We love our national parks. We love the wildlife they hold, the seashores with their sparkling sands, the forests with their wildlife and hiking trails, the soaring red-rock cliffs and plunging canyons.
But please, don't ask us to abide by their regulations.
Uproars over managing off-road vehicles in both Cape Hatteras National Seashore and Big Cypress National Preserve, the oyster farm at Point Reyes National Seashore, air traffic over Grand Canyon National Park, snowmobiles in Yellowstone National Park, and now bike races in Colorado National Monument all seem to drive home that point, no?
There are other examples, to be sure, whether you point to non-native fish being stocked in North Cascades National Park, off-road routes in the crooks and crannies of Death Valley National Park, or climbing fees being raised at Denali and Mount Rainier national parks so the Park Service can afford its climbing programs.
There's an interesting conundrum at play, don't you think? Congressional representatives and states clamor for a unit of the National Park System in their backyards, both for the preservation they bring and the economic boost they can provide. But after the ink is dry on the enabling legislation, those pesky regulatory details can be downright breath-taking, and not in the same manner as Yellowstone's Lower Falls.
* In North Carolina, the idea of Cape Hatteras being the country's first national seashore was applauded, as was the National Park Service's agreement to artificially maintain Highway 12. But what's this about seasonally blocking some access due to nesting birds and turtles?!?
* Yellowstone is beloved by Wyomingites, Montanans, and Idahoans, all who rightfully take pride in laying claim to the world's first national park. Just don't too loudly raise the issue of where or how you can snowmobile in the park, delve into the wolf recovery program, or mention bison, unless you're ordering a cut for dinner.
* Grand Canyon National Park was a god-send for northern Arizona, a hot, arid place in summer where the park's lure contributes significantly to the local economy. But now some air-tour operators are complaining that the Park Service's efforts to restore natural quiet to the canyon, something that no doubt helped lure many of those visitors, could put them out of business.
* At Big Cypress, never mind that the Florida panther, arguably the most-endangered mammal in North America, is a tail's length away from extinction. Swamp buggies are needed to pierce the dense undergrowth and boggy sections of the preserve for hunters, anglers, and wildlife viewers.
* And at Point Reyes, the tastiness of a farmed Pacific oyster is the cause célèbre in a battle over wilderness designation.
Never mind that there is better snowmobiling in the national forests surrounding Yellowstone than in the park itself; that the fishing off Cape Hatteras is better in fall, outside of the plover and sea turtle nesting seasons, than during the height of summer; that Drakes Estero isn't the only place to farm oysters in California (Tomales Bay oysters, anyone?); that there already are off-road vehicle routes elsewhere in Big Cypress; or that the Grand Canyon planners believe they have a system that will allow for 8,000 more flights a year that currently being flown while also reducing noise in the park.
No, those are all beside the point to some.
Of course, the National Park Service has no other choice but to uphold its regulations. And foremost among them is the National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, a legendary work of conservation foresight that specifically directed the Park Service to "conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein ..."
Of course, there are those who are quick to point to the second half of that sentence, the part that also directs the Park Service 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."
But as the late historian Robin Winks, who scrutinized the Organic Act to accurately interpret its intent, pointed out, the intent of the framers of the Act clearly was to place preservation of the resources above recreation.
The National Park Service was enjoined by that act, and the mission placed upon the Service was reinforced by subsequent acts, to conserve the scenic, natural, and historic resources, and the wild life found in conjunction with those resources, in the units of the National Park System in such a way as to leave them unimpaired; this mission had and has precedence over providing means of access, if those means impair the resources, however much access may add to the enjoyment of future generations.
Not impressed by Professor Winks' academic approach? Then know that federal courts have ruled more than once that preservation of the resources is the prime directive for the National Park Service.
In a case that arose 1986, for instance, National Rifle Association vs. Potter, a federal district court ruled that the Organic Act gives the Park Service "but a single purpose, namely, conservation."
Ten years later, in 1996, in Bicycle Trails Council vs. Babbitt, not only did the appellate court agree that preservation comes foremost for the Park Service, but it also ruled that the name of a unit of the National Park System -- in other words, whether the unit in question was a "national park" or "national seashore" or "national recreation area" -- did not alter that mandate. That ruling came after the court reviewed the 1970 General Authorities Act and the 1978 Redwood Amendment.
So what's the solution? Should states retake the national parks? Should Florida reclaim the Addition lands of Big Cypress, as one reader noted it could readily do? Should the "national seashore" tag be removed from either Cape Hatteras or Point Reyes? The locals are the ones seemingly most rankled by the regulations, and some outwardly maintain they could do a better job of managing the parks.
Of course, affording them is another question, as many states are finding it difficult to maintain their state parks. But that's part and parcel of deciding how to manage them, no?
Should the National Park Service Organic Act, that dusty, 95-year-old piece of legislation that gave the Park Service its marching orders, be gutted? Why not just take away that first part about conservation (which many have interpreted to mean 'preservation') and focus on enjoying them? And not for future generations, but right now!
Surely, by doing so free enterprise could be unleashed on the parks for hunters, anglers, off-road enthusiasts, snowmobilers, personal water craft owners, and who knows what other commercial enterprises that currently are shut out. True, that "national park" logo that comes in so handy with marketing would be lost, along with possibly millions of tourists who focus on "national parks," but that would solve some of the crowding issues in the campgrounds and moving about the beaches, no?
And no doubt some of the current open space could be done away with -- forests cut down, meadows plowed smooth, and asphalt laid hot and gleaming -- to make way for more lodges and restaurants and parking lots. That might detract a little from some of these places, but at least the Park Service wouldn't be around to police its regulations.
Perhaps the colonies should take a cue from the English, who have created a park system in which "(P)eople live and work in the National Parks and the farms, villages and towns are protected along with the landscape and wildlife."
But then, the concept of the American National Park System would be lessened, if not outright tarnished, no?
Though the above was typed only half-seriously, how should some of the issues raised by the vocal minorities that are complaining about how the national parks are being run be addressed? Should they just be dismissed as the rantings of local minorities, who in turn should be reminded that these are indeed "national" parks and not local playgrounds? Or should there be a serious reappraisal of some basic ground rules? After all, many of these locals moved to their present locations because they loved the parks and wanted to be close to them. But then, in some cases, lawsuits and regulatory changes followed them.
How seriously should the Endangered Species Act be taken? Wasn't it rampant development and sprawl that forced many of the listed plants, birds, fish, mammals, reptiles, etc. into the dire plights they face today? And how vital is The Wilderness Act? Do we need it to preserve and maintain our wide-open expanses?
In the end, I suppose such questions hinge on whether we believe we should leave our grandchildren photos of Florida panthers and Ivory-billed woodpeckers and grizzly bears...or the real thing.
Comments
Ryan and y p w excuse me from jumping in on this forum to address both Matt Stubs and Ron comments on ORV controversy here at CHNS.
Matt and Ron most likely are members or supporters of 3 extreme special interest groups who have had considerable input concerning ORV access in Cape Hatteras National Seashore. The 3 organizations are NCBBA (North Carolina Beach Buggy Association) CHAC (Cape Hatteras Anglers Club) and OBPA (Outer Banks Preservation Association). All three organizations like to point out that all visitors (pedestrians included) are being excluded from their Park however all these organizations efforts at increasing access only concern ORV access. The 3 groups were all represented in the failed attempt at negotiated rulemaking. Matt and Ron are spoon-feeding these groups POV in as many NPT comments they can.
Matt might be right that you can not find one of his tire tracks but be assured when management of the seashore beaches are finalized there will be considerable areas of ocean beach (the toe of the dune to the tide line) that will have: deep ruts in the sand, parked cars, burnt oil, transmission fluid and engine coolant bubbling into the sand and a potential car for every 20 feet of beach. If that is your idea of a National Park beach come on because the NPS is proposing plenty of this type of year round ORV access and additional ORV areas to be open seasonally. The supposedly willing to compromise ORV groups are outraged by these proposals and have repeatedly threatened to sue the NPS over their very lenient proposals for ORV use in CHNS. These same ORV groups sued the FWS over critical habitat and won the first round in court (bet their lawyers received a nice fat check from the government).
Matt says he can’t afford a spotting scope. Strange, owning and maintaining an ORV cost a lot more than a spotting scope. Cape Point the place in the park that both birds want to nest and people fish has been closed during nesting season since 2005.
Ron doesn’t see much difference in an ORV trail to a remote destination (1 1/2 mile walk) and a foot trails. It is not just the large deeply rutted trail ORVs leave behind that I have to walk on but the shear number of people cars and equipment that ORV access encourages that offends me. Then I have to wonder if it is so important to provide ORV access to places in the Park maybe we need to pave more roads for the visitors that don’t have or can’t afford an ORV. Where do you draw the line is a question that concerns NP everywhere.
The conservationist’s logic behind the presenting protocols that restrict access is basically the same as Ron’s. If birds are harassed (like unrestricted ORV use) off of the sites they have nested on before (Oystercatchers and Plovers show strong site fidelity) they won’t nest there or will nest somewhere that won’t restrict access to the places fishermen want to fish.
I have had 50 plus years to recreate on CHNS beaches. Walking to many places with my fishing gear now requires some effort (and a dose of ibuprofen). It is an experience I hope will be available for many future generations on a remote National Park beach in the Outer Banks of NC and not some small eroded token piece of the Seashore that the ORV groups choose for me after they have cherry picked the few remaining wild places in the Seashore they deem only to be accessible by 4 wheel drive.
SS1
Yes I am a member of a couple of the organizations you mention and support them because I believe in their creed. I am very proud to associate with such a fine group of people. Please note that I have never hidden who I am, who I associate with or what my beliefs are. My comments start with my name, I sign with "Ron (obxguys) which happens to be on our family car license plate and I,on occassion, list the organizations of which I am associated. Nothing Anonymous about me. I also firmly believe what I say and, to the extent possible and practical, try to back up my beliefs with common sense statements and evidence. The points of view, though shared by some others, are mine, come from my mind, from my research and my experiences.
Now, you made reference to Matt, myself, the organizations I belong to and statements or points of view. You seem to know us and the organizations amasingly well. I am impressed. You have the edge on me as I do not know Matt. I do not attempt to speak for organizations as they are made up of many people with varying points of view. I only speak for others when authorized and requested to do so. So this is just me.
You state that "all three organizations like to point out that all visitors (pedestrians included) are being excluded from their park however all these organizations efforts at increasing access only concern orv access". You are wrong. Though emphasis appears to be for the orv segment, the pedestrian segment is definately included. The NPS policy refers to pedestrians almost as much as it does to orv use. And who walks those dogs, Pedestrians do. I am very concerned about the pedestrians and their pets.
Your rant about the vehicles destroying the beach and the previous law suit will not even get a response from me.
I did not say there isn't much difference between orv trails and foot trails. I simply implied that tracks are temporary wether made from tires or foot prints. This is what happens when you try and repeat something out of context. Big problem in this country.
You mention more roads, not me.
Are you saying I have harassed or am for Harassing Birds ? I will say that I would like to see a little more discussion about how the beach can be shared. I like the birds there and I have to question just how much space they actually need as a buffer to make them comfortable. I know "birds of a different feather" but I see birds all over the beach and they have no problem being in close proximity to us. Awareness is the answer, not exclusion. Harassment ? I don't think so.
I too have enjoyed as many years on the beach and I want to continue to teach and watch my grandchildren as they learn about the unique place that is the Outer Banks of North Carolina. That includes fishing because as long as those little boys and girls want to, I will do all in my power to see they have that opportunity. Not to just fish, but to do it as I have and where I have. For, the folks that surf fish the obx are some of the true fishermen and women of this country as well as lovers of God's creation. And yes, I want to continue to drive them to the points and inlets and I will hope they will someday carry on the work of the organizations which you apparently have no use for. I hope they will be ever mindful of the birds and turtles and all gods creatures. And, I hope, some of the people they have to contend with in life are more reasonable than some we are contending with today.
Ron (obxguys)
VB & KDH
ncbba life
obpa
"Matt and Ron most likely are members or supporters of 3 extreme special interest groups who have had considerable input concerning ORV access in Cape Hatteras National Seashore."
Answer NOPE I simply like taking my family to a secluded beach and get away from it all.
"The 3 groups were all represented in the failed attempt at negotiated rulemaking. "
Well we know from where you come because technically speaking all groups in the REG NEG are failures as the entire thing ended without a decision. The real winner are those that pocketed money from the armchair enviros and SUED the park system...
"Matt says he can’t afford a spotting scope. Strange, owning and maintaining an ORV cost a lot more than a spotting scope."
Again answer is NOPE I own a truck used on my property and the maintenance is routine of any vehicle (I maintain it myself along with the other two vehicles, kind of like fighting for things I believe in, Not just handing it over to someone else to do my dirty work)...but I guess we are all lumped into one big group. I think we are referred to as Americans. You know it used to mean freedom.
"Then I have to wonder if it is so important to provide ORV access to places in the Park maybe we need to pave more roads for the visitors that don’t have or can’t afford an ORV."
First it is not just important, but required to get my kids out to the point. Believe it or not my kids love going to the beach so I choose to bring them there.
"Where do you draw the line is a question that concerns NP everywhere."
Where indeed do we do this, because the park system has set a bad precedent by allowing construction around OLD Faithful, to and from the Half Dome, Roads into any and all park systems, And I could go on and on and on and on. Again why is it OK for access here to require construction and not OK there. I argue it is of the perception of the person using the park. Does the decking and boardwalks around Old Faithful take away from the natural beauty? Heck Yes but that is not what people came to see they come to see water shooting high in the air. Was the Mount Rushmore so ugly that we needed to carve faces into it? ETC...
"I have had 50 plus years to recreate on CHNS beaches. Walking to many places with my fishing gear now requires some effort (and a dose of ibuprofen)."
I too would require Ibuprofen, but I cannot bring my kids there as for the last few years they have closed the point off during the time my kids are available to attend. The last image of the point is my Daughter before she was one on the point in 2007 playing in the sand. Walking in not an option for a family, young kids, older generations, handicapped etc... So Oh well let them stay home.
"It is an experience I hope will be available for many future generations on a remote National Park beach in the Outer Banks of NC and not some small eroded token piece of the Seashore that the ORV groups choose for me after they have cherry picked the few remaining wild places in the Seashore they deem only to be accessible by 4 wheel drive"
No this beach as of the finalizing of the DEIS Alt F will only be accessed by someone with a spotting scope and biology degrees. Then and only then will they realize that a bird who has less than a fifty percent mortality rate (less than half of the babies survive to fly) cannot thrive on the constantly changing environment of Cape Hatteras.
Ron I have read considerable information from the 3 ORV access organizations. I find the information disseminated by these organizations biased and at times pure propaganda for the singular issue of ORV access in the National Seashore. I don’t say this to offend you as a matter of habit I try not to offend people and apologize if anything I said in my other post did.
I also find it ironic when I see CHAC, OBPA and NCBBA decals on vehicles on the same bumper as stickers that suggest piping plovers are best fried or the bumper sticker of the picture of the bird giving the finger saying “Identify This Bird”. I commend NCBBA for their organized beach clean ups.
I’m not sure how me hiding my identity or you identifying yourself has anything to do with this discussion. I have good reasons for keeping my identity anonymous.
I have no problem with you speaking your mind and appreciate your tone, which is considerable more civil than most of the other members of ORV advocacy organizations you are a member of.
I respectfully disagree with you about ORV access organizations advocacy for pedestrian access only areas. As far as pedestrian access goes all the organizations mentioned have advocated for less area to be designated as a vehicle free area than what the NPS proposes. The small percentage of the Seashore beaches that the ORV advocacy groups proposed in the reg/neg to be vehicle free were for the most part areas that are so eroded that they had been classified by the park as unsafe to drive on for years. I do not believe all the truly scenic and dramatic places in the Park need or should be ORV accessible.
Walking pets on the beach is a separate issue from vehicle free areas. I don’t want to walk with or without my pet on heavily used ORV beaches.
As far as my, “rant about the vehicles destroying the beach” I stand behind what I have said. Having driven an ORV on the beach many times in the past I speak from experience and observation. The beaches from Ramp 4 to Bodie Island Spit, from Ramp 43 to Cape Point and Ramp 55 to Hatteras Inlet on any nice weekend will look exactly as I described. The information about lawsuits was to address Matt’s contention about environmentalist suing the government. My point being suing the government is a practice both sides engage in.
I see a big difference between foot trails on the beach and ORV trails. Once the ORV legislation is finalized the ORV tracks become permanent unless that legislation is changed.
I don’t think many ORV users intentionally harass birds or nesting turtles (some do and are organizing others to do the same on local message boards). If you drive or walk to where resting shorebirds (oystercatchers, skimmers, terns and plovers) and they flush you have harassed them. If a sea turtle crawls up on the beach to lay eggs and vehicle lights cause her to abort (false crawl) that is harassment. Most professional biologists would agree.
I have worked with both sides of this issue and to be blunt the people I find the most unreasonable are the 3 ORV groups I referenced and their members. I’m willing to provide (compromise) places and times for you to access remote places with a vehicle? Would you consider any of these places on the CHNS beach that could be vehicle free? If you do I hope you relate that to the organizations you are a member of because they clearly do not.
I hope one day to walk out on the National Park Seashore and show my grandchildren how to wet a line and have them look around and view a beautiful beach undisturbed in as natural a state as possible unfortunately for me that won’t be possible on the beaches with 1 car for every 20 feet of shoreline.
Southern Shores 1
I am not one particularly interested in jousting, therefor I will depart with this.
I can easily understand your point of view and I try not to let things get personal in these discussions. I do confront organizations when put on the defensive.
I have two questions
Do you not see, that the noted organizations, have reacted strictly in defense? To prevent Audubon and Defenders of Wildlife from taking from them a way of life on the Islands that precede you and I.
Do you really think that what ever policies are established at this point, Audubon and Defenders of Wildlife will accept it and not pursue effectively the total elimination of orv use on the Islands?
The title of this article is "Give Us A National Park. But Please, Not Its Regulations".
Many of us are thinking "We Have A National Park, Now Please, Don't Change Its Regulations".
I already know all the arguments concerning regulations in the legislation, acts and ammendments so please humor me and not go there. You know where I'm coming from, please give me a little latitude.
Hope everyone has a great Spring, I think we could all use one.
Ron
"Ron I have read considerable information from the 3 ORV access organizations. I find the information disseminated by these organizations biased and at times pure propaganda for the singular issue of ORV access in the National Seashore. I don’t say this to offend you as a matter of habit I try not to offend people and apologize if anything I said in my other post did."
I will simply ask does the three party enviro groups suing the park qualify as unbiased as they choose single species management. Before the plover they tried to protect Ghost crabs and then they got there poster child.
"Walking pets on the beach is a separate issue from vehicle free areas. I don’t want to walk with or without my pet on heavily used ORV beaches."
This statement makes me smile, because I have never seen a person walk to the point by choice! I also wonder what is in your mind a heavily traveled orv beach? I am guessing on vehicle would disturb you beyond belief, but thounsands of signs and miles of string does not affect you at all as you have not ever mentioned the negatives of this. If you believe walking with or without a pet is a seperate issue please reread the ALT F of the DEIS again. Both are not allowed in the areas marked.
"I see a big difference between foot trails on the beach and ORV trails. Once the ORV legislation is finalized the ORV tracks become permanent unless that legislation is changed."
... of coarse you do and how is anything permanent on this beach. A storm will smooth all sins.
"My point being suing the government is a practice both sides engage in."
Of coarse you will say this, but that does not change the fact that they sued the park system to stop orv driving on the beach. If in fact you understand the dynamics of this area so well what is your opinion on the affects to the small businesses on Cape Hatteras that this consent decree has caused.
"I have worked with both sides of this issue and to be blunt the people I find the most unreasonable are the 3 ORV groups I referenced and their members."
This is because they are the only ones losing here. An Armchair Enviro from oregan who donated 50.00 to a website loses nothing.
"I’m willing to provide (compromise) places and times for you to access remote places with a vehicle? Would you consider any of these places on the CHNS beach that could be vehicle free? If you do I hope you relate that to the organizations you are a member of because they clearly do not."
I too compromised by stating many time I have and did support the interim plan. I guess our support was not good enough. So we got sued out of the negotiations. There are many areas that are vehicle free, but youre issue is like mine we want the same areas and like me you cannot get there either. Compromise of your type eliminates me from brining my family to the areas I love. I will not subject my kids to 1.5 miles walks in the hot sand. If you do so with your grandkids so be it the world has a place for people like you it is called Pea Island. Heck even this area is bird free.
"1 car for every 20 feet of shoreline"
With this we all lose because neither of us wants this, but thanks to the lawsuit we are there. at least one of us will still access the beach if we choose while the remaining beaches are closed to you for birds. Think about that as I drive over the ramp...
Like I said - sometimes the best way to minimize the impacts are to build a more durable surface. The other alternative would be to build dirt trails. It could certainly be like what happened to Kendall Vanhook Bumpass when he took reporters to the Bumpass Hell section of what's now Lassen Volcanic National Park. For those who aren't familiar with the story, his foot busted through a thin crust and his leg had to be amputated after getting severely burned.
The Mount Rushmore project was started before the NPS had any part of it.
I do not see any difference in making access easier in one place with permanent structures such as roads, parking lots, boardwalks, etc... and not allowing access in another that does not cause permanent damage (in fact nature recovers each day from the ruts and tracks).
You specifically site an incident caused by the lack of access boardwalks etc... This incident can happen anywhere in the park system. Like when asked about public transports to the beach I give the example of someone having a health issue or my kids cuts his foot on a shell. Where as I had transportation to one have a first aid kit, two be able to get them off the beach. Are they going to provide Defibulators on posts?
So in the end I agree completely with your post , but will state that when looked at more closely it sure does mirror most of what I am stating.