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.
Support Essential Coverage of Essential Places
Comments
Another classic example of NPS looking for a solution where no problem exists. There have been many lessons learned but already forgotten by NPS with the same approach used at Cape Hatteras National SEashore Recreational Area as they want for Cape Lookout. The real travesty is that this seashore is closed to all access 3 months of the year when some of the best bird watching, shelling, fishing and relaxation are available anywhere on the East Coast.
NPS has systematically removed the American public for their parks across the nation using these same approach which is unwarranted and unwanted. This reduction in access to our Parks and Seashores has to stop!
"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 plan doesn't sound unreasonable or draconian. Certainly not worth the heavy breathing that putting comments in boldface would indicate.
This plan and one forced on CHNSRA only seem reasonable to those that have never visited. You outsiders don't understand the impact to culture, tradition and economy of the local communities. It is only a checkbox of feel good regulations to the outsiders. At CHNSRA these regulations have done nothing to protect or improve the resources. The only accomplishment of the new regulations are lower visitation, added beaurcracy, increased management costs, reduced access and hurt local economy. The OBX Group NPS has so lost their way, that they proposed eliminating beach lifegaurds in favor of interpretive rangers. This move deepened the wedge between the NPS and communities it promised to support.
Southeasterners are some of the laziest people on the planet. If they can't get there by gas, it's simply a threat on their freedom to live a life free of exercise!
Ah, the bigotry comes out.
Thing is, they have the freedom to live life as they wish.
Well it's true and the statistics prove it. They rank high in obesity, poverty, and their school systems rank as some of the lowest in the country. BUT it's christian, REPUBLICAN and proud, and will someday rise again when they feel an effort to get off the couch!
Live in this region and see it for yourself. And beachdumps comments prove a lot about how he feels about government. He loves him some gubermint when the teet suckling is good, but hates it when it dries up. The NPS mission is not about supporting local communities - it's about protecting a place of natural or cultural significance. He expects the government to provide for him and his business. Such, atypical hypocrisy.
"Thing is, they have the freedom to live life as they wish."
But just as we can't force our lifestyle on them, they shouldn't try to force in on us. The same goes for the ORV crowd, the mountain bike club, the wilderness seekers, the seekers of luxury accomodations, the extreme environmentalists AND the extreme anti-environmentalists.
We zone our cities to try to find balances between residential, industrial uses, businesses, parks and open spaces and other valid uses of the land. Why is trying to do the same with our national parks any different?
Why is there such a loud cry of MY WAY ONLY -- ALL OR NOTHING from so many people who are supposed to be adults?
Could it be the American Entitlement Mentality at work among the less mature or reasonable among us?
Gee Gary, I thought you had me on ignore. In fact, if I remember you quit the whole blog.
And that is because they are lazy? There might not be any other reason?