A standing room only crowd of about 125 people showed up at the meeting of the Dare County Board of Commissioners on Monday evening, June 15.
They came to speak at the meeting?s public comment period about the beach access issues on the Cape Hatteras National Seashore.
Twenty-five folks stepped up to the microphone to comment.
The comment period went on for more than an hour, and the commissioners listened to each speaker patiently and with respect.
It is terrific that all of these people are making such an effort to be informed and to speak out on the beach access issue — and especially last year?s consent decree that settled a lawsuit by environmental groups about the lack of an off-road vehicle plan on the seashore. The consent decree has brought unprecedented closures of the park?s beaches to protect natural resources — the nesting birds and turtles. And, unfortunately, most of the closures have been at the most popular recreational beaches ? Bodie Island spit, Cape Point, South Beach in Frisco, Hatteras Inlet spit, and South Point on Ocracoke.
Some Hatteras Island businesses took a real beating last summer with the closures, and fear losses again this year.
And most islanders and visitors are very unhappy about the loss of the cultural and historical access to the beach.
In fact, many folks are angry about it. And many of them showed up at the commissioners? meeting.
None of the speakers presented any information that is new to the beach access debate. Instead most drummed away on points that have been made over and over again, such as the promises made in 1952 by Conrad Wirth, then director of the National Park Service, that the islanders would always have access to the beach.
Some reiterated their view that the federal judge who signed the consent decree acted illegally ? and even that he should be sued — and that passing legislation in Congress is the answer to the severe restrictions of the consent decree.
Some speakers were critical of the efforts by Dare County in the beach access fight.
So it?s time for some fact checking.
First, beating up on the Dare County commissioners will not bring the changes folks want ? the end of the consent decree.
Dare County?s government has worked diligently on the beach access issue. The commission spent $433,822 to intervene in the lawsuit by the environmental groups that eventually filed for an injunction to shut down the beaches.
Warren Judge, chairman of the commission, Allen Burrus, the vice chairman, and Bobby Outten, the county attorney made at least four trips to Washington, D.C., to talk to the state?s representatives about the issue.
Judge was a member of the committee that tried unsuccessfully to negotiate an ORV rule. The committee met for more than a year.
The commissioners have done all they can do.
They did sign on to the consent decree as interveners in the lawsuit, but they did this only because federal Judge Terrence W. Boyle had made it abundantly clear that he was willing to totally close the beach down, as the environmental groups had asked him to do.
You can click on the links at the end of this blog to read the transcripts of three hearings in Boyle?s court last spring. His leaning in favor of the legal points made by the plaintiffs, the environmental groups, is abundantly clear.
He says such things as ?The plaintiffs have made a case for the urgency of action? to close the beach to ORVs, pending a long-term rule by the Park Service, and that the plaintiffs ?have made a compelling case for preliminary injunctive relief? to close the beaches to ORVs.
Also, the consent decree is NOT the judge?s opinion. It is an agreement worked out by the plaintiffs, the defendants (National Park Service and other federal agencies), and the defendant interveners — Dare and Hyde counties and the Cape Hatteras Access Preservation Alliance.
This is NOT Judge Boyle?s decree. So don?t blame it entirely on him, although it is true that his view is what forced the defendants to sign the consent decree.
Here is what Boyle said at the end of a hearing on April 30 of last year when he was asked to sign off on the agreement by all the parties to end the suit:
?Thank you for your work, your patience and your forbearance in listening to me. It?s not my agreement. It?s your agreement. And I am not going to stand in the way of it. And I wish you the best with it.?
So, anyone who wants to be active and helpful in promoting the cause of access had best get off the case of Judge Boyle. He did nothing illegal. He is not going to be sued.
In fact, getting rid of the consent decree in any way is a waste of time.
This summer?s resource closings are well underway, and there is just about no chance that any Congressional action will happen ever ? or certainly in time to help us before the beaches re-open in late summer when the nesting birds leave.
After this year, there is only one more year under the consent decree.
The Park Service is required under the decree to have an ORV rule by April of 2011.
Last year?s effort to pass legislation in Congress went nowhere. It was largely shot down by Daniel Wenk, then an assistant director in the National Park Service in Washington, D.C., who testified before Congressional committees that the NP no longer supported the Interim Protected Species Management Plan and thought the consent decree provided better protection for birds and turtles.
Right now, Wenk is acting director of the Park Service, and there is no reason to think he has changed his mind.
U.S. Rep. Walter B. Jones, Jr., R-N.C., did introduce a bill in January to nullify the consent decree and return the management of the seashore to the interim plan. Last time I looked he had one co-sponsor. North Carolina?s two senators, Republican Richard Burr and Democrat Kay Hagan, said in January they intended to introduce a similar bill in the Senate, but they never have.
We all need to forget not only about getting rid of the judge and the consent decree but also passing legislation in Congress.
The chances of legislation passing is, for all practical purposes, zero ? though I would love to be proved wrong on this issue.
There is something constructive that all of us who are so disappointed and angry, and suffering financially, by the beach closures can do.
After the failure of the negotiated rulemaking process, the ORV rulemaking is in the hands of the National Park Service ? seashore Superintendent Mike Murray, his staff, and his bosses in Washington.
A Park Service contractor is now doing an impact analysis, evaluating the five alternatives ? alternatives A through E — already proposed by the park and perhaps a sixth alternative F, which the negotiated rulemaking committee failed to reach agreement on. This analysis, he said, will be ?the guts? of the Environmental Impact Statement that will guide the park in making the ORV rule.
It will address all issues from wildlife and resource protection to socio-economic impacts and recreation to costs.
Murray said the deadline for receiving the analysis is ?fluid? but he hopes it will be finished this summer.
Next the Park Service will discuss the alternatives internally ? at local, regional, and national levels ? and choose its preferred alternative and the environmentally preferred alternative, which, Murray said, could be the same or different.
He said he is aiming for the release of a draft EIS in late fall. There will be a 60-day public comment period, including public meetings on the Outer Banks and in other cities, such as Raleigh, Richmond, and Washington, D.C.
The Park Service will also have to submit the preferred alternative to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for a biological opinion.
Finally, there will be a record of decision issued, which Murray said would have a 30-day public comment period.
The consent decree requires that the ORV management plan be completed by Dec. 31, 2010 and promulgated by special regulation by April 1, 2011.
Anyone who wants to have a voice in the final rule needs to focus on the fall when the draft Environmental Impact Statement is issued. You will have a chance to attend meetings and to make public comments.
This stage is very important — much more important than wasting time on suing a judge or passing legislation in Congress to negate the consent decree.
Bobby Outten, Dare County?s attorney who will become county manager on July 1, says he supports contacting your federal legislators now to let them know how you feel. That will be important down the road.
?There will not be a resolution of this legally,? Outten said. Many expect that whatever final rule the Park Service issues will result in legal action by groups on either side who are not happy with the outcome.
?If this comes out a way we do not like, the solution will be political,? he says.
Political, in this case, means that Congress will have to pass legislation reaffirming the recreational nature of the seashore and the balance that the Park Service is required to strike between its often conflicting goals or providing for people and for birds and turtles.
The other thing that advocates of accessible beaches can do is start raising money for whatever legal action is eventually needed. With the recession, it is clear that the county does not have money to go back to court.
Raising funds for the legal fight will be up to the people.
?I understand the anger,? commissioner Allen Burrus said after Monday night?s meeting.
?And,? he added, ?we share a frustration that things won?t get done quickly.?
The commissioners were asked to pass a resolution, presented by people at Monday night?s meeting. It was basically a resolution passed by the state Republican Committee last weekend supporting open and accessible beaches.
Burrus indicated that the commission has no problem with passing a resolution, though it will wait until the state Democratic Committee passes its version before crafting what the commissioners hope will be a bipartisan resolution.
However, the county commissioners can pass resolutions forever, and it won?t do much to solve our beach access plight.
All of us who want to preserve our cultural and historical access to the beach need to be looking ahead to the final rulemaking by the Park Service and our opportunities to make comments. The environmental groups will make sure that their members flood the Park Service with comments. We need to do the same — and the need to raise funds for a possible legal fight.
We cannot be looking back at the consent decree or how the federal government got the property for the seashore or what promises were made almost 60 years ago.
That is history.
Look to the future.
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Transcript of hearing before Judge Boyle in March, 2008, on injunction filed by plaintiffs to close beaches to ORVs until Park Service has a final rule:
http://islandfreepress.org/2008Archives/03.03.2008-TranscriptOfJudgeBoyles.pdf
Transcript of hearing by Judge Boyle on request by parties to the lawsuit to be granted more time to work on an agreement to end the action:
http://islandfreepress.org/2008Archives/04.09.200
RVHearingTranscript.pdf
Transcript of hearing by Judge Boyle on the consent decree on April 30, 2008
http://islandfreepress.org/2008Archives/05.19.2008-TranscriptMotionHearing.pdf
By the time this mess ends, lots of businesses will be lost, losts of foreclosures will happen. Its truely sad?
In other words, you just want us to sit back , keep our mouths shut, and let them destroy the islands. We will not buy that.
??and the public had no say so on anything at anytime??.just like in North Korea and Iran?.wake up people!!!!
The NPS is essentially ?broken? and no longer represents the people.
Somehow we need to get the Interior Dept to recognize that and kick the current NPS management out so we can start over with a new park service that recogizes that they work for the people.
Thanks for this, Irene.
The good news is that the envirowackos fought against Interior Secretary Ken Salazar?s appointment. He is in charge of both NPS and FWS. After just a month or two on the job, he allowed some northern plains states to remove the gray wolf from their endangered species lists to help fellow ranchers. The DoW is as outraged about him as they are Sarah Palin with the aerial wolf hunts. This leads me to believe he is a pragmatic and reasonable man. I hope he?s nobody?s fool. I?ve already written to him to expedite the NPS plan.
So I will write my legislators again and write and rehearse my speech for the public forum in the fall?and then I?ll pray. What else?
Ouch! Irene has really pulled no punches in her article about where beach access rests now and what the future holds. I guess it is time to beat up on Irene since she does not want us to beat up on the County Commissioners. But, guess what! She has told you the facts that most of us who have been in this fight’s front line for over two years already know.
Do I like Judge Boyle and think he should have handled the case? No, he should have stepped aside due to his conflict of ideas he had expressed. Do I think NPS rolled over on us and gave our rights away? Yes, but with the “GREEN” inside the beltway of DC I should have expected no less. Have the folks on the front line of Dare and Hyde County, OBPA and other access organizations fought for your rights with all their might? Not only yes, but Hell Yes.
When the April 30, hearing in front of Judge Boyle was in session there were those of us that wanted him to not accept the agreement reached and do what he pretty much promised to do, close the beach year round for off road vehicles until the plan was put in place. The attorneys for Dare and Hyde County and OBPA believed that there was a possibility that if they had not signed the agreement that it could have been appealed and overturned, but that percentage was less than 50 percent and would possibly have taken 18 months or more to get results. The interveners knew by these facts at had the judge removed all ORV traffic year round many businesses that have suffered from the consent decree would probably have been out of business. That may well have included me, but I was willing to take that chance.
The commissioners of Dare County have stood by us in this fight as much or more than any of us could have hoped. They have spent county money as interveners and even now have established an Access web site that is still promoting our cause with an employee dedicated to helping our interest any way he can. Warren and Allen have made trips in behalf of our cause and will continue to do so. They along with the whole board will continue to strive to get our state and our federal representatives to help us. We must continue to give these folks our support.
When the Environmental Impact Study comes out this fall and it is time for comments and hearings the access groups better be ready with facts, figures and powerful comments and statements if we are to succeed. You better know that the environmental special interest groups have been amassing their rank and file to send comments and state why the plan should be more restrictive than it is now.
Yes indeed, look to future and quit hammering Dare County Officials who have done and are doing about all that can be done at this point in time. Personally, I wish I had such worthy officials in my county.
There are things that should be done immediately that could make a big difference down stream.
1. Recognize that if the current USGS Protocols are applied in the final plan the way they are in the consent decree, the public can say good bye to seashore access for much of the spring and summer months.
2. Demand that the Department of Interior revisit, update, and reissue the USGS Protocols that restrict seashore access but this time in a transparent manner in full compliance with USGS Peer Review Policy.
3. Demand that NPS justify and explain to the public, based on scientific and statistical method, why we need exorbitant fixed boundaries and why adaptive management strategies used in other national seashores jurisdiction of NPS that allow reasonable access to the seashore are infeasible at the Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area.
4. Formally request that the Department of Interior Inspector General investigate why the USGS protocols were never published, publicly commented on, or reviewed under USGS Peer Review policy and then used and agreed to by NPS Officals as the basis for a highly restrictive public policy in the form of the consent decree.
The USGS protocols are not dated. There is no USGS document or publication number. There is no indication that the protocols were ever published in the Federal Register and made known to the public, other than in local press releases. There is no public file, docket, or documentation of peer review questions, comments, or author response.
Scientists having any kind of conflict of interest association, whether through membership, collegial associations, funding, or grants must disclose the relationship.
The Audubon Society along with Defenders of Wildlife and the Souther Environmental Law Center used the USGS Protocols as the technical basis in a suite against the government.
Some authors and reviewers of the protocols were members and associates of the organizations now using the protocols to restrict public access to the beaches of the national park, a fact never disclosed openly and not in compliance with USGS peer review policy.
Why was it never disclosed that members of the Audubon Society took an active role in the preparation of the USGS Protocols?
There is at least an appearance of impropriety here. The DOI IG is duty bound to look into this sort of conflict of interest behavior.
Read, Beths post about the Bridge, if you dont soon fix it. You will not have to worry about The little Birdies. and the island will be closed period. The govt just takes too darn long to do anything. bye bye??
I sat in on ever meeting of REG–NEG (except the very last one) including all those leading up to the formal meetings.
I thus feel confident in the accuracy of what Irene and Frank are saying.
And folks if we participate in the upcoming comment cycles like we did on the ORV Plan workbook inputs or the 2nd round on critical habitat, you can kiss it all good bye.
Only 385 workbooks were submitted and only 423 comments were submitted on critical habitat 3 days before close of comments. AND note, this is total workbooks/comments, including environs.
The dark side then says. ?Look can?t be that big a deal, only a small group worrying over this.?
I disagree with Irene on the impact and necessity of the closures, but she at least gets her facts right and understands the politics. Legislation is a non-starter. Criticisms of the Judge are off-base. He didn?t write the consent decree ? the parties did, including the Counties and CHAPA. His views were based on the indisputable fact, long admitted by NPS, that without an ORV plan beach driving is not legally authorized.
The best hope for all sides is for the NPS to write a solid plan and for the NEPA process to be thorough and thoroughly documented. I had a long quarrel with Dr. Berry over the protocols. I see he continues to argue process instead of substance, but the NEPA process will take all that into account. All sides will submit comments, and the outcome will leave everyone unhappy. When the plan is released, the ORV groups will sue, the enviros will intervene in support of the Park Service, the judge will rule for NPS, and only that will end it.
One final comment ? Dare County spent $433,000 on a case that never went to trial, and which achieved nothing? Are you kidding me? What a total waste of taxpayer resources.
To those who say forget the past, I offer the following.
(1)Those who forget the past, are condemned to repeat it. (2)A Native American chief once said, “The white man kept only one promise to my people. He promised to take our land and he did.” [Substitute NPS, U.S. Government, etc. for white man and you have disappearing beach access.] Someone once said about the Holocaust?”to the dead a memorial, to the living a warning.”
I also refuse to forget the Hatteras & Ocracoke Islands that I have known and loved since I first came there on my honeymoon almost 30 years ago. The reason I refuse to forget them, is because thanks to (fill in the blank here because there are a large number of people and organizations to blame)_______, they are gone and will never exist again. I am most sorry for all of the people and businesses whose existence and livelihood have been or will be snuffed out in the near future.
To forget the sordid past of this entire mess insults everyone who life has been negatively altered it.
Thank you, Irene Nolan.
Yours is the best synopsis of the current situation that anyone can write.
Now, let?s see everyone take a second breath; and perhaps, a short vacation away from this issue. Like a soap opera, no one will miss anything by taking a break.
Thanks Irene
Good piece, full of reality.
As to Ray?s comment of taking a break, you can?t. You miss one meeting and the whole thing can fall apart.
I am glad to see the residents of the Outer Banks taking an interest in their future but it doesn?t end because you showed up on one Monday.
?The price of freedom is eternal vigilance? and it?s as true today as yesterday.
Maybe the hundred plus citzens who showed up on Monday will turn into thousands who will show up for the NEPA comment period.
Every individual in Dare and Ocracoke holds the future in their hand.
I have no plans to take the summer off and get caught napping come fall.
Observer wrote:
I disagree with Irene on the impact and necessity of the closures, but she at least gets her facts right and understands the politics.
Frank and Fran’s Reply:
Least terns and Oyster Catchers are not endangered or even threatened, but by some miracle appear on the North Carolina list of concern. State properties that share recreation with the nesting of these birds take little or no action during pre nesting or nesting times. Why then should NPS take any actions for a bird they have not even classified? The pre-nesting closures for even the plover are extreme and nowhere else do they use the 1000 meter protection for chicks. One aircraft carrier as a pivoting radius should be more than adequate for a plover chick. That’s 333 meters.
Observer wrote:
Legislation is a non-starter.
Frank and Fran’s reply:
With the new congress and lack of time legislation on to return to the interim plan until the NPS plan is in place has probably passed being viable.
Observer wrote:
Criticisms of the Judge are off-base. He didn’t write the consent decree — the parties did, including the Counties and CHAPA. His views were based on the indisputable fact, long admitted by NPS, that without an ORV plan beach driving is not legally authorized.
Frank and Fran’s reply:
Criticizing the judge for taking the case because of his bias in warranted, but you are correct that because of NPS not having the ORV plan in place, the environmental special interest groups had NPS in an impossible position to argue that point on the injunction request. However; you are wrong about NPS and the interveners not having a good case on the lawsuit against the interim plan.
Observer wrote:
The best hope for all sides is for the NPS to write a solid plan and for the NEPA process to be thorough and thoroughly documented. I had a long quarrel with Dr. Berry over the protocols. I see he continues to argue process instead of substance, but the NEPA process will take all that into account. All sides will submit comments, and the outcome will leave everyone unhappy. When the plan is released, the ORV groups will sue, the enviros will intervene in support of the Park Service, the judge will rule for NPS, and only that will end it.
Frank and Fran’s Reply:
While we both agree that we hope NPS will write a solid plan and the NEPA process is thorough and thoroughly documented. While you may have argued with Dr. Berry’s facts on the protocols, we hope that NPS does the process with transparency and proper review and documentation giving an outcome that no one will like. When the plan is released NPS will have had the backbone to stand up to your groups attempt to take recreation out of Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area where in we can get the ORV plan done only to leave your phony science to contest said plan. That way it will be SELC back in court with NPS as defendants and the counties and citizens of the area as interveners with NPS.
Observers comment:
One final comment — Dare County spent $433,000 on a case that never went to trial, and which achieved nothing? Are you kidding me? What a total waste of taxpayer resources
Frank and Fran’s final reply:
Thank you Dare County, Hyde County and CHAPA for standing up to these elitist environmental interest groups and while you were served up at sword-point by a pre-determined judge who surely should have stepped aside on this case due to his preconceived views of Cape Hatteras, did get us more than what was on the table on April 4th and up until the judges close of court on April 30. I would surely love to have a recording of the behind closed doors efforts by the three groups from April 4th through April 30th, but those negotiations were not public and were privileged only to the lawyers.
Truth is, I am darn glad someone said it on this level. Now is the time to relax and get our heads on straight. Focus on plausible ideas. The rest is a waste of resources.
As stated before me the otherside is getting their ducks in a row for future battles and are not wasting their time on anything else. They already know where to place their bets and nothing currently being talked about is even worth them betting on.They are holding out for the future.
I hope we figure that out soon ourselves, while building awareness and raising funds.
Irene;
Thank you for a most thorough synopsis of the situation. The one thing that all of us should never forget is that all this mess is based on pseudo-science. There have been, and it seems there will be, no scientific studies done concerning these issues and therefore the result will fall to the people haters who are promoting the lies and smoke and mirror treatment of facts not in evidence. One thing we all can do is loby for ACTUAL studies to be done to dispell some of the myths promoted by these people. If we let stand ideas like the one about these birds needing 1,000 yards of room around each nest and sutch crap it will be our own fault when all the beaches are closed. I urge each and every one who loves the OBX to keep up the fight and to follow some of our great protest leaders and kick the bums out.
BTW re the ORV Plan Workbook submission.
I asked at the time how many were from the pro-access side. The person did not have an exact count but could easily state that the vast majority appeared pro-access.
Why do you think the environs did not bother? The workbooks were due in early 2008. The environs had filed their suit in late 2007 so they did not waste time on workbooks.
So at best we had no more than the 385 interested enough at the time to do a workbook.
Seems to me the leaders of Dare County would be far better off spending money on increasing pedestrian access points and public parking than wasting it on high-priced DC lawyers. Its time to think out of the box. The best you all can hope for is something like Cape Cod or Assateague, with some areas open via a permit system, and other areas closed during nesting season. Forward thinking leaders would think about what the final plan will likely contain and start planning around it. Your chances of successfully defeating the Park Service, if it implements a similar plan to Assateague or Cape Cod are zero. It?s time to do what some of you think the birds and turtles should do ? adapt.
This is a new era. Hatteras Island?s future will not be secured by looking backward to a past that is no longer viable.
Who is this anonymous ?observer? guy? He has certainly reached a new level with his latest posts.
First he mocks and belittles the citizens, taxpayers, business owners and tourists of Hatteras Island for expressing their concerns about the effects of the consent decree on humans.
Then he attacks Dr. Berry and his credentials, a man who is far more qualified to comment on the science and the process than anyone we have heard from on the other side.
Then he arrogantly tells us all that the Bonner Bridge is a ?Bridge to Nowhere? ? if that doesn?t tell us all what their ultimate agenda is then we?re just not listening!!!
And finally now, he goes after our County Commissioners for spending a lot of money on lawyers to defend us.
I?ll bet he is a lawyer and I think his feelings are hurt because the county?s lawyers make more money than he does. Nothing means more to a lawyer than fees! And isn?t there something wrong about a lawyer, as an ?officer of the court? attempting to influence public opinion on an on-going case???
It really frosted me to watch those Reg Neg meetings and see the reps for our side volunteering to take all that time away from their businesses to sit and negotiate with the arrogant, condescending, $300-per-hour lawyer types for the other side. I am quite sure that the other side has spent much more on legal fees than our county has since this hysterical (and I don?t mean funny), ?case that never went to trial?, attack on our economy and way of life began.
And, as for his ?the leaders of Dare County would be far better off spending money on increasing pedestrian access points and public parking than wasting it on high-priced DC lawyers.? ? I say that the leaders of Dare county would be far better off continuing to fight to defend the way of life and economic well-being of their constituents. ?Observer? is the one wasting time ? nobody is going to listen to someone who won?t even tell us his name!
Steve Coleman said:
The NPS is essentially “broken” and no longer represents the people.
Somehow we need to get the Interior Dept to recognize that and kick the current NPS management out so we can start over with a new park service that recogizes that they work for the people.
The Consent Decree “settlement” was the work of DOI and its legal team, not the DC NPS or local NPS. You would be better served by complaining to Congress ? or not.
Mike Berry said:
2. Demand that the Department of Interior revisit, update, and reissue the USGS Protocols that restrict seashore access but this time in a transparent manner in full compliance with USGS Peer Review Policy.
The USGS Protocols are based on peer reviewed lit surveys and the professional opinions of the scientists. How do you challenge an observation that a plover brood has moved more than 1000 meters. Or the observations that when they have unobstructed access, oystercatcher and tern chicks spend 90 percent of their time on the lower beach and intertidal zone ? ie ORV corridors?
A lit search of your publication list seems to be short on original scientific research and nothing in wildlife biology or ecology. Evidently you were a better bureaucrat (see Peter Principle) than a scientist.
Bert Smith wrote:
One thing we all can do is loby for ACTUAL studies to be done to dispell some of the myths promoted by these people. If we let stand ideas like the one about these birds needing 1,000 yards of room around each nest and sutch crap it will be our own fault when all the beaches are closed.
The nest buffer for plovers is 50 meters, not 1,000 meters (not yards). The 1,000 meter buffer kicks in when there are chicks ? which have been documented as being capable of moving more than 1000 meters.
See:
http://www.fws.gov/northeast/pipingplove..
No Irene, I can?t agree with you about Judge Boyle. Correct, he did not write the consent decree, he gave us no acceptable option. Like other federal judges, he takes licence to interpret the law as he sees fit. There are several things that he could have done. He could have penalized the reckless driver [ or was he indeed reckless?], and handled the situation as a separate case, as it should have been done. He could have just as easily sided with the folks of the Outer Banks, and sent the Californians [who plan to shut down, everything in America], back home, most of whom have never even been on the Outer Banks. He could have realized that the NPS has for decades handled violations very well, and for decades have done a superb job of protecting the wildlife here. No Irene, it boiled down to the consideration of a worthless, governmental, technical piece of paper instead of the actual superb job that has been done for decades. Steve Sink, Linwood, N.C.
Guess what Walker Golder taught on the sacred Salt Pond at Cape Point back in the late 80?s? Windsurfing. How many of birds he so concerned with did he disrupt? Ask him about it, by the time he reads this, he?ll have the perfect answer for you, again. He should have been an actor. Oh, that?s right, he is.
Listen Folks this thread can go on forever and some of you have made excellent comments, for that I thank you. But the bottom line still is this whole thing stinks and the actions of this Judge are subject to some very serious questions. If some of you want to Sugar coat this. That is your right. But once you run out of Sugar , It is all over?
I remember the 60s, now somebody screwed big time on this, try not to let it happen again????
Wow Kevin, you remember the 80s?
What does how Golder spent his time >20 years ago have to do with today.
(And I?m no fan of Golder, mainly in light of his unscientific claims (among many) presumed successes on the seashore in 2008 were a result of the consent decree, and especially when one examines the data and can observe he ignores natural annual variability ? most importantly with sea turtles ? as part of the equation.)
I agree the likelyhood of legislation being passed is slim?however, the more our representatives hear from us the better, especially when it comes to the final rule.
I don?t think anyone bashed the commissioners or OBPA?yes a few disagreed with the signing of the consent decree but even these people recognized that they weren?t in the room and that there were probably good reasons for the decision.
Finally, if this show revitalized the public (contributions, awareness, etc.) and if it gets to a national outlet (which it didn?t seem to) then it is well worth it. Maybe this showing was the reason for the presentation being hosted tomorrow at the Anglers Club. Maybe this will get more attention.
We need all the exposure we can get.
Excellent article. Great information and a good view point. Look to the problems ahead and not the damage thats been done in the past. Sounds like the whole process starts all over again. Oh man! But worth the battle. We?ve got another chance. Let?s get the beaches back.
Just to set the record straight: I know when the 1,000 meter or yard rule kicks in (BTW meters are longer) My point is that animals adapt to their surroundings, parent bird keep their chicks out of danger and no bird on any sea-shore needs even 1,000 feet of room around each nest to successfully survive in reasonable numbers. We need some REAL studies done so that we and they don?t just argue back and forth indefinitely.
If readers want some insight into how other national seashores calculate and manage boundary distances in what I judge to be a reasonable and responsible manner, my latest posting might be of interest.
http://drmikeberry.wordpress.com/
While you?re at it, thank Ginny Luizer for her research.
Can someone catch me up? Were there any major tv networks, like CNN, etc. at the commissioner?s meeting like Dillion and others were saying? Did they report anything outside of the usual county reporting? I listened to part of the meeting and head Dillion?s and Dawson?s comments, which, in all fairness, reminded me of the ?Where?s the beef? commercial. Especially after hearing all the hype leading up to it. If not, what?s happened to the plans for such? Please be civil in your reply.
?and the judge,washing his hands,said,?This is not MY decree.This is YOUR decree?good luck with the damned thing??and justice was crucified.
Wow?. This blows my mind. Here we are as a community, needing to stand together as one to fight and we are all over the place. First of all, anyone who is willing to fight for open beaches should be applauded.period. Who cares if they are repeating things SOME people already know about. Increasing awareness is exceptionally important, and sometimes being loud and proud is what gets heard. Those of you that are trying to squash or silence some of the other people who have the courage to stand up and speak out about our situation and try to reopen our beaches, what is your problem??? I mean seriously?
Let?s look at women fighting for the right to vote?. Hmmm? do you think we won the right to vote by standing in line silently and behaving and signing the dotted line, and following all the ?rules?? uh, no and that would be a resounding NO!. It was people with heart and guts, people and women who were willing to speak out loud and proud and fight and repeat things heard before, and repeat them again and again and again. Be a squeaky wheel!!!!
It is absurd to put down those people who had the courage to speak up at the meeting the other night, especially if you are someone who has not spoke up yourself.
I still cannot get over this?. How can you put down the community citizens who had the courage to speak out to protect their land, their businesses, their way of life???? What kind of people do that?
It is time to support this community together!!!
Look at the awareness that this meeting has stimulated. Look at how many people have taken notice. Look at the applause that the meeting stimulated from the crowd.
We as a community CAN NOT be afraid to stand up and speak. We CAN NOT let those people who THINK that they are smarter than us scare us into sitting quietly in our seats while they “speak for us.” NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!!!!
If you do not atleast try to fight for our rights to a free and open beach, then you will never really know what you can accomplish.
Why not try to notify congress??? It will not hurt anything to try.
Dear Anonymous, Your two posts were Excellent with a capital E, but it is so ironical that you speak of courage and then sign your writing as anonymous. I basically repeat what you said, and say speak out, but don?t be afraid to say who you are. Steve C. Sink, Linwood, N.C. Again, those were well thought threw remarks.
Back in the 50s, on the Hit Parade, There was a no. 1 hit called.
“” Goodnight Irene” Irene you did your job on this Thread.
Thus I say Goodnight Irene, may the dawn bring you a new Day?..
Hey Irene, don?t get so bent out of shape. Yes, the meeting made a lot of points we have been hearing about: the animals being killed, the effect it has had on the economy, the questionable science, a biased judge and so on. We heard a lot of individual stories from visitors and locals about guests being run off the beach and leaving or finding a paw left in a leg trap. We did hear about the broken promises and foxes being killed and unfairness of taking more land for vandalism?.all valid points. The commissioners do know all these things and have for a while. Perhaps YOU are sick of hearing them. Perhaps it has not led to any progress and you want to forget the past, the broken promises, the injustice or just stop hearing about it. If so do us a favor and quit your job and leave the island. Over 120 people drove an hour or more to be at that meeting and many of them were new faces. The average tourist that I meet does not know many of these injustices that are going on. They do not realize that we cannot even walk on the closed beaches or that geese were gassed. We should not forget the past. It is our duty as the public to stand up for ourselves and hold those accountable that have hurt our island in so many ways. It is not a waste of energy to fight. Everyone who spoke got very loud applause. Why don?t you get up at a meeting in front of everyone and tell us we are wasting time and should do nothing until December. Say it in public so you can be booed off the stage for a coward who has given up.
I don?t think Irene is out of line with her comments. She has done this Island a great justice by promoting this plight. I too feel our resources and energy needs to be focused on new ideas. I have put in work on this issue, along with a small handfull of others. I say a small handfull, because there is roughly 4000 year round residents on this Island and truly?the past commissioner?s meeting was one of the best turnouts for public comments. Every meeting that I would say held more weight with this issue was basically ignored by the local population. These meeting were constantly advertised through print, radio and web, with little response ( almost NO response) from the local residents.
I am glad that some new faces took a few hours out of their life to partake in sharing their concerns and worries, but I?ll award no extra points for that. I?ve seen and been there for the vast amount of these important meetings and I attended the CD hearing and what I saw were more outsiders then residents fighting and appearing for the local population.People who took an entire day or days out of their lives to fight this issue.Most times they spent their efforts with little to no resident population standing beside them?So what does that say about the concerns of the Island as a whole.
This battle can neither be fought or won by the outsiders or residents alone,but thus far the residents have been happy to let the outsiders do most of the talking and yelling at these meetings..I think expressing one?s frustration with the County ( who has been working Hard the entire time) is applaudable, but why take this issue to the county that had already proven their support. Why weren?t these voices not saying this stuff to the NPS and Enviromental Orgs, when these meeting were being held under Federal record.
Was it because??
It was to far to drive.
I might get to angry and cause a scene.
It will never affect my part of the Island.
I cannot afford to take a few hours out of my time in the DEAD of winter to attend.
and this list goes on, as we have heard it all.
So?good..some new faces have shown their support in public?Finally.Is that becasue, it is finally sinking in how much this is going to cost them or their part of the Island had finally taken a hit.I have grown wary of the excuses and people that have shown little interest in the things that matter wanting to talk to me about how bad this has hurt them, when they have done little too nothing to help themselves.
My Paternal Grandmother was born and raised here.This Island has opened doors for me I never thought possible. The vast majority of this place has shown me that they are the heart of America with their open homes and hearts, but they have failed to try and help themselves. Like most of the resident fighters?I am just a transplant who loves your heritage and will do anything to fight for it..But will the Natives and long time transplants fight with us on a regular basis and when we ask for help in the future. That remains to be seen.
I hope that the community involvement and concerns will continue to grow.But preaching to the choir or beating dead horses may make some feel better, but it gets us no where in this fight and I wish their voices had been in Raliegh during Court hearings, or before the NPS and the orgs that are imposing this on us.
Awareness and fund raising needs to be our main focus.Allow those that have been fighting for years now to take a few minutes to step back and try some new ideas?and if anyone else wants to help..that?ll be great, because the help has been needed for some time now, with no volunteers.
Feel free to whale on me..I came from Norfolk to your beautiful home. I took more and harsher verbal abuse during a half hour, public school lunch break than anything that could be said to me here..So I?ll loose no sleep over it..
Now ..Can we put all this Bull Ch!t behind us?UNIFY and give them one last stand for the record books.
Thanks Irene for the countless hours invested in this fight..
Rob Alderman
I agree we need to stand together? that is the point. When the meetings come up to go before the NPS and federal orgs again, there needs to be better advertising because I for one did not know about all those meetings. Let?s get a bus or two to take those people who cannot afford to pay their way up. What we saw this past monday is that strong word of mouth is the most potent way to get people up and speaking. And maybe some of those people who have been fighting this fight for so long need to let some of these ?new faces? take a stronger role since they seem to be able to get more followers, more faces, more voices. I think the amount of awareness this meeting has stirred up is an amazing positive force? and as such should not be completely bashed in our local newspaper?. is the intent to stop the fire of interest???? Because that is how it looks to those of us who are excited about the renewed interest and excited about the new faces of support.
We cannot just sit back and be patient the way Irene suggests that we do, as do some of the other bloggers? that will most certainly get us no where!
(Sigh)?. People?. You say the community is too apathetic? I agree.. but now we have the community starting to get stirred up and involved and you all say in our only local paper?. uh? no nevermind, go back to just sitting and being quiet? instead say in your headlines ?Renewed Local Interest? or ?New Faces brings Excitement? or anything positive.. There were many of us that did not view that meeting as a bashing on the commissioners but as a chance to ensure things were not forgotten, and there were some things mentioned that had not been aforementioned.
It amazes me that M Bassnight is so concerned over plastic bags but shows little concern over the beach access issue.. Well mark you ain?t gonna have to worry about bags all over the place because no one is comming to the businesses.. Thanks for nothing.. I will make sure when I vote it will be for ANYONE but you? JAM Buxton NC
? When the meetings come up to go before the NPS and federal orgs again, there needs to be better advertising because I for one did not know about all those meetings.?
Lets see here?Lynn Murray was waxing 800 plus local emails through the prayer list.Numerous people were handling word of mouth and Internet ads, and I would have PSA on darn near half the local radio stations, not to mention every meeting was annouced in the local papers before hand. I saw people like Tommy Woods spending his entire weekend time and time again handing out flyers and info in the Food Lion or Conner?s Parking lot..
I guess we need to hire Dwight to fly a banner over the beaches..
I am not picken..but lets stop with the excuses..There is no lack of advertising..only the lack of participation..Myself and numerous other fighters are tired of trying to explain to the visitor fighters that out weigh the local fighters a 100-1 where all the locals are at and why they may not be here..
Renewed interest???This has been at your doorsteps for over a decade,but no one would give thought to the idea that it could happen..Guess what..It did.
I am not trying to push anyone away, But I am going to say what alot of fighters want to say, but fear the reprocutions.
There is an OBPA meeting most Monday Nights. You can contact Lighthouse Auto and ask for John to make sure. I am curious how many anonymous and native critics will be there to say ?I am here to volunteer my time and efforts for this?.
Stop the complaining and make a REAL Difference..Stop relying on a few to fight for everyone..Help is and has been needed..But no one has time for that?Only for public comment,before the commisioners.
Are people trying to tell me that the locals that usually have no issue telling someone their mind are all of a sudden afraid to stand up before the NPS and Orgs to tell them how they feel?OK?Whatever justification one needs to sleep at night.
To the few that has spent countless hours volunteering your time and fighting with all you have..I for one say thank you..and I appreciated every ounce of energy you gave to the projects I put forward or were put forward by others.
Hopefully I might piss off enough people that next time we need some real help? people will be in our faces saying ? Here I am you SOB?What can I do to help?
Tired and frustrated..I?ve got nothing else to add to this conversation.
Call me when everyone is ready to put up a true fight..The Pissen and Moaning bores me at this point..
Rob,
There were 2 things my father tried hard to teach me. And, I admit to not learning them well, myself. (1) Lean to realize when you?ve become your own worst enemy, and (2) Never be honest to a fault. And, to those, I?ll add one of my own. (3) There is no real glory in being able to say, ?I told you so.?
sheesh
I saw nothing wrong with that meeting and I don?t think it was a bashing of the commissioners. The only one who said anything that could be interpreted as such was me, when I asked someone have the balls to stand up for us. That comment was made right after I said that I could not say anything that had not already been said and that I knew we were all aware of the situation (including the commission). It was not meant for the commissioners but the larger press. That was not my first meeting nor my second and I am aware what the commission has done or tried to do. Still I am sorry.
Everyone in that room knows all the reasons the beach should be open and all the comments made by others were valid points and justified anger. Until all the horror stories are picked up by a real newspaper or larger press, talking to ourselves will not open the beach. It will however get more people involved. I do understand being frustrated at the apathy. I held a meeting this Feb, the day it snowed, and about 50 people showed up here in Hatteras. I organized a phone blitz/email/fax. As a result we got HR718. Both senators called me at home and a few more representatives such as Butterfield a democrat, sent me emails thanking me for the hard work. It was very proactive and got the community involved, not at all a waste of time as Irene states. Did it open the beach? No. At least I did something.
I can?t answer Rob?s question as to why now so many more people are getting motivated but I am glad they are. That meeting in Manteo was the largest I have seen since the one in Kinnakeet. We need that kind of fire and spirit. I embrace it. Why not push Congress to help us? That is why the system is set up the way that it is. Irene might see it as hopeless and pointless to appeal to Congress and pointless to keep bringing up the injustice of the closures and cruelty to the predator animals and so on but I think it is exactly what we need. Yes everyone HERE knows all these things but the rest of the country does not. If you wanna sit at home for the next 6 months and do nothing go ahead. We need to fan the flames from now till the big meeting so that when the chips are down we have as large of a turn out as possible.
If what was going on down here ever made real news, Congress WOULD act and we could win. That image of the ranger shooting the fox, the chewed off raccoon leg story, if that ever made big tv news you would see tidal waves of pressure to end it. It is our job to make that happen and you can?t do it sitting at home. Embrace this new wave of action. Don?t wait to act. There was a CNN reporter there I met her. They have been coming to the island for months now investigating. Guess who got them here? When it is`all said and done, Irene you will be proven wrong as you hoped. I have faith in the people of this island to stand up. I must say tahnk you to Mr. Berry, Couch, Rob and even you Irene. You all and others have been fighting this for years and I know what a thankless job it is. However, that meeting was not a waste of energy none of them are. Criticizing the largest turn out we have had in years for saying nothing new and suggesting we forget about the promises made 60 years ago and just put all our eggs in one final meeting is your opinion Irene. I disagree.
I have always believed that a newspaper should be a marketplace of ideas ? a forum for the community to express its views and opinions.
That has certainly happened on this blog.
And that is good.
To set the record straight, I certainly am not putting down the current effort to get folks involved in the process of ORV rulemaking.
I believe that the organizing and fundraising effort should start now to gear up for the public comment on the draft Environmental Impact Statement and preferred alternative for the rule. And eventually to address the final rule in the courts, if that is necessary.
Others who have posted on the blog disagree.
And that is their right, of course.
I hope you will judge me and The Island Free Press on my body of work and not by one column.
I have been writing about the beach access issue almost since the day I moved to Hatteras in 1991. I first wrote about it in The Island Breeze, which I edited for 16 years before I parted ways with The Virginian-Pilot and started The Island Free Press in 2007. I have written numerous articles supporting beach access and transparency in the process and opposing the consent decree. Last year, I backed the failed attempt at legislation in Congress. I also attended most of the negotiated rulemaking committee meetings. And, believe me, that was no fun.
All of these articles are available in The Island Free Press Archives.
It?s my guess that I will be writing about these issues until I retire or die!
Our faithful readers see the Free Press as a place to keep on community events and news, and visitors see it as a way to keep in touch with the island and our issues while they are back home.
Many island businesses have supported this publication with advertising. It pays for our work on access.
Most of them see the Free Press as the best way to reach their customers ? both residents, off-island property owners, and visitors. About 75 percent of our readers do not live on Hatteras or Ocracoke.
Some others don?t usually advertise or don?t need to advertise, but want to support our work on the access issue.
From Jan. 1 through June 15 of this year. The Island Free Press had 340,000 visitors from 73,000 unique IP addresses.
May not be CNN but it?s not too shabby for a local newspaper that is not yet two years old.
I hope you all will keep reading and keep expressing your opinions. That?s why we are here.
Irene
Berry wrote:
If readers want some insight into how other national seashores calculate and manage boundary distances in what I judge to be a reasonable and responsible manner, my latest posting might be of interest.
?http://drmikeberry.wordpress.com/?:http://drmikeberry.wordpress.com/
Let the record show Mike Berry favors measures more restrictive than the Consent Decree. The current buffers for nesting piping plover are only 50 meters, but Berry judges an increase of 150 meters as ?reasonable?.
I commend Irene for her excellent article. For the most part, her reporting is accurate and correct. If you disagree with her article, don?t shoot the messenger.
I do disagree with Irene?s suggestion/inference that we should be sharpening our pencils and wits so as to submit comment at the next round of public meetings. I for one will never submit another word of comment at these meetings. I for one will not even walk into the room at which these meetings are held. I am convinced that all of this is a waste of time. They write the rules by which they accept our comment, they have the audacity to limit how much time we have to speak, they write the rules by which they respond (if at all) to our comments, and they have the audacitiy to tell us its over when they say its over. Its a joke.
The next time there is a public meeting for the purpose of accepting comments, I will be there. I will be there with a sign protesting this charade and encouraging people to not lend legitimacy to this government sham by walking through the doors and participating in the meeting. When you walk into the room for the purpose of participating in ?their? meeting, you have already lost.
If you want a chance for success, stand outside and scream as loudly as you can for justice, and maybe someone other than Mike Murray, et al will take notice of your existance.
Ever wonder how those environmental groups have so much authority? They are able to close down miles & miles of beaches just beacuse of a few birds? ?.why?? $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ paid to the polititions. Do you really think the polititions will change the way the environmentalists operate?? No way..they are getting such a big payoff from them. Money talks and those who pay off the big shots, get what they want. You can talk & scream and have all the meetings you want, but until you can grease the palms of the right people, nothing will happen.
Jules, can you substantiate what has just spurted out of your mouth? Which politicians, how much, where is the funding come from and who are your sources?
Some anonymous “Crotalus” says,
” ? Let the record show Mike Berry favors measures more restrictive than the Consent Decree. The current buffers for nesting piping plover are only 50 meters, but Berry judges an increase of 150 meters as “reasonable”?”
More factually, let the record show that “Crotalus”, another enviro-poster like “observer” who doesn?t use their real name, posts half-truths. The 200 meter buffer at Assateague is a “one-size-fits-all” buffer ? used for courting, nesting and even chick-raising plovers. The “Consent Decree” here requires buffers ranging from 50 meters (about half a football field) for nesting to a beyond ridiculous 1,000 meters (over 10 football fields length in every direction!).
Unlike Crotalus, I don?t profess to speak for Dr Berry, but it seems to me that an 800 meter reduction in the maximum required Plover buffer would be a huge step in the right direction and that a 200 meter one-size-fits-all buffer would be infinitely easier to implement and enforce for the NPS.
From now on, Crotalus, do us all a favor and post the whole truth, not half-truths, and, if you want to be taken seriously, post under the presumed integrity of your real name instead of your cloaking “Crotalus”.
No?.I can?t substantiate what just SPURTED out of my mouth. Anyone with a piece of brain knows that the environmental groups have plenty of funding and with that, they are able to get what they want in Washington. Are you surprised that politicians might take a kick back??? Wake up. I don?t need sources. I watch and read.
I could not have said it better myself Jim. I just don?t have time to respond to incompetent amateurs like Crotalus. I will surely welcome the day when the professionals of the National Park Service get an opportunity to do their job again. That arbitrary 1000m boundary is about as professionally irresponsible as one can get.
Why would a newspaper called, Island Free Press want to criticize a grass roots movement? What you saw in that group of 125 was America in action. We cannot wait for months until legislature is enacted on our behalf. Everyone at the meeting was courteous to the commissioners and no one attacked them in any way, so I do not see why it was criticized. People feel so helpless and there is a need for them to vent to those in charge! What is worse than feeling completely helpless and forced to watch another season go down the drain? It is better to have voice, than to be silent.
What this thing needs is national attention. If the meeting got us noticed, it was only for the good, even if you think it is the wrong approach. As for the fundraising, this venue would be a perfect place to collect! Why don?t you start the Outer Banks Beach Access Law Fund? I?ll be the first to donate!
Where are the environmentalists protecting the foxes, opossums and other indigenous critters being completely wiped out by NPS? How can you place such a value on a few pairs of birds that are not even endangered to make it okay to sacrifice all of our foxes? How does this make sense? Who protects them?
Please respond as soon possible.
Berry wrote:
That arbitrary 1000m boundary is about as professionally irresponsible as one can get.
Perhaps you should read the life history section of the recovery plan and see just how non-arbitrary 1000 meters are? (pay attention to the part titled “Summary of Chick Mobility Data”) Your philosophy of only protecting the “average” (mean) is about as anti-scientific and irresponsible as one can get, especially if the goal is to increase productivity in declining species. You should be ashamed for trying to pass yourself off as a wildlife biologist or ecologist. Stick to what you know before you embarrass yourself further.
You?ve already proven your cowardice in the face of challenges on your own blog.
To whit our “discussion” you removed from your blog:
* 1. Crotalus | June 6, 2009 at 3:00 pm
Within various species, there are always going to be a range of individual behaviors. So, let me ask you this. If you are tasked with protecting a threatened nesting species – the piping plover for example – and you have documented disturbance distances of 35-50 meters for nesting birds and documented traveling distances of 300-1000 meters for foraging broods – at which end of (or point in) the range do you provide protection?
In your previous work, when confronted by a range of reactions (to toxins for instance) did you recommend minimalist measures or maximum measures? Was your goal to protect just some of the public, or all of the public?
I would also be very interested in how one “peer-reviews” a range of individual reactions, like disturbance distances, especially when some individuals in the population may be habituated to one form of disturbance, pedestrians or ORVs for example, while others are not, or one individual’s “tolerance” may be 10-fold less (in meters) than another individual’s tolerance?
How do you arrive at anything other than a best “professional opinion” on the range of behaviors exhibited by individuals of a species?
Reply
* 2. drmikeberry | June 6, 2009 at 4:30 pm
Here’s my professional answer to your question.
1. I do not equate a human life with a bird or any animal. Always, without regard to cost, I will protect human life, based on the assessment of risk.
2. We have more data and a well established procedure to do human risk assessment than we typically have do risk assessment for an given bird species. Such is the nature of the different sciences.
3. The limited disturbance date I’ve seen for the plover would suggest to me that 35-50m disturbance is reasonable but highly variable. So pick a number based on the environmental conditions at a given location. Unfortunately I don’t find enough frequency data to calculate risk of disturbance. Depending on what other usages I have for the environment l, I have to make a judgment call–35 meters is perhaps a logical starting point–it might be more, it might be less..
4. Data for traveling distances for the plover is even less robust–very limited observations do not even allow me to calculate a statistically significant mean–which would apply only to a specific location. Again, depending on the location and other valid usages of the environment I have to make a judgment call, but I am certain, based on the data I know of, it would rarely, if ever be be 1000m. Again it depends of the location and environmental conditions.
In the face of limited data, you must use professional judgment that goes beyond scientific method. And that was clearly indicated at the time USGS Protocols came out 5 years ago.
Reply
* 3. Crotalus | June 6, 2009 at 5:28 pm
In answer:
1. Non sequitur.
2. Agreed.
3. Did you manage the “public” that way?
4. All it requires is one observation to determine the abilities.
Per the recovery plan:
1. 18 of 38 broods moved to feeding areas more than 100 meters from their nests; 5 broods moved more than 600 meters (distance measured parallel to wrack line).
2. At three sites, observers relocated broods at mean distances from their nests of 153 m +/-97 m (44 observations, 14 broods), 32 m +/-7 m (8 observations, 3 broods), and 492 m +/-281 m (12 observations, 4 broods).
3. Observations of 11 broods averaged 212 m from their nests; 3 broods moved 400-725 m from nest sites.
4. 10 chicks moved more than 200 m during first 5 days post-hatch while 19 chicks moved less than 200 meters during same interval.
5. Distances broods moved from nests during first 5 days post-hatch averaged 195 m in bay habitat (n=10), 141 m in interior habitat (n=36), and 131 m in ocean habitat (n=41). By 21 days, average movement in each habitat had, respectively, increased to 850 m (n=1), 464 m (n=10), and 187 m (n=69). One brood moved more than 1000 m from its nest.
6. In 14 incidents in which 18 chicks were killed by vehicles, chicks were run over < 10 m to < 900 m from their nests. In 7 of these instances, mortality occurred > 200 m from the nest.
Then go read the park?s annual reports (pay attention to the maps). Some of the plover chicks here are moving the same distances, or more.
Penny?..the environmentalists are too busy complaining that Pres. Obama swatted a fly ? and that fishing is ?cruel? to fish. They are a bunch of nut cases. You have to believe there is more to this than a few birds being endangered (which they are not) ?.they want the beaches closed. Period. We have to stop these crazies before we lose our beaches completely.
Jim Boyd wrote:
My reply to Jim was cut short.
Here it is again:
Jim Boyd wrote:Jim Boyd wrote:
More factually, let the record show that “Crotalus”, another enviro-poster like “observer” who doesn’t use their real name, posts half-truths. The 200 meter buffer at Assateague is a “one-size-fits-all” buffer … used for courting, nesting and even chick-raising plovers. The “Consent Decree” here requires buffers ranging from 50 meters (about half a football field) for nesting to a beyond ridiculous 1,000 meters (over 10 football fields length in every direction!).
I don?t agree with the 1000m buffer in use here, but to argue it?s not supported by observations (is unscientific) is purposeful deceit. I would favor adaptive management with monitoring the broods, per the recovery plan, incorporating less buffers where the birds do not forage or are obstructed by the landscape.
Unlike Crotalus, I don’t profess to speak for Dr Berry, but it seems to me that an 800 meter reduction in the maximum required Plover buffer would be a huge step in the right direction and that a 200 meter one-size-fits-all buffer would be infinitely easier to implement and enforce for the NPS.
I fished 50m away from a nesting plover near ramp 44 this summer. I walked up next to the signs and observed it on the nest, the bird had no reaction. Berry?s grabbing at (straws) 200m ala carte from Assateague would initiate a closure of access 200m away from that nesting habitat beginning March 1, meaning the Point will be closed to ORV March 1.
From now on, Crotalus, do us all a favor and post the whole truth, not half-truths, and, if you want to be taken seriously, post under the presumed integrity of your real name instead of your cloaking “Crotalus”.
Because I don?t kowtow to the partyline of no protection for native nesting species and I have lived here year-round for more than a decade. (it wasn?t the ?environmentalists? who pulled political strings in DC to block the park?s attempts to have an ORV plan which would include appropriate protections for nesting species for 30 years) I prefer not to have my name and address posted at businesses and the post offices inciting violence against me or my property. I prefer not to have to pick up nails out of my driveway and repair vandalism to my home as other locals have had to do.
Penny,
Your concerns are valid.I asked that same question, when I dropped the original ?Fox being Shot? picture on everyone?s lap during a Federal Reg-Neg meeting..To answer your question the way my question was answered by the enviromental groups..?They believe in biodiversity?..English translation is: It?s Ok to kill the animals that we can?t put on a t-shirt and make money off.
That pic has been sent to more places, then most reading this can possibly fathom.No responses from any other orgs (including PETA). These orgs will NOT turn on one another for any reason.They are stronger together.No response from Fox,CNN or so on.
Ray,
Since the day I learned how to speak I?ve had that problem..but I call it exactly the way I have personally witnessed.
Rob,
It should be they believe in natural biodiversity, as opposed to man-made biodiversity.
Irene,
You should run a story on the historic and natural biodiversity of the barrier island system of North Carolina. It?s odd that even people who have lived here most of their lives are unaware populations of mammalian predators are not natural.
Crotalus?or what ever your name is?show us the data. Or just keep babbling on.
I accept none of the boundaries in the Interim Protocols as science or responsible management tools because they are unreferenced, non statistical. and unexplained in relation to documented observations and data sets. Glad you got close the bird, hardly makes it science.
I hope NPS/USGS revisit the Protocols and do them right, with references and clear science based explanation for boundary distance, following the USGS Peer Review Policy.
As for your excuse for hiding your identity, a very sad story. And unprofessional. But then again, unprofessional is what I expect from someone who publishes half-truths.
I will be happy to meet with you to discuss this one on one or debate it in public. I promise not to bring nails and I will try to muster up some courage.
Ok, I live 400+ miles away, other then spending 2 weeks on the Banks ( not cheap by no way). What do you want us Folks. to do ??? Please respond without listing so many paragraphs?I have sent letters and given out papers, to no avail?
We been going to Hatteras for over 30 years and I?ll never go back until the beach access is open again and all my friends feel the same way. You just turned a great vacation spot and fishing island into a resort for bird watchers?. Remember theres plenty of other places to fish and if I have to take my boat out, Hatteras is too far too drive for most of us, Good Luck?
Jules: you must be right, because it does not make any sense, otherwise.
Tom, people like you and your friends can go find other places to fish and take your boat out. You obviously come to Hatteras Island for the wrong reasons. I?ve also been coming to Hatteras for over 30 years. I like to fish too, but I?ll do what I have to do. Hatteras is more than just fishing. I come to relax, enjoy the peace and quiet (among other things) and forget the headaches of the Northern Virginia area. It?s quite a distance for me too and well worth the drive.
I would love to see the beaches open. I think this bird thing is getting way out of hand. But, for as long as I am able, I will be going to Hatteras for my vacation.
Good luck finding a new place to fish!
Re Jim?s comment that submitting comments is a waste of time.
I agree that demonstration is the most likely way to get attention, especially from national media which can then translate to politician attention.
However, submitting comments is also important. While this is not exactly a voting situation, the number of comments re a particular issue can sometimes influence the outcome, especially if the law is complied with re the comments submitted.
In addition the magnitude of the comments can be useful later in showing politicians just how many voters stand on which side of the issue. And legislation from the bench happens and the magnitude of such comments could be useful in court.
I do not agree that submitting comments is a waste of time.
Jim said its not just the fact that his comments are ignored but
?when I realized nothing I could do would convince USFWS that you cannot drive on the entire 24,478 acres of this park, I thought it was time to give up. That was the last straw.?
Jim said he is more than willing to contribute but only if there is a chance that his efforts will not be ignored. He also said that what he is suggesting is a legal form of civil disobedience v. the type suggested in the past. In fact, he just added this.
This is the article I would like to read after the next public comment meeting. Thousands of people showed up for the meeting. The parking lot overflowed onto highway 12. The park service scrambled for more seats and a larger room. Obviously they did not expect this many people. Park Superintendent Mike Murray began the meeting by welcoming all with his usual opening remarks. When Murray asked for the first comment, something very unusual happened. Everyone stood up and quietly left the meeting. The huge crowd returned to thier vehicles and honked their horns until the parking lot was empty. One person in attendance had this to say:
?I think the park service heard us this time and so too did the media. Our message was loud and clear.?
Another participant said
?I?m really looking forward to the next meeting. Now that we are getting through I think people will attend.?
I too would welcome such a meeting demonstration as theoretically described. As I indicated demonstration is the best way to get attention.
However, another danger I see in not submitting comments is that the opposing side can then say.
?Look, there is only a small group worried about this so it can?t be as bad as this small vocal group tries to indicate. Only a few people will be affected.?
I think both are needed.
Judging from all of the data on plover nesting and bird movement that Crotatus (or whatever) describes, the taxpayer is spending too much money studying and protecting these birds. Not only are Americans being deprived of their right to use THEIR beach, they are being forced to fund excessive government bird research and protection projects on THEIR seashore. Any increase in nesting or chicks on the national seashore beaches should not be recognized due to the extra protection provided by park service biologists and other federal personnel.
Proudly being an environmentalist most of my life, I have a few suggestions of approaches that would be beneficial to human animals as well as the other creations of God for the benefit and blessing all. Our superior intelligence can discover better ways of attempting to preserve and enjoy the animals we have.
An analysis of our CHNRSA resource reports is our best available science. It clearly shows that there are superior methods for encouraging the survival of threatened and endangered species. The beach areas nearest the ocean are not the best areas for reproduction. In fact, they are the most hazardous and we have no control over them. Such areas should never be set aside to encourage nesting.
The resource reports consistantly note the loss of eggs from weather and predation. The plover chicks that do hatch are led by the parents toward the safer ponds with the rich source of natural food. Unfortunately, the NPS has allowed vegetation to discourage nesting in this historically favored and protective environment. The substantial vegetative overgrowth has allowed predators to thrive nearby. Judicious trapping and removal of predators that do approach the area to their more natural locale is more environmentally sound. Killing for other than food is not proper use of these native creatures.
An analysis of local resourch reports also indicate that we are not being good stewards of our natural turtle resource. Nearly 50 percent of the turtle eggs are washed away every year. Unknown numbers of hatchlings are killed every year by ghost crabs that seize them on their trek to the ocean. This is a crime! Our superior intelligence knows better. Nests can be relocated and exclosed from predators. They can be monitored and aided to safely reach the ocean shore.
By using methods such as those mentioned above, the National Park Service can more responsibly and economically preserve all species. The NPS can also return the National Seashore Recreational Area to its original purpose.
Berry wrote:
Crotalus—or what ever your name is—show us the data. Or just keep babbling on.
What other data do you require? Plover broods have been observed and are capable of moving 1000 meters.
I accept none of the boundaries in the Interim Protocols as science or responsible management tools because they are unreferenced, non statistical. and unexplained in relation to documented observations and data sets. Glad you got close the bird, hardly makes it science.
Again, you expose your ignorance. If one is trying to increase productivity of a declining species, one protects the aberrant individuals, not the mean. There?s no statistical analysis, applicable, required or relevant. But I guess if it would make you feel better you could sue the individuals who made the observations and cross-examine them on the witness stand:
Patterson (1988: 40) , Cross (1989: 23), Coutu et al. (1990: 12), Strauss (1990: 33), Loegering (1992: 72), Melvin et al. (1994)
Maybe you can challenge their names, eyesight or motives.
I hope NPS/USGS revisit the Protocols and do them right, with references and clear science based explanation for boundary distance, following the USGS Peer Review Policy.
As for your excuse for hiding your identity, a very sad story. And unprofessional. But then again, unprofessional is what I expect from someone who publishes half-truths.
I will be happy to meet with you to discuss this one on one or debate it in public. I promise not to bring nails and I will try to muster up some courage.
.
What half-truths have I written? You?ve been infusing yourself into the spotlight for quite some time now uttering nothing but half-truths and throwing around inapplicable scientific terms trying to impress persons with no more understanding of wildlife biology and ecology than you have.
Your attempted distraction over my identity, rather than the facts is duly noted. It shouldn?t make a difference who I am.
All that?s required of you is to show how your proposed methodology of protecting the “mean” through your “statistical analysis” would increase productivity.
Crotalus half truths?Recovery Plan 1,000 meters to protect chicks stated below. But read further as there is an OR which allows for as little as 100 meters but then Crotalus keeps ignoring it in each new venue he visits.
?The vehicle free area should extend 1000 meters on each side of a line drawn through the nest site and perpendicular to the long axis of the beach. The resulting 2000 meter-wide area of protected habitat for plover chicks should extend from the ocean-side low water line to the bay-side low water line or to the farthest extent of dune habitat if no bay-side intertidal habitat exists. However, vehicles may be allowed to pass through portions of the protected area that are considered inaccessible to plover chicks because of steep topography, dense vegetation, or other naturally-occurring obstacles. ?
OR OR OR OR OR
?The Service OR a State wildlife agency that is party to an agreement under Section 6 of the ESA provides written concurrence with a plan that:
Provides for monitoring of all broods during the chick-rearing phase of the breeding season and specifies the frequency of monitoring.
AND
Specifies the minimum size of vehicle-free areas to be established in the vicinity of unfledged broods based on the mobility of broods observed on the site in past years and on the frequency of monitoring. Unless substantial data from past years show that broods on a site stay very close to their nest locations, vehicle-free areas should extend at least 200 meters on each side of the nest site during the first week following hatching. The size and location of the protected area should be adjusted in response to the observed mobility of the brood, but in no case should it be reduced to less than 100 meters on each side of the brood. In some cases, highly mobile broods may require protected areas up to 1000 meters, even where they are intensively monitored. Protected areas should extend from the ocean-side low water line to the bay-side low water line or to the farthest extent of dune habitat if no bay-side intertidal habitat exists. However, vehicles may be allowed to pass through portions of the protected area that are considered inaccessible to plover chicks because of steep topography, dense vegetation, or other naturally-occurring obstacles. In a few cases, where several years of data documents that piping plovers on a particular site feed in only certain habitat types, the Service or the State wildlife management agency may provide written concurrence that vehicles pose no danger to plovers in other specified habitats on that site.?
Crotalus, good idea that you hide your identity, because every time you post something you have this bad habit of deliberately leaving some important facts out.
The last time I looked at the national and regional Plover data, the recovery goals of the species had just about been achieved. The bird species is not in decline, the trend line is up.
I know some of the best ecologists in the world and I do not know one who behaves like you. They actually use data and statistics in their work and publish up to date papers using their real name.
And have no doubt about it, I plan to stay in engaged in this current situation, asking questions, demanding transparency, data, and honesty at the Outer Banks until there is a responsible management program implemented by the National Park Service. We don?t need nameless folks like you like you telling us how manage the environment. There are plenty of professionals who can do a better job.
By the way, how are the birds doing this year with your 1000m boundary on the Point? The weekly numbers aren?t looking so good. Looks to me like predators have lots free movement.
The Atlantic Coast piping plover recovery plan called for increasing and maintaining for five years a total of 2,000 breeding pairs, distributed among the four recovery units as specified below:
Recovery Unit Minimum Subpopulation
Atlantic Canada 400 pairs
New England 625 pairs
New York-New Jersey 575 pairs
Southern (DE-MD-VA-NC) 400 pairs
The latest survey suggests there are 1848 pair, largely due to the strength of New England?s population, where stricter ORV measures than Hatteras has have been in place for more than a decade. The Southern Recovery Unit, with about 330 pairs lags behind, and Hatteras lags behind Assateague and Lookout for productivity. Bottom line, the species has not yet recovered and its upward trend has stalled.
Dr. Berry seems to ignore that fact that NPS is obligated not only to help maintain but actually recover species populations. If you were attempting to increase populations at Cape Hatteras what would you recommend NPS do? That?s the ultimate question, isn?t it? I would love to hear what Dr. Berry might contribute to that discussion. If Dr. Berry in fact knows some of the best ecologists in the world, perhaps he can enlist their assistance.
I?ve asked Dr. Berry before if the Recovery Plan is peer reviewed and whether he considers that good science. I didn?t get an answer. If he agrees with the Recovery Plan, and does not have specific issue with the various other peer-reviewed studies that exist and on which the Protocols relied, then he really has no argument.
The protocols were simply a literature review of peer reviewed science that offered a series of management recommendations. They gave three options: low, moderate, and high protection based on peer reviewed science. The consent decree adopts portions of the “moderate” protection protocols.
It is important to understand what the document is, how it was prepared, and how it is being used. Dr. Berry continually bashes the protocols without conveying an understanding of what they actually are and why they were commissioned. His critiques are full of jargon and devoid of substantive analysis.
Finally a point to Ginny ? thank you for reprinting a portion of Appendix G of the Piping Plover Recovery Plan, which supports the 1000 m buffers. The “or” on which you hang your argument requires 24 hour monitoring which NPS cannot do and also notes that even when monitoring is adequate a 1000m buffer may still be required for highly mobile broods, which as Crotalus has noted, have been observed at Hatteras in the past.
Dr. Berry will undoubtedly criticize me again for being anonymous and will not answer my actual arguments, but hope springs eternal that a reasoned dialogue can actually occur on this issue.
Ginny,
According to my sources, the head plover biologist in charge of implementing the recovery plan has stated that allowance is for private landowners and not state or federal landowners. And even if it was, the fish and wildlife didn?t sign off on that provision in the BO to the Interim Plan and I?ve not seen anywhere that the state has signed off on it either.
Unfledged Chicks
During the first week following hatching of plover chicks, CAHA would provide
for continual observation of the chicks during daylight hours. A 600 to 3,000
foot-buffer will be established on either side of the brood; the exact size to be
based on observation of adult and chick behavior and the terrain conditions at the
site. Based on observed behavior (i.e. mobility of the brood) and the capability to
continually monitor, the buffer zone could be reduced after the first week to no
less than 300 feet, but may require expansion up to 3,000 feet. The resource
closure would be relocated as needed to ensure continued protection of the brood.
If the resource closure impedes or overlaps with the ORV corridor, CAHA would
adjust the ORV corridor whenever possible to allow ORV passage or attempt to
identify an alternate route. If an alternate route is not available, a bypass route
would be considered (see bypass criteria). The bypass route would be closed at
night if buffer zone for the plover brood is less than 600 feet. The beach will be
closed to recreation access down to the waterline, if necessary, to allow chicks
access to foraging areas.
http://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cfm..
Berry,
Yes, ecologists and biologists use data and statistics, properly. But not as you want to do in a management role ? average out a range of behaviors and only protect the mean.
Does the EPA really operate that way? Twenty-five of hundred people will die if exposed to a toxin at levels of X, but you recommend to only protect the mean, those who are immune below X? You call that good scientific management?
The 1000 meters at the Point isn?t “my” boundary. My point about the 1000 meters is that it?s scientifically supported (and published) by observation ? plover broods easily move 1000 meters, contrary to your claims. Not that it?s always applicable in every situation. For the record, based on the brood foraging maps produced by the NPS, I see no reasons why the east side of the Point can?t be open when there are plover broods at the Point ? in the absence of other nesting species.
And I believe they?re still short ~400 pairs to their recovery goals and the park is well short of its 30 pairs. So while you may want to play juvenile semantic games over the species decline and the gains its made since being listed, it still hasn?t reached the goals set to maintain genetic viability.
Here is the best available science for CHNSRA. It is in the Resource Reports of the area.The 6/18/09 report shows 10 threatened piping plover nests, one of which was lost and one abandonned. At most there are 10 nesting pair, probably only 8 due to renesting. In 2008, according to the annual report, there were 11 pair with 13 nests. There was a lower fledging rate and no more nests than the year before the Consent Decree. There were actually more nests in the 1990s when the ponds were more attractive for nesting when there was less vegetation.
Barbara,
Due to natural variations in populations, the only way to ascertain if any management strategy is effective or not would take at least 5 years. (decades for sea turtles since they only nest every three years or so)
But the park should for sure re-attempt some habitat restoration around the pond. I heard tell the last tie they tried it, it wasn?t cost-effective and was short-lived.
One quibble, a difference of .03 fledged chicks/pair rate is a statistical tie between 07 and 08.
Love it the consent decree working but throw up some unfavorable numbers and now oh but variartions make it impossible to tell-spin, spin, spin.
Ginny,
You care to show where I?ve ever stated the CD was working? I haven?t. I?ve even criticized the Derb et al for making those claims last year and you know that.
Now lets see. It cost too much to plow grass Which plowing is the least effective way to keep it down. How much are we paying now for monitoring, enforcement, neg/reg, ill will, loss of use, loss of work, loss of business?
Meanwhile, the grass continues to grow in all the areas where ORVs are prohibited. Ghost crabs continue to florish and grow in resource closures. Volunteers continue to refuse to help the NPS
Nothing is being gained. No species propagated. No one is happy except those who are being paid at the expense of those who are suffering.
Barbara,
Actually, from what I was told, the plowing made it worse, it came back thicker due to the species of grass propagating by its root cuttings.
And we?ll still have to pay for monitoring and law enforcement.
Hey ?Observer?, this is your quote:
?The protocols were simply a literature review of peer reviewed science that offered a series of management recommendations. They gave three options: low, moderate, and high protection based on peer reviewed science. The consent decree adopts portions of the ?moderate? protection protocols.?
Regardless of your explanation of these protocols and their intent, are you saying it is justifiable that a consent decree to enforce them should circumvent the the very NEPA laws designed to make such regulation?
I?ve heard talk about process over substance. There is no substance in science when there is no process agreed to by all involved.
I have always considered myself an environmentalist, and have been quite liberal about it. It?s quite a shame that folks like you have been able to even turn off the folks like me because of your selfish and myopic attitude to these sorts of issues. I suppose you are just one of the ones making a buck off this sort of thing. Keep on truckin dude! Your support erodes like the beaches we discuss.
Signed,
Embarrassed
Just the facts, who ever you really are. Numerous times I have presented to the Park Service the recommendation of a PhD in Weed Science for controlling the vegetation around the ponds. It is same chemical used by Fish and Wildlife at Pea Island. Yes, cutting the underground rhysomes propagates the grasses.
Neither the enforcement or monitoring would need to be as extensive and expensive as it is now. The true environmentalists who have used this park in the past will continue to protect it. The Consent Degree is not improving the resources. It is only making the public hate those who are causing the death of an island economy.
We cannot afford to stop the rediculous requirements of the court order. However we can continue to insist that the National Park Service carry out its duty as required by Congress and use the CHNSRA Resource Reports as the best available science. There are sufficient proven methods that have been used on other public and private lands to accomplish these goals.
This is what we should be doing at this time to truly protect the species. All of this effort being pushed by the pseudo-environmentalists is not accomplishing any goal other than keeping people off the beach.
Habitat management in the form of vegetation control is discussed in the recovery plan and if fact it worked better than expected?birds used the area immediately. Croat and Anchorman know this and the reports that expand on this are in a long thread on the OBXconnection. That said, I have better things to do than go look up the thread. Croat and Observer are both on here trying to present stuff in a new venue hoping that those of us who have challenged them won?t follow.
Dave Vachet?-Thank you for your comment, it represents the feelings of thousands of people like you and me around the country who cherish the environment but who increasingly recognize the superficiality, self-serving, and economic exploitation activities of many environmental activist organizations.
The paid leadership and staffs of these organizations are constantly searching for a mission to justify their paycheck. They use unsettled law to target the weakest entities they can find, such as the economically stressed communities of the Outer Banks that do not have the financial resources to fight back. They deliberately distort and misrepresent environmental benefits, misuse science, and they hide the socially irresponsible consequences of their actions. They use press releases and annual reports to hype and spin their cheap legal victories. They direct most of their hype to the popular press that fails to dig deep for the facts and full story.
The best thing any folks like you and me can do to correct this situation is to encourage others like us to drop their membership and financial support to these organizations. Let these irresponsible activist organizations experience what its like to have the economic lifeline cut off. At the same time, let none of our environmentally concern friends get so discouraged by witnessing such fiascoes that we currently see on the Outer Banks that they turn hostile to the notion of protecting our environment. Let no one get so discourage that they walk away from their civil right to vote or make comment on government actions that affect their lives and values.
Your comment about process and especially NEPA process is right to the point. The National Environmental Policy Act was signed into law in 1969. Ninety-nine senators voted in favor of that that law that directed that the federal government take a hard look at the consequences of any environmental action before it was implemented. The consent decree is such an action—it was never examined. The consent decree has been a social and economic disaster. It shows no signs of producing an environmental benefit. Ninety-nine senators were very wise indeed.
Without a process for public policy making, especially for environmental policymaking, we have no transparency, no way to check facts especially science, and no opportunity for citizens to exercise their civil right to take part in the business of government.
Dave, do not be embarrassed, be proud. Thanks again.
Yet again Dr. Berry offers only unscientific and unprofessional ad hominems about environmental organizations, no comments on the substance of the issues Croatalus and I raised, no rebuttal whatsoever (perhaps because he can?t?), and offers a view of law that is simply incorrect. Perhaps Dr. Berry is confused. He is no doubt familiar with the Clean Air Act (his specialty, after all, was indoor air quality), which requires that consent orders and settlements be open for 30 days for public comment before going final. Unfortunately, as he should also know, not all statutes are alike. The Department of the Interior is not EPA. None of the laws involved in national park management have a similar provision. Not the ESA, the Organic Act, or the executive orders.
Now, perhaps public comment on the decree would have been a good idea (it would have been interesting to see the county’s and CHAPA submit comments opposing that which they were urging the court to accept), but that’s another issue all together. At least the general public might have had a say. I’ll grant that point.
But to imply that there was a legal violation is just false. If it were true that NEPA process was required surely that point would have been raised by CHAPA’s high-priced DC lawyers.
And if it were required, the environmental groups would have had no choice but to agree (and flood NPS with comments themselves).
The plain fact is there was no requirement for any public process with the consent decree and for Berry to imply that there was is simply wrong. If he still disagrees he should call CHAPA’s lawyers and ask them why they didn’t ask for public comment. I’d love to hear him report back on that conversation. Furthermore, for someone so concerned about legal process, I find it fascinating that Dr. Berry is unconcerned by the fact that NPS has been violating the law for more than 30 years by failing to properly regulate beach driving. That’s not good government.
I?ll also remind Dr. Berry that President Richard Nixon signs the Endangered Species Act of 1973 into law. The bill passed the Senate on December 19 by voice vote and the House of Representatives on December 20 by a vote of 355 to 4. Most management actions pursuant to it, including listing decisions and biological opinions, are exempt from NEPA, as he should know. Only critical habitat designations are subject to NEPA, and guess what, the economic analysis for that does not even remotely support the notion of an “economic and social disaster.” Indeed, its simply hyperbole to claim “economic disaster” when gross receipts and meal taxes are up in Dare County year after year and the vast majority of even Hatteras Islanders don?t care enough about this issue enough to even comment.
Face it, a handful of you make all the noise on this topic, and from what I’ve seen some of the most vocal, Dr. Berry included, have little or no economic stake in this issue. It’s just a matter of personal inconvenience.
Finally, Dr. Berry declares, quite unscientifically, that the consent decree is producing no environmental benefit, yet surely as a scientist he knows that the observations of one year provide only a snapshot. Trends are what is important. Last year nesting was up, this year is too early to tell. One would need five years or more to discern a consistent trend in light of weather and offer a definitive comment. That’s the scientific method right? I seem to recall Dr. Berry talking about that on his blog. Will he concede even this small point?
Dr. Berry will get his NEPA process soon enough when the proposed rule is released. But he won’t like the result. The NEPA process to come will support management that is at least as restrictive as the consent decree and NPS will have to implement a plan that protects resources, plus it will have ORV permits and quotas as does Assateague and Cape Cod. What will he say then?
Observer, my name is Frank Folb and I do live on Hatteras Island and cemetaries on the island have kin folks of mine that go back several generations. You know me I am sure from my being a member of Reg. Neg. I am not ashamed of who I am or where I stand and I do not need to hide behind unkown names. I live in Buxton and Ihave a business in Avon and you can find me most every day at one or the other unless your special interest groups agenda has taken me some where else.
You have stated that it will take at least 5 years for the consent decree to show whether it is working. Funny, but statements at congressional hearings and before Judge Boyle by SELC lawyer Derb Carter proclaimed all the good the consent decree was already having.
You question the need for transparency that Dr. Berry speaks of and you are correct that that was not needed in the court of law that you took this matter before and that?s why you did take those steps.
Knowing that the judge had already come out in the press about his opinion that ORV had no business on the beaches due to NPS having failed to implement of a plan is the reason you took the lawsuit and injunction to his courtroom. Your group knew that NPS and the interveners could have had a very good defense against the lawsuit over the interim plan and to avoid that you seeked an injunctive relief due to the fact that no plan was in place making it illegal to have ORV?s on the beach per President Nixon?s Executive Order.
The lack of an ORV plan by NPS was not the people of Hatteras Island?s fault, but that of NPS. The only fault we had was that the 1978 plan that I have a copy of here at my business was a ?draft? that we the people of Hatteras Island thought was signed and put in place in 1978. Yes, I will say that I am one that should have made sure that the plan was indeed in place so if you need a fall guy blame me.
You say that vegetaion removal did not work, but grew back with a vengence. With volunteers from the access side we can get the manpower, equipment and materials together and make it worki. All NPS needs to do is get the approval and permits. And truefully we don?t expect much from you because you don?t clean the beach or do anything now to help the seashore.
Frank, you must have me mistaken for someone else. You are absolutely correct, though, that this situation is not anyone?s fault. That changes have come quickly and through the courts, rather than gradually through regulation over 30 years has got to be frustrating. The government?s failure to act contributed to expectations that can no longer be met.
For the record, I?ve not posted anything regarding vegetation management and don?t have an opinion.
Regarding the ?success? of the consent decree, as I recall NPS said in their public testimony that Irene posted last year that it was working, that the results had been positive for plovers. This is from http://www.islandfreepress.org/2008Archi..
?Daniel L. Wenk, deputy director for operations for the National Park Service, told the panel that the Department of the Interior must balance protecting park resources and providing for recreation for the public. “We believe,” he said, “that the consent decree will achieve this better than the interim plan.” “A return to managing the Seashore under the Interim Management Strategy,” Wenk said in his written comments, “would result in a reduction in the size, frequency, and timing of the buffers protecting federally and state-listed species, and a likely reduction in the increase in nesting activity observed in 2008.”
I think the statement speaks for itself. The first year was promising. But the ultimate success of any conservation action can only be measured over time ? does it contribute to the recovery of the species? There may be some variation from year to year, but if the trend is up its a success.
Observer,
The Consent Decree, or other ORV restrictions alone will never result in increased productivity, ever. The park could close all the beaches to humanity and the species would still be doomed.
It is quite evident the major and most pressing problems are the altered habitat and introduced and invasive predators.
What everyone here seems to be forgetting is that CHNSRA is the EXTREAME EDGE of the Plover nesting area. That means that the ratio of nesting pair will be lower than those of Long Island -New England which is the prime nesting area. The birds of Hatteras have become the resident birds, not going north to nest and not going south in the wintering area. It seems that the chance of them ever becoming a major part of the park is being over played here.
If we want real scientific data collected, the NPS needs to geo-locate every nest, every fence post of all the species being protected under the CD. They don?t need to post this information until the following year, but you may be surprised to see that the nesting maybe moving closer to the fence line each time one is erected. This is another critical piece of information which should be included in all studies. Like it or not, birds are not dumb, and they know (because they?re resident birds) that those dastardly gas guzzling, oil spouting, noisy, smoke belching behemoths are a food source and they will move closer to the food.
Jack
Results?One last time. Wenk?s statements are those of another environmental activist who ignores the facts or is in bed with SELC, et al. As for USGS Protocols, the authors state the they should be considered in conjunction with site specific data and altered as appropriate. USFWS stated that the interim plan would not only not jepardize the wildlife but would also likely improve the habitat.
NPS operated under a prototype of the Interim Plan in 2005 & 2006 and the Interim Plan in 2007. In 2008, the Piping Plover population nearly doubled, as did the juvinile population of the Oystercatchers. Turtle nest numbers were up as well. Now Derb Carter of SELC attributes these population increases to the massive and longer lived closures of the Consent Decree. Considering the fact that at the time Mr. Carter made these comments, the Consent Decree had not been in place for even one full breeding season this assertion is rediculous. In point of fact, the population increases are more appropriately attributed to the resource management polocies of 2005-2007.
As for productivity, as demonstrated below there had been little if any improvement under the Consent Decree, which has 31% of the beaches closed to all and over 50% of the ORV beaches closed. Quite simply the benefits do not justify the costs.
1. Piping Plover productivity actually decreased under the Consent Decree (average fledge rate during the 2005-2006 Prototype Management period 1.0, fledge rate during 2007 Interim Plan Management .67, and fledge rate during 2008 Consent Decree Management .64).
2. The active nests for American Oystercatchers as of the second week of June have remained relatively constant under all management strategies (19 in 2006, 16 in 2007, 18 in 2008, and 19 in 2009).
3. Sea Turtle nesting activity continues to vary widely but has held steady at 10-15 percent of the NC state total.
Jack, that?s an interesting hypothesis and research idea. It should not cost all that much to carry out either. Why don?t you send a suggestion to Mike Murray to start it this year with his staff mapping current nests. They could use students in following years to follow up. Focus on the Point and the eastern end of South Beach. NPS could start this week. Great idea. Thanks for your post.
Jack,
If we?re on the EXTREME EDGE of breeding habitat, wouldn?t that mean Lookout is on the VERY EXTREME EDGE of breeding habitat?
So, shouldn?t we have ~60 breeding pairs since Lookout has ~40?
It?s also my understanding that the birds that winter here are not the ones that breed here. If you?ve read research that suggests otherwise, can you post it please?
And finally, none of the nesting birds here scavenge human scraps. Terns fish, oystercatchers eat mole crabs, razor clams and other bivalves and plovers eat small worms and other invertebrates. So there?s not much merit to your suggestion, despite Berry?s naive response.
Jack, research is the process of guided learning. Map the nests, collect some data. Test your hypothesis, we might actually discover or validate something. Actual data would be useful.
“His[Dr.Berry] critiques are full of jargon and devoid of substantive analysis.”
“Perhaps Dr. Berry is confused…”
“…despite Berry’s naive response.”
The above are good examples, among others, of why I no longer pay much attention to the postings of Crotalus and Observer. To me their posts and responses seem much more agenda driven than courteous and professionally respectful debate in the true spirit of scientific enlightenment.
And from their postings I can only conclude that they truly fear Dr. Berry?s knowledge base and intellect as some of their more pointed remarks, some rather personal, seem reserved for him.
And please don’t get completely sidetracked by some of the straw man arguments presented here. There is a whole other universe of considerations, besides the myopic topic of shorebird biology, that will eventually be brought to bear to determine the future uses of CHNSRA. I am confident of that.
And above all, don’t give up. Keep the pressure on your elected representatives to return this Recreational Area back to its rightful owners, the American Citizens, who make the Park’s very existence possible with their hard earned tax dollars.
Jack,
You may be on to something but for a different reason. We have noticed for quite a few years that the birds are nesting in very perilous areas, nearer the ocean.
As the Park Service has continually moved the resource closures onto the less vegetated areas of the beach, the vegetation has grown up behind them where the ORVs are prohibited. The birds won?t nest in the heavily vegetated areas, thus the need to close off more and more portions of the beach. Look at Oregon Inlet. Look at the Salt Ponds areas of Cape Point when you can. Birds can no longer nest there and predators have a great, large area to inhabit.
Instead of continually trying harder to do things that don?t work, the Park needs to look at their own data. Mapping and GPS locations have been done of the nests. Fledgling feeding habits have been documented.
We need to use better methods of helping the bird populations and stop looking at the people populations to place the blame.
I agree with what OBXTraveler has pointed out. Postings by ?Observer? and ?Crotalus?, particularly towards Mike Berry, have a tone of running scared.
In fact, I posed a direct question to ?Observer? concerning one of his/her posts, and ?Observer? used it as an opportunity to lambaste Mr. Berry. What?s up with that?
Was my question too painful to answer, ?Observer?? No, wait?.answering it would require the truth, and if the truth gets in the way of your agenda, it is ignored.
As the truth continues to be brought to light, you people will become even more scared as your support base dwindles.
In addition to my environmental activism which involved telling people the truth in order to get things done, and which I was paid for at one time, I used to support organizations such as those who brought suit in this issue. No more! Why? Because they no longer deal with truth and fact! They are loose with the truth and use it to make money. Nothing more, nothing less.
Thanks folks, for ruining once respected environmental organizations.
When I read something like this, found on page 43 of a Walker Golder supplied documet near the end of Reg Neg.
FACTORS AFFECTING REPRODUCTION AND MIGRATION OF WATERBIRDS ON THE NORTH CAROLINA BARRIER ISLANDS
Final Report
to the National Park Service
Cape Hatteras and Cape Lookout Seashores
by Jaime A. Collazo
Different human activities had different effects on
shorebird behavior. Faster, erratic events such as running
pets and children, seemed to upset birds m~e than slower,
regular events such as people walking, or slow moving
vehicles. This was very similar to Burger?s (1986) findings
in New York. Along North Carolina?s outer Banks, many
shorebirds seemingly ignored stationary humans and
stationary vehicles on the beach, often foraging within a
few feet of sunbathers and parked vehicles.
my spirit is lifted.
Well after reviewing all the detailed reports by the Bird People, I have concluded, why they are so moved by the Birds. It seems they both have Bird-Brains.
Berry wrote:
Jack, research is the process of guided learning. Map the nests, collect some data. Test your hypothesis, we might actually discover or validate something. Actual data would be useful.
And if you were a real scientist rather than just a bureaucrat, you would have told him as designed, his experiment is flawed ? aside from the fact the birds that nest here don?t scavenge off of humans.
You would have told him correlation isn?t causation and other factors would have to be weighed and/or ruled out. Things such as levels and types of disturbance, presence/absence of predators, inter-/intraspecific competition (eg cleptoparasitism/territoriality), as well as the available suitable (preferred) habitat and the spacial distribution of the birds.
Mr. Vachet ? your question was directly answered in my post above, yet you too pile on with ad hominems. The answer was that NEPA is not required for consent decrees in this context, and above I detailed why. Was that unclear? Perhaps because the answer didn?t fit your agenda, you ignored it? I directed my answer to Dr. Berry because this issue of NEPA and public process is one he has been pushing, but you and he are simply mistaken if you thinks that the consent decree is invalid because it did not go through a NEPA process (which would have taken longer than the life of the decree).
People are entitled to their opinions, but not their own facts.
So let?s see, the Plaintiffs sue saying the interim plan is wrong, including NEPA (third from last, below)
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint alleges that Federal
Defendants’ Interim Protected Species Management Strategy,
approved on July 13, 2007, and Federal Defendants’ failure to
issue a long-term plan and special regulation governing off-road
vehicle (“ORV”) use at the Seashore, violate the National Park
Service Organic Act (“Organic Act”), 16 U.S.C. § 1, et seq.; the
Seashore enabling legislation, 16 U.S.C. §§ 459-459a-10;
Executive Order 11644, as amended by Executive Order 11989 and
implemented by 36 C.F.R. § 4.10; the Migratory Bird Treaty Act,
16 U.S.C. §§ 703-712, and Executive Order 13186; the National
Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 4321, et seq.; and
the ESA;
36. Statutory Obligations: No provision of this Consent
Decree shall be interpreted as or constitute a commitment or
requirement that Federal Defendants take action in contravention
of NEPA, the ESA, the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), or
any other law or regulation, either substantive or procedural.
Nothing in this Consent Decree shall be construed to limit or
modify the discretion accorded to Federal Defendants by NEPA, the
Case 2:07-cv-00045-BO Document 56-2 Filed 04/16/2008 Page 17 of 23
Page 18 of 23
ESA, the APA, or general principles of administrative law with
respect to the procedures to be followed in making any
determination required herein, or as to the substance of any
final determinations.
37. No Waiver of Rights: Plaintiffs do not waive any right
they may have to bring suit against Federal Defendants for any
violations of law which may arise relating to the ORV Management
Plan and Special Regulation described in Paragraph 1 above,
including, but not limited to, violations of NEPA, the ESA, the
MBTA, the APA, or Federal Defendants’ responsibilities under 36
C.F.R. § 4.10. Further, by entering into this Consent Decree,
Federal Defendants and Intervenor-Defendants do not waive any
claim or defenses they may have in any action brought by the
Plaintiffs challenging the ORV Management Plan, Final
Environmental Impact Statement, and Special Regulation described
in Paragraph 1 above. Plaintiffs, Federal Defendants, and
Intervenor-Defendants agree that any challenge to the ORV
Management Plan, the Special Regulation, or other agency action
set forth in Paragraph 1 above shall be brought in a separate
action and not pursuant to this Consent Decree.
And then say, Federal Defendants can?t use the CONsent decree violations of NEPA against the Plaintiffs.
“Quote” I’ll also remind Dr. Berry that President Richard Nixon signs the Endangered Species Act of 1973 into law. The bill passed the Senate on December 19 by voice vote and the House of Representatives on December 20 by a vote of 355 to 4. Most management actions pursuant to it, including listing decisions and biological opinions, are exempt from NEPA, as he should know. Only critical habitat designations are subject to NEPA, and guess what, the economic analysis for that does not even remotely support the notion of an ?economic and social disaster.? Indeed, its simply hyperbole to claim ?economic disaster? when gross receipts and meal taxes are up in Dare County year after year and the vast majority of even Hatteras Islanders don’t care enough about this issue enough to even comment. Observer “Unquote”
Observer
With all due respect, which US Code book are you looking at? The President, all Federal Agencies within the Executive Branch, and the Court all share responsibilities and requirements to enforce NEPA to the LETTER (Verbatim Compliance) and SPIRIT of the act when making new environmental rule. That means going through a public review cycle. There are very few exceptions, which in this case, drafting/implementing a Management Policy for CHNSRA, and then significantly modifying the legal NEPA approved one without public review is not one of them, especially when it has major impacts that significantly effects the Human Environment and locale.
Furthermore, the Secretary of the Interior has no written authority to implement a conservation program under the Endangered Species Act, as well as the Migratory Bird Treaty Act within CHNSRA specific Congressional mandated “Recreational Exception areas” as provided by the Enabling Legislation (Other law that has higher authority). CHNSRA land was not acquired pursuant to, or because of the ESA, MBTA, Fish and Wildlife Act, or the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act.
I am not suggesting that we should not protect CHNSRA resources. What I am arguing and insisting is that The Purpose of CHNSRA specific Recreational areas, and the guaranteed rights of the legal residents to earn a livelihood by fishing within the boundaries, shall by law take precedence over protection of the seashore’s resources. The Constitution of the United States of America does not grant flora and fauna rights over human rights, specifically when Congress has mandated in CHNSRA enabling legislation otherwise. When one closes down a ramp(s) and takes away right-of way, how are local resident’s to “earn a livelihood by fishing within the boundaries” which is guaranteed by Congress in the enabling legislation? The legal residents make their living during the early spring and peak months of the summer, which happens to be the very crucial time when all the ramps/access are severely restricted by the non-peered reviewed draconian “Consent Decree” “precedent” setting environmental rules that they had no say in.
The 07’ Interim Plan followed the NEPA process to the letter and spirit of the law, and it more than adequately protected the Seashores resources, yet it provided some degree of deference by the DOI Secretary’s reasonable interpretation allowing for the “Purpose” which is public recreational access and the rights of the legal residents to earn a livelihood by fishing within the boundaries.
Has anyone read the NPS Resouce Report from June 18. Seems there are only 7 total possible fledglings this year for Piping Plovers. While we did get Ramp 34 open after two weeks of no bird activity I again wonder where the science is that says WAIT two weeks after the birds are gone to reopen a closure. Piping plover activity at Bodie Island, the washover, Hatteras Inlet and the north end of Ocracoke have been nil, but this decree by gunpoint will not allow NPS to reopen them until July 15 at the earliest. More good science from where?
While this may not totally be on point I had to make sure that this blog had at least 100 comments.
Irene ? Great work you do!
I would bet that observer is Jason Rylander the hired gun for Defenders of Wildlife. The comments sound like his and this would be my guess.
Warren,
Thank you for your post regarding the identity of “observer”. I have suspected for some time now that it is Jason Rylander, attorney for Defenders of Wildlife, one of the “hired gun” lawyers for the other side. It?s quite clear that the Consent Decree was written by unreasonable enviro-extremists and there have been only two unreasonable enviro-extremists posting thus far on this forum, “observer” and “crotalus”. It?s time that islanders realized who they are debating with ? the very authors of the Consent Decree we are suffering under ? lawyers ? paid so-called “professionals” ? or, as you say “hired guns”! What does this really mean? It means that the many reasonable people on the other side are not being heard from ? only lawyers ? only people who stand to profit from this continuing dispute.
We need to hear more from the PEOPLE on the other side, reasonable environmentalists, not paid lawyers ? people like BARBARA ACKLEY ? I have tremendous respect for her approach, restoring plover habitat around the salt pond, etc. IF WE COULD GET THE LAWYERS OUT OF THIS THE ENVIRONMENTALIST IN ALL OF US WOULD COME OUT AND WE WOULD HAVE HAD A WORKABLE SOLUTION LONG AGO.
And one more thing ? can you tell us why we have not heard a peep from our other-wise miracle-working state senator, MARK BASNIGHT!!!
WHERE IS MARK BASNIGHT WHEN WE NEED HIM??? I would like to hear a lot more on this forum about his MIA status on this issue. I hope he doesn?t expect to be re-elected by remaining neutral, which tells me he is against us! Let?s flush him out, see where he stands and, hopefully, get him working for the people on this issue. He certainly must have the time since banning plastic bags (not a bad idea) is his top priority!
WHERE IS MARK BASNIGHT WHEN WE NEED HIM MOST???