The spit of sand that buffers the North Carolina coast from the worst the Atlantic Ocean can toss at it carries an array of contentious issues that seemingly have no easy answers. Foremost among the issues at Cape Hatteras National Seashore these days is the use of off-road vehicles to negotiate beaches that are either far from parking lots or which are just far enough from those lots to make it difficult to carry all your gear for a weekend fishing trip.
Cape Hatteras, authorized as America's first national seashore in 1937 but not actually established until 1953, is a beach lover's jewel. The heart of North Carolina's Outer Banks, the cape offers some of the best beaches in the country, is renowned for its surf fishing, has some of the East Coast's best waves for surfing, and has a decided tinge of wildness that is a welcome respite from the Mid-Atlantic's metropolitan areas.
Off-road vehicles long have been allowed on the national seashore. Unfortunately, the seashore hasn't had a formal off-road management plan in place, and that's why discussions centered on Cape Hatteras often grow heated.
The hot button is the fact that the cape's beaches and dunes attract wildlife: of late much has been made of the nesting shorebirds and sea turtles and whether off-road vehicles are impacting them. The divisions over that question are well-defined. Perhaps no topic other than guns in the parks illicits as many comments to the Traveler as ORVs and Cape Hatteras.
Are ORVs out of control, as the lower photo used by the Southern Environmental Law Center might suggest, or does the top photo provided by A. Pitt better capture ORV use on the cape?
Mr. Pitt has been visiting the cape since 1972 and owns land in Frisco that provides him and his family a welcome escape from their Richmond, Virginia, home. He's well-versed on the ongoing dispute surrounding ORVs on Cape Hatteras; since April he's written hundreds of members of Congress to try provide an ORVer's viewpoint of the ongoing debate and to question points raised by Defenders of Wildlife and the National Audubon Society, the two groups who, through the Southern Environmental Law Center, sued the National Park Service for its failure to develop an ORV management plan for the national seashore.
The lawsuit was settled earlier this year when all involved signed a consent decree that was designed to provide short-term management of ORV and pedestrian traffic in shorebird and sea turtle habitat while a long-term plan is developed. Unfortunately, not everyone is thrilled with the consent decree's provisions. Anglers and families that long have used ORVs to reach their favorite spots on the seashore complain that the decree is too restrictive and over-reaching.
What's important for all to remember is not only that ORVs long have been permitted at the national seashore and more than likely will continue to be allowed access in some fashion, but also that there is wildlife habitat on the seashore that needs protection because it is utilized by species protected under the Endangered Species Act.
"I have a vested interest in the area," says Mr Pitt. "It's truly my paradise! Most of the folks who speak out on this issue are fishermen/women. I speak out for beach access for any reason, whether it be fishing, surfing, or just sitting there playing Parcheesi.
" ... I support BOTH species protection AND ORV access, as do most beach users in this area," adds Mr. Pitt. "I truly believe that they can both be attained, if the 'eco' groups will indeed negotiate in good faith."
To some, "ORV" is a pejorative, a word that equates with four-wheelers charging willy-nilly across the landscape. Is that the case at Cape Hatteras, or are the "ORVs" there more likely to be pickup trucks and SUVs their owners use to reach beaches that otherwise would take walks ranging from perhaps a half-mile to nearly 5 miles to reach?
As the attached map shows, there are quite a few ORV and pedestrian restrictions between May 15 and September 15 to protect shorebird and sea turtle nesting habitat. Are those restrictions excessive? There certainly are hard opinions on both sides of that question.
While that question will continue to generate heated comments, let's hope all those involved will arrive at an acceptable solution through the National Park Service's long-term ORV management plan and not insist on a legislated solution from Washington.
Comments
How To Put Pictures In Comments
To display a picture in these comments, the image must have its own link on the web, not be embedded in a page (theoretically, you might, but it's another trick..). In the case of SamsDad's pictures, the photo-host shows the final full-size image by itself: in other cases the final picture may be embedded in a page with other stuff. You could use this photo-host's link-URL for the picture (in this case), but it's better not to for 3 reasons.
[list=1]
I have a regular website of my own, and I also have a modest hosting-allowance with my ISP: many of you will have similar privileges with your ISP. It's extremely handy and worth learning how to use.
So I snagged SamsDad's picture off his photo-host, reduced it in size, and uploaded it (FTP - 'FileZilla') to my dinky little ISP website.
If you're not ready to do your own website & FTP right now, then stick with a nice photo-host who displays images "raw", like SamsDad's, but first reduce a copy of the picture to an appropriate size for the room in the comments (remember some folks have small screens...), and also reduce the compression-ratio or 'quality' of the pic, to make the file-size smaller. Then, upload the new, smaller copy of the pic back up onto your photo-host. Now you can hot-link to the comment-pic. (A host that shows pics 'raw' like this, probably knows you want to do hot-linking like that...)
OK - the pic is parked on the web with its own URL. Now you can do the special little comment-trick to make it show up. Here it is:
That's a picture of the code-trick, because the code won't show up in the comment. Replace the bogus link with the link for your pic. Make sure the square brackets & slash & img parts remain as shown, and your pic comes up in the comment.
Kurt has links right above the Preview & Post buttons for the comment-box to a page here on the Traveler that explains all the magic code-tricks you can do in post-comments, including the picture-code.
Wait, that was sarcasm. Motor vehicles have no place on any beach and no place in the natural lands of national parks. These places are our escape from machines. What does this have to do with Marxism? Marxism is a system of socialism of which the dominant feature is public ownership of the means of production. Are national parks producing some commodity?
Cape Hatteras National Recreation Area was founded with the explicit statement that access would remain open for recreational activities. Fishing is stated specifically as a recreational activity. It is also stated that areas particularly suitable for such activities will be open.
There is not a more a suitable area for fishing than "the point".
Closing access is a clear violation of the founding legislation.
There is no argument about that. Go read the founding legislation if you don't believe me.
Cape Hatteras National Recreation Area exists for use by people, not for the birds.
Andrew,
You and others refer to Cape Hatteras as a "National Recreation Area." If you could point to where that is specified I'd appreciate it, as I've been unable to find it. Not that I'm doubting you, it'd just be good to have that reference.
As for the founding legislation, here's the pertinent section as quoted by the Park Service:
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 . . .
I'm not an attorney, but this section doesn't seem to specify which areas of Cape Hatteras are "especially adaptable for recreational uses," and even if if did, changing circumstances can lead to changes in management. Some might look at that wording and note that it says nothing specific to ORV access.
As for birds and other wildlife, as I understand it if species -- resident or migratory -- are listed under the Endangered Species Act, the Park Service has no choice but to manage other uses so as not to impact those species.
I'm not saying there should be a blanket prohibition against ORVs, but rather simply pointing out some of the "ground rules," if you will, that have to be considered in finding a workable solution.
The argument that ORV access must be allowed because of the economic impact of ORV spending on the local economy is the argument I find most objectionable. And arrogant.
That ORV people are more important than other people because of the dollars they spread around outside the National Seashore? That because of their money, ORV people have a special and favored place – special rights – in the Seashore environment? That ORV people would presume to show arithmetic that justifies them and their money as more important than the very wildlife that the National Seashore was created to protect?
Someone mentioned the need to bring management of CHNS into the 21st century. Someone else mentioned the danger of the entire coast becoming Virginia Beach. This is exactly why CHNS was created: to preserve a natural resource, in its natural state, for all to enjoy equally. The challenges of the 21st century are the reason the Seashore must be protected.
Kurt, you are right. Cape Hatteras is a National Seashore, not a National Recreation Area, unless the National Park Service has a typo on its website. There is no mandate that ORVs be allowed.
Beamis, please don't perpetuate the myth that the National Park System has a lot of roads. The System has about 8,500 miles of road spread over 84 million acres. That totals about .0001 miles of road per square mile. Other than in federal wilderness areas (40% of which are in National Park System units), that's the lowest road density of any land system in the United States. I'm not a fan of ORVs. But it doesn't help to exaggerate the impacts of roads. Most of the National Park System is roadless designated or de facto wilderness. Rangertoo is correct.
Interestingly, the NPS Cape Hatteras FAQ says that actual off-road vehicles are forbidden:
The Cape Hatteras Park Planning page has links to an authoritative list of documents, most of which are preoccupied with the question of vehicles on the beaches. See the Cape Hatteras home page for the root-index into all aspects of the Seashore.
A "National Seashore" is a separate designation, like but distinct from Park, Refuge, Monument ... or Recreation Area. The Park Service pages appear to go out of their way to avoid providing a succinct definition of National Seashore. However, everywhere you look on the Cape Hatteras webpages you will see discussion of "recreation" and "vehicles".
The NPS plainly had no intention of trying to shut down the use of vehicles on the beaches of Cape Hatteras, and is prepared - explicitly - to spend "years" finding accommodations that will facilitate their continuing presence on the sand, while providing for the protection of fauna & flora that really need it.
Nowhere in the NPS Cape Hatteras webpages did I get the sense that sensitive species will be used as a pry-bar to get vehicles off the beaches. Exactly the opposite: The Park clearly aims to provide for continuing vehicle-based recreation, working around valid sensitive sites where necessary.
The best source of the words about the founding of Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area are found in Title 16 Of the U S Code;
U.S. Code collectionmain page faq index search
TITLE 16 > CHAPTER 1 > SUBCHAPTER LXIII > § 459a–2Prev | Next § 459a–2. Preservation of natural features; acquisition of additional property; reversion of property on failure of conditions
How Current is This? 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.