A few weeks ago, Jim Keene, president of the North Carolina Beach Buggy Association, sent me an e-mail after there was some discussion on local blogs about the Cape Hatteras National Seashore?s 1978 draft management plan to regulate off-road vehicles.
Attached was a January, 1979, newsletter from the North Carolina Beach Buggy Association (NCBBA).
Keene wrote in his message: ?As I earlier noted to some people while I struggled to write an article for NCBBA, ?Why do I write new articles when we could revive old ones, same organizations, same subject, different people???
And how right he is. It reminds me of the movie ?Groundhog Day,? in which the characters lived the day?s events over and over and over again.
Much of what appeared in that 1979 newsletter sounds familiar and applies to the situation we find ourselves in today over access of the seashore beaches.
The featured article in the newsletter was entitled, ?Other Shoe Drops from Park Service: This time it?s a slipper.?
The article begins:
?The National Park Service finally released its revised draft management plan for off-road vehicles in the Cape Hatteras National Seashore in early December (1978). Unlike the January 1978 draft which would have closed half the national seashore and which came down like a fisherman?s boot filled with lead sinkers, the second shoe was more like a soft slipper. The second draft still has some leaky holes, but it is much more realistic.?
Thirty-one years later, we are awaiting the Park Service?s draft Environmental Impact Statement and preferred alternative on ORV regulations on the seashore.
By the way, Cyndy Holda, community liaison and assistant to seashore superintendent Mike Murray, said today there was no word from the NPS Washington headquarters on when the ?notice of availability? and DEIS would be published in the federal register, kicking off 60 days of public comment and public meetings.
?Check back next week,? Holda advised.
Until there is a final regulation on ORVs on the seashore, the Park Service is operating under a consent decree issued by a federal judge to settle a lawsuit by environmental groups over the lack of management of vehicles on the beach.
The seashore has been required to have such regulations under a Presidential Order issued in the early 1970s.
In 1978, after a series of public meetings and a comment period, a draft management plan was issued, which dismayed residents and many visitors.
Bill Harris of Kitty Hawk, who was then seashore superintendent, worked on many of the objections, and a revised draft plan was issued in December, 1978.
According to my past interviews with Harris, and his successor, Tom Hartman of Southern Shores, that draft plan was sent to Park Service managers in Washington, D.C.
And nothing ever happened with it. It was never made final, never instituted. Both former superintendents say they don?t know why the plan never went forward. It dropped into some bureaucratic black hole and stayed there until environmental groups latched onto the issue in the mid-1990s.
Of course, if it had gone forward, the park would not be in the position that it now finds itself in. And that is being open to all kinds of lawsuits for being out of compliance almost four decades now.
The NCBBA newsletter is pretty interesting and more than a little depressing.
As Keene said, ?same organizations, same subject, different people.?
I might add that some well-funded, aggressive environmental groups have now joined the fray.
Not that there were not environmental groups around in 1979.
Another article in the newsletter is about the Cape Hatteras Electric Cooperative?s efforts to upgrade its power lines across Oregon Inlet.
The CHEC plan was being delayed, the newsletter said, ?because of bureaucratic delays and red tape on the part of the National Park Service.?
Then the Sierra Club jumped onto the issue.
?They fear that additional electrical power capacity will lead to overdevelopment of the Outer Banks,? the newsletter noted.
Back in 1979, NCBBA and the Outer Banks Preservation Association, which was formed in 1978 to fight for beach access during the ORV management planning process, were concerned about such things in the plan as corridors and permits.
The folks who were fighting for access back then could not have imagined some of the rules and regulations that were on the table in the failed negotiated rulemaking process.
Back then, it was all about regulating ORVs. Today, it is also about pedestrian access to the beaches.
And soon when the DEIS and preferred alternative are issued by the National Park Service, we will see our future, and no one expects it to be pretty.
Remember that there will be 60 days for public comments and a half dozen or so public meetings here and across the area.
If you care about your access to seashore beaches, this will be the time to step up to the plate.
You can be sure that environmental groups, such as the National Audubon Society and Defenders of Wildlife, will whip up public frenzy about cowboy ORV drivers, damage to the beaches, and shorebirds run over by vehicles.
Audubon recently solicited scientists to support draconian measures to restrict beach access.
It?s interesting to see who signed and what some of their comments are. It?s a good bet that many of them have never been here and never read the so-called science that the Park Service and environmental groups are relying on to make their decision.
To see the letter that that was sent to the seashore?s superintendent by the scientists, which glosses over the fact that they were solicited to send it by the National Aububon Society, a party to the lawsuit against the Park Service, click here.
To read the full January, 1979, NCBBA newsletter, click here.
Also, there is the threat of OBX becoming a ?Marine Sanctuary?? and no one has yet to describe what that all entails?..how it impacts our use of our Homes and Beaches, and FISHING!!!!
Hope you get to feeling better???.
Did anyone notice the names in the NCBBA news letter letterhead? Donn Mitchell was one of the major players in the 1970?s OBPA as was Ray Couch, present days OBPA?s President John Couch?s father. There are only a hand full of members in the 1970?s OBPA still around to take part in today?s struggle. Gae Ann Zindel, Steve Hissey, Garry Oliver and I were the only names today I remember being at the meetings of OBPA in the 70?s. The struggle in the 70?s was with NPS. NPS as seen by the draft 1978 plan was a concession by NPS and the OBPA should have been finalized and signed in DC, but someone did not let that happen. Grassroots was able to have input in the 70?s, but money enpowered special interest groups now swing votes and voices that make our grassroots efforts so much harder and expensive beyond belief. I have never seen individuals like the attorney living on Hatteras Island calling himselve savior of the birds and others in the Chapel Hill area that thrive off making those around them miserable. Common sense from common people is shunned to allow JUNK science and twisted thruths to be the ideals for what Hatteras Island should look like in their minds. It is a shame that if these groups would offer me a fair price for the spots of sand I own on Hatteras Island I would leave tomorrow and not return to visit the island or the graves of my parents and their generations before them. This is the sad truth of the sad situations these special interest groups have brought me.
Word of the Day:
Oppression
–noun
1. the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner.
My parents resided in Salvo in the 70s / 80s. My Dad tried to warn me that the actions in the 70s that closed Pea Island to driving and the attempt at the ORV Plan were just the beginning of a line marching ever so slowly in the direction of limiting access.
Unfortunately I was too young, inexperienced and naive at the time to understand what the old gray head was trying to tell me.
Proverbs 20:29
This is so interesting in light of the recent revelation that NC Audubon wants to sell ocean front property they own up on Pine Island for development.
http://hamptonroads.com/2010/01/pine-isl..
It also harkens to comments in an interview by NC Audubon?s Chris Canfield when he said they feel sorry for islanders losing their jobs, businesses and homes, then said BUT we?ve seen improvement in bird numbers and birds deserve a place too. Translation he thinks it?s worth it, and really doesn?t care about the people. Doesn?t the word “but” negate everything said before it?
My suggestion would be if he and other Audubon people think that, why don?t they give their homes and livelihoods to displaced islanders? He said it was worth it. Or is it only worth it when it?s someone else home and livelihood?
We know the answer.
I?ll bet the $500,000 Dare County throwed away to hire a useless law firm in this matter would have hired more than one investigator who could find exactly what ?black hole? that 1978 plan fell into and who put it there. Then, again I don?t think they want to know.
For Bates to suggest that we as a community, who have long cared for this resource, be required to submit proof that we cause no harm because Audubon cant show we do, is tantamount to the fire department showing up at the house and pouring thousands of gallons of water on everything, ruining it all; and then proclaiming that it is not their responsibility to show that there was a fire, but my responsibility to prove that no fire existed.
I?ve said it before, Ill say it always. This issue can only come to an end when the NPS is required to obey the law that already exists.
Wheat
I think Wheat is referring to the comments that a U.S. Fish and Wildlife biologist made in the story in The Outer Banks Sentinel about Audubon soliciting scientists to support its view on ORV regulation. Link to the story is in the blog. But here it is again:
http://obsentinel.womacknewspapers.com/a..
What a long, sad, frustrating trip it has been. Now throw in MPA?s and over zealous fishing regulations that will affect ALL fishermen, commercial and recreational alike, and it just seems to be getting worse and worse. It?s starting to feel like that even if we are awarded with a tiny little bit of access to fish the beaches, we can?t keep anything we catch. And forget that charter trip when you cna?t fish teh surf! Because the regulatiosn there are becoming so out-o-whack that the boat owners and operators may soon be a thing of the past.
The land of the free, huh?
I have commented on this topic before and again I feel that it comes down to respecting the wildlife and the beaches, which 99% of us do. These groups with all this money and these rediculous laws need to understand that we do care about the beaches and the wildlife and just wanna be left alone to fish and enjoy the beach. I do agree that there should be hefty fines to those who don?t respect the wildlife and beaches but the thing is that most of us do and just wanna be free to share the beach with all creatures without harming them. If a section of the beach needs to be sectioned off so a bird or turtle can nest, that?s understandable. To close off ramps and beach access for any other reason is just wrong and it infringes on our rights as fishermen and the people who enjoy these beautiful beaches. Coming to Hatteras has been a family tradition since the early 1950?s and there are so many great memories and fish stories to share. No matter what happens or what laws are put in place, Hatteras and the Banks will always be a second home to me. I just hope that some of these ?groups? and ?our government? will open their minds up a little and see that we do care and we can all make a difference without taking away our rights or the animal?s. We are all one.