Finally, after a very long wait, the Park Service has made public its Draft Environmental Impact statement and preferred alternative for managing off-road vehicles on the Cape Hatteras National Seashore.
How long the wait has been depends on when you start counting ? and how good your memory is after all these years.
The seashore has been more than three decades without a long-term ORV management plan, as is required by federal regulations.
About 15 years ago, environmental groups started taking notice that there was no plan ? especially groups that have no use for ORVs.
Sometime in mid-1990s, seashore officials started talking about coming up with a plan, but that talk didn?t really get very serious until after the Cape Hatteras Lighthouse was moved a little over 10 years ago.
Then a revolving door of superintendents talked a lot about it, but got nothing done. Next, Mike Murray came to Cape Hatteras as Superintendent in 2006, and he got the ball rolling in a serious way.
Then we waited for a negotiated rulemaking committee to be formed. That group of stakeholders was supposed to reach a consensus on a preferred alternative for ORV management.
After many months, the committee ended its work a year ago with no consensus.
So Mike Murray and his staff have spent the last year working on the DEIS and the preferred alternative.
You can read my story on the details of the preferred alternative on the Beach Access Issues Page, and you can go the Parks PEPC Web site and read the electronic version of the DEIS ? all 810 pages of it. You can also click on a link at the end of the article to take you right to a PDF of the 50-page executive summary, which sums up the plan and compares the six options that the Park Service considered.
Alternatives A through E were released last fall during the negotiated rulemaking meetings.
Alternative D is still the environmentally preferred option. It is draconian in its details and would close down large areas of the beach, including the points and spits.
Today, we got to see the Park Service?s preferred option, which is Alternative F.
I haven?t read the entire 810-page document, but I did read the 50-page executive summary and some parts of the rest of the plan.
Do I really like what is being proposed? No.
Did I think it would be a lot more restrictive? Yes.
Compared to past, there are many changes ? changes to not like much at all.
But, given the fact that something was coming, I was relieved at what I read today.
I think Mike Murray and his staff did a decent job of being even-handed under the worst of circumstances and a great deal of pressure.
I think both sides on the issue of access will be unhappy about some, or all, of the plan.
Some would say that means Murray and crew did what they were supposed to do.
In my calls around today, I didn?t get much reaction, since most people were working and hadn?t had time to read it. (Lucky me, that the DEIS was my work today so I was reading it ? and will keep on ready it for the foreseeable future.)
Many aspects of ORV regulation will continue to be debated in public comments, in public meetings, and at the grocery stores and the post offices.
My biggest problem with the document released today is that it continues to use the buffers that were created for the consent decree. Huge buffers. Buffers that some reasonable people don?t think are based on sound, peer-reviewed science.
They are buffers that the environmental groups — whose lawsuit against the Park Service resulted in the consent decree — just love.
The most reaction I found today was in a media release from National Audubon Society, Defenders of Wildlife, and Southern Environmental Law Center.
?The preferred alternative announced today,? they said, ?falls short of the U.S. Department of Interior?s own scientists? recommendations regarding the measure needed to protect wildlife within the national park.?
Let us know what you think when you have time to look over the DEIS ? or parts of it.
And please remember when you read it that, although it is called on ORV management plan, it also a pedestrian management plan. The plan manages not only where you can drive, but where you can walk, fish, shell, swim, play, windsurf, kiteboard, fly a kite, or cook a dinner.
You can send The Island Free Press your comments, while you wait for the public comment period on the DEIS to begin.
A dress rehearsal, so to speak.
And in the coming weeks ? and probably months ? we will continue to bring your articles and blogs on many aspects of the DEIS and the preferred alternative.
Here is what the USFW says in their recovery plan.
http://www.fws.gov/northeast/pipingplove..
Appendix G
Yes it is out and like a baby that gave the mom labor pains for way to long it weighed in at 8.30 lbs. when the 810 pages were weighed.
After a first glance I see many of my visions are there. The fee permit. Ramp 27-30 closed year round, north end of Ocracoke closed year round, junk science buffers for the plovers that are threatened, not endangered plus consent decree buffers for birds that are only on a list of concern in NC and on no federal list at all.
And the pity of it all is that these eco idiotsfirst reaction as stated by Irene: “The preferred alternative announced today,” they said, “falls short of the U.S. Department of Interior’s own scientists’ recommendations regarding the measure needed to protect wildlife within the national park.”
When anyone who plans to comment on the plan begins that process be sure you have constructive alternatives for the ones you want to change. I do not know if they will even listen to any of our comments, but to be sure they will ignore complaining comments that don?t show why they are bad and what would and should be used that makes the plan better.
Irene and Frank have stated my reaction very well. My concern/disappointment is with the lack the scientific basis for closures. Why the NPS refuses to conduct open, objective review of the science baffles me. That applies to both birds and turtles. Science applied to the ORV management framework must be done so in a reasonable and flexible manner or large sections of the national seashore will be closed to public access for most of the visitor season.
Berry?s assertion the scientific basis for closures is lacking is based in ignorance. Wilcox (Wilcox 1959), showed there was a need for protections (closures) around beach nesting birds as early as the 40s. This is also supported by Melvin et al 1994.
Disturbance distances and chick mobility (chick buffers) for all species on Hatteras are all supported by the lit. Google Scholar is your friend.
The argument should be how closely should management actions follow the science, and why/why not.
Number one Dr. Mike is anything but ignorant and bases nothing on ignorance.
Number two: Your last sentence states a lot of what Dr. Mike and I both believe. Probably what we feel is real science and what is junk science is the difference in the way you have said it and the way we have said it. I also see something missing so far in my reading of the DEIS (Which is far from finished) In Reg. Neg. we were told we could think out of the box and continually I and others stated that with work at Oregon Inlet, Cape Point, Hatteras Inlet and South Point of Ocracoke that if we were given the opportunity to take the inland portions of these areas we could with less money than was spent on the consent decree with the help of Doug and Michelle and some of the others made those areas good bird habitat leaving much of the berachfront open most of the year open to off road vehicles. Even the environmental dark side sitting at the table doid not disagree. But has any of those thinkings gone anywhere , heck no, and because it would take NPS to get permission and permits that would be more trouble than they want to put into them.
The access minded folks involved in this mis application of what this seashore is all about don?t want to harm the birds and will be glad to help see that they survive, but not eliminate people from the process. I do not think you and access are that far apart, unlike the eco idiots we are deling with.
:
Frank, I understand and agree with what you?re saying. But whether unintentional, or willful, Barry is obviously ignorant of the supporting studies and observations for the size of the closures. The scientific basis, is not lacking and he should know that.
As a scientist explained it to me, wildlife management actions should be predicated, in part, on the status of the species in question. If you have a stable population you would manage (protect) the average behavior. So if on average you have a disturbance distance of 100 meters, that would be your buffer, even though some individuals may be disturbed at that distance. If chick mobility averaged 50 meters, again that would be your buffer, even though chicks may range father than that.
However, if your management goal is to increase the population (as it is on the seashore) buffers should protect the most divergent of known behaviors. And that?s where you get 1,000 meter buffers for plover chicks, because they?ve been observed to travel that far.
So, other than the population recovering, or building a barrier between the nesting habitat and the beach to the Point, while it should be done, habitat alteration won?t solve the 1000 meter problem.
Crotalus, you have misrepresented me severely to the point of slander. Again, for the record, I see a clear need for reasonable risk based closures to protect certain species. I have told you that in the past.
I have read the studies you cite where they can be found. One is so old, it cannot be found in the UNC library. Even so, a 50 year old study, even a 20 year old study, in this day and age needs to updated and verified if it is the basis for a restrictive public policy.
I find nowhere in published literature that boundary distances used on the Outer Banks have been specifically calculated based on data in the papers. I want NPS, not you, to show me and the interested public how the numbers were calculated and justified. That said, I can probably see justification, based on field notes and data, for 50m, or 100m, and in some cases 200m boundaries, but I can find no study, research or data that justifies an automatic 1000m closure for a single plover chick. Since when is non- verified, non published single observation of a plover chick, supposedly moving a 1000m distance, scientific justification for denying public access to the national seashore. A claim of scientific basis is “junk science.”
Crotalus, I have a good idea who you are, so don’t be surprised when I introduce myself sometime.
Dr. Berry might start with the piping plover recovery plan which specifically mentions 1000 meters. Then he might review the more that 500 pages of punished peer reviewed studies presented to NPS at Reg Neg. Then, when he has done that, his opinions on what is and is not science will have some credibility with me. Given that Dr. Berry is not an ornithologist his opinion is simply that. It?s really easy to name call and deride others work. It?s quite something else to have done the work. 100 scientists signed the Audubon letter. Can Dr. Berry get 100 scientists with experience in ornithology to agree with him on buffer distances? If so, I look forward to reading their work.
JR, what do you think of the DEIS and especially the preferred alternative, science aside? Will it work?
The Wilcox 1959 report is not listed as a reference in the DEIS so it is not even relavent to the discussion.
Melvin 1994 is listed.
Berry complains:
”Crotalus, you have misrepresented me severely to the point of slander. Again, for the record, I see a clear need for reasonable risk based closures to protect certain species. I have told you that in the past.”
Point of order, slander is spoken, libel is written. You need to revisit what you wrote. You stated ”My concern/disappointment is with the lack the scientific basis for closures. ” You did not qualify “closures” as reasonable or otherwise. Excuse me for not being able to read your mind.
”I have read the studies you cite where they can be found. One is so old, it cannot be found in the UNC library. Even so, a 50 year old study, even a 20 year old study, in this day and age needs to updated and verified if it is the basis for a restrictive public policy.”
Try JStor?
”I find nowhere in published literature that boundary distances used on the Outer Banks have been specifically calculated based on data in the papers. I want NPS, not you, to show me and the interested public how the numbers were calculated and justified. That said, I can probably see justification, based on field notes and data, for 50m, or 100m, and in some cases 200m boundaries, but I can find no study, research or data that justifies an automatic 1000m closure for a single plover chick. Since when is non- verified, non published single observation of a plover chick, supposedly moving a 1000m distance, scientific justification for denying public access to the national seashore. A claim of scientific basis is ?junk science.?”
Plover chicks on Ocracoke, in 2009, moved 1300 meters – review the annual report. There?s your update, case closed.
Salvo Jimmy,
Wilcox is a seminal survivorship study, and the lack of its inclusion is regrettable.
Ok I went back and looked up the report to make sure all numbers are right. Too many things being looked at now. It was brood 7 at cape point that had the longest travel at the point of 480m at cape point, then as the report states “generally ranged less than 30m until fledged”. This trend of finding a foraging area and not moving much after seems consistent and should be considered. Brood 6 is the one Crotalus mentioned, and it traveled 1200m (not 1300) and then the report states it ranged only 208m foraging until fledged. I think a brood at S Ocracoke has done something similar in the past, moved back to a foraging location on the sound, so once there why not adjust the closure? Same with the other broods most of which never travel more than 300-400 total?
We have a track record, why not apply it?
JR,
In light of the recent revelations of the scientific data manipulation in the Climate-Gate scandal, can you please tell me why I should automatically just believe without question the opinions or conclusions of ANY modern day scientists?
Climate-Gate has shown me that sometimes expert scientific data and opinion of data(both old and new), even at the peer reviewed level, can be on sale to the highest bidder or the juiciest funding carrot, or can be manipulated in favor of the side applying the most political or peer pressure, or can be tailored and cherry-picked to support a predefine targeted conclusion.
In my opinion, Climate-Gate has shamefully tarnished the reputation of science and independent scientific research for years to come. Aristotle, Bacon, Al-Haytham, Newton, and Galileo must all be rolling in their graves.
And for these reasons it is impossible for me now to just accept at face value any scientific studies or conclusions, peer reviewed or otherwise, particularly when used to support pop-culture environmental causes or goals.
Climate-gate, as you call it, is a completely manufactured “scandal.” Nothing about climate change or the IPCC studies has been debunked. So if that?s your basis for distrusting science you?re simply being snowed by the anti-climate regulation pr machine.
Denny,
Yes, 1200 ? typo there.
As I understand it Great Lakes population nests on small islands and the entire island is posted, hence the disparity of the sizes.
According to: http://www.fws.gov/northeast/pipingplove..
“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.”
1000 meters is not the exception, but is recommended.
And then you go to arguing how to apply the buffers at Cape Hatteras. That wasn?t the argument. The argument was whether or not 1000 meter buffers are supported by the science, and they obviously are.
There you go cherry picking, I guess I?ll have to post the entire quote from schedule G
Protection of Chicks
Sections of beaches where unfledged piping plover chicks are present should be temporarily closed to all vehicles not deemed essential. (See the provisions for essential vehicles below.) Areas where vehicles are prohibited should include all dune, beach, and intertidal habitat within the chicks? foraging range, to be determined by either of the following methods:
1. 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
2. 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:
1. Provides for monitoring of all broods during the chick-rearing phase of the breeding season and specifies the frequency of monitoring.
AND
2. 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.
Your problem is you read the first sentence and you get all excited and don?t read the rest. I?ll bet when you were in school you always fell for those quizzes the teachers gave to see if you followed directions where the directions said “read all directions first”, and the last direction was to just put your name on the paper.
I don?t care about “consensus”, you don?t vote on science. You put out a theory and it has to be tested (peer review).
No cherry picking at all. You?re ignoring the entire context.
The only way you?re going to get less than 1000 meters, is to get the state or FWS to sign off on someone doing other than what they?ve recommended.
I didn?t say anything about consensus or theories.
The latest doc Crot cites are GUIDELINES. Nothing mandated about them. They don?t have to be applied to the maximum with no common sense exceptions applied/allowed, particularly based on local conditions, including the RECREATIONAL aspects of the enabling legislation.
I don?t buy the island size theory for the lakes. If it?s a 1000m at CHNSRA with no exception then 1000m would have to be used at the lakes to keep water craft from causing a disturbance.
Nope, the guidelines are not applied consistently to the maximum in all DOI areas because they don?t have to be.
The maximum application seems to only be applied where DOI fears a challenge and max application makes a challenge from environs less likely.
Salvo Jimmy,
The 1000 meters isn?t a disturbance buffer. It?s a ?keep chicks from being ran over? buffer. Probably not a problem in a lake.
My understanding is that they follow the recovery plan at Cape Cod and other few areas where there is beach driving, do you have evidence they do not?
The guidlines are applied consistently but it depends on intensity of monitoring, intensity of use, and observed behavior. Plovers, for example, flush at different distances in different regions.
I?ll say this, compared to Cape Cod and Assateague the NPS?s prefered alternative doesn?t measure up. 52 miles of the seashore would be designated seasonal or year-round ORV routes. That doesn?t seem the least bit balanced to me.
JR,
Not sure what you?re saying isn?t balanced.
Crot, I mean the plan is overly protective of ORVs.
OK, whatever the distance is designed for it is still GUIDANCE, not a mandate. Re consistency, I have no definitive info re driving specifically but recall someone way back providing some different data for Padre Island. Could be wrong on that.
Bottom line. DOI does not have the testicles to apply the leway Denny seems to point out. They take the easy way rather than applying some management judgement based on the local to avoid the heat.
BTW I?m done here for awhile. Boarding a plane in a few hours for about a month with little to no ?puter access.
Coming soon in a DOW press release:
JR ? “That doesn’t seem the least bit balanced to me.”
Crot ? “JR,Not sure what you’re saying isn’t balanced.”
JR ? Crot, I mean the plan is overly protective of ORVs.”
Wring hands ? shed a tear ? can?t we all just compromise for the sake of these rare chicks ? wring hinds ? shed tear ? blame evil ORVs for all the world?s problems ? sniff, sniff, dab eyes with tissue.
Sorry guys, my tax dollars paid for your suit with Boyle and all of your eloquent legal prose and press releases. I pay my taxes, but evidently your comrade in Buxton doesn?t. From now on, I am making the calls and writing the letters to ensure that my tax dollars do my bidding. America is still a largely rural nation. Rural people fish and hunt, and have learned to cherish the environment by experiencing it, not reading about in a DOW action email. People and their recreational pursuits are THE legitimate purpose for the existing of national parks. Rural people also can compromise, if we know that we are dealing with honest people. You?re not honest, so this deal is off. If you don?t like it, go to Denmark or the Netherlands, I think you?ll like it over there because people don?t stick their head above the hayfield ? I heard they even believe in global warming!
JR,
Still not following you. What scale are you using to determine the balance? Mileage doesn?t tell you anything, because not all miles of the seashore are equal.
I?d like to point out to the parties on both sides of the issue who are ubiquitously using the term ?ORV? to represent the pro-access groups, that pedestrians will suffer almost the same amount of restrictions as beach drivers.
And the fact that pedestrian management is being blanket ?adopted? into an ORV managment plan is just underhanded, and I question the legality. There should be a separate study on pedestrian impact on threatened (and apparantly non-threatened) species and a resulting managament plan put in place for that access.
Keep in mind that the enviro groups want whole sections, measurable in square miles, CLOSED. It would become national park land that would not be ?for the benefit and enjoyment of the people?.
Some very good points, Sandy.
I think the environmental groups purposely want to only include ORVs and not pedestrians in most of their talking-points. Keeping the general public focused on those ‘environmentally-harmful-gas-guzzling’ ORVs driven by ‘beach bums’; and in the dark about pedestrians also being banned, better suits their agenda, because banning ORVs is a much easier sell to the general public than banning people.
So in the future I am always going to try to remember to include the phrase, ?closed to both ORVs and pedestrians? whenever referring to beach closures that affect both.
Thanks for your thoughtful post.
I?m still reading. . . Does it address the issue of slaughtering native species?
They?re slaughtering ghost crabs?? It?s not in the reports!!
You can sit here and argue these questionable buffer distances all that you want, but the fact of the matter is that the said area in question SHALL BE , and is, established, dedicated, and set apart as a national seashore recreational area for the BENEFIT AND ENJOYMENT OF THE PEOPLE and SHALL BE known as the Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area.
The authorization of activities SHALL BE CONSTRUED and the protection, management, and administration of these areas shall be conducted in LIGHT OF HIGH PUBLIC VALUE and integrity of the National Park System and SHALL NOT be exercised in DEROGATION of the values and purposes for which these various areas have been established, except as may have been or shall be directly and specifically provided by Congress.
Bottom line, if you think for one minute that the public and legal residents of the villages who have a congressional mandated right to earn a livelihood by fishing within the boundaries, are going to allow CHNSRA’s purpose to be changed to a wildlife refuge, you are sorely mistaken. You better start obtaining specific congressional approval.
In the 1930?s a biologist named Adolf Murie performed a study on the effects of the erradication of predator wolves in Denali National Park. His study conluded that the destruction of the wolf population actually led to a reduced number of breeding dall sheep (the wolf?s primary prey). The NPS promptly halted it?s wolf eradication program and the dall sheep population back went up. This is what happens when a group tries to mess with nature without proper science. Regardless of the science applied to the buffers, I have seen NO science or explaination about the removal of crows and/or other predators in an attempt to strengthen the plover population. Sorry, I suppose trial-and-error IS a form a science.
History is doomed to repeat itself.
Sandy,
I?ve seen no evidence Cape Hatteras is removing crows or targeting any other natural population of predators.
Crotalus,
Are you saying that the mammals that are eradicated each year by the Park Service are not ?natural? predators? Is natural the key word here?
I read these comments and the back and forth arguments and it reminds me of Reg Neg. I was there. The finger pointing and attitudes is what keeps us devided. I can?t get one thing out of mind my though, is this the good fight that needs to be fought first? My point is this, I know a lot of Sportsman and there is nobody that can love the environment like a Sportsman does. I do not know anyone who would intentionally harm a non game species like the Plover or its offspring. I know several people, including myself, that aid and notify the right people when they come across a turtle nest or turtle etc. I am a fisherman and used to hunt. My Grandfather taught me not to take from the land except for what you only need. I have passed that along to everyone who listens. i practice catch and release unless the fish is being sent to my dinner table. Yet, I personnally would place myself and my boat between a Japanese Harpoon boat and an innocent whale. So my point of all this is the following?
1) There are so many far worse attrocities in this world against humans and animals alike . Watch ?Whales Wars? on Animal Planet and it will make your stomach turn.
2) Focus on world hunger, or having your congress vote down health reform, or finding a renewable engergy source, etc.
3) Find a way to encourage wildlife to use the miles of beach that the Oregon Inlet Duck Hunters donated to the Park Service that has always been off limits to ORV?s.
4) Let the areas that historically have been for ORV?s remain open to ORV?s.
It is not that hard. Recoginize that the people and businesses of Hatteras need the type of tourist that come to enjoy the open beaches. Instead of arguing how many feet is not enough or too much for buffers. We all have better fights to fight and too many times, ego gets in the way of a true unbiased approach to real management and that is the job of the Parks Service. Let them do their job and free them up to focus on the ones who are abusing the privalages instead of the law abiding people who are having their passion infringed upon.
Ask yourself one question, would you rather spend your time and money on a tire track on a beach where maybe 10 breeding pairs of birds might be located in that one piece of the whole OBX, or would you rather stop a huge foreign business stop stabbing a Marine Mammal with an exploding harpoon, let him suffocate on his blood or drag him backwards for 25 minutes until he drowns? If you really think about it, lets get the biggest problems solved first and let the smaller issues stay on the back burner until the major things are solved. Good people like to help what needs helping. I see fisherman volunteering all the time for beach cleanups, etc. I do myself. But if your passion is to help one of the creatures that God put here on Earth for us, stand in the way of a Canadian that is about to bash a baby seals head in to create a market of seal skin in Europe.
Again, pick your fights carefully and work on the worse ones first! The Sportsmen that enjoy the OBX will do more to help the environment than they could ever hurt and if you notice, they leave the beach better than how they found it in most cases.
Irene,
Yes.
The animals being killed were the ones the enabling legislation declared should be saved. The natural habitat is the area they described as ?wilderness?. The animals, birds, they are trying to propagate on the beaches are not native to that area.
In reading through these comments, there is a discussion the facts of which I have researched. As to Plover Brood 6 at Ocracoke last year that had to travel 1200-1300 meters to forage, there was an obvious reason shown on the maps. Those poor little balls of fluff had to go that far on their little toothpick legs because vegetation was blocking the way between the nest and forage areas!
If the powers that be want to introduce a non-native species here, the vegetation must be removed from the favored nesting and foraging areas. All plover broods last year and most that I can find in the records do not forage at the ocean front. They seek the ponds, ethemeral ponds, and the calmer waters of the sound. In order to get to the preferred location they often have to go around or through the vegetated areas. This action must be very strenuous and debilatating for these small, young creatures. If the powers that be and those who call themselves environmentalists would look at the results of their actions, they would recognize these facts and clear the vegtation here if they want to encourage this foreign species.
Plovers do not need these large buffers to keep them from being disturbed by people using the beach area. If they choose to nest on the beach because of the large undestrubed area there, when they move to forage the buffers should be moved also. They don?t return to the nest site but stay where they can feed.
Frequently Plover chicks have disappeared in the vegetated areas because of the abundance of natural, native predators.
Is this the way to run a National Park?
Barbara,
Nonsense.
Migratory does not mean non-native. The birds that nest on Hatteras are native to the entire Eastern Seaboard, using different regions, for different purposes.
See also Organic Act:
“Sec. 3. That the Secretary of the Interior ? may also provide in his discretion for the destruction of such animals and of such plant life as may be detrimental to the use of any of said parks, monuments, or reservations. “
Thank you for furthering my point, Crotalus. It was exactly Section. 3 that allowed for wolf erradication. Just because it?s in writing doesn?t make it right.
Barbara,I think crotalus wants to ban ORVs from the entire east coast migratory pathway,maybe even pedestrians,meaning we are all in big trouble!Lambright and Newell spoke the truth.We must ALL KEEP the FAITH and have the continued STRENGTH to fight and eliminate these invaders and take back our land and recreation area.
Hawk,
While you?re way off base with what I want, the seashore belongs just as much to the people who want ORV access controlled as those who do not want access controlled.
Sandy,
Wolves (natives) were exterminated for the cattle and sheep (exotics) industry. The exact opposite of what is happening on the seashore.
The wolves in general were perceived as a nuisance; to both the ranchers, yes, and park visitor. Don?t over simplify, because it is not the opposite in the least.
It?s interesting that the wolves were exterminated in Yellowstone because of the reasons listed in previous responses: perception as dangerous, killing of cattle, deer, elk.. Mr Murray in his presentation at the March Anglers Club meeting said that he is perplexed regarding the killing of native animals. He has mixed feelings. In fact he said that he is most proud of his reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone National Park when he was there. They actually went to Canada and reintroduced them to the Park. Without the wolves, the elk herds were overrunning the park.
One of our most memorative times in camping there was being awakened at our campsite by the trumpeting of a male elk to his harem. They were right outside our camper window. The elk were all over the visitor area and anywhere there was grass. Signs were posted to stay away from them. They had become a nuisance and a danger.
It is so interesting that our superintendent points this out as the action he is most proud of in his work for the Service. In future years, will it be necessary to reintroduce fox, otter, opossums, raccoons, mink on the islands because of the increase in rats, mice, rabbits, etc.? These animals currently being killed were to be saved according to the enabling legislation. That?s a law of Congress. Killing is merely a policy of the park service. I suppose that soon snakes will be added to the kill list. They MAY (a favorite park word for wanting to do something or not) be killing the plover chicks in the vegetation. They are a problem now in the campgrounds. I hope I??m not around when they need to reintroduce snakes!