A congressman from North Carolina says there's no need for more ORV regulations at Cape Lookout National Seashore/Kurt Repanshek
A draft plan aimed at managing off-road vehicles at Cape Lookout National Seashore has been severely criticized by a congressman, who said there's no justification to either charge an $80 permit fee or restrict where ORVs can go on the national seashore.
Seashore officials released their draft ORV management plan earlier this year. Under the preferred alternative, ORVs would be able to travel most of Cape Lookout; the plan also would create three seasonal "pedestrian only" areas on the seashore. The proposed Cape Lookout National Seashore Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement aims to put specific numbers to ORV traffic, specify where they can travel, formally set speed limits, and set seasons for when they can travel on the seashore.
But Rep. Walter B. Jones, in a letter sent to the seashore a month after the comment period closed, said the "restrictions" contained in the preferred alternative would "impose significant economic hardship on the local economy and are totally unnecessary to protect species of concern."
Under the proposed alternative, efforts to provide pedestrian only access during the summer months would cause the mileage open to ORVs to seesaw just a bit: 44 of the seashore's 56 miles would be open to ORVs from March 16 "through the Thursday preceding Memorial Day and from the day after Labor Day through December 15." Forty-one of those miles "would be available for ORV use from the Friday preceding Memorial Day through Labor Day. Routes within the Cape Lookout Village Historic District would be open to through vehicle traffic."
In his two-page letter, the Republican congressman said the Park Service seems to be searching for a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Visitation to Cape Lookout has been on the decline, Rep. Jones pointed out, and additional regulations will own continue that downward spiral.
"The proposed permits, fees, and other access restrictions in Alternative C all but invite visitors to vacation elsewhere," he wrote. "American's hard-earned tax dollars already pay for the operation of the seashore; they shouldn't be charged an additional fee to access it."
Back in 2013 Rep. Jones introduced legislation that would force Cape Hatteras National Seashore to discard its court-approved ORV management plan and return to an interim plan adopted in 2007. The measure stalled in the House.
Comments
Wrong. I've never once been on welfare or taken a handout. I've been employed and have had projects and work since I exited college with my degrees. And seriously beach, you're too cowardly to post under your own name, so I don't believe most of what you say. You behave like your every move is under threat by what the govenment does at the Cape Hatteras, and it's fairly pathetic. How about EDUCATING YOU and your family to do something else so that don't have to rely on the every whims of Cape Hatteras! But I know that might be tough. That might require being "influenced" from the scary outside world!
I have family roots that worked in steel mills. The mills are decaying and being torn down, and replaced with tech and biotech industries. I can look at the past in pictures but don't feel an urge to fight to keep the old steel mills standing so they can still make steel. Maybe, because the culture that i'm from realized that the future wasnt going to be in steel, so they educated their kids to do something else. The past is just that - the past. The parochial types tend to hang on to it like it's still the future.
Congrats for once walking a mile. I'm sure that was a tough day in your life. Nothing is truly remote in the CHNS.... You want remote, go trek in Alaska, or the Northern Rockies and get back to me about "how tough you have it" when you have to walk less than a mile.. Boy you guys truly are the epitome of lazy over there in the OB.
We did try to find workable solutions, the enviros didn't want negotiate or compromise. Then the NPS played comment, studies game and ignored us, and implemented thier predetermined plan. We have lost faith in the NPS to do the fair thing, that's why we are attempting to go around them in congress and courts.
Well, I and quite a few others that I know provided comments on that plan asking that wilderness for most of the park be considered. You think that you and the rest of the parochial deadbeats over there in the OB are the only one that commented on this plan? LOL!
Of course I will - because it never happened. But then you are accustomed to making false accusations about people.
Enjoy the gym - I'm taking a walk in the National Forest.
This statement raises a question we've asked a time or two in the past: Should a unit of the National Park System be managed for its local community, or the nation? If the culture is to drive ORVs, should that culture be allowed to drive ORVs anywhere in the park system so as to suit that culture?
Ridiculous questions? Perhaps. But isn't that essentially what this debate comes down to at Cape Lookout (and Cape Hatteras)?
(For what it's worth, the ORV situation at Cape Lookout is nothing like the one at Cape Hatteras next door, simply for the fact you can't drive out onto Cape Lookout, you need to take a ferry, which is a limiting factor.)
Of course he will. But all you have to do is follow many of his comments here to learn the truth.
Forest comes later today after the gym. Just easier at the gym because y'don't have to dodge all those mountain bikes.
But as always - you can't provide a single substantiation - just empty accusations.
Kurt - well phrased question. In my view creating culture/business should not be a consideration in establishing a park. However, the potential to destroy existing cultures and business absolutely should be considered.