[crappie89]

Fellas,

The National Park Service recently opened up for comment their plan to address off road vehicle use at Cape Lookout National Seashore. Any changes made will have the largest effect on surf fishermen who fish at the seashore.

The times for in person comments are listed at this link: http://parkplanning.nps.gov/meetingNotices.cfm?projectID=15978

The analysis can be found at this link:http://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cfm?parkID=359&projectID=15978&documentID=22228

The analysis is 652 pages. However most of the jargon in the document can be glanced over. Also check out drumwagon.com for a more robust discussion of what is in the plan.

If fishermen do not let their voices be heard than we will surely continue losing ground at Cape Lookout. I don't want to make this into a political discussion but hopefully people will be alert to what is going on and make their voices heard. I plan to try and make it to the McKimmon center June 18th in Raleigh to see what they have to say and let them know my opinion as well.

There will be in person discussion in Beaufort and Charlotte. Maybe we can get a list of people who may be interested here and meet as a group.

Tight lines.

 

[h2ohhh]

First Hatteras, now Lookout. Very sad. Hate to sound negative but we can talk and they won't listen.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[trigger22]

I'll attend the meeting in Beaufort and will bring people with me. We can't let this happen to Lookout!

 

[sundrop]

It isnt gonna end until there is no where left to go without permits and booked trips and guides etc.

 

[crappie89]

It is pretty amazing how much control they have at Hatteras. You have to have a permit to drive. You can't drive at night during the summer. You have to have a permit to build a camp fire. You can't built a camp fire except in designated places. I will be asking them what fund the ORV fees will be going in to. Is it a fund specifically for Cape Lookout or a big slush fund? It may be in the document I am not sure. Also, will pedestrians pay a fee as well? Are we going to say that they have no effect on the seashore? What brought along all these changes were special interests groups, that is the bottom line and the truth. It amazing that recreational fishermen don't have a group to represent them.

If you don't think boating access is going to be restricted soon you are also mistaken.

 

[Drum Runner]

The permit doesn't bother me. The permit will keep some of the riff raff out.
If you haven't seen the Hatteras documentary on Youtube, you need to sit down and donate an hour and 45 minutes of your time.
If people actually knew what the NPS was up to and doing...this would have stopped a long time ago.
The United States Congress set aside Hatteras as a national park for RECREATIONAL purposes for the people. This is an actual law. It wasn't set aside as a bird or animal sanctuary.
This was the promise made to not only those that gave the land up but every American.

I have said on this site several times, that the NPS will not stop until people no longer walk or ride on these beaches. That is the ultimate goal and end game.The documentary fully explains who and what is driving this. Who the NPS is in bed with.

The problem has always been...people in Raleigh and other places hear the sanitized version on the news or newspaper. ORV headlines. So most people think its just about driving a pickup on the beach.
It runs a lot deeper than just a pickup on the beach.

Fellow fishermen, become informed.

 

[crappie89]

DR, can you post a link to the video?

 

[papadave]

Fellow fishermen, become informed.

You're right, you're dead right. And not just about CALO or the National Parks in our area. To be really informed you have to look back at the beginnings of our Nation Parks system and before. Start with Niagara Falls prior to our first NP and work your way forward to today. Our country was the first in history to set aside land and funds for managing parks which essentially belong to all the nation's citizens. From the beginning the parks have been torn between special interests ranging from those who would convert them into circus sideshows to those who would exclude any and all human presence. IMHO the solution lies somewhere in the middle and as our population grows and this country's financial situation worsens it's becoming more and more difficult to find the correct balance. An informed, sane and objective populace is the only thing that will stand in the way of the special interests who can't or won't accept that this part of our national heritage belongs to all of us.

And BTW, Thanks to crappie89 for bringing this to our attention and keeping it in a tone that might allow this thread to last more than a couple hours.

 

[Drum Runner]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFnitiNyZRc

The first 30 minutes is primarily getting to know the people.

 

[NCTribute]

Papadave, thank you for a voice of reason.

DrumRunner, what you have said is partially true. The National Park Service oversees, National Monuments, Cemetaries, Historical Places, Parks, Recreational Areas and other things. The National Parks were actually set up for preservation of the areas, while allowing for recreation. National seashores and lakeshores are coastal areas federally designated as being of natural and recreational significance as a preserved area, just because they fall under Recreational Areas does not mean that is all they are designated for. Key wording to the previous sentence, preserved area.

I used to be a avid surf fisherman and believe that reasonable access should be available for all areas. But at the same time have seen abuse and damaged areas due to overuse or inappropriate use. The problems seems to be that collectively we can not seem to find a solution that is reasonable, everyone has to have an extreme view rather than an intelligent discussion.

What some people describe as a night by the campfire of brotherhood and comrade-ire, might be seen by others the next day as a trashy mess on the beach with trampled dunes by people looking for driftwood to stoke the fire. It always amazes me, went to a concert the other week and green energy, conservation etc was being promoted, but at the end the place was an ecological disaster area with all the trash and crap lying around.

The facts are that if people are in sensitive areas it will cost money to maintain and there will need to be rules to enforce. Historically, we humans have a very mixed track record of being good stewards of our environment. But when you look at some of greatest accomplishments of preserving or maintaining an area, it has come at some cost to some other entity, whether is be creatures or commercial. For example, if an area is over hunted, closed to hunting or has managed hunting, it likely will affect some animal population negatively. There is no magical answer that helps all parties involved, even nature by itself can be harsh and have dire consequences.

In summary, because there is no one perfect solution, there must be some compromise that best suits the current situation and a long term desired outcome. So my advice is to have an argument that is fact based and not relying on an extremist position for the best chance of success.

 

[Drum Runner]

The compromise. A fee to drive on the beaches.
That cuts down on the riff raff and also people just wanting to drive on the beach for the sake of driving on a beach.

Pay to play.

What has been done on Hatteras and WILL be done on the entire national seashore is not about saving a bird or turtle. That much is very clear because their math and the science doesn't add up. It's about eradicating people from the park and ending access. The NPS has physically removed the word recreation from the name of the park.

The NPS knows that if they create an economic hardship, people will leave. That is the goal on Hatteras.

 

[h2ohhh]

Thank you NCTribute for a balanced look at the issue. As one of those who love CALO and surf fish it in ORV's I have to agree that it only takes a few bad apples to spoil it for everyone. The vast majority of visitors there go there for the virtually untouched beauty of the area. We tread lightly out of recognition that these types of environments are becoming more and more difficult to find. That's why we drive 6 hours and pay good money for a ferry and cabin. I can be surf fishing in other places in half the time for a fraction of the cost. It only takes one yahoo to drive on the dunes, leave trash, run through a turtle nesting area, etc. to give fodder for the environmental extremists to use their substantial assets to force promulgation of rules and the threat of lawsuits to deprive the majority for the poor actions of the minority. Likewise there are those who yearn for the old days of doing what you want, when you want and leaving behind what you will on CALO.

I think that the major issues voiced in the comment areas of the documents are currently being handled appropriately on the island. The number of ORV's is limited by the amount that the ferry can bring over with the vast majority of those visitors staying in the 20 some odd cabins that are there and a few more in motor homes. Outside of the south point there are 26 miles of beach that enable us to fish without seeing another vehicle, even in the fall when fishing is the best. I imagine there are never more than 50 ORV's over that 26 miles on any given day. Most of those use the jeep trail (back road) to get to the point.

The turtle/piping plover nesting areas are currently well marked and blocked off. It's not a problem as long as people abide by those closures. Apparently night driving on the beach can impact these creatures negatively due to the lights causing confusion. Reasonable man's test says if this is the case to increase the buffer zone to minimize that impact.

I have been checked by various agencies who patrol out there virtually every day that I've fished there. I have absolutely no problem with that either. The officers I've encountered have always been professional though I've heard stories to the contrary. Anyway, they are out there and that presence has to help as a deterrent to being an idiot.

I seldom run across any litter from fishermen, even at the point where there are lots of them. This is directly contrary to what I see on area lakes and ponds that I fish inland. I believe it's the sheer majesty of the place that makes fishermen think twice. Besides, there's a 4x4 on the beach next to us to put our trash in. The most littered place on CALO is at the lighthouse. That ain't us.

My point is I think they do a good job running the place just like it is. It shouldn't change save for maybe some minor tweeking.

But it will.

 

[crappie89]

I agree H2, it will change. A large part of why it will change is because this is the opinion of the other side: http://www.audubonmagazine.org/articles/conservation/battle-over-north-carolina-beach-continues

Its hard to negotiate with someone who wants everything.

 

[papadave]

The compromise. A fee to drive on the beaches.
That cuts down on the riff raff and also people just wanting to drive on the beach for the sake of driving on a beach.

Pay to play.

Not very fond of armchair quarterbacking but here goes anyway. No objection to a reasonable fee at all, as long as the proceeds are applied directly to maintaining the area. However a fee which is significant enough in itself to limit the growing number of citizens who access the park would in essence turn a National Park into a private retreat for the wealthy.
Reservation systems have worked for other areas and while not perfect at least give most of us a "fair" chance to enjoy what rightfully belongs to us.

I seldom run across any litter from fishermen, even at the point where there are lots of them. This is directly contrary to what I see on area lakes and ponds that I fish inland. I believe it's the sheer majesty of the place that makes fishermen think twice. Besides, there's a 4x4 on the beach next to us to put our trash in. The most littered place on CALO is at the lighthouse. That ain't us.

My point is I think they do a good job running the place just like it is. It shouldn't change save for maybe some minor tweeking.

But it will.

Haven't put "boots" on the sand at CALO since flipflops were all the boots my feet needed in summer. At that time you could find solitude on the beach as easily as you could find the rusted out discarded beach buggies that littered the beach and dunes. There are many many more people who visit the island now than there were 40 years ago and with our population growing rapidly the numbers are going to increase to the point that the solitude and enjoyment you get now will be extinct.

John, I think I know you well enough to believe that you and the people you associate with are responsible and treat the area with respect. I know that many other fishermen feel the same way, but like you say "It only takes one yahoo". With more visitors come more yahoos. The rules are going to have to change in order to keep up with the growing number of people. Ideally those rules should be proportionate to the amount and type of traffic the island can reasonably support.

I don't want to see CALO become a place which I am forbidden to visit, but worse, I would hate to see it become a place that I wouldn't want to visit.

 

[papadave]

Its hard to negotiate with someone who wants everything.

Couldn't agree more!

 

[h2ohhh]

Dave,

I just don't see the number of visitors there increasing greatly. The infrastructure doesn't support it, nor does the remote locaton. Limited access via a couple of skiffs that run people to see the lighthouse or spend a day on the beach back there or limited vehicles based upon what the cabins can hold. Not too many paying $75 for a day trip on the ferry out there in their 4 x 4's.

 

[papadave]

I'm with ya, but I never thought I'd see the day Charlie's Bunion in the GSMNP would be crowded on a weekday in January.

 

[Drum Runner]

Not very fond of armchair quarterbacking but here goes anyway. No objection to a reasonable fee at all, as long as the proceeds are applied directly to maintaining the area. However a fee which is significant enough in itself to limit the growing number of citizens who access the park would in essence turn a National Park into a private retreat for the wealthy.
Reservation systems have worked for other areas and while not perfect at least give most of us a "fair" chance to enjoy what rightfully belongs to us.

The goal is to limit or do away with people and ORV.
So if you want to limit use price to limit.
If you want to still drive on the beach, you will pony up. Those that just want to drive up and down the beach and see what kind of **** to raise likely wouldn't have the desire to pony up.

It's not a matter of if this war on surf fishermen is going to get worse, it's the fact that it is. If it costs me 600 bucks a year to drive on the beach, I would jump all over it IF it stops this nonsense from cropping up every year and the further limiting of access.
It's already a game for those with some means. It hasn't been a poor man's retreat for many years.

Bottom line, it's not about the environment, birds, or turtles. It's about MONEY. The birds and the turtles are just the vehicle.
I look at it this way. The NPS isn't going to fix or solve anything with a meeting.
The only people that will come close to righting the wrongs is Congress or a judge. The train needs to be put back on the track that it was intended to run on and I don't see that happening. Easiest case...For a sitting president to rescind the excutive order that got us here in the first place.

My compromise right now to the NPS, jack the price.
I'm not a wealthy man. It hurt my feelings to buy 6 sheets of plywood at 400 bucks this week.
But the thing is, if the plywood had been 4 times that much, I would have saved some more and still bought it because building boats is something I want to do. Something I enjoy doing. The cost of building continually rises. I keep building.

Same thing with surf fishing. Wealthy man that I am not, I spent 5 grand surf fishing last year if I spent a dollar. I coughed it up to fish where and how I like to fish. I'd do the same thing with increased ORV permit fees. Cough it up. So would anybody else.

I'm all for it if it will stop the insanity.

 

[Fishscalz]

Sorry DR, but it was a consent decree from Judge Boyle that put us here, not an executive order.

Why elected officials in the House and Senate tolerate legislation from the bench is beyond me, but that is what we have.

Fishscalz

 

[sundrop]

Like most of the issues we are seeing involving our sport, it is ENFORCEMENT that is lacking. Make strict rules that are reasonable to the ones who spend the money ( sportsman, photographers) etc. and then ENFORCE them. Some yahoo dumps his junk you fry his behind with fines and take away his access PERMANENTLY. I know that takes money to pay for the officers etc and that is where fees and permits should come into play. Appropriate and MANAGE the funds based on the fees per location, not a joint fund. If the funds dont cover the need close the beaches certain days, or seasons when travel is low anyway. Compromise is the key. They have got to stop throwing out the basket because of a few bad apples... Patrols can even be partially made up of volunteers and college students studing Matural Sciences and Marine Biology etc. There are plenty of retirees who love enjoying those areas who would work cheap or free to help keep an eye on things. It would also bring jobs to the locals, some of which may be seeking new ways to live without commercial fishing which is a win win for us all!!