitions apply:

    Marxism: “Marxism has also had to engage with the rise in the Environmental movement. A merging of Marxism, socialism, ecology and environmentalism has been achieved, and is often referred to as Eco-socialism.”
    Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist

    Eco-Socialism: “Eco-socialism, Green socialism or Socialist ecology is an ideology merging aspects of Marxism, socialism, Green politics, ecology and the anti-globalization movement. Eco-socialists generally believe that the expansion of the capitalist system is the cause of social exclusion, poverty and environmental degradation through globalization and imperialism, under the supervision of repressive states and transstatal structures; they advocate the non-violent dismantling of capitalism and the state, focusing on collective ownership of the means of production by freely associated producers and restoration of the Commons.[1]”
    Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco-socialism

    Sounds pretty scary to me, and it would appear that we are up against such mentalities in the fight over CHNSRA beach access.

    I also don’t see why you have such a problem with fishing, sir. You troll this site like an old salt....

  • What's the Solution For Cape Hatteras National Seashore?   6 years 4 weeks ago

    Kingfisher, your point is well taken, but in all fairness it can be ascribed to folks on both side of this issue.

  • What's the Solution For Cape Hatteras National Seashore?   6 years 4 weeks ago

    For all of those who argue about the access in Cape Hatteras seem to think this is just an ORV thing. Well this only promotes our new Motto and proves without a doubt "IT IS AND NEVER WAS ABOUT THE BIRDS". Not one single person who has stated their opinion about this present day issue has said please do not run over the birds. EVERY comment against access was related directly to ORV's on the beach. Does this mean you folks are actually attempting to apologize for using a bird that really cannot adapt to the harsh conditions of Cape Hatteras as an excuse for shutting the beaches down to humans? It is simply amazing that we have so many people willing to put their opinions on this issue out there and they only make our point stronger by constantly pointing thier fingers at ORV's.

    PS
    These closures restrict access to humans, dogs, predator birds, raccoons, ghost crabs, feral cats, foxes, and anything that would possibly pray on a bird. This is a bird that chooses to build a tea cup size sand nest in the same area that has daily winds that can cover any tracks from any ORV out there. This is like closing all of the roads to prevent a certain type of roadkill. The NPS has direct orders to eliminate any and all of these possible distractions. They close the beaches to humans. They build shelters, trap and even kill predators of the non-human type and their website diplays their bounty with the numbers to prove it.

  • What's the Solution For Cape Hatteras National Seashore?   6 years 4 weeks ago

    See Kurt, this is what we are dealing with. No logic, no decisions based upon best available science, just pure emotion and pseudo science......and you wonder why we are having a hard time with the REG-NEG Committee appointed by DOI Secretary. They are not willing to negotiate in good faith

    Respectfully submitted,
    Scott Lambright
    ----------------
    "Quote Rangertoo:
    Re the comment: "No vehicles on the beach = no fishing". Excellent! There should be no fishing allowed in the park or any park. Why do we prohibit killing mammals, birds, and even insects in most national parks but allow killing fish? Aren't they an important part of the ecosystem. Go somewhere else and kill fish.Unquote"

  • What's the Solution For Cape Hatteras National Seashore?   6 years 4 weeks ago

    Re the comment: "No vehicles on the beach = no fishing". Excellent! There should be no fishing allowed in the park or any park. Why do we prohibit killing mammals, birds, and even insects in most national parks but allow killing fish? Aren't they an important part of the ecosystem. Go somewhere else and kill fish.

  • What's the Solution For Cape Hatteras National Seashore?   6 years 4 weeks ago


    Kurt, the language;recreational activities of similar nature, which shall be developed for such uses as needed, means that ramps will be cut through the dunes to limit where ORV access to the beach. They knew back then that we had to keep penetrations through the dunes to a minimum and at specific places, and built in certain ways. The villagers knew that also. When the Feds came down to the Islands in the '30's with the CCC and others to construct the dunes that have protected the Islands to this day, the Federal Government decided that the Island would migrate no more. They encouraged the locals to build homes and preserve the dunes to protect the villages. Now some of the wackos want to tear down the dunes and let the islands to overwash during storms (because that would be natural) well it is too late to let it go back to the way it was. The Fed encouraged the locals to build a business to attract tourists and take care of them. Guess what? They did just that. Now the wackos want to reverse history, and revise what the plans are for this tourist area. That is what we are fighting.

    To fish for large Red Drum takes about 100lbs of tackle; that includes a large cooler of bait, water, & food (50lb) 2 or 3 rods with reels (12lbs) sand spikes (10lbs) waders (10lbs) extra clothes (15lbs) porta pottie (20lbs) Would you like to carry that gear out to the point for me? It is about 2 miles from the parking lot, one way. This is big fish fishing with the same prep as one would do to go off-shore on a charter boat, we just do it on land. It in no way resembles going to the pond in the back field with a can of worms to catch a stringer of bluegills. Come down sometime, some of us would be glad to show you how it is done. You could show us how to hump our gear over 2 miles of soft sand, and after fishing for 20hrs or so humping it all
    back.
    longcaster

  • What's the Solution For Cape Hatteras National Seashore?   6 years 4 weeks ago

    A very interesting document in the creation of the seashore. The following is an excert of US Senate testimony, with the original document scanned into the written testimony. Refer to the page numbers to read the history and see the portions provided below.

    Link:

    http://energy.senate.gov/public/_files/WarrenJudgeTestimony.pdf

    Page 13 of the PDF link:

    Subsequent comments by the NFS Director in 1952 when the land was acquired and the Park officially created bears out this intent. [b]In an open letter to the People of the Outer Banks addressing the new boundary lines for the Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreation Area dated October 27, 1952, NPS Director Wirth [b]made it clear that the basic legislation authorizing the formation of the Seashore reserved fishing rights to the people and that access to the beach was fundamental to protecting those rights.

    [b]Conrad L. Wirth, A Letter to the People of the Outer Banks, The Coastland Times (Oct. 31, 1952)[b], Alt. 1. Indeed, Director Wirth assured the residents that [b]"there will always be access to the beach for all people, whether they are local residents or visitors from the outside." Id. This would include vehicular access. In his letter, he told the local residents that it will be necessary to establish "certain regulations within the Seashore such as designated places for vehicles to get to the beach in order to reduce sand dune erosion to a minimum;[b] to manage ocean fishing where large numbers of bathers are using the beach and to confine bathing to certain areas." Id. (emphasis added). Director Wirth also acknowledged that the communities that lived in the area for generations would become responsible for caring for the tourists that would arrive at the newly-established Seashore, id., and recognized that these communities have a right to enjoy the prosperity that would flow from the creation of the Seashore. Id. Subsequently, former Director Wirth reaffirmed this position in
    a letter to then-Interior Secretary Lujan. In commenting on lack of action in stabilizing the Oregon Inlet, former Director Wirth noted that, when the Seashore was created, he had made a promise of cooperation with the State of North Carolina and local government to work together as partners to "bring enjoyment to millions of visitors." Letter from Conrad L. Wirth, Former NPS Director, and Secretary of Interior Manuel Lujan (letter taken from the Coastland Times Sunday, May 18, 1993), Att. 1. He further stated that "this promise was made in response to local concerns as to how the park would affect local people, their businesses and their rights to
    continue fishing and in recognition that man is an integral part of nature and a very important consideration of designing solutions in dealing with nature."

    Original scanned document:

    Page 26 bottom of page: (typo's are from the software used to copy and paste. The document is ol;d and was scanned - typos are from the less than quality font)

    From the document:

    Friday, October 31, 7 '2 THE COASTLAND TIMES, MAW N. C..
    ; ;
    A LETTER TO THE PEOPLE OF THE OUTER BANKS

    Concerning access to the beach (question 4),—when I met with you I explained that '••£ It when the Lauds for the Recrtjarioual Ar-.-ja arc acquired and become public property ' '•'/'{ |' thure will always be .access to the beach .for all people, whether they are local --.. j.~ residents or visitors from the outside. [b]However, it will bo necessary to establish • i';, certain regulations, such -i: c-o nus'.gnatti platros fc-r vehicles to get to the beach " :''.[b] in order to reduce sand dunu crosier, to a minJnum; to managu ocean fishing where '».: large numbers of bathers are using th« h<--ach; and to confine bathing to certain &•' areas.

  • What's the Solution For Cape Hatteras National Seashore?   6 years 4 weeks ago

    I'm not denying that ORVs long have played a role in CAHA and I do believe they will continue to, but if that's the only way you get your kids outside....

    The problem is that the nature of the gear required for surf fishing, pretty much precludes walking. 12' rods, bait that must be kept on nice, long hours on a hot beach. Then what happens when you catch fish you plan on eating (50lb+ fish)?

    No vehicles on the beach = no fishing

    And BTW, the closures also included pedestrian traffic as well.

  • What's the Solution For Cape Hatteras National Seashore?   6 years 4 weeks ago

    Kurt Repanshek wrote:
    That said, to the best of my knowledge the "RA" suffix really doesn't set Cape Hatteras aside to be managed with recreation foremost in mind....

    The Recreation Area thing is important because of the manner in which Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreation Area was founded. Hatteras has always been a must go to fishing destination. The "locals" did not want to lose access, and the founding of CHNSRA was contingent upon guaranteed access in the future. IMO, those who gave up their land should get it back if the agreement is not honored (and I think they could make a case in court).

    This is the important part I was referring to.

    The Law! wrote:
    Except for certain portions of the area, deemed to be especially adaptable for recreational uses, particularly swimming, boating, sailing, fishing, and other recreational activities of similar nature, which shall be developed for such uses as needed,

    CHNSRA is first and foremost a place for people to enjoy recreational activities. Conservation is explicit but only in a secondary manner to recreation.

    The problem is "The Point" is the most famous surf fishing spot on the east coast. Absolutely world famous in fact. Surf fisherman have absolutely no problem with the conservation thing, but you don't go and close an area that is the Mecca of surf fishing, a closing that violates the law, done in a deceitful and underhanded manner, and then wonder why there's so much venom.

    Personally I feel that the reason that this has turned out so ugly is that the Eco side of this battle suffered from a severe case of elitism. They view surf fisherman as stupid drunken rednecks and went to great lengths to fabricate a scenario in order to force their views on everybody. The Eco movement as a whole suffers from this, and people are starting to catch on.

  • Collapse of "Wall Arch" Proves Gravity Does Work at Arches National Park   6 years 4 weeks ago

    I was there just a few weeks ago. I feel immensely privileged to have been one of the last people to view Wall Arch. It all seems so majestic and immovable when you are there, strange to think that just a few weeks later (a heartbeat in geological time) it's gone.

  • What's the Solution For Cape Hatteras National Seashore?   6 years 4 weeks ago

    Eric,

    Sorry for your disappointment. Frankly, I'm not directing the thread, the community is. I don't feel it's my role to say one side is right or the other wrong, and I think I've made that pretty evident in my comments.

    That said, I've been visiting national parks, including national seashores -- including CAHA -- and military parks and historic sites, and NRAs and on and on for roughly 40 years now and I've never had to resort to an ORV to enjoy my visit or transport my gear.

    I have to admit there's a measure of irony in your comment about fires and neon. The same might be said about muscle power and gas engines I suppose.

    I'm not denying that ORVs long have played a role in CAHA and I do believe they will continue to, but if that's the only way you get your kids outside....

  • What's the Solution For Cape Hatteras National Seashore?   6 years 4 weeks ago

    You anti ORV people make me sick, Please tell me, just one at a time please, just how do you plan to raise your children with proper family values without access to our American Treasures, You people are promoting access to dead end roads to our childrens futures!

    I can't Find it within myself to tell my child, it's ok, just watch TV instead of going outside.

    Americas future learns more by campfire than neon,

    Kurt, I am very disapointed with your direction of this thread, you say you're for the protection of our National Parks, but , you neglect to mention who it really affects.

    How will our children ever benifit from areas meant for family use when access is denied?

    I for one EXPECT an answer ,one way or the other, for my child and for myself!

  • Grand Canyon National Park "Short Haul" Operations   6 years 4 weeks ago

    Gail and others,

    I'm afraid the Park Service considers the names of those involved privileged information and will not release them without a Freedom of Information Act request.

  • What's the Solution For Cape Hatteras National Seashore?   6 years 4 weeks ago

    Longcaster,

    The citation is much appreciated.

    That said, to the best of my knowledge the "RA" suffix really doesn't set Cape Hatteras aside to be managed with recreation foremost in mind. In theory, all 391 units of the National Park System are to be managed the same, regardless of whether they're a "national park," "national military park," "national historic site," etc, etc., etc., and even "national seashore recreational area." That management plan, of course, being to conserve the resources unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.

    Of course, specific enacting legislation can give the NPS slightly different marching orders, such as with national preserves that allow hunting or snowmobiling. And while the enacting legislation for Cape Hatteras certainly mentions recreation, it doesn't specify ORV use.

    Of course, much of the current battle might have been avoided had CAHA long ago adopted an ORV management plan. That failure seems to be behind this poker game.

    I think, judging from the many comments on this thread, that the key now is to somehow move beyond nomenclature and picture angles and reach a solution amenable to both sides. Flash-point rhetoric accomplishes little.

    Now, as JohnAB pointed out earlier:

    The consent decree process included public consultation and comment, and was agreed to by the organizations bringing the case and the National Park Service. And agreed to by the two North Carolina counties directly affected by the case, and representatives of a coalition of local ORV and fishing groups – the counties and the groups having participated in the case as interveners.

    I think it's a sad fact of today that even when consensus supposedly is achieved groups don't hesitate to either 1) resort to a lawsuit to get their way, 2) try to legislate their way, or 3) all of the above. Rather than indulge in these excesses, I'd rather see the public get involved with the current process seashore officials are overseeing to draft an acceptable ORV management plan.

  • What's the Solution For Cape Hatteras National Seashore?   6 years 4 weeks ago

    You need to read this legislation in order, in which my Environmentalist friends fail to do every time. First and foremost, under US Code 16, Chapter 1, section 1A-1 note the words of the amendment “1978--Pub. L. 95-250 provided that the promotion and regulation of the various areas of the National Park System, as defined in section 1c of this title, be consistent with and founded in the purpose established by section 1 of this title, to the common benefit of all the people of the United States, and that the authorization of activities be construed and the protection, management, and administration of these areas be conducted in light of the high public value and integrity of the National Park System and not be exercised in derogation of the values and purposes for which these various areas have been established, except as may have been or shall be directly and specifically provided by Congress.”

    That’s right, if you are going to derogate (change) the purpose of the Seashore (ie establish it as a Wildlife refuge), which was set up as a Recreational Area for the enjoyment of the people per US Code 16, Chapter 1, Section 459 and 459a-2, you better have specific Approval by congress.

    You also need to review the Congressional record of congress during debates prior to passing this enambling legislation in 1937, and also the letter issued to the people of Hatteras Island by the Superintendant of CHNSRA in 1952. You also need to know that residents donated the land to the State of North Carolina, which in turn, turned over the deeds for the land to the United States Government.

    Mr Repanshek, there is alot of things you need to know. Thanks for posting this article, its worthy of discussion in rational manner.

    Respectfully Submitted

    Scott Lambright

    -----------
    TITLE 16--CONSERVATION

    CHAPTER 1--NATIONAL PARKS, MILITARY PARKS, MONUMENTS, AND SEASHORES

    SUBCHAPTER I--NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

    Sec. 1a-1. National Park System: administration; declaration of findings and purpose
    Congress declares that the national park system, which began with establishment of Yellowstone National Park in 1872, has since grown to
    include superlative natural, historic, and recreation areas in every major region of the United States, its territories and island possessions; that these areas, though distinct in character, are united through their inter-related purposes and resources into one national park system as cumulative expressions of a single national heritage; that, individually and collectively, these areas derive increased national dignity and recognition of their superb environmental quality through their inclusion jointly with each other in one national park system preserved and managed for the benefit and inspiration of all the people of the United States; and that it is the purpose of this Act to include all such areas in the System and to clarify the authorities
    applicable to the system. Congress further reaffirms, declares, and directs that the promotion and regulation of the various areas of the National Park System, as defined in section 1c of this title, shall be consistent with and founded in the purpose established by section 1 of this title, to the common benefit of all the people of the United States. The authorization of activities shall be construed and the protection, management, and administration of these areas shall be conducted in light of the high public value and integrity of the National Park System and shall not be exercised in derogation of the
    values and purposes for which these various areas have been established, except as may have been or shall be directly and specifically provided by Congress. (Pub. L. 91-383, Sec. 1, Aug. 18, 1970, 84 Stat. 825; Pub. L. 95-250, title I, Sec. 101(b), Mar. 27, 1978, 92 Stat. 166.)
    References in Text
    This Act, referred to in text, means Pub. L. 91-383, Aug. 18, 1970, 84 Stat. 825, as amended, known as the ``National Park System General
    Authorities Act''. As originally enacted, Pub. L. 91-383 contained sections 1 to 4, the first 3 of which enacted sections 1a-1 and 1a-2 and amended sections 1b and 1c of this title. Pub. L. 94-458 amended Pub. L. 91-383 by adding sections 5 to 12, which enacted sections 1a-3 to 1a-7, amended sections 17j, 460n-5, 463, 470a, and 559, and repealed sections 10, 10a, 17b-1, and 415 of this title. Pub. L. 103-322 amended Pub. L. 91-383 by adding section 13, which enacted section 1a-7a of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title of 1970 Amendment note set out under section 1 of this title and Tables.
    Amendments
    1978--Pub. L. 95-250 provided that the promotion and regulation of the various areas of the National Park System, as defined in section 1c of this title, be consistent with and founded in the purpose established by section 1 of this title, to the common benefit of all the people of the United States, and that the authorization of activities be construed and the protection, management, and administration of these areas be conducted in light of the high public value and integrity of the National Park System and not be exercised in derogation of the values and purposes for which these various areas have been established, except as may have been or shall be directly and specifically provided by Congress.
    --------------------------------------------
    TITLE 16--CONSERVATION
    CHAPTER 1--NATIONAL PARKS, MILITARY PARKS, MONUMENTS, AND SEASHORES
    SUBCHAPTER LXIII--NATIONAL SEASHORE RECREATIONAL AREAS

    Sec. 459. Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area; conditional establishment; acquisition of lands

    When title to all the lands, except those within the limits of established villages, within boundaries to be designated by the Secretary of the Interior within the area of approximately one hundred square miles on the islands of Chicamacomico, Ocracoke, Bodie, Roanoke, and Collington, and the waters and the lands beneath the waters adjacent thereto shall have been vested in the United States, 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: Provided, That the United States shall not purchase by appropriation of public moneys any lands within the aforesaid area, but such lands shall be secured by the United States only by public or private donation.
    (Aug. 17, 1937, ch. 687, Sec. 1, 50 Stat. 669; June 29, 1940, ch. 459, Sec. 1, 54 Stat. 702.)
    Change of Name
    Words ``national seashore recreational area'' substituted in text for ``national seashore'' pursuant to act June 29, 1940.
    ------------------------------------------------
    TITLE 16--CONSERVATION
    CHAPTER 1--NATIONAL PARKS, MILITARY PARKS, MONUMENTS, AND SEASHORES
    SUBCHAPTER LXIII--NATIONAL SEASHORE RECREATIONAL AREAS

    Sec. 459a-8. Limitation on expenditure

    The total amount which may be expended for the land acquisition program at Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area, pursuant to the authorizations contained in sections 459a-6 to 459a-8 of this title, is expressly limited to $250,000. (Aug. 6, 1956, ch. 988, Sec. 3, 70 Stat. 1066.)
    ______________________________

    SUBCHAPTER LXIII--NATIONAL SEASHORE RECREATIONAL AREAS

    Sec. 459a-1. Administration, protection, and development; commercial fishing by residents; hunting

    The administration, protection, and development of the aforesaid national seashore recreational area shall be exercised under the
    direction of the Secretary of the Interior by the National Park Service, subject to the provisions of sections 1, 2, 3, and 4 of this title, as amended: Provided, That except as hereinafter provided nothing herein shall be construed to divest the jurisdiction of other agencies of the Government exercised on August 17, 1937, over Federal-owned lands within the area of the said Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area: Provided further, That the provisions of the Federal Power Act [16 U.S.C. 791a et seq.], shall not apply to this national seashore recreational area: And provided further, That the legal residents of villages referred to in section 459 of this title shall have the right to earn a livelihood by fishing within the boundaries to be designated by the Secretary of the Interior, subject to such rules and regulations as the said Secretary may deem necessary in order to protect the area for recreational use as provided for in sections 459 to 459a-3 of this title: And provided further, That hunting shall be permitted, under such rules and regulations as may be prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior in conformity with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of July 3, 1918 (40 Stat. 755) [16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.], as follows: (a) Upon the waters of the sounds included within the national seashore recreational area, (b) in the area north of the Currituck County line, (c) on Ocracoke Island, and (d) within not more than two thousand acres of land in the remaining portion of said national seashore recreational area, as shall be designated by the Secretary of the Interior; except on lands and waters included in any existing or future wildlife or migratory bird refuge and adjacent closed waters. (Aug. 17, 1937, ch. 687, Sec. 3, 50 Stat. 670; June 29, 1940, ch. 459, Secs. 1, 2, 54 Stat. 702.)
    References in Text
    The Federal Power Act, referred to in text, was in the original the
    ``Act of June 10, 1920, known as the Federal Water Power Act,'' and was
    redesignated as the Federal Power Act by section 791a of this title. The Federal Power Act is act June 10, 1920, ch. 285, 41 Stat. 1063, as
    amended, and is classified generally to chapter 12 (Sec. 791a et seq.) of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see section 791a of this title and Tables. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of July 3, 1918, referred to in text, is act July 3, 1918, ch. 128, 40 Stat. 755, as amended, which is
    classified generally to subchapter II (Sec. 703 et seq.) of chapter 7 of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see
    section 710 of this title and Tables.
    Change of Name
    Words ``national seashore recreational area'' substituted in text for ``national seashore'' pursuant to act June 29, 1940.
    Transfer of Functions
    For transfer of functions of other officers, employees, and agencies of Department of the Interior, with certain exceptions, to Secretary of the Interior, with power to delegate, see Reorg. Plan No. 3 of 1950, Secs. 1, 2, eff. May 24, 1950, 15 F.R. 3174, 64 Stat. 1262, set out in the Appendix to Title 5, Government Organization and Employees.
    --------------------------------------------------

    CHAPTER 1--NATIONAL PARKS, MILITARY PARKS, MONUMENTS, AND SEASHORES
    SUBCHAPTER LXIII--NATIONAL SEASHORE RECREATIONAL AREAS

    Sec. 459a-2. Preservation of natural features; acquisition of additional property; reversion of property on failure of conditions

    Except for certain portions of the area, deemed to be especially adaptable for recreational uses, particularly swimming, boating, sailing, fishing, and other recreational activities of similar nature, which shall be developed for such uses as needed, the said area shall be permanently reserved as a primitive wilderness and no development of the project or plan for the convenience of visitors shall be undertaken which would be incompatible with the preservation of the unique flora and fauna or the physiographic conditions now prevailing in this area: Provided, That the Secretary of the Interior may, in his discretion, accept for administration, protection, and development by the National Park Service a minimum of ten thousand acres within the area described in section 459 of this title, including the existing Cape Hatteras State Park, and, in addition, any other portions of the area described in section 459 of this title if the State of North Carolina shall agree that if all the lands described in section 459 of this title shall not have been conveyed to the United States within fifteen years from August 17, 1937, the establishment of the aforesaid national seashore recreational area may, in the discretion of the said Secretary, be abandoned, and that, in the event of such abandonment, the said State will accept a reconveyance of title to all lands conveyed by it to the United States for said national seashore recreational area. The lands donated to the United States for the purposes of sections 459 to 459a-3
    of this title by parties other than said State shall revert in the event of the aforesaid abandonment to the donors, or their heirs, or other persons entitled thereto by law. In the event of said abandonment, the Secretary of the Interior shall execute any suitable quitclaim deeds, or other writings entitled
    to record in the proper counties of North Carolina stating the fact of abandonment, whereupon title shall revert to those entitled thereto by law and no further conveyance or proof of reversion of title shall be required. (Aug. 17, 1937, ch. 687, Sec. 4, 50 Stat. 670; June 29, 1940, ch. 459, Sec. 1, 54 Stat. 702; Mar. 6, 1946, ch. 50, 60 Stat. 32.)
    Amendments
    1946--Act Mar. 6, 1946, substituted ``fifteen years'' for ``ten years'' before ``from August 17, 1937''.
    Change of Name
    Words ``national seashore recreational area'' substituted in text for ``national seashore'' pursuant to act June 29, 1940.
    Transfer of Functions
    For transfer of functions of other officers, employees, and agencies of Department of the Interior, with certain exceptions, to Secretary of the Interior, with power to delegate, see Reorg. Plan No. 3 of 1950, Secs. 1, 2, eff. May 24, 1950, 15 F.R. 3174, 64 Stat. 1262, set out in the Appendix to Title 5, Government Organization and Employees.

    -----------------------------------------------------
    Sec. 459a-3. Migratory bird refuges not to be affected

    Notwithstanding any other provisions of sections 459 to 459a-3 of this title, lands and waters on or after August 17, 1937, included in any migratory bird refuge under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Agriculture, within the boundaries of the national seashore recreational area as designated by the Secretary of the Interior under section 459 of this title, shall continue as such refuge under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Agriculture for the protection of migratory birds, but such lands and waters shall be a part of the aforesaid national seashore recreational area and shall be administered by the National Park Service for recreational uses not inconsistent with the purposes of such refuge under such rules and regulations as the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture may jointly approve. The proviso to section 459 of this title shall not limit the power of the Secretary of Agriculture to acquire lands for any migratory bird refuge by purchase with any funds made available therefor by applicable law.
    (Aug. 17, 1937, ch. 687, Sec. 5, 50 Stat. 670; June 29, 1940, ch. 459, Sec. 1, 54 Stat. 702.)
    Change of Name
    Words ``national seashore recreational area'' substituted in text for ``national seashore'' pursuant to act June 29, 1940.
    Transfer of Functions
    For transfer of functions of other officers, employees, and agencies of Department of the Interior, with certain exceptions, to Secretary of the Interior, with power to delegate, see Reorg. Plan No. 3 of 1950, Secs. 1, 2, eff. May 24, 1950, 15 F.R. 3174, 64 Stat. 1262, set out in the Appendix to Title 5, Government Organization and Employees.