We love our national parks. We love the wildlife they hold, the seashores with their sparkling sands, the forests with their wildlife and hiking trails, the soaring red-rock cliffs and plunging canyons.
But please, don't ask us to abide by their regulations.
Uproars over managing off-road vehicles in both Cape Hatteras National Seashore and Big Cypress National Preserve, the oyster farm at Point Reyes National Seashore, air traffic over Grand Canyon National Park, snowmobiles in Yellowstone National Park, and now bike races in Colorado National Monument all seem to drive home that point, no?
There are other examples, to be sure, whether you point to non-native fish being stocked in North Cascades National Park, off-road routes in the crooks and crannies of Death Valley National Park, or climbing fees being raised at Denali and Mount Rainier national parks so the Park Service can afford its climbing programs.
There's an interesting conundrum at play, don't you think? Congressional representatives and states clamor for a unit of the National Park System in their backyards, both for the preservation they bring and the economic boost they can provide. But after the ink is dry on the enabling legislation, those pesky regulatory details can be downright breath-taking, and not in the same manner as Yellowstone's Lower Falls.
* In North Carolina, the idea of Cape Hatteras being the country's first national seashore was applauded, as was the National Park Service's agreement to artificially maintain Highway 12. But what's this about seasonally blocking some access due to nesting birds and turtles?!?
* Yellowstone is beloved by Wyomingites, Montanans, and Idahoans, all who rightfully take pride in laying claim to the world's first national park. Just don't too loudly raise the issue of where or how you can snowmobile in the park, delve into the wolf recovery program, or mention bison, unless you're ordering a cut for dinner.
* Grand Canyon National Park was a god-send for northern Arizona, a hot, arid place in summer where the park's lure contributes significantly to the local economy. But now some air-tour operators are complaining that the Park Service's efforts to restore natural quiet to the canyon, something that no doubt helped lure many of those visitors, could put them out of business.
* At Big Cypress, never mind that the Florida panther, arguably the most-endangered mammal in North America, is a tail's length away from extinction. Swamp buggies are needed to pierce the dense undergrowth and boggy sections of the preserve for hunters, anglers, and wildlife viewers.
* And at Point Reyes, the tastiness of a farmed Pacific oyster is the cause célèbre in a battle over wilderness designation.
Never mind that there is better snowmobiling in the national forests surrounding Yellowstone than in the park itself; that the fishing off Cape Hatteras is better in fall, outside of the plover and sea turtle nesting seasons, than during the height of summer; that Drakes Estero isn't the only place to farm oysters in California (Tomales Bay oysters, anyone?); that there already are off-road vehicle routes elsewhere in Big Cypress; or that the Grand Canyon planners believe they have a system that will allow for 8,000 more flights a year that currently being flown while also reducing noise in the park.
No, those are all beside the point to some.
Of course, the National Park Service has no other choice but to uphold its regulations. And foremost among them is the National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, a legendary work of conservation foresight that specifically directed the Park Service to "conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein ..."
Of course, there are those who are quick to point to the second half of that sentence, the part that also directs the Park Service to "provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations."
But as the late historian Robin Winks, who scrutinized the Organic Act to accurately interpret its intent, pointed out, the intent of the framers of the Act clearly was to place preservation of the resources above recreation.
The National Park Service was enjoined by that act, and the mission placed upon the Service was reinforced by subsequent acts, to conserve the scenic, natural, and historic resources, and the wild life found in conjunction with those resources, in the units of the National Park System in such a way as to leave them unimpaired; this mission had and has precedence over providing means of access, if those means impair the resources, however much access may add to the enjoyment of future generations.
Not impressed by Professor Winks' academic approach? Then know that federal courts have ruled more than once that preservation of the resources is the prime directive for the National Park Service.
In a case that arose 1986, for instance, National Rifle Association vs. Potter, a federal district court ruled that the Organic Act gives the Park Service "but a single purpose, namely, conservation."
Ten years later, in 1996, in Bicycle Trails Council vs. Babbitt, not only did the appellate court agree that preservation comes foremost for the Park Service, but it also ruled that the name of a unit of the National Park System -- in other words, whether the unit in question was a "national park" or "national seashore" or "national recreation area" -- did not alter that mandate. That ruling came after the court reviewed the 1970 General Authorities Act and the 1978 Redwood Amendment.
So what's the solution? Should states retake the national parks? Should Florida reclaim the Addition lands of Big Cypress, as one reader noted it could readily do? Should the "national seashore" tag be removed from either Cape Hatteras or Point Reyes? The locals are the ones seemingly most rankled by the regulations, and some outwardly maintain they could do a better job of managing the parks.
Of course, affording them is another question, as many states are finding it difficult to maintain their state parks. But that's part and parcel of deciding how to manage them, no?
Should the National Park Service Organic Act, that dusty, 95-year-old piece of legislation that gave the Park Service its marching orders, be gutted? Why not just take away that first part about conservation (which many have interpreted to mean 'preservation') and focus on enjoying them? And not for future generations, but right now!
Surely, by doing so free enterprise could be unleashed on the parks for hunters, anglers, off-road enthusiasts, snowmobilers, personal water craft owners, and who knows what other commercial enterprises that currently are shut out. True, that "national park" logo that comes in so handy with marketing would be lost, along with possibly millions of tourists who focus on "national parks," but that would solve some of the crowding issues in the campgrounds and moving about the beaches, no?
And no doubt some of the current open space could be done away with -- forests cut down, meadows plowed smooth, and asphalt laid hot and gleaming -- to make way for more lodges and restaurants and parking lots. That might detract a little from some of these places, but at least the Park Service wouldn't be around to police its regulations.
Perhaps the colonies should take a cue from the English, who have created a park system in which "(P)eople live and work in the National Parks and the farms, villages and towns are protected along with the landscape and wildlife."
But then, the concept of the American National Park System would be lessened, if not outright tarnished, no?
Though the above was typed only half-seriously, how should some of the issues raised by the vocal minorities that are complaining about how the national parks are being run be addressed? Should they just be dismissed as the rantings of local minorities, who in turn should be reminded that these are indeed "national" parks and not local playgrounds? Or should there be a serious reappraisal of some basic ground rules? After all, many of these locals moved to their present locations because they loved the parks and wanted to be close to them. But then, in some cases, lawsuits and regulatory changes followed them.
How seriously should the Endangered Species Act be taken? Wasn't it rampant development and sprawl that forced many of the listed plants, birds, fish, mammals, reptiles, etc. into the dire plights they face today? And how vital is The Wilderness Act? Do we need it to preserve and maintain our wide-open expanses?
In the end, I suppose such questions hinge on whether we believe we should leave our grandchildren photos of Florida panthers and Ivory-billed woodpeckers and grizzly bears...or the real thing.
Comments
Ron to answer your questions
“Do you not see, that the noted organizations, have reacted strictly in defense? To prevent Audubon and Defenders of Wildlife from taking from them a way of life on the Islands that precede you and I. _”
No more so than Audubon and Defenders reacted to the ORV organizations actions with the exception that Audubon and Defenders members have acted considerable more civil than the side you support. I don’t believe today’s recreational ORV use as a way of life on the Islands and perceive that statement inaccurate both historically and culturally. The historical pictures of OBX (besides my own 50 year history) are proof enough for me.
“Do you really think that what ever policies are established at this point, Audubon and Defenders of Wildlife will accept it and not pursue effectively the total elimination of orv use on the Islands?”
I have no idea what those groups will pursue in the future however the groups you mentioned have never said or suggested either publicly or in written comments that they have a goal of, “total elimination of orv use on the Islands”. From my experience they do not. Their singular goal is the sustain viability of specific species.
“I already know all the arguments concerning regulations in the legislation, acts and ammendments so please humor me and not go there.”
OK.
My displeasure is with the ORV organizations that want the great majority of the recreational resource to be ORV accessible. They are the groups that will not compromise with my recreational needs.
My displeasure is with the ORV organizations that want the great majority of the recreational resource to be ORV accessible. They are the groups that will not compromise with my recreational needs.
The DEIS effectively will close several areas to ORV use permanently. These areas are not that popular with the protected birds. The areas they claim to be open close immediately once birding season starts. These areas are under no circumstances guaranteed to be open. In fact when 80% of visitors make their reservations to come to Cape Hatteras they do not have a clue if they will even be able to be on the beach.
"I have no idea what those groups will pursue in the future however the groups you mentioned have never said or suggested either publicly or in written comments that they have a goal of, “total elimination of orv use on the Islands”."
Please read it in writing for yourself...
Conservation groups have asked for an injunction to suspend beach driving -- see attached motion that was filed by plaintiffs in US District Court on February 20, 2008. Attorneys working for Dare County are reviewing the motion and will respond appropriately. 2/21/08 [more]
See this link
http://www.co.dare.nc.us/Announce/CHORV/NPSORV.htm
"“I already know all the arguments concerning regulations in the legislation, acts and ammendments so please humor me and not go there.”
OK. "
If indeed you did know then you would not have made the statement about these groups not wanting to close the beaches... notice I leave out ORV because you fail to see that these closures are for all.
"I have no idea what those groups will pursue in the future however the groups you mentioned have never said or suggested either publicly or in written comments that they have a goal of, “total elimination of orv use on the Islands”. From my experience they do not. Their singular goal is the sustain viability of specific species."
They don't have a need to do so, as the USFWS has already laid the groundwork for total elimination of all pedestrian/recreational activities in the case of the Great Lakes Plover population.
http://www.fws.gov/northeast/nyfo/es/GLplover03.pdf
(From Pages 24 and 25)
Beach-walking, bike riding, kite flying, fireworks (Howard et al. 1993), bonfires,
horseback riding, kayaking, windsurfing, camping, and close-up photography are among the many non-motorized activities that disturb piping plovers and disrupt normal behavior patterns.
High pedestrian use may deter piping plovers from using nesting habitat (Burger 1991, 1994). Pedestrians accompanied by pets present an even greater disturbance to breeding piping plovers (Pike 1985), as dogs frequently chase and attempt to capture adults and chicks (Lambert and Ratcliff 1979). Repeated flushing of birds from their nests by pedestrians exposes eggs to potentially lethal extremes in temperature (Welty 1982; Bergstrom 1991).
Chicks may become separated from adults by pedestrians or displaced from preferred foraging habitats, which may make them more susceptible to the elements and predators and may ultimately affect their survival (Flemming et al. 1988).
There is absolutely no reason to believe this scenario can't or won't ever make its way to the beaches of CAHA, and rest assured that the "Defenders" would not take issue with eliminating all activities listed above as part of their "singular goal".
groups have demands all the time on our parks, but rarely do they get exactly what they want. The enviro's may want the beaches closed to ORV's, but the NPS would NEVER actually do that. ORV use is an acceptable form of recreation at CAHA, it was just never formalized in a plan as mandated by congress in the 70's. I feel it might be better to stop acting like ORV's will be completely eliminated and start accepting that use will be limited.
Anon in fact CAHA is the perfect storm.
The DEIS ALT F calls for a 15 year goal of thirty breeding pairs sustained. This number has even been refuted by the environmentalist who stated the sustainable numbers are around ten pairs. This effort is aside from the fact that these birds are nearing the numbers for delisting. Even if the birds are delisted they will not relinquish the closures in CAHA.
So you have number set at an unattainable goal giving little hope for access.
Now you have permanent closures littering the park. This combined with draconian closure sizes for a threatened bird and closures for birds that North Carolina even states need no protection. What access is left will be crowded more and more.
Put these two elements together and you will end up with Plover numbers that cannot make rate. The Environs will blame it on the humans again. The environs will sue the beach again and eliminate all access.
After all is said and done the plover numbers will never make rate and the environs will scoop up the land and sell it off to developers. This how it works... search Audobahn society property sales, or one of my favorite articles contained here...
http://www.perc.org/articles/article167.php
Here they tell the tale of allowing drilling rights on an inter-coastal waterway to be their flagship, while condemning others that do the same.
Anon in fact CAHA is the perfect storm.
The DEIS ALT F calls for a 15 year goal of thirty breeding pairs sustained. This number has even been refuted by the environmentalist who stated the sustainable numbers are around ten pairs. This effort is aside from the fact that these birds are nearing the numbers for delisting. Even if the birds are delisted they will not relinquish the closures in CAHA.
So you have number set at an unattainable goal giving little hope for access.
And it only gets worse for the aptly named "Graveyard of the Atlantic". USFWS states that the recovery number for us and Canadian PIPL is 2000 breeding pairs. The past few years have seen those numbers get within 150 pairs of meeting that benchmark:
http://www.fws.gov/northeast/pipingplover/pdf/abundance.pdf
2007 - 1890
2008 - 1849
2009 - 1849
But, there are many more hoops through which to jump before the PIPL will even be "considered" for delisting, some of which appear to be both historically and statistically impossible to achieve. See below:
http://www.fws.gov/northeast/pipingplover/pdf/summary.pdf
Recovery Criteria: Delisting the Atlantic Coast PIPL population may be considered when the following criteria have been met:
1. Increase and maintain for five years a total of 2,0000 breeding pairs, distributed among four recovery units as follows: Atlantic Canada, 400 pairs, New England, 625 pairs, New York-New Jersey, 575 pairs, Southern (DE-MD-VA-NC), 400 pairs
2. Verify the adequacy of a 2,000-pair population of PIPL to maintain heterozygosity and allelic diversity over the long term.
3. Achieve five-year average productivity of 1.5 fledged chicks per pair in each of the four recovery units described in criterion 1, based on data that collectively support at least 90% of the recovery unit's population.
4. Institute long-term agreements to assure protection and management to maintain the population targets and average productivity in each recovery unit,
5. Ensure long-term maintenance of wintering habitat, sufficient in quantity, quality, and distribution to maintain survival rates for a 2,000-pair population.
1. 2009 Data shows numbers being met or exceeded everywhere but Canada, 252 pairs, and the Southern unit, (where CAHA is located), 302 pairs. Until all units meet their respective numbers, the 5-Year Clock will not begin to run. If any time during the 5-year cycle the numbers drop below the set thresholds, the listing comes back.
2. This criterion is subjective enough by itself to never allow the PIPL to be delisted, regardless of the rest of these requirements.
3. Some units have never seen productivity rates at 1.5, and CAHA is one of them.
4. IE: Keep the nesting closures as-is in perpetuity.
5. IE: Keep the wintering/pre-nesting closures as-is in perpetuity
Put these two elements together and you will end up with Plover numbers that cannot make rate. The Environs will blame it on the humans again. The environs will sue the beach again and eliminate all access.
All that on top of the USFWS requirements makes what you propose to be a very likely scenario.
“1. The Court enter a preliminary injunction enjoining all ORV driving (except for essential vehicles) in the areas identified by USGS scientists as critical for nesting waterbirds and shorebirds at Bodie Island Spit, Cape Point, South Beach, Hatteras Spit, North Ocracoke, and South Ocracoke on Cape Hatteras National Seashore. Plaintiffs request that ORV use be enjoined as described in the “Moderate Protection” recommendations of the USGS Management Protocols for piping plovers, colonial waterbirds, and American oystercatchers and depicted on Figures 1 and 4 through 8 of the USGS Management Protocol for Piping Plover. Plaintiffs request that these measures be kept in place for the duration of this litigation or until the Federal Defendants have implemented an adequate final regulation governing ORV use on the Seashore.”
Matt you are mistaken. This is from the document I believe you were referring me to. This in no way makes the case that the conservation groups want or seek the total elimination of ORV access at CHNS. As you know you can drive and recreate etc on Cape Point from sometime in August or September until around mid March. For now that is when you can drive to the Point to recreate. Do I want to see better pedestrian access to these areas when they are closed for resource protection, you bet. Too bad the ORV access groups didn’t seek that also; it would have had a lot of clout with me if they had. The groups you claim wanting total elimination of ORV use here signed off on the consent decree that allows a considerable amount of ORV access in CHNS.
I realize you are upset because you can’t get to where you want when you want. There are many other places in the Park that are a very easy walk or that you can access with your ORV. Many of these other areas are far superior for young children to swim than Cape Point. I’m not defending the consent decree other than to say the ORV group’s behavior had a lot to do with it. The interim plan only dealt with ORV issues and resource protection. It did not address my concerns. The political maneuvering by the ORV side sculpted that interim plan with little consideration to other user groups, which I guess is why you could live with it and others could not. It is all tit for tat.
As far as the economic concern yes I’m certain there are specific businesses that have loses due to the consent decree more so in Buxton and Hatteras Village. But no one know how to calculate the loses in relation to weather, the national economic downturn, gas prices, poor fishing and the considerable amount of misinformation and hype about beach closures disseminated by the ORV access contingent. The closures have been happening since 2005 come here in the summer you won’t see a ghost town. Hatteras Island still has a booming tourist economy. The economic numbers don’t support the devastating economic catastrophe the doomsayers predict.
I will walk to Cape Point when I am not allowed to drive there. It will be a beautiful hike and I will bring a fishing pole. The journey will make getting there all the more rewarding.
Now on top of all of this you must add on the fact that these birds do not see the numbers they do today if the thousands of suspected predators had not been killed. Most people only hear that the ORV's are tearing up the beach and running over the fuzzy little plovers. What they do not hear is when there blessed fido or felix got out last night and attempted to get a little plover snack he or she was either trapped and killed or just killed.
The math of the plover looks something like this.
Millions of dollars lost due to Park employees having to put up signs, string, monitoring, etc...
Millions lost to the local economy due to either people not attending the park or businesses closing removing taxes.
Money paid to trappers and predator death merchants to prevent the holy plover from becoming a snack.
Million spent defending access and fighting for access.
Thousands of predators killed
= less than thirty plovers total!!!!!