How is life at Cape Hatteras National Seashore in the wake of travel restrictions aimed at protecting shorebirds and sea turtles that nest along the coast? As with many matters, it depends on whom you ask.
During a Senate subcommittee hearing last week, U.S. Senator Elizabeth Dole, a Republican from North Carolina, testified in support of legislation she sponsored that would overturn the management guidelines adopted earlier this year in a consent decree the National Park Service agreed to with Defenders of Wildlife and the National Audubon Society. She claimed her constituents are suffering undue economic hardships as a result of the consent decree.
A lawsuit filed by the conservation groups sought to limit access to South Ocracoke, Hatteras Spit, North Ocracoke, Cape Point, South Beach and Bodie Island Spit for up to three years because of the presence of piping plovers, which have been considered a "threatened" species under the Endangered Species Act since January 1986.
The lawsuit claimed the Park Service had run afoul of the National Park Organic Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the enabling legislation for the seashore, and the Park Service's own Management Policies by implementing an interim ORV management plan and failing to produce a long-term management plan.
Under that consent decree, the seashore's staff has greatly restricted off-road vehicle travel and limited pedestrian travel to protect nesting shorebirds and sea turtles. Opponents of the decree, though, have claimed it is over-reaching what reasonably is needed and that the economy that depends on Cape Hatteras is tanking.
But according to the Virginian-Pilot, that's not necessarily the case.
Even with the closures, ORV users and pedestrians have had broad access to the beach. On Thursday, Park Service figures showed 26.4 miles of the park's roughly 67 miles were open to ORVs and 58.5 miles were open to pedestrians. The majority of the prohibited area is due to normal seasonal or safety closures. About eight miles were closed because of wildlife.
It's too soon to gauge the economic impact of the closures, but the effect doesn't appear to be as dramatic as feared. Retail sales tax figures for May and June aren't yet available; bait and tackle shops and other businesses are reporting a sharp drop in sales. Other economic indicators are generally positive, however.
Carolyn McCormick, director of the Outer Banks Visitors Bureau, said in an interview that "the closures did not help us in any way, shape or form." But, she said, key tourism figures in Dare County were good in spite of closures, gas prices, a weak economy and wildfire smoke.
Comparisons of 2007 and 2008 figures show occupancy taxes on hotels and rental houses in Dare were up 6.3 percent in May and 2.85 percent in June. Year-over-year, gross revenues from the meals tax were up 5.12 percent in May but down 1.09 percent in June. (Numbers for July aren't ready yet.)
Comments
the negative response to the consent decree seems to be overstated and without sufficient basis. I have seen signs that indicate that the government is trying to "close Hatteras." I can only conclude that these signs are intended to misinform the public and to sway public opinion through a campaign of misinformation. I walked the beach along the cape shore this morning (8/5/08) and the ORV's clearly still have sufficient access to the beach and prime fishing areas. The restricted areas seem to be confined to what is reasonably necessary to protect wildlife and, at the same time, allow access for beach driving. The restrictions are limited in time and scope. The park service has clearly provided a throughway for vehicles to pass through the areas restricted for protection of wildlife so that people who want to fish in the surf in more remote areas can continue to do so. I am in Salvo for a 2 week vacation (spending limited personal income for this vacation) and the limited restrictions are in no way a disincentive for my visit. To the contrary, I am pleased that the park service is working towards protecting the valuable and pristine natural resources, including wildlife, on these outer banks, which resources are clearly a draw to tourism. I am not personally or professionally involved in this dispute or litigation but wanted to offer my observations and view of the situation based on my experience as a visitor and someone who enjoys both state and national parks.
Here we go with our beloved Congress again: they'll look at the economic downturn as an excuse to ramrod their own peeves through to legality. "Oh, the economy is bad, it must be because we aren't letting people tear up the beach with their ORVs." Forget that we have an oil crisis and food costs are going up. These things are keeping people home, not rules on beach usage.
But Congress, being Congress, will use this downturn to trod on the law to the benefit of their friends.
==================================================
My travels through the National Park System: americaincontext.com
I have recently volunteered for the US Fish and Wildlife Service at Pea Island NWR located within the national seashore. I have followed the recovery programs for piping plovers along the East Coast since they were listed in 1986. At that time I was located in Rhode Island where our population of plovers had decreased to only several pairs due to heavy pedestrian traffice on beaches and also to limited vehicle traffic. With similar recovery efforts that have finally been enacted on the National Seashore, Rhode Island population of plovers has recovered to somewhere around 70 pairs of plovers.
Senator Dole, the National Park Service and the US Fish and Wildlife Service in North Carolina should be ashamed of themselves for the lack of action over the past 22 years. While political groups and state and federal protection agencies have played games over the last 22 years - the population of piping plovers has declined by half. This is an outrage. There is no reason in this world why people cannot give up travel over a small portion of the coastline during nesting season for the birds. Not only the plovers are suffering but also other beach nesting birds. The damage that is done to the beach itself is also worth mentioning. The repeated travel over the sand destroys the beach habitat for invertebrates and other things living in the sand along the shoreline.
During my stay at Pea Island, we traveled down to Cape Point and I was appalled at the damage done to the beach front by vehicle traffic. People will still come to the beach. People will still come to fish. It has been proven in Northeastern states such as Rhode Island, on Cape Cod in Massachusetts that both people and birds can survive together on the beach. The problem in North Carolina is that certain groups of people are too selfish to compromise for the benefit of the wildlife.
yall are a bunch of ignorant people with more concerned about birds than humans and threatened not endangered at that...you will spin your tales and invent figures that dow/as/and selc seem to make appear out of thin air without
any shread of proof of those figures..
pardon my spelling but folks like you posting garbage like this and pawning it on an uninformed / unsupecting public
and using my tax money to sue is a criminal offense and i hope congress passes the law that dole and her foks want and outlaw suing the fed gov't over trivial matters such as this..
dow and as have no other purpose than to waste tax payer money of lawsuits
me out...
I can't wait until you people realize the true effect this consent decree has put on eastern NC. If this consent decree is not overturned, life as we know it on Hatteras Island and further south will be non-existent. People have already lost their jobs, business' are suffering and homeowners who rent their houses on the island are just begining to feel the effect.
I ask all you naysayers, how would you feel if some special intrest group decided that your favorite park or golf course had to be closed down because of an animal that is threatened but not indigeonous to that area was spotted and your livlihood was effected by this. I am sure you would fight tooth and nail to protect your income and the losses that would come along with it.
Before you make your these uneducated stetements like the ones above, learn the facts first.
This is happening all over this country, special intrest groups are taking over this country, stopping industry, preventing oil drilling and refineries ans keeping pepole from going and enjoying our great land that we pay taxes to support. Its rediculous and one day soon, our Government will stand up against these people and put and end this eco-terrorism!! GO FISH, it will make you a better person!!1
The below is one of many truthful articles you can find if you choose to determine facts as opposed to opinions. This is not about ORV access, this is not about birds, this is not about turtles. This is about a violation of rights and laws. This is about people losing their jobs, land and homes. I believe many of you that have the narrow view that the consent decree is a good thing would feel very different if your life was the one that was being ruined.
The below is copied from a letter in The Island Free Press by Dr. Mike Berry.
There is a clear difference between science-based, socially responsible and equitable environmental management and a growing political movement called "environmentalism."
Responsible environmental management uses sound science and professional judgment to balance the human needs and rights of people with the need to manage and sustain natural processes. As a public health professional, I will always place the health and well-being of humans first, and I will never accept a political philosophy that suggests people are less important than other species. Increasingly, "environmentalism" places species ahead of humans. Sadly, this new-age philosophy has crept deeply into our political process. Humans should never be completely shut out or deprived of their environment, so that other species should prevail or dominate. With a good understanding of science—knowledge of how the environment works—humans can make rational decisions and manage conditions so as to connect with their environment and at the same time provide for the existence of other species.
The environmental activist lawyer's comment to the court and to the media in U.S. District Judge Terrence Boyle’s court on April 30 that this consent decree and "settlement" represents a "win-win" management program is about as far away from the fact as one can get.
The park management formula laid out in the consent decree is a new public policy. This new park policy was put together on the fly in about 10 days behind closed doors, without any open discussion of scientific fact, explanation and justification of environmental management strategies, or consideration of the many needs and desires of the general public. In this court-approved settlement, the federal government agrees to respond to the dictates of three non-governmental special interest groups for the next three years. Citizens cannot even challenge the Park Service or these non-governmental groups about this management policy. Essentially, this consent decree takes the Cape Hatteras National Recreational Seashore and turns it into a national maternity ward and nursery for five bird species and turtles.
Every legitimate public policy in our democratic society is based upon the Constitution. Public policy is intended to provide for the public good and the rights of persons and that begins with the protection of citizens and promotes conditions that enhance social well-being. Citizens have a right to be a part of and have a say in the formulation of governmental policies that affect their lives. However, in this consent decree we have public policy created by dictum and without benefit of comment or review.
In addition, the consent decree appears to grant special rights to species, overlooking the fact that the Constitution grants rights only to persons. There is nothing in the Constitution that grants any right to a bird or turtle. That fact is seemingly not being taught in law schools these days.
Traditionally, federal courts interpret and render opinions on the law and protect citizen rights as spelled out in the Constitution or the federal statutes. It has been long recognized that Congress and the courts do not have the technical knowledge or resources to manage national parks. That is why Congress established the National Park Service. Park Service professionals are responsible for making technical judgments and management decisions with regards to the peoples' park. However, this consent decree is the product of a process called "judicial review." Increasingly, especially with regard to environmental issues, this judicial process is properly criticized as "legislating and managing from the bench."
In the April 30 court hearing, the judge acknowledged about five different times the need for public participation and review, but then, at exactly one hour into the hearing, he completely set aside any public concern or comment and signed off on the settlement. The Outer Banks community intervenors had no choice but to go along with the agreement or have the beach shut down completely. The court knew that and could have at least opened the settlement to include public hearings.
This consent decree is a classic example of how not to formulate environmental policy. It is good example of why good public policy must always be transparent and provide for public review and comment. The formulation of good policy takes thoughtful planning and organization, time for citizen interaction and review, including science review, much along the lines of what is currently being attempted with the negotiated rulemaking process.
The truth is that under the consent decree the closures at CHNS completely shut down human access to the premier surf fishing location on the east coast, Cape Point, for several weeks. Human access was completely denied, pedestrian as well as ORV. Additional prime fishing areas were also closed. Any reports of this issue that don't reflect that reality are misleading. Official NPS and media reports of the amount of beach open have consistently included areas that are technically open but to which there is no possible access due to adjacent closures. Reality doesn't "depend on who you talk to." This type of action orchestrated by protectionists whose main goal is to severely limit public access to public lands, only drives a wedge between groups who have a common interest in protecting habitat for future generations. Most sportsmen support protecting natural areas and the habitat they include and have historically accepted restrictions to protect the resource. However, actions driven only by the egos of self-appointed protectors will not be accepted without a fight. When few can have access to our wild areas, few will stand to protect them when they need protected.
Who you talk to is the real question. What isn't said in all this is the fact that the Consent Decree in words APPEARS to take all parties positions into account. What it doesn't say is that ALL PARTIES have equal ability to verify sightings of nesting birds. What it doesn't say is Last Year Nests were located at grid X Y, and oddly this year every nesting area was withing close proximity to the access ramps to the beach. The original set aside on some ramps did leave room for pedestrians and vehicles to pass, but with in a week, Incredably, some one violated those particular areas and by Decree, the are was expanded and now did include ramps and access paths. In effect limiting the ability to pass the closed off access to get to the areas that remained open. Blockage from both end kept miles of beach inaccesable for most of the summer. The fishing community was locked out. Oh there was beach available to fish from, but not in areas where fish are normally caught. If you are of the opinion that the poor little birdies are being pushed out, you need to read more. Read the Island Free Press, even read some of the information about these effect birds available on the internet. You will quickly learn that the Piping Plover (PPL) Spring and Summer nesting area is closer to Long Island (oh yea, they have money, their beachs aren't closed) and their wintering area is Fl, GA and the gulf. The PPL at CHNSRA are just lazy mooches. they decided not to migrate, took up residence in an area that is not condusive to their survival. The mooch food off the fisherman ( would that be a reason their nest are located in the BEST FISHING AREAS?) and now they have a few bird wacko's sueing the FED GOV. Remember folks when they win, they get all their cost reimbursed by YOUR TAX DOLLARS. One - it takes away from the money available to run our parks, two- You know a tax increase is in the works to make the agency budget for the following year. three- this is a vicious circle, sue, get money, raise taxes, sue because they have more money to sue for. We, property owners in Hatteras love the bird as much as the next person, but if they can't survive without the wholesale rip off system. This year there were 7 birds fledged. that's 3 more than last year, at what cost? It is multi-millions of dollars per bird... that's the cost. All we're saying is think before you spout off about the poor little birdies that you know very little about.