Fair shake for ORVs in Hatteras plan

April 20th, 2008

national park service

Sea turtles, piping plovers and other vulnerable species of wildlife are emerging as the winners in a bitter, long-running dispute over beach access on the Outer Banks. And so are the people who’ve grown accustomed to driving their vehicles right up to the ocean to fish, surf or simply enjoy the view.
Last week, the key parties in a federal lawsuit - the National Park Service, environmentalists and an alliance of off-road vehicle users, among others - filed a proposed settlement in Raleigh that strikes a welcome, long-overdue balance between protecting natural resources and preserving a generations-old tradition.
If a federal judge signs off on the deal, ORV drivers and pedestrians would still be able to reach six of the most popular fishing and recreation spots on Cape Hatteras National Seashore. But for part of the year, they would face tougher restrictions on relatively small stretches of the park’s 70-plus miles of shoreline.
Generally, drivers and pedestrians would have to steer clear of identified pre-nesting areas for the piping plover, American oystercatcher, black skimmer and other vulnerable shorebirds and waterbirds between roughly mid-March and mid-July.
Additional restrictions would apply to some backshore areas from March 15 to Nov. 30.
Drivers also would be forbidden on the beach from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. during turtle nesting and hatching seasons from May 1 to Nov. 15, with limited access granted by special permits in the latter three months. Turtles making their way between nests and the ocean rely on moonlight as a guide and can be easily distracted by headlights.
The proposed restrictions aren’t as drastic as feared by some ORV users and businesses reliant on fishing and tourism. Derb Carter, an attorney for the Southern Environmental Law Center, has repeatedly said the goal of conservationists isn’t to chase off-road vehicles out of the park. It’s to ensure that dwindling populations of birds and turtles have a better chance of survival.

hamptonroads.com


Tags: , ,

This entry was posted on Sunday, April 20th, 2008 at 4:00 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

14 Responses to “Fair shake for ORVs in Hatteras plan”

  1. Richendra Says:

    Wow, what a ridiculous chart. Taking each issue and scoring a candidate’s position as either liberal or conservative.Which party represents smaller government? The Republicans claim to, but the Democrats have a better track record of actually limiting government expansion. And neither party has ever reduced the size of the government.

  2. Ralphina Says:

    Then I have no idea what you are talking about.

  3. Shaquille Says:

    I also like the way it’s out of 50, and goes from a liberal “zero” to a conservative “50.” Completely “liberal” views? 0/50. Completely “conservative” views? 50/50.Not biased at all, eh.

  4. Tel Says:

    Interesting. I’d like to see the questions he was asked, which presumably formed the basis for the five “thermometers” on the forbes site.That he managed to score minimum on energy/environment is a bit disturbing.But I don’t think Forbes publishes the questions, or his answers - almost no one ever does for compass/thermometer-style tests, and it’s one of my bigger pet peeves.Perhaps Ron Paul could publish the questions and his answers? He’s pro-transparency, after all :-)

  5. Keegan Says:

    Problem is, anyone will tell you the quickest way to increase profits is to cut costs, and the quickest way to cut costs in the Healthcare industry is to reduce the level of care, period. That’s why the profits above all else model just doesn’t fit well with the healthcare industry.

  6. Lexi Says:

    Not sure what he was smoking, but D.C. doesn’t decide how long the school year is or whether teachers get merit pay. It doesn’t think it decides on vouchers either. Milkwaukee has had vouchers for a decade.

  7. Annetta Says:

    Some entrepreneurial spirit could build another hospital and get rich if the one you have is really that bad. This is the exact same principle that applies in every industry.

  8. Queen Says:

    Clearly you’re unfamiliar with financial aid. It’s similar to getting a grant for school — there’s money available if you take the time to seek it out.

  9. Jericho Says:

    Yes, your tax policy would be better. But would it solve the problem of needing to assuage HMO wariness (which is actually impossible when you really need to do it)? Or do you build your tax policy on the assumption that for-profit insurance is a law of nature and has to be accommodated? Why not eliminate for-profit health insurance altogether?

  10. Omega Says:

    I take great satisfaction in the fact that you’re in the same fucking boat.

  11. Jaida Says:

    Fox News is going to shake Ron Paul like a British nanny.

  12. Rhetta Says:

    So you’re going to say no to a candidate based on his looks, the looks of some of his supporters, and his party. Don’t you think that’s how we got in this mess in the first place? I find it funny how you call us stupid, yet you have a word of the week.

  13. Noll Says:

    Not if he gets the nomination. Then Faux will have to pick between someone that wants to shut down the FCC (at least the censorship meddling) and Hillary. You can bet large sums of cash as to which one they’ll push in that case. All he has to do is drop the “and shut down the FCC” bomb once on-air and TPTB will perk up and push him every chance they get./We now return you to the clothing malfunction already in progress…