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
http://forum.reddrumtackle.com/showthread.php?p=103427#post103427 (copy and paste to the browser you choose)
The above pictures (taken at 3:30pm 8/31/2007 on the with the same point in the background as the SELC) combined with the un-doctoring by Ted Clayton above clearly refute the SELC photo as both a doctored photo and an irregular occurance. This was Labor day weekend in 2007 without a consent decree in place. For all of those who care to comment without ever having set a foot in the sands of this paradise please shut up. I traveled out to the point that day around several bird closures as I have for several years. These species have been protected by both the NPS and the persons who enjoy these beaches. Please also note my son in the photos above is an prime example of what you will see if you ever get the courage to visit. Calling him crass and obnoxious is why I will repeat "YOU WILL NEVER WIN THIS BATTLE" because we fight for these memories and you fight for a few birds that really have not the sense to use the areas given to them already. PS I know Mr Pitt personally and he did not doctor his photo, but he did include it to show that the entire seashore (and the facts) are not what the SELC wants you to believe.
A picture taken on the Memorial Day/4th of July/Labor Day holidays ANYWHERE will show maximum human density. To say that the SELC photo taken was of an average day would be an outright falsehood. The picture is clearly out of scale, with the vehicles too tall for their width. Intentional or not, it is what it is. Many folks have seen said picture and believed it to be an every day occurence. We must tell them that the other picture offered is more typical.
However, half-truths and convenient science have been used throughout this issue by the Eco groups to achieve their own ends. Many journalists with well known newspapers have taken the SELC spin at face value and published it as fact without backchecking their data. This is shown in an article from the "Fayetteville (NC) Obsever" and a subsequent rebuttal by US Senator Elizabeth Dole. Link below.
Original Article: http://www.fayobserver.com/article?id=301365
Senator Dole's Rebuttal: http://www.fayobserver.com/article?id=301843
Makes you wonder what is really going on, doesn't it? The truth generally lies somewhere in the middle of every issue, but in this case the truth is being railroaded by a LARGE SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP, namely the Audobon Society.
A "Reg-Neg", (Regulation Negotiation), group is meeting several times yearly to hammer out the details of the "Permanent" ORV plan, which will replace both the now defunct "Interim" plan and the Consent decree, now in place. The SELC, DOW, and AS are all present at these functions, as well as Dare County officials, business owners, etc. They have a meeting coming up in a couple of weeks, and the wishes of all parties were recently published in the "Island Free Press". See link below:
http://www.islandfreepress.org/CatBeachAccessIssues.html
When all this began, in the days before the Consent Decree, the Eco groups said that they "Only wanted to be fair, and only wanted to SHARE the beach AND help widlife flourish". Well, the mask has come off, and their true intentions are now plainly visible. Note how they want YEAR ROUND closures to some of the most popular family oriented beaches on Hatteras Island, those being the "South Beach" areas.
Look at how the Dare County/ORV folks want a flexible, movable closure scheme that would allow for the transient nature of nesting as well as storm damage to nests, predation, etc. The SELC wants a private bird sanctuary. Period. They already have that in Pea Island NWR just a few miles up the road. Apparently, that is not good enough for them.
NPS reports show that the South Beach area produces very few bird nests. See link to report below.
http://www.nps.gov/caha/naturescienc...gs.%201-11.pdf
How can these numbers support TOTAL, YEAR-ROUND BEACH CLOSURES? This data clearly shows that closing the beaches in the name of the birds is not what's going on here. There's a saying amongst us that frequent the area and are up on what's going on on BOTH sides: "It's NOT about the Birds!"
The bottom line is, a "Special Interest Group", (Yes, that is what the AS/DOW/SELC conglomerate truly is, although they desperately try to distance themselves from this monicker), is directing a NATIONAL PARK, costing we taxpayes MILLIONS of dollars. Where would the monies come from to create additional parking, more dune overwalks, etc., as per their vision? Why, the localities that are losing revenue due to beach closures, of course! The Eco groups only open their coffers when suing the taxpayes. The NPS rangers have now added body armor, sidearms, tasers, and pepper spray to their uniforms. They used to dress like the "Crocodile Hunter". Now they look like a US Marine on patrol in Iraq, sans helmet. Who paid for all this hardware? You and I. Do they expect to be attacked? Apparently so. Rangers, on and individual basis, aren't that pleased with their new status either. Just ask one!
Sure, the basis to the lawsuit that created the Consent Decree is legally sound. The DOI and the NPS BOTH dropped the ball on creating a viable plan for 30 years, and the citizens of America are suffering becasue of it. Is there a need for better management of both ORV access and species protection? Absolutely. Do we dare allow such a dangerous precident to stand unapposed? Assuredly not. If the citizens of this country had not protested LOUDLY, would a Congressional bill seeking to change this situation appeared on its own? Said bill has congressional co-sponsors from Virginia to Hawaii, but yet the DOI does not support it, showing their lack of caring for the human species right to access. This in itself should call for a look at overhauling the DOI/NPS relationship, as has been suggested previously on this website.
My heartfelt thanks to Kurt Repanshek for offering up an objective look at this astoundingly beautiful part of the world. To have the human species removed from it entirely would be a travesty.
The same arguments regarding the "need" to access a beach by vehicle because it is too far to walk could be used to justify roads in any park. About time! Some parts of the Grand Canyon, Yellowstone, and Death Valley are a long way from a road. We need a road into the Grand Canyon and I think the Bright Angel Train can be reasonably widened and opened to ORVs. In fact, motorcycles and ATVs can fit now - open it up! Why do we restrict snowmobiles to roads in the winter? It's all snow anyway and they won't leave any permanent tracks (just like beach driving). Open all areas of snow-covered park lands to snowmobiles, the inpact isn't permanent so what difference will it make. The SUV is what makes America great - we have to stop the tyranny of the able bodied youth from shutting off access to our parks just because they have a snooty prejudice against engines.
SamsDad,
I am taking the liberty of posting one your pictures of the Cape here. If you rather I not, let me know and I will remove it/replace it. Waiting your permission, I'd also like to use your 2 images in my page with the distorted SELC image.
Cape Point, Cape Hatteras Nat'l Seashore - Labor Day weekend, 2007
(photo reduced in size, but vertical & horizontal proportions retained)
Thank you, SamsDad!
Ted Clayton
I have no issue at all. I will ask though how did you get the picture in there? Thanks for your support.
Rangertoo, Bless you! Until a reliable replacement is found and implemented, the internal combustion engine is the technology we have. Period. I'm all for an engine that runs on anything else, but as of today it only exists in either science fiction or some yet undiscovered inventor's workshop. The extremists would have us all go back to the pre-steam era, and operate solely under wind or human/animal power. I've often heard it stated that one volcanic eruption roughly the same size as Mt. St. Helens puts more hydrocarbons into the atmosphere that mankind has in its entire existence.
You are indeed correct that beach driving leaves no permanent marks. A windy overnight will totally erase all tire tracks from the previous day, as do tidal cycles, within their reach. The same can be said for snow and dirt. No permament impact. Extremists would have everyone believe that all motorized access proponents are drunken fools that go around ripping apart the environment, harassing, chasing down and killing animals. While that is indeed true of a percentage of ANY group of humans, it is generally the exception rather than the rule. Most people want to preserve the area they enter, so they and their families can come again and again for generations. Also, how can the young, aged, and infirm access remote areas? Not everyone in this country is in great heath and 22 years old.
These same naysayers would also tell us that we are too uneducated in environmental issues, and should therefore be excluded from entering, lest we reap destruction in all directions due to our blatant ignorance. That, my friends, is thinly-veiled Marxism.
The photo above is Cape Point, not Oregon Inlet, as shown in the SELC photo. They are not the same thing. Also, the above photo of Cape Point can be compared to the Island Free Press photos of Cape point, as shown in a different post above. In my experience, the Island Free Press photos are much more representative of what happens at Cape Point. This is a shortened link, for convenience: http://tinyurl.com/5dnlxo
I agree about the photo being Cape point ( I took it), but do you really believe that those picture both by the SELC and the Islandfreepress are typical? I am only guessing that you have had minimal contact with those areas. I have been to or by both of those locations and all major holidays (except 2008) for the past 8 years minimum. I have yet to see it that crowded more than maybe twice a year. Now what I want you Anti Beach Access Enviros to do is simply count of the number of vehicles in the SELC photo and the multiply that number by $500.00 (Conservative) per vehicle or you could use my average per trip at 1,000.00 per trip and now pull that from the local economy along with multiplying this by two because Cape Point has roughly the same traffic. OOPS I have seen how enviros do math and I guess as a beach loving fanatic I will have to redo your work anyway. After you have completed this divide that by 2 and now you have the cost per bird due to the consent decree. I am guessing you Enviros pay taxes? If so you will fund the next bridge, and rebuild the island after the next hurricane as the Tourist dollars for people who want to go to the beach will be dried up soon if we close the beaches.