Recent comments

  • What's the Solution For Cape Hatteras National Seashore?   6 years 23 weeks ago

    Customary and Traditional Uses and Rights

    An aspect of the issue of vehicles on the beaches of Cape Hatteras & environs that is at times overshadowed by other arguments, is that this is a 'customary & traditional' pattern of usage. People started doing this soon as cars came along. I expect the archives will yield photos of Model T Fords lined up on the sand, not unlike today's SUVs. They may well have done the same with horses & buggies, before Ford!

    Does that history of usage 'count' or 'matter', or not?

    Certainly, the words 'customary' and 'traditional' have significant legal import these days. We hear phrases made up of those words often, especially regarding Native Peoples. Such language is familiar to the public, and is well-understood.

    Does the consideration of customary & traditional factors apply only to Aboriginal Peoples, and is it facetious to claim 'tradition' for internal combustion propelled machines?

    The answer to both those question is No.

    The famous case of subsistence in Alaska, including (but not limited to) Parks, is explicitly not race-based. The practice of subsistence (based on customary & traditional usage) applies equally to all residents of a region where it occurs. The "preference" is for rural residency, people who live in the regions where the traditions were practiced (newcomers 'inherit' the rights of a region). Subsistence is not a right of Indians, withheld from White folks. On the contrary, approximately half of subsistence activity is by non-Natives, and half by Tribal members.

    In Alaska, machines including ATVs are recognized as traditional and customary. Airplanes, outboard motors, nylon fish nets, and most of modern equipage, are likewise fully qualified as traditional & customary. Machines have the same basic history in Alaska as anywhere else.

    Some people are inclined to object that Alaska is a 'special case', and that what goes on there has no meaning or impact in the conterminous States. However, what is really different about events in Alaska is simply that they are the most recent of our large-scale National trends. They should be viewed as harbingers of legal & social things to come, rather than as anomalies or sub-arctic aberrations. (Alaska should be view as - gulp! - the next California!)

    The accurate way to view what has happened in Alaska is not that it is a 'special' resolution that applies only in some far-off and atypical place - but rather that it embodies the most recent - and future - evolution of Federal law & jurisdiction ... some parts of which will increasingly be expressed & applied in regions & cases beyond the Alaska scene.

    The solid & established reality is, 'customary & traditional' does count - and includes practices on Cape Hatteras. Furthermore, there are many other cases across the United States where customs & traditions have been deprecated. Some of those abrogations will most likely hold permanently, but in other cases the legitimacy of claims to now-suppressed patterns of usage will be brought forward and reexamined to determined whether a "right" of usage had been established, and if so, some may be permitted & protected in the future.

    Indeed, the handling of the controversy at Cape Hatteras suggests that it is being managed as potential precedent for the address of customary & traditional practices elsewhere.

    Does custom & tradition mean bird & turtle nests don't warrant protection? No more than bird & turtle nests mean that established usage ought to be stopped. Neither is legitimately a weapon against the other.

  • What's the Solution For Cape Hatteras National Seashore?   6 years 23 weeks ago

    The title of the article is intended to bring about suggestions for solutions to the ongoing debate about the long-term prognosis for the health of the ecosystem, not the convenience of tourists, locals, and those hell-bent on some off-roading adventure.

    I am guessing the ecosystem you are protecting is to be enjoyed by no one? Without the people you reference this wonderful place would be a bunch of empty islands off the coast of North Carolina. Those hell bent on an off-roading adventure do not come to Cape Hatteras. Even the above pictures show PARKED vehicles not matter how distorted the picture by SELC’s finest. People use the beach to access the shore for fishing, shell collecting and enjoyment of the Nations Recreational Seashore.

    Some of the topics raised in this thread point to a general "personal interest" rather than a sound overall understanding of factors to be considered in proposing some legitimate possible modifications, if such be required, to maintain at the very least, the current status of the area.
    SEE your post for a prime example!

    Golf courses across the nation provide "bag drop" areas conveniently located, generally right next to the club house, for anyone who cares to leave the bag at the door while they park their vehicle. I'll bet a similar circumstance could be arranged for the ocean fishers as well. Leave your gear and one person behind to watch it if you feel the need. Short-term lockers are another notion. There are ways this could easily be overcome.
    Man you just resolved the issue completely. Let’s just put lockers on top of the plover nests so we can keep the gear for thousands of fisherman locked up tight until needed. OOPS the next hurricane will wipe this off the map. Let’s just pave a parking lot over the plover nests and build a large structure to protect the lockers. OOPS that won’t work as we had to move an entire lighthouse because it was unsafe there. Wouldn’t we still have to drive on the beach to use a drop off area? How is that different than just parking out there? Brilliant minds really do exist, No really?!?

    The issue of temporary closure of segments of beaches while they are enlisted as nesting areas by certain species is bothersome? I read this as saying the area simply isn't big enough for more than just bipedal mammalians.

    We have been dealing with these closures for years. I am guessing since you have not been there since the dark ages you have not heard of this. We never complained or sued to have them removed. We simply coexisted with the closures. If you think that the SELC and friends only want Temporary closures you really are in the dark.

    Maybe protected nesting grounds aren't important to you personally. That can indeed be your opinion as is your right to express such. If you want the hard science behind the protected zones required by any given species, and are willing to read the studies conducted on any particular species, who all have a wide variance in their particular "comfort zone / personal space" during times of reproduction, and are actually of broad enough intellect to understand those reports, these data are readily available to you. The last comment is not intended to be a “dis” at anyone in particular. Scientific publications, especially statistical studies and the related data analysis such as of the manner typically conducted by wildlife biologists, is quite difficult to comprehend by the general public who have little or no training in the methods of scientific reading. But the information which you half-heartedly seek is indeed there for your perusal at a time and place of your convenience.

    You, the Autobahn, the Defenders of Wildlife, and the SELC really need a crash course in reading as well. Please also note that it has been documented that the conditions in Cape Hatteras are not exactly what I would call IDEAL for the piping plovers. They build a teacup size nest on a beach that has sustained winds year round that can and do cover the tracks of any SUV within hours. This makes it ideal for humans as it keeps most of the bugs away, but it covers plover nests even faster. Please note there are places that these birds if needed could succeed try Cora June Dredge Island and Pea Island to name a few as there are no human interferences. They do not succeed there either as the conditions for these little creatures are not IDEAL.
    From the ORV crowd, most of what I've read is that they don't /can't drag their coolers, etc. miles from the parking areas to the beach. I guess well-stocked backpacks aren't an option. Sounds more like you want these access areas closer to the endpoint due to convenience rather than necessity. However, there exists a segment of society who CANNOT, as in physically unable to, make the journey from those remote areas to the beach, and thereby have quite justifiable reasons for the use of limited "convenience" areas. But to apply these same rules across the board is ludicrous. Maybe, just maybe, one should take a closer look at the inventory of supplies one is toting to the beach, as one is forced to when embarking on an extended backpacking sojourn. There I go, raining on your parade. Shame on me for planning ahead.
    WOW again a home run of ideas. Let’s drag or even get pull carts to take our gear out to the point. OOPS that will not work as the tracks and drag marks left (per the SELC) will prevent Turtles from getting to the sea and prevent the plovers for accessing the feeding areas. Well let’s eliminate some of our inventory we THINK we need to survive. Well since they are too heavy to carry we can eliminate handicapped Uncle Joe, the kids and even Grandpa. There go some great memories down the drain. OOPS we can just photo shop them into our memories while they waste away on the couch playing Parcheesi (sorry Mr. Pitt) or video games about fishing. Well I got off track now back to lessening my load. I can pack a couple of fishing poles and some extra hooks, but I will need bait. Well that is another pole to catch bait with. What about food and water. Well I could bring dehydrated water, but what would I add? I could bring a desalination system out there I guess now for food. My options are either some healthy granola bars, like a lone hiker would choose, or just eat plover.

    BOY OH BOY you people make it too easy. We should sign you up to represent the ENVIROS at the REG NEG committees and this thing would be long over.

  • Will Second Century Commission Succeed With Its National Parks Assessment and Recommendations?   6 years 23 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 23 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 23 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 23 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 23 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 23 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 23 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 23 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 23 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 23 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 23 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 23 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 23 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 23 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 23 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 23 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 23 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 23 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 23 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 23 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 23 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 23 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 23 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.