How is life at Cape Hatteras National Seashore in the wake of travel restrictions aimed at protecting shorebirds and sea turtles that nest along the coast? As with many matters, it depends on whom you ask.
During a Senate subcommittee hearing last week, U.S. Senator Elizabeth Dole, a Republican from North Carolina, testified in support of legislation she sponsored that would overturn the management guidelines adopted earlier this year in a consent decree the National Park Service agreed to with Defenders of Wildlife and the National Audubon Society. She claimed her constituents are suffering undue economic hardships as a result of the consent decree.
A lawsuit filed by the conservation groups sought to limit access to South Ocracoke, Hatteras Spit, North Ocracoke, Cape Point, South Beach and Bodie Island Spit for up to three years because of the presence of piping plovers, which have been considered a "threatened" species under the Endangered Species Act since January 1986.
The lawsuit claimed the Park Service had run afoul of the National Park Organic Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the enabling legislation for the seashore, and the Park Service's own Management Policies by implementing an interim ORV management plan and failing to produce a long-term management plan.
Under that consent decree, the seashore's staff has greatly restricted off-road vehicle travel and limited pedestrian travel to protect nesting shorebirds and sea turtles. Opponents of the decree, though, have claimed it is over-reaching what reasonably is needed and that the economy that depends on Cape Hatteras is tanking.
But according to the Virginian-Pilot, that's not necessarily the case.
Even with the closures, ORV users and pedestrians have had broad access to the beach. On Thursday, Park Service figures showed 26.4 miles of the park's roughly 67 miles were open to ORVs and 58.5 miles were open to pedestrians. The majority of the prohibited area is due to normal seasonal or safety closures. About eight miles were closed because of wildlife.
It's too soon to gauge the economic impact of the closures, but the effect doesn't appear to be as dramatic as feared. Retail sales tax figures for May and June aren't yet available; bait and tackle shops and other businesses are reporting a sharp drop in sales. Other economic indicators are generally positive, however.
Carolyn McCormick, director of the Outer Banks Visitors Bureau, said in an interview that "the closures did not help us in any way, shape or form." But, she said, key tourism figures in Dare County were good in spite of closures, gas prices, a weak economy and wildfire smoke.
Comparisons of 2007 and 2008 figures show occupancy taxes on hotels and rental houses in Dare were up 6.3 percent in May and 2.85 percent in June. Year-over-year, gross revenues from the meals tax were up 5.12 percent in May but down 1.09 percent in June. (Numbers for July aren't ready yet.)
Comments
Yes, the closing have had a detrimental affect! I love the birds, the deer, the fish, and all the other critters! I have done all I can do to drive with care, protect the animals and environment, leave with more trash that I brought, and reported violators. But while I am currently on the island for my family vacation I have made the hard decision not to return after vacationing years and years here, along with other weekends during the year. I find it interesting that I see no more wildlife than what I saw the first time I was here, even though the closures are now in place. I can't for the life of me understand why the bird fanatics can't accept Pea Island as the refuge it is, no driving there either...greed begats greed I suppose. In fact, we come here about the same week every year...I think I actually see less people, less cars. Has it hurt the economy? I bet it has...bad.
Please, somebody open the beaches back up!
sv
*Sigh...*
Here we go again. Many of you are making "armchair quarterback" decisions from 1000's of miles away, having never even set foot on Hatteras island. For shame, people! It's tantamount to me as an East Coaster telling someone how they should be running Yosemite, even though I've never been there.
I live in Virginia, and have had a summer residence on the Island for 15 years. My first trip to the island was ~1972. Let's just say that I'm pretty darn familiar with the area AND its flora and fauna. MUCH more so now that I have had environmentalist special interest groups shove an unfair lawsuit down my throat against my will. I have also learned that said eco's ignore hard scientific, peer-reviewed data, instead relying on "Spin" and half-truths to "speak for the poor animals".
MRC: Your comments make little sense to me, as in :
"And to all who complain about the hardship for business owners: Cape Hatteras National Seashore is a national park. It is the duty of its administration to run it to the benefit of the nation and the general public. Not for the local community."
This statement contradicts itself. The local community is BOTH the general public AND part of the nation. Not all of the CHNSRA is national park land, either. There are villages with privately owned land scattered along the lenght of the island. Do you dare suggest that these folks must just go away in the name of extreme environmentalism? Again, put yourself in their shoes, if that is possible fot you to do.
Again, with this statement:
"It is a national park, not your backyard."
For tens of thousands of people, it is both. Please educate yourself before you spout such rhetoric. You seem to very little knowledge of the area. I truly wonder if you could find it on a map.
To the Tram guy:
You also sound completely clueless as to the geography of the area. Disneyworld, it surely is not. A tram system with cute little trailers attached would go about 10 feet in the deep sand before becoming hopelessly stuck. Study the Google Earth map of this area. It's basically the Sahara desert with a coastline. Your idea, while well meaning to be sure, is simply not feasible.
The crux of the argument is: Millions of taxpayer dollars are being wasted to implement the Consent Decree. Thousands of visitors and locals alike have had their way of life severely affect, with no scientificly proven benefit to the several "poster children" species in question. The human species is being forced out of its god-given place alongside our animal brethren.
Dapster: They clean miles of beaches with heavy equipment in California and on the east coast beaches. I don't think it's a deep sand traction problem if we had tram system that was designed with special treaded tires and hooked up to a dune tractor. Just food for thought! Besides, I thought the National Parks belonged to all of us for in put...regardless of the issues. Isn't that why we have Kurt's very informative blog: National Parks Traveler!? Incidentally Dapster, if we could prove that the tram system could work (and it's economically feasible) would you give up your OVR to use it?
Anon,
Thanks for responding. The parks do indeed belong to us all for input. No argument from me there.
However, I'm a bit puzzled by your questions. Many folks believe that an ORV/SUV simply moving abouton the sand is detrimental. How would heavy equipment effect an area that many deem too sensitive for light vehicles? Diesel exhaust vs. gasoline? Tank treads vs. tires?
While this system would probably work, it would destroy the "Ramps", or dune crossovers that lead from the hard surface road to the beaches, allowing for storm surge overwash and dune destruction. The area is also laid out such that ramps are usually many miles apart, and the logistics of having to pick up every single family group at random spots along the beach would be nearly impossible. It would require an immense fleet of said vehicles. Imagine being stranded with a sunburnt child, waiting for hours to leave the beach, when you could leave immediately in you own vehicle. What then, of a serious medical emergency? Family emergency back at home? The logistical requirements for such a large area would be astounding, and impossible to manage.
Please, do go to this NPS website, which has all the ramps in question marked and shows just how desolate this area is:
http://www.nps.gov/caha/planyourvisit/googleearthmap.htm
It will also show you how the bird and turtle closures are laid out. Good info all around!
Last item: If said system was indeed feasible, and proved BOTH useful and practical, sure I'd ditch my ORV. But again, knowing the area as well as I do, and also being a Mechanical Engineer with 20+ years of practical experience, I just cannot make myself believe it to be possible.
Just my $.02 worth....
Regardless of the issue with birds and turtles, there needs to be some sort of ORV permitting system. There are simply too many people out there sometimes, and if you make any public resource completely free, it will be abused until it is destroyed. A good, LIMITED beach driving system is probably acceptable but nobody wants to give an inch. Negotiated rulemaking committees don't work because given the choice, tackle shops and real estate representatives would rather have nothing get passed than agree to any reasonable restriction in the name of "economic development". A note to the fishing people who have posted on here: people who don't agree with you don't "need to be informed". They know the facts and still disagree with you. And those "Plovers Taste Like Chicken" stickers aren't helping your case any.
How would a tram be an improvement over simply allowing ORV access while still allowing for reasonable bird closures? ORVs are currently doing no harm so what would be the point in implementing a tram system? Here are just a few drawbacks to your idea:
Someone has to run and maintain the tram. The NPS is already understaffed.
This would necessarily create a bottleneck for beach access especially during peak times.
What happens when a bird or turtle nests in the path of the tram? No more tram and no flexibility to route around closures.
Where will people park to catch the tram? There is currently not enough parking to accomodate this at any of the access ramps.
A tram would, overall, be a major inconvenience. Would it really make enough of a "green" impact to make it worthwhile? I seriously doubt it. When I take time off work and spend my money to head to the beach for vacation, I would really prefer to access that beach on my on terms... not via a tram system.
I think a major point you are missing, Anonymous tram person, is ORVs aren't hurting birds or turtles. So, a tram would resolve nothing but it would have a significant negative impact on the human outer banks experience. It would really be pointless. So to answer your question, would I give up my ORV for a tram? Perhaps if it was my only option I would consider it but it is not a good idea so I most definitely do not support it.
ANON, TRAM PROPOSAL...
One good reason. The amount of "Wetlands" (you know those area the USEPA doesn't let anyone do anything on?) that would be required to be bulldozed over and paved to support the parking, tram turnarounds in various location along the shore area would do more damage than all the ORV have ever done. Logistically speaking the contracts to the Haliburtons of the world, the equipment the lot attendants, the notices let alone the waiting times just about put that idea out of reach. Would I ditch my SUV, which by the way is just as quite as you Prius, probably not. You see my Hatteras House is 140 miles Round Trip from the Home Depot, when you make that trip, you pretty much need something big to bring that shopping trip results back in one trip. You don't do it every week but when you do it's a major planning event. It also serves to haul the friends and neigbors around to the grocery store, resturants etc. Many of consider car pooling a necessity on the island. There are so many cars there during the peak summer months and limited parking you have no choice but to have 6-8 passenger vehicles. In the 20 plus years we've visited and owned property on the island, we've never witnessed ORV's with LOUD MUFFLERS, we have not seen anyone doing DONUTS, the Speeders and Dune walkers we have either spoken to directly or called the NPS to report these inconsiderate people. And you might want to know, none of these few incidents were commited by the FISHERMAN, they were young kids who would have done that on the beach, in the parking lot or anyplace else they thought they could show off to their friends.
PHIL G. (thank you for not being anonymous, I like people who will admit to their opinions)
The permitting system only sound good on paper. Let just look at the issuance of them to begin with. How many is an approrate limit? Do the homeowner get first choice? If the homeowners exceed the limit, do some homeowner get locked out? If the homeowners have the all the limited permits, how would a visitor on a weekly vacation, or weekend fishing trip get a permit. How long would that process take, where do you park all the applicants while the process is taking place. This isn't Cape Cod where there are no villages around the area that they issue permits. Everyone is a visitor to the beach there and the line up for days prior to the opening of the permit office. It's a one or two day deal, and you may well sit there and not get a permit. In NJ the IBSP permit used to be $50 a year, litterly from Jan 1 to Dec 31 you wouldn't have to leave the beach, now the permit is over $200 and your limited to certain hours and many other restrictions. Permits are just another money maker with no real conservation, wildlife protection or anything else. The only thing it does is create a bigger bureaocracy.
The National RECREATION Area has done just fine for more than 50 years, The few birds that people are trying to entice to learn how to reproduce are not native birds, and those same people are not telling you about the large numbers of birds that are reproducing just outside the boundries of the actual park land.
The only way to stop out of control protectionist is to pass S3113 and let the Professional Park Service staff regain control of their own park. That's what we pay them for. We shouldn't be paying the lawyers of special interest groups to run our parks.
I would be willing to pay for a permit but there should be no quota. To me, the quota is the sticking point. At the very least, an unlimited permit system would reduce the number of joy riders who show no respect for the resource. The income could be used for additional park staff and additional protection for wildlife.