The National Parks Traveler published an article yesterday that you should take the time to read.
It is entitled, ?Cape Hatteras National Seashore Dispute Places Birds, Turtles, and Humans on Small Strip of Sand.?
It is actually a rather even-handed attempt to characterize the issue of beach access on the seashore.
And some of the comments by the folks who were interviewed give us a glimpse into our future.
The author, Kurt Repanshek, is listed as the founder and editor-in-chief of the magazine, which, according to its Web site, was launched in 2005, as ?the Internet?s very first site dedicated to covering America?s National Park System and the National Park Service on a daily basis.?
A statement about the magazine on the Web site says it is not affiliated with the National Park Service. Its mission is ?to educate the general public about the National Park System, increase awareness and understanding of issues affecting the national parks and the National Park Service, and build a stronger advocacy for protection and sound stewardship of the parks.?
The writer interviewed three main players for the article ? John Couch, president of the Outer Banks Preservation Association, Chris Canfield, executive director of Audubon North Carolina, and Mike Murray, superintendent of the Cape Hatteras National Seashore.
I found Murray?s comments the most interesting.
There is an assumption among access advocates ? and some others — that the attempt at ORV rulemaking will end in the federal courts. In fact, it is beginning to look like both sides on the issue ? pro-access groups and environmental groups ? will sue over whatever is the National Park Service?s final rule.
Neither side liked the preferred alternative in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement that was released in early March.
Of course, the issue here is that the Park Service has been required to have regulations on off-road vehicle use on seashore beaches for about 45 years. Park officials never got around to the details of the rulemaking and eventually got sued by the Defenders of Wildlife and National Audubon Society, which are represented by attorneys at the Southern Environmental Law Center.
Here is what Murray said in the article?
?It?s clear that both sides are lined up, and we?re not going to be able to avoid completing the plan and regulation this time,? says Mike Murray, who upon his arrival at the seashore as its superintendent in 2005 was handed the mess. ?I think it?s likely to result in litigation.?
So now we know that even the park superintendent thinks the whole mess will end up in court.
Makes you wonder why we are going through the rest of the process, which will take at least until the end of the year. There will be a proposed rule, more public comment, a Final Environmental Impact Statement, a record of decision, and a final rule by April 1, 2011.
Will it all be worth it if this attempt of rulemaking is decided in a courtroom?
We just hope it?s not the courtroom of U.S. District Judge Terrence Boyle, who has presided over the lawsuit and the consent decree, and has made it pretty clear that he favors the view of the environmental groups ? and also has some pretty odd ideas about the management of the seashore.
Murray?s comments about the threats and other instances of getting ?ugly? during the negotiated rulemaking process are also interesting.
I recommend you put this article on your reading list, and let us know what you think about it.
Here is the link, and there is a comments section at the end of the article.
Also, here is a section from the Web site about The National Parks Traveler magazine:
The Traveler endorses and actively supports the National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 that mandated a high standard of protection for the parks, as well as the Redwoods Act of 1978 that reemphasized the Organic Act?s stewardship provisions and affirmed that they are to be applied on a system-wide basis.
Traveler seeks to work in ways that are consistent with the National Park Service?s fundamental purpose for managing the parks, which is ?to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wildlife therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.”
The Superintendent indicated in the article that there are 1000 parking spaces in the Seashore. How many of those spaces are located outside the Lighthouse parking area? He many spaces could be used to park in and reasonably access the beach? He neglects to mention that if the spaces are located adjacent to a closed ramp they are useless. I sensed some spin on his part in reading his quotes in the article. The article understated the closures (16 miles closed), the author should he referenced the total miles open during the peak nesting/visitation season.
Thank you for the link to the article. I found the article well written and understandable to the typical person who is not that familiar with the issue. There was not the bias in the article I am used to reading and that in itself is an accomplishment.
What Supt. Murray thinks as to legal recourse by opposing groups has little to do with the FDIS and I am certain he is aware of that. I found the comments from Supt. Murray about things getting ?ugly? were spot on and through the years have personally witnessed the ?ugly?. If you were on the receiving end of the ?ugly? you may look differently on things.
We is not me and whether I agree with Judge Boyle or not, I think your comments on Judge Boyle only continue to fan the flames.
Fan what flames Dennis? We don?t pay federal judges to manage national seashores from the bench.
Receiving “ugly” is part of federal service, especially with passionate matters like environment, individual rights and liberties like access to a national seashore. I was on the receiving end of “ugly” for over 30 years and learned over time that you reduce the “ugly” factor when you are fully transparent, honest, equitable, and unbiased in dealing with the public.
Irene, thanks for another great article.
I?m afraid I see some bias in this article. I believe the journalist should fact check every word before printing. I think when you print statements about being threatened ( hasn?t been proven), or having to move meetings because of vandalism (not proven), you run the risk of seeming to distribute propaganda and lies. I think alot more sound information should have been added and less interviews.
One would think an enterprising reporter for a newspaper would contact the Dare County Sheriff and investigate these allegations of vandalism and threats.
Someone should contact one and sic em on the story.
Crotalus,
An enterprising reporter has already tried to investigate these allegations of threats ? back in December of 2008.
You must have missed this column:
http://islandfreepress.org/2008Archives/..
The ?ugly? part of this issue is counter productive and is a major reason we cannot move in a positive direction. If I remember correctly, Irene is her own posts has noted that the ?wanted? posters, throwing people out of local Buxton businesses etc. is not a effective way of resolving things and gives a negative impact.
To say that the ?ugly? does not happen and has not happened in relation to this issue simply is not correct because the written record says other. I must disagree with Mr. Berry in his assumption that ?receiving ??ugly?? is part of federal service? because making such a assumption means that we should take bad behavior and disrespect for granted and we should excuse ?ugly?.
There was nothing in there about complaints of threats or vandalism under investigation by Dare County.
If someone vandalizes your property or makes threats against your person, are you going to call Superintendent Murray, or Dare County?
Me? I?m calling law enforcement officials, especially if they?ve damaged my property. (Most insurance claims require such actions)
Dennis, I did not make an assumption, I stated a fact and will be happy to point you to decades of public records to prove it. In stating the sad fact of predictable public outrage, I in no way condone unprofessional and socially unacceptable behavior, never have and never will?I have so indicated in my writings and public statements. ( And so has Irene on several occasions.) Obviously you have never had to present or defend a federal environmental policy to a community whose economy and way of life is changed in a adverse manner by the policy.
Furthermore, the “ugly” I saw at the recent public comment hearing in Raleigh came totally from 4 of the 6 environmental activist commentators who referred in a general manner to pro access citizens as “bullies”, “cowboys”, “bird killers” and persons who threaten Audubon Society members, thus keeping them away commenting at public hearings. (What a pathetic excuse for non performance in the public policy-making process especially considering all the elevated level of police protection provided for these meetings.)
The Audubon Society previously published an article in its national magazine as “Beach Bums,” referring negatively and sarcastically to many socially responsible pro access citizens like those who read this blog. Look it up, it still exists in the Audubon archives. I don?t condone that kind of behavior either, nor do I appreciate being on its receiving end. How about you?
Mr. Berry,
I did not have the opportunity to attend the comment DEIS meeting in Raleigh. Did the 6 environmental activist commentators boo, cat call and try and shout down the speakers with opposing views? Did those 6 speakers refuse to yield the floor when their alloted time expired? Did those 6 six speakers scream at NPS Supt. Mike Murray?
I am somewhat surprised that you did not attend the home-court public comment DEIS meeting in Buxton, but please review Irene?s blog on her take of the meeting. My disagreement was in her comment that the misconduct was understandable by most whereas my thought was the complete opposite.
I read the article ?Beach Bums? many moons ago and for years it has been the ?battle cry? for pro-ORV groups. As for the present, what do you think of the article Irene asked us to read: ?Cape Hatteras National Seashore Dispute Places Birds, Turtles, and Humans on Small Strip of Sand.”?
No Dennis, the environmental activists in Raleigh did not put on much of a demonstration, they were outnumbered about 9 to 1 and satisfied at the meeting with throwing a few cheap shots at the rest of us. In fact, they were a pretty depressed looking bunch that night?not much of a turnout in a community that has more environmental scientists, engineers, and managers than any place else in the world. In the past I have been at/chaired public meetings where environmental activists have been so far out of control they were hauled off to jail, so far as I know, no pro access advocates have reached that level of stupidity yet and I hope they never do.
“Cape Hatteras National Seashore Dispute Places Birds, Turtles, and Humans on Small Strip of Sand.”? I know the author and have followed his writings and points of view. He writes for a particular audience. I wouldn?t be supprised he?s a member of the Audubon Society or some such group, just speculating. The article is a bit biased as to be expected, not factually correct in spots. Mike Murray is quoted as saying that the Access Groups have done nothing to discourage threatening talk and actions, if he said it, that is absolute nonsense. Access groups have time and again expressed to members the importance of civil behavior and constructive comment. That kind of comment is like me saying NPS has done nothing to stop criminals from vandalizing closure areas so as to be able to extend restrictive boundaries?we don?t need anymore over the top, irresponsible statements.
Mr. Williams started the ?Ugly? with his Bull Sh? article Beach Bums claiming that ORVs were running the beaches unchecked and without rules. And, then he had the nerve to post a pic of Piping Plover chick in a set of tracks that had been run over by THE PARK SERVICE and tried to place that on the ORV users..
Rob,
I had never heard of a piping plover being ran over by anybody, ORV users or park service at Cape Hatteras, so I searched for the article and found it was a picture of least tern, not a plover that was ran over in 2004 after the symbolic fencing around the colony was removed.
Or are you referring to another article?
http://www.scottchurchdirect.com/ted-wil..
The article was written in 2007 and I would suggest the “ugly” began long before that. For instance (from the article):
ORV drivers, on the other hand, are never silent, and the Park Service is terrified of them. For instance, after they publicly accused its biologists of concocting excuses for fencing off more beach by herding piping plovers west toward Cape Point (a physical impossibility), the seashore instructed field personnel to approach birds from the east. To comply, however, they had to disturb a large tern colony.
I remember this well, and it was a “hot topic” on many forums.
There was also talk some of the Hatteras resource staff were “transferred out” because they were accused of running a muck and closing too much beach ? with closures 1/5th the size of today?s (or even the interim plan) closures.
Then there was the case of the guy who tried to run over the park biologist ? all this was prior to the Beach Bum article.
If this is the same biologist vs visitor encounter that went to Fed court, the story in the paper after the trial was not ?tried to run over? but getting hot under the collar and driving rapidly off with the biologist still standing near the vehicle. In the process the vehicle side mirror contacted the biologist?s arm.
A law enforcement ranger then stopped the guy who continued his belligerant attitude that resulted in a ticket rather than a warning since no injury resulted. He went to court to fight the ticket and was fined at trial and banned from the Seashore for some period of time. I think Boyle was the judge.
SJ,
I believe the judge viewed it differently, it?s not like the man didn?t know she was standing there. The man was banned from the park for life, if I recall correctly.
Crot.
Could be re the judge, but from what I got from someone at the court was the guy continued to argue and never recognize and admit he had done anything wrong at all . He apparently continued his diatribe about being harassed by the rangers. I also understood he could have paid the fine for the ticket and not gone to court. That being the case, hard to imagine he was found guilty of trying to run over the biologist.
Life ban is my recollection as well.
Dennis,
There you go again. You came to the Buxton meeting specifically looking for ?Ugly?, and you found it. No surprise there, as I suspect you were present more to ?People Watch? than to have a contrustive impact on this issue.
I must ask, did YOU in fact present your own Public Comment while at said meeting, or at any other time for that matter? Just curious?..
As stated by several posters who attended the Raleigh meeting, the enviro commenters were the ones out of line at that venue. The same is true of the only two people who spoke against ORV use at the Hampton VA meeting that I attended, as they were both reprimanded for speaking derisively over their shoulders to the crowd in attendance, which was in violation of the NPS groundrules distributed at each meeting. (Also quite unprovoked, I might add. Not one person made a single sound during or after their statements, and they left the stage to the tune of deafening silence only.)
Please, go back to your off-island glass house, and take whatever passes for your stones with you.
Dapster,
I will ignore your bad manners directed to me in your first and last paragraphs (which is the same type of comments that runs in line with the ?ugly? at the Buxton public comment meeting on the DEIS). Not that it really matters to you, but I already noted why I went to the Buxton meeting.
Dennis,
You seem to seek out “Ugly”, heres the “Ugly” you want, don’t visit places you?re not welcome. This would end all the “Ugly” that you seem to find? Would you be surprised if you entered a night club and got “Ugly” responses when you demanded the music be turned down? Certainly not, you probably wouldn’t go, so why come here trying to change a way of life decades old and part of thousands of families generations of tradition? I guess you would rather families start a new tradition of booking a room at a Hotel and shopping in the new center from the land Audubon has sold for development in Currituck which by the way is Ocean front property.