Hi, and welcome to my "Editor's Blog"! In this space I'll be attempting to keep our readers informed on fast-breaking news and issues affecting our islands. Visit often. There's a lot going on!

Enjoy the Island Free Press and, even more importantly, enjoy our wonderful barrier island!!!




Latest Comments

buxton resident (Hatteras islander…): Lat, I do not consider myself ignorant nor a hater. I just have a different opinion than you do. I …
PH (Hatteras islander…): There is no right answer here, putting sand there is wrong not putting sand there is wrong. Punishin…
ccb (Hatteras islander…): Have any other nourishment options been explored? One would think there must be some marine science …
diver531 (Hatteras islander…): Dumps ….been saying that exact thing about the dredges ! By the dredges and use only local folks to m…
DUMPS (Hatteras islander…): If I was going to spend 27 million dollars for a contract with a company that will suck sand and put …
Denny in Dayton (Hatteras islander…): Everyone wants to go to Heaven, but nobody wants to die. The “overwash” status the island once had …


Powered by PivotX - 2.3.2 
XML: RSS Feed 
XML: Atom Feed 

« We will likely pay mo… | Home | A homecoming for a wa… »

Romney and Ryan are for open beaches? Really?

Thursday 11 October 2012 at 4:06 pm.

In the villages of Frisco and Buxton on Hatteras Island, some curious campaign signs have been erected in the past few weeks.

They are big signs with “Romney/ Ryan” in big red and blue letters on a white background.  

In fact, the signs are so large, they probably violate the Dare County sign ordinance, which prohibits campaign signs with more than 6 square feet of display area or that stand more than 6 feet tall – at the highest point.

Along with “Romney/ Ryan” is a patriotic-sounding slogan, such as “Romney and Ryan…..Born in America.”

The person who put up these signs obviously supports Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, and of course, that part of it is perfectly fine and legal, part of the Democratic process.

However, the most offensive of these signs says, “Romney and Ryan…for open beaches.”

Now, I understand that there are reasons why folks support Mitt Romney for President, but open beach access should not be one of them.

And, in fact, it’s unfortunate that one of the most important issues facing Hatteras right now – access to the beaches of the Cape Hatteras National Seashore – is being turned into a politically charged, partisan issue.

It never has been and is not now.

Jordan Tomberlin of Hatteras village, a writer for The Island Free Press, recently posted on her Facebook page that she found the signs “troublesome”

“Even if Romney and/or Ryan could--by some stretch of the imagination and legislative process--overturn the final ORV rule for Cape Hatteras National Seashore,” Tomberlin writes, “there is simply no indication that either of them actually would.”

 In fact, she notes that Romney's gubernatorial record on environmental policy would suggest the exact opposite.

In a short Internet search, she found several articles on Romney’s environmental record when he was governor of Massachusetts from 2003 until 2007, when he launched his campaign for President of the United States.

It seems that Romney was pretty green before he wasn’t.

When he became governor, he appointed Douglas Foy as the state’s first secretary of the Massachusetts Office for Commonwealth Development – a “super-secretariat” position that put him over coordination of housing, transportation, energy and the environment.

Before Romney tapped him for public service, Foy was for 25 years president of the Conservation Law Foundation, which he describes as “New England’s premier environmental advocacy organization” – sort of the Southern Environmental Law Center for the northeastern states.

He cites among his accomplishments there the lawsuit that led to the cleanup of Boston Harbor, protecting Georges Bank from oil and gas drilling, AND banning off-road vehicles on the beaches and dunes of the Cape Cod National Seashore.

Yes, Romney chose the man who claims credit for banning ORVs at Cape Cod to lead the department that oversees Massachusetts’ environmental policy.

Apparently, at least in 2003, Romney was not for beach access.

The former governor has changed his position on many matters of public policy since 2003 – from health care to abortion to cap-and-trade.

Maybe he has changed his mind on banning ORVs.  But maybe not.

There is apparently nothing he has said -- or any of his surrogates have said -- that addresses how he would deal with the current attempts in Congress and in the courts to overturn the National Park Service’s new ORV plan for the Cape Hatteras National Seashore.

In fact, it would be surprising to find out that Mitt Romney or Paul Ryan has ever heard of Cape Hatteras National Seashore or knows anything about the beach access issue here.

And it’s just plain wrong to imply that voting for Romney and Ryan would have any influence at all here on beach access.

There is nothing since the first executive order requiring ORV plans at national parks and seashores was signed in 1972 to indicate that beach access issues fare any better under Democratic or Republican administrations.

That first executive order was signed by Republican President Richard M. Nixon.

No president since then has apparently had a position on beach access and efforts by the Park Service to restrict ORVs at Cape Cod or snowmobiles at Yellowstone moved forward – one would assume supported by the party in power – under both Democratic and Republican presidents.

Since Nixon, that would include Republicans Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush, and Democrats Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.

And, it is worth noting, that no Secretary of the Interior or National Park Service director appointed by any of these presidents has tried to stop efforts to regulate and/or restrict vehicles in parks.

The Office of Management and Budget did announce after the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill to overturn the new ORV plan on the seashore that the Obama administration supports the Park Service’s plan.

That’s not surprising. However, it would be surprising to learn that one word about beach access has ever been uttered in the Oval Office.

And I have written before that the man who is apparently Public Enemy No. 1 on Hatteras and Ocracoke, U.S. District Court Judge Terrence Boyle, is a Republican whose name was put forward for the federal bench by North Carolina’s staunch conservative Republican senator, the late Jesse Helms, on whose staff Boyle once worked.

Beach access and ORV use just have not been a partisan issue in the past 40 years, and they are not now.  

So don’t look to a change in administrations to make all of our access problems go away.

Jordan Tomberlin, I thought, summed it up well when she posted on Facebook, “I whole-heartedly support beach access efforts. But I also support the truth. And those signs--claiming that Romney and Ryan are "for" open beaches or that a Romney/Ryan victory would somehow result in open beaches--are, I believe, a proverbial slap-in-the-face to both.


Al Adam

Any change of adminstration with a pro-business attitude will be an improvement. If Romney gets elected it will be an economical mandate. If he is pro-clean coal his message on the environment is much better than the guy we have at our “helm” (empty) who has vowed to put the coal industry out of business. They are likely all Agenda 21 advocates —which is the real big picture issue. Please read “Behind the Green Mask” by Rosa Koire. She happens to be a liberal from California who is battling the emminent domain fiasco among others. Read this and you will understand what those with common sense already know —- beach closures have NOTHING to do with birds or turtles. If Romney and Ryan wish to restore America I agree with the signs. If they are for freedom and enterprise they will stand up against the political conspiracy that operates under the guise of environmental stewardship. I have a strong feeling that that ticket is much more concerned with the rights and opportunities of the individual —- as opposed to the heavy handed government favored by our current administration.

Al Adam - 11-10-’12 17:20

In contrast to the current administration who make their opionion on keeping the beaches closed very clear. I agree the signs are inaccurate and should have said, Obama and Biden are for closed beaches! incorrecthttp://islandfreepress.org/2012Archives/06.20.2012-UPDATEObamaAdministrationWeighsInAgainstBillsPassedInTheHouseIncludingHR4094.html

Willi - 11-10-’12 19:30

Amen to Al Adam & Willi.
Love the Island Free Press for local news & factual reporting…dislike the Island Free Press for leaning liberal biased reporting without facts.

Parlady - 11-10-’12 20:21

I can’t help myself. Just need to post a response to Romney for free and open beaches. Okay, so let’s see— nuclear proliferation, global economic meltdown, the threat of terrorism, high unemployment, national debt and fiscal cliff, and, of course, a recreational motor vehicle regulation on small piece of federal land. These sign people have their right, but they are being self centered. No presidential candidate would spend their time on a gnat sized local issue. Do you really think anybody thinks those signs are accurate and true? LIar, liar, pants on fire.

billfish - 11-10-’12 20:25

Have to agree with billfish.

kinnakeeter - 11-10-’12 21:17
H. W. Clark

It appears that your On Line News has a very liberal slant. The present Administration has done nothing to assist our Congressional Delegation in their quest to liberate the beaches. As stated by other posts, any change is a “good thing” relative to the current policy of the CHNS.

H. W. Clark - 11-10-’12 21:22

To H. W. – this was an editorial, not a news piece.

kinnakeeter - 11-10-’12 21:36
F. Vashti

Our President wants to invest in renewable energy sources that will slow down the melting of the solar ice caps that will, make no mistake, eventually raise sea level to the point that Hatteras Island will no longer exist. It is insane to turn our backs on the issue of climate change and what we can do to slow and eventually reverse it. This is SO much more important in the long run than who can walk, drive, or nest on our beaches. Please everyone, don’t put your heads in the sand about this.

F. Vashti - 11-10-’12 21:44
Liz Browning Fox

You know, when I saw the sign in question, my response was to laugh. Lighten up everybody, I don’t think it was meant to be either accurate or offensive.

Liz Browning Fox - 11-10-’12 22:30

Billfish his comments ring true article leans left, or slants that way. Sad

Riddler - 12-10-’12 05:37
C. Reynolds

Keep America Fishing recently asked the candidates directly about their position at CHNSRA. Here is the question and answer by Mitt Romney.

A most egregious case of a heavy-handed federal government action is the closure of beaches to fishing and other recreational activities at Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area in North Carolina. These closures extend far beyond common sense and what is needed for resource protection, and as a result are devastating a community that depends on tourism generated by public access. Anglers fear that the same approach is about to be used in Biscayne National Park in Florida. If (re) elected as President, how will you prevent these types of over-reach by the federal government?

Governor Mitt Romney: “As president, I will take a very different approach to resource protection than President Obama. His policies have been crafted with great input from D.C. bureaucrats and with very little say from local and states agencies and the fishermen who know the waters best. A Romney Administration will highly value the input of these local entities, understanding the integral part they play in keeping our waters clean and our fish supply abundant. No one wants our resources protected more than the anglers themselves. I understand this and will make decision that lean heavily on input from those on the ground.”

C. Reynolds (URL) - 12-10-’12 08:44
Salvo Jimmy

Melting polar caps when more than half the sea level “rise” along our coast is due to the land sinking from geological plate shifts.

Guess we can turn those Solyndra windmills 90 degrees and hold hold the land up

Salvo Jimmy - 12-10-’12 08:50
Charlie Zeeman

A vote to re-elect the current regime in DC, is a vote of approval for the policies that have been used to create the new NPS rules and regs.
The only chance of reversing the status quo is to remove those who have promulgated these rules and regs. This is a fact,
and is very simple to understand. To those who cannot understand or somehow rationalize this, I believe you in denial.

Charlie Zeeman (URL) - 12-10-’12 09:15

That seals the deal for me. Obama agrees with NPS and Romney doesn’t. I guess those signs are correct. I’m glad KAF was able to get their position on the issue. Beach access is now a political party issue.

AnonVisitor - 12-10-’12 09:27

Billfish and Kinnakeeter…

This issue may seem “gnat sized” when viewed locally but when you look at all of the similar agenda driven policies that have occurred across the nation it fits perfectly and there is a pattern. Do you not see a correlation with energy prices and the EPA or DOE appointments or how the leaders of these posts tie global warming or other “green” initiatives into absurd, unsound and costly regulations? How about fishing restrictions and NOAA’s appointment of Jane Lubchenco? How about the DOI and huge land purchases across the country for “green zones.” Do see any of the cabinet level appointments coinciding with more freedom or less regulations?

Obviously some level sane regulations and minor policy changes are needed, but the ones happening before us are, sweeping and swift; many are unsound and all of the present ones come at a huge cost that cannot be justified on a cost benefit analysis. Are you willing to pay that bill when it comes due? Part of that “invoice” is fishery closures, beach closures, high fuel prices and other expenses based on agenda driven policies of the fringe elements.

Who cares if the executive order came about 40 years ago under Nixon, (who was a republican?) In Abraham Lincoln’s day Republicans (which he was) were against slavery and Southern Democrats were pro slavery. Labels are ridiculous, they change and both parties share the blame for various conditions we now live under. Unlike either parties extreme fringes, I have come to the realization that the vast majority of us are Center, Center-Right or Center-Left but are being ruled by ideologues on the fringes of either side.

Although I would consider myself center-right, in calling a spade a spade, I have resigned the Republican party and am now an Independent. The difference between me and most progressives is that I can independently research an issue and assign credit or blame by independent fact finding and rational thought processes. I despise many of the big government Republicans as much as I do their brothers on the other side.

So many of us are caught up in labels or single issues that we ignore the big issues by focusing so strongly on the small ones or vote party lines despite the facts in front of us.

If one cannot independently come to the realization that the agenda driven extremist in our current administration are a much greater threat to our way of life and our liberty than the admittedly “less than perfect” Republican challengers then u have drank the cool aid and you get what you deserve. The problem is that you drag the rest of us “center-something” rational folks down the drain with you.

Willi - 12-10-’12 10:32
Virginia Gent

We already know what Obama and his administration did in helping us regain access to our beaches and promote local seasonal businesses. And that is one big fat absolutely nothing.

Mitt Romney may indeed be an unknown on this issue but, at least sounded hopeful in his response to Keep America Fishing.

There is an old saying often attributed to Albert Einstein: “ Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”

So, if you are sane and help re-elect the Obama administration with its current environmental policies, please don’t complain about NPS policies on the OBX and elsewhere if nothing changes.

I am not really promoting Romney, per se. Its just he is the only viable choice with even a hope of change. If the reverse was true, and a current Republican president stood by and did nothing as things unfolded as they did on the OBX, my vote would be against them also.

Virginia Gent - 12-10-’12 13:46

I’d be willing to take a guess that the majority of our elected officials on both sides couldn’t find Hatteras Island on a map.

whereinthehelliscapehatteras - 12-10-’12 15:14

Good lord people, get a grip. Irene writes a relatively balanced editorial, and y’all jump all over her like she’s some sort of left wing commie radical. I don’t know what they are putting in the TEA, but apparently it’s better than WD-40 for loosening screws. Some have a warped sense of what “fair and balanced” really means these days.

The problem didn’t start with the current administration. Even though the lawsuits that precipitated the consent decree and final rule started during the previous administration, you can’t blame it on him either. I wouldn’t even blame it on poor ol’ Tricky Dickey for writing that directive in ’72 either. Personally, I blame it on beachfront development squeezing habitat into smaller areas, and since nobody wants to take on that 800 lb gorilla, we’re left with the current mess.

Despite how one of Romney’s flunkies responded to a KAF questionnaire, nobody really knows what his stance is on substantive issues, much less beach access. Anybody who takes the time to find out how Obama responded to the same question will recognize one of his flunkies trying to walk the diplomatic path of not pissing off either side (and thereby not making anybody happy). And anybody who knows a smidgeon of how things work in DC knows that whichever party wins this November, the career bureaucrats at the NPS will remain the same.

Hell, if it were that easy to get this thing changed around, I’d vote for Romney.

Boogamite - 12-10-’12 16:33
Sandy Semans Ross

I’m surprised that the comments on here are so partisan. Truth isn’t about parties, it’s about facts. One of the last official acts of former President George Bush was to give striped bass gamefish status in the EEZ thus closing the fishery in that area to commercial fishermen. In reality, that wasn’t a partisan move – he was doing a favor for his old millionaire oil tycoon, Walter Fodren, founder of the CCA. And that’s the problem. Both parties are either doing favors for friends (aka wealthy donors) or trying to gain votes from special interests. Most often decisions end up having very little to do with fairness and what is right. Would Romney be different? Who knows? But he certainly hasn’t taken a stand – why would he? This isn’t an issue that would get him votes no matter which way he went.

Sandy Semans Ross - 12-10-’12 17:17
Barbara Midgette

Wasn’t Romney born in Mexico?

Barbara Midgette - 12-10-’12 17:24
concerned party

I was very excited to see the post about Romney’s response to the KAF question…until I read Obama’s response, and then reread the question itself.

You can read it for yourself here: http://www.keepamericafishing.org/youdec..

Unfortunately, Romney’s response was exactly what one would expect to hear from a candidate running on a Republican platform, and Obama’s response was exactly what one would expect to hear from an incumbent running on a democratic platform.

Which is to say…both responses are paragons of bullshit.

Look at the way the question is worded: “A most EGREGIOUS case of a HEAVY-HANDED FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ACTION is the CLOSURE OF BEACHES to fishing and other recreational activities at Cape Hatteras…”

That question asserts two things as fact—1.) the federal government acted alone 2.) the result of that action was the prohibition of fishing and “other recreational activities” at Cape Hatteras.

To two Harvard-educated lawyers, that question more than likely read something like this: “The federal government made it illegal to fish at Cape Hatteras.”

If you had no idea what happened here, wouldn’t that sound sensational?

And if you actually followed the situation—from lawsuit to negotiated rulemaking to final ORV plan—doesn’t that sound sensationally stupid?

To confuse matters even further, the question to which the candidates responded to is not about Cape Hatteras at all—it’s about how they will prevent “these types of over-reach by the federal government.”

Sorry, but it’s a bullshit question that got, lazy bullshit answers from both parties.

And I use the word “parties” very intentionally, because if you think for one minute that either Obama or Romney wrote his response himself, you’re being naive.

I think what Irene was trying to point out here is that beach access at CHNSRA is NOT a partisan issue. And if you read both candidates’ responses critically, you’ll understand why.

Romney said that federal government over-reach can be prevented by garnering input from local interests. Obama said that the regulations effected at Cape Hatteras were the result of the federal government weighing input from local interests.

Or—to put another way—Romney advocated for the exact same process that resulted in the final ORV rule. And Obama defended that process.

Stop hoping a president will fix this situation. It’s not going to happen.

concerned party - 13-10-’12 00:47

First one point was well made—to call the signs offensive is a little over the top. Offensive would be name calling, etc.

Now, I might suggest that to balance the article it would be appropriate to include the link and some discussion of the written interview conducted by Keep America Fishing. The administration’s response for CHNSRA was obviously written by the DOI or the NPS. Romney’s response was sort of vague but to be fair, he doesn’t have access to the DOI and the history of the issue.

That said, the interview includes a variety of other issues, including National Ocean Policy proactive approach of defining Marine Protected Areas and closing such areas to all uses. My read is quite simply that the current administration is in favor of the status quo of managing recreation by restricting access while Romney’s position is to use closures only as a last resort.


Finally, to suggest that there is no evidence that the sitting President or the action of his appointees don’t impact our Island is wrong. For example, under the Bush administration, DOI Secretary Kepthrone stated that the bridge presented a clear and present danger and should be replaced ASAP. Also, under the Bush administration, Director of Homeland Security Tom Ridge insisted the environmentalists stand down and allow the filling of Issy Inlet. In contrast under the current administration the DOI is dragging its feet on the bridge and refused to allow the closing of the new new inlet or otherwise allow changes to the right of way and permit a short causeway.

Bottom line there is evidence that the position of the candidates/party will have a direct impact on beach access and the maintenance of the island’s infrastructure. This evidence was completely lacking in your articles.

Ginny - 13-10-’12 08:56
Avon Surfer

It amazes me that a community that is so depended on government help (i.e. Build us a new bridge ( with no tolls). Dredge us a new channel for our FREE ferries. Send fema help after every storm and hurricane.Keep ncdot on a permanent work detail in the hot spots) could be for a GOP,small government candidate.

Avon Surfer - 13-10-’12 10:25
Jim Boyd

Nobody knows whether Romney even knows that Cape Hatteras exists … but if memory serves me right, a NEW president will appoint a NEW Secretary of the Interior … that’s a FACT that might sway islander’s votes … worth thinking about folks.

Jim Boyd - 13-10-’12 12:59
Al Adam

Timeout problem!

Al Adam - 13-10-’12 15:20
Jim (IFP Webmaster)

Thank you for the feedback on the timeout issue. Irene and I are aware and have the server techs working on the problem now. We should have it corrected shortly.
Sorry for the inconvenience to our loyal readers!

Jim (IFP Webmaster) - 13-10-’12 17:57
Jim (IFP webmaster)

FYI, the timeouts seem to be more with Internet Explorer than with the Firefox browser (in case you have Firefox available until the issue is fixed).

Jim (IFP webmaster) - 13-10-’12 18:01
Fred Westervelt

An interesting thread, this.

In the battle for energy, jobs, national solvency and survival the R and R administration will dismantle many of the offensive EPA’s oppressive regulations. This will render the Environmental political climate less intrusive and, as trickledown, can restore our beach access as well as other freedoms to us. All this without having to utter a word about ORVs. This is what the signs are trying to say. Listen, and participate.

Fred Westervelt

Fred Westervelt - 14-10-’12 02:18
Salvo Jimmy

And then there is the clear position from the current administration on the bills in the House and Senate. VETO if they ever get to the oval office.

Salvo Jimmy - 14-10-’12 09:36

Avon Surfer—NCDOT is doing the bridge and their work is paid for via NC tax dollars, gas tax, etc. I’m not sure who pays for dredging but I suspect this is also state and based upon state taxes.

That said, it really doesn’t matter because the problem is getting it done. The bridge has been financed for years but the federal government and the environmental groups won’t let it happen.

Ginny - 14-10-’12 16:11

Avon surfer

Get off your high horse, we are a donor county. Do you know what that means?

Jim - 14-10-’12 16:14

Not partisan? When discussing Tom Ridge and Issy Inlet and Kemthrone and the bridge, I forgot to mention one other point.

With respect to the first set of bills submitted during Obama’s first congress didn’t the committee votes that kept the bills from getting to the House and Senate floor go right down party lines?

Ginny - 14-10-’12 16:27

ginny is correct about the voting on party lines

bbc - 14-10-’12 20:48

The first bills to return the seashore to the interim plan were introduced in 2008. The Senate bill had a hearing in the summer and the committee voted along party lines not to send it to the floor. The same day that committee was voting, the House had a hearing on the companion bill, which never came to a vote.

In 2009, Walter Jones introduced the bill again in the House, but it was not introduced in the Senate and it just died without a hearing.

This year it was voted out of the House committee and passed in the House.
The Senate committee had a hearing, but has not had a vote.

However, this issue is bipartisan, since the biggest supporter of the bill during the Senate committee meeting was Sen. Joe Manchin, a Democrat from West Virginia.

In fact, Manchin has asked the most pointed questions and made the most pertinent comment of any Democratic or any Republican as these various bills have floated around in Congress.

The difference is that Manchin has been to the Outer Banks – to Ocracoke. He was a good friend of the late owner of Howard’s Pub, Buffy Warner. They served in the West Virginia legislature together.

Warner was a Republican and Manchin a Democratic, but the two became good friends.

If the bill to overturn the rule and the ORV plan should get out of the Senate this year, it will be because of Manchin.

This to me makes it obvious that one party or the other will not be our savior here. It will take a bipartisan effort.

Irene - 15-10-’12 00:12

Your right this year the bill did get support from one democrat on the senate committee. But what about the bigger picture? Wasn’t that the point of the article—that it is ludicrous to think that the President or anyone in the President’s administration could possibly impact the lives of a mere 4,000 residents of an obscure island off the coast of NC.

In the case of the Senate, we still need Harry Reid to agree to bring the bill to the Senate Floor and then enough democrat support to pass it. Based upon the actions of Mr. Reid and the Senate over the past 2 years, I don’t share your confidence in this.

The house bill passed the house only because, unlike 2008, the house has a republican majority.

Does it matter what the House and Senate do? As noted earlier, President Obama has promised to veto the bill that includes our bill. So it doesn’t really matter what Manchin did or what the House did. Rather it is clear that the agenda of the current administration is not in our favor—either in terms of beach access or the bridge, or the road, dredging or any other issue that changes “natural processes”.

Now is there any guarantee that Romney will follow his stated agenda of reducing the regulations and balancing environmental protections with economic realities and favoring public access over closures? Of course not, but unless he does a complete about turn and becomes President Obama, our island will have to better off than we are right now with the strangle hold over access, infrastructure, navigation, regulations on commercial and recreational fishing, etc.

Bottom line, we can have all the bipartisanship in the world but if the man at the top appoints people who follow an environmental extremist agenda and if the man at the top veto’s anything that does not conform to that agenda, we are still in the tank. It’s not because the top is thinking specifically of us but because the general policies are what dictates our survival. Currently we are considered to be a danger to the island ecosystem and we are not considered to be a sustainable community because global warming a sea level rise will put our island under water in 50 years. That is why SELC with the support of DOI & USFWS would prefer roads not be replaced, bridges not be replaced, inlets not be maintained, and access to our beaches be limited—they want us to leave this ribbon of sand and the sooner the better.

Ginny - 15-10-’12 09:21

“if the man at the top appoints people who follow an environmental extremist agenda and if the man at the top veto’s anything that does not conform to that agenda, we are still in the tank.”

I think that was part of the purpose of this blog—the last time Romney had a chance to appoint someone to an environmental position, he appointed Douglas Foy…a man who was the Massachusetts equivalent of Derb Carter.

A man who fought specifically to ban ORVs from Cape Cod beaches.

Romney can talk all he wants to about federal over-reach, etc., etc., but when he had an opportunity to limit beach closures in his own state—and the man who worked to ban ORVs at Cape Cod in his administration—he did nothing to make the regulations there less strict.

Why on earth would you think he would do that for Cape Hatteras?

And if your answer is, “because he said he would in that Keep America Fishing questionnaire,” then you may need to prepare yourselves for disappointment.

republicrat - 15-10-’12 12:50

Ginny is spot on!

The current administration has made out our death certificate and is waiting for us to give up or kick the bucket. If you “hope for change” then you need to vote for the other guy (Romney).

As for Irene’s editorial try researching a subject before coping a facebook opinion that is one sided at best.

wolflax - 15-10-’12 13:54

Romney did what any good governor would do—that is, whatever the majority of the people in his state wanted.

For your information, I think there is a big difference between the people in NC and the people in MA.

Jim - 16-10-’12 11:23

You should take the time to gather facts. You should contact the Romney Ryan team pose the question. Get the facts rather than just writing something. Go deeper into why Judge Boyle wasn’t selected. Just because he lists himself as a republican doesn’t mean he isn’t just a RINO. Look at his overall record. Bottom line print facts not spins.

OleSalt - 17-10-’12 03:36
Hawk Hawkins

How much control does a state governor have over a federally owned National Park?

Hawk Hawkins - 17-10-’12 09:50
Al Adam

Your timeouts are worse then when I was in kindergarden!

Al Adam - 17-10-’12 18:25
Salvo Jimmy

“Your timeouts are worse then when I was in kindergarden!”

And when I go to the IFP from my bookmark, I have to then refresh the page to get it to come up. And yes, I’m set that a bookmark refreshes to current page.

Salvo Jimmy - 18-10-’12 06:58
Salvo Jimmy

Well, Hawk, maybe we need a state law that rolls back to Interim Plan. After all, NPS’s own site says they have assimilated all NC law into their rules and regs.

That should keep SELC, et al, in the money for sometime to come.

heh heh heh

Salvo Jimmy - 18-10-’12 07:02

Great article. These Romney/Ryan signs for open beaches are just as ignorant and idiotic as the anti MPS signs, the Audubon lies sign, and the sign for 99.9( the most ridiculous and rhetorical radio station ever. I fish a ton, and i support the beach closures for hundreds of reasons. Its sad that a few extremist orv people who hate our government and country give Buxton a bad reputation. How does lying to tourists help your economy? Morons. Im sure the first thing Romney would do is overturn the beach closures in cape hatteras national seashore, like he doesn’t have any more pressing concerns.

Nps4ever - 18-10-’12 18:22


Look at the comment counts (not the form letters) and review the transcripts, etc. Where is the majority sentiment?

As for you impression of the signs, you demonstrate the whole problem with today’s political climate—you can’t simply disagree but resort to name calling.

And best yet, the house in 2010 went to the conservatives yet people like you still call the conservatives extremist minority. How so, they were elected by the majority?

The same will likely happen with the Presidential election. Stated more specifically if Romney is elected, people like you will still be crying about he extremist minority who hate government.

p.s. We don’t hate our government, we hate what the current administration is doing to our government and our country—bypassing Congress with an unprecedented number of executive orders and setting up a variety of new agencies that don’t report to Congress but take actions that are legislative in nature. Taking over whole segments of our private sector (banks, GM, and health care industry). So much for the separation of powers designed to keep government in check. Two more appointments to the Supreme Court and we can throw away the constitution.

Ginny - 19-10-’12 08:51

First of all Ginny, let me clarify something for you. I wasn’t trying to generalize conservatives as extremists who hate the government. I was referring to a segment of the local populationn of Buxton that is negative about everything and flat out spreads lies about the ORV management plan. Secondly, you have the right to be upset about the Obama administrations policy, but this isn’t the first administration to use executive orders to override state legislation. The Bush administration basically stripped the EPA of its ability to enforce environmental law that was detrimental to big business. So don’t give me that BS about being concerned about our ability to check government power. The only time people like you care about the distribution of executive power is when it threatens some insignificant issue such as beach assess, or something else that inconveniences you.

Nps4ever - 19-10-’12 20:27

Hold on to your hat. The DOI published the federal register the creation of a new 25 member an advisory committee on climate change to advise the federal government on future operations. There will also be a number of Climate Science Centers. All of this to to help land, water, wildlife and cultural resource managers to monitor and adapt to climate change on regional and local levels.

Anyone want to guess what that will mean for our bridge, our roads, our insurance rates, etc.? What about lining SELC and other attorneys pockets? OH, I can see the number of law suits now.

If the last 4 years of Obama’s appointee Salazar are not enough to give you pause about Obama’s policies, consider on other issue. Libya!

Either we are being lied to or this administration is just plain incompetent. Either way the failure to monitor the trouble in a country where Obama was instrumental in helping an uprising, failure to monitor the success of Stevens who was sent by the Obama administration specifically to help in the development of a new government, and failure to heed warnings from the man the Obama administration placed in harms way regarding increased terrorist threats and the need for more (not less) security is more than troubling.

This failure should make you pause to consider how this administration can do the one thing government was designed to do — ensure our national security. If this is the best this administration can do, what are the implications within the US with regard to terror attacks?

Read more: http://cowboybyte.com/13865/interior-dep..

Read more: http://cowboybyte.com/13865/interior-dep..

Ginny - 20-10-’12 08:12

If elected President, Romney will provide limo service to’ the point’

crystal - 20-10-’12 08:18
Jim Sloop

Unfortunately, your liberal bias was pronounced in your discussion of this issue. That is too bad. Here is the truth as I see it. If Romney is elected, the Republicans will carry the congress and most likely the Senate. The proposed bills in the House and the Senate to overturn the current regulations of the Park Service were authored by Republicans. We stand a much better chance of the bill eventually being signed by the President if Romney wins.

Jim Sloop - 20-10-’12 10:02
tom ballard

Hatteras Is pure, keep the corrupted politics out of it, people brushed it aside when Murray the destroyer came down from Mass. now its done everyone’s singing the blues. Too much way too late.

tom ballard - 20-10-’12 12:26

Libya? Ginny tries to add Libya to the beach issues? FYI, extended tours were requested for the security crew at Tripoli, not extra security for Benghazi. Poor Ginny, she’s never been one to let facts or truth get in the way of the narrative she wants to create.

crotalus - 25-10-’12 10:05

So when Obama comes out and doesnt support H.R.4094 then that means. I wont vote for him. Romney/Ryan 2012!!! ABO

ABO - 28-10-’12 09:11

Just curious since I am not a fisherman. I was just vacationing your way last week with a trip to Ocracoke and saw the signs in question. I don’t know the law you all are concerned about so was wanting some clarification. Is there no fishing allowed now on the National Sea Shore or is the restriction just to do with the vehicles actually having access to drive on the beach?

Itsapyr - 28-10-’12 09:13

Solar ice caps??? Really??
Have to love liberal science….

smlobx - 28-10-’12 09:31

Jim Sloop is dead on. Now that is some Hope and Change i can live with.

avonlady - 28-10-’12 21:18

How’s that?

whaaat? - 30-10-’12 03:37

“We don’t hate our government, we hate what the current administration is doing to our government and our country—bypassing Congress with an unprecedented number of executive orders”
Ginny,either you don’t know the truth or you can’t be bothered with it.
Obama has issued 138 executive orders. G.W. Bush issued a total of 291 with 173 of those in his first term. Clinton, Bush Sr. and Reagan also issued more than Obama
The truth is out there.

whaaat? - 30-10-’12 03:49

I saw those signs coming home from a long weekend on Ocracoke and laughed my head off. If you think Romney has any remote idea what those signs are talking about, you deserve what you get. The ORV beach issue is barely on the regional radar, far less national.

Kristen - 01-11-’12 22:21

Ms Ginny…..Totally misimformed

lec - 17-11-’12 01:03

(optional field)
(optional field)

Comment moderation is enabled on this site. This means that your comment will not be visible until it has been approved by an editor.

Remember personal info?
Small print: All html tags except <b> and <i> will be removed from your comment. You can make links by just typing the url or mail-address.