news-record.com

OPINION

SELC goes too far

Letter
Comments (14)

Thursday, February 2, 2012

(Updated 3:00 am)

Now that the Southern Environmental Law Center has had its way with the Cape Hatteras National Seashore and Recreational Area, it is setting its sights on the Piedmont and other areas. What you can now expect is for it to file a series of lawsuits aimed to push its agenda. These suits will be funded by your tax dollars.

What you should not expect is any form of negotiation. The people of Hatteras Island and beach-access advocates tried in good faith to negotiate with the SELC, and its response was to walk away and threaten to sue until it got its way, which it did.
Effective Feb. 15, a way of life that had existed for generations on the Outer Banks will be gone forever.

Looks like the Piedmont won’t be far behind.

Ken Yount
Wentworth

Letter To The Editor

Story: Submitting a Letter to the Editor
Article: Speaking of the pot calling the kettle black (3:00 am)
Article: The homosexual act is wrong, not the person (3:00 am)
Article: Cuts would hurt parks and trails effort (3:00 am)
Article: Teacher deserves a harsh reprimand (3:00 am)
Article: Romney only belongs in the business world (3:00 am)
Article: Greenville, S.C., offers model for arts center (May 25)

Advertisement | Advertise with Us

Comments

View Comments

This letter has been closed to new comments. Comments are accepted on select letters to the editor between the hours of 7 AM and 5 PM, EDT, Monday through Friday.

Inappropriate content? Please report abuse.

Yvonne

February 2, 2012 - 7:09 am EST

For anyone else wondering what the letter writer was referring to:

www.southernenvironment.org/newsroom/press_releases/national_park_servic...

After doing some reading, it seems the letter writer is another alarmist who is opposed to change and is using the all to familiar spin of "They are taking away our freedoms" mantra. Personally, anything that helps our earth survive the brutal attack by mankind is a worthwhile endeavor, imho. So driving on the beach in 4wheel drive vehicles on a protected National Seashore will now have some rules. It's about time!

nemo0037

February 2, 2012 - 7:56 am EST

So it's "bad" to end a "way of life" out on Hatteras that involves driving off-road? I thought he was talking about native American fishing practices or such-like.

I would recommend, for the purposes of perspective, for this letter writer to pay a visit to the island of Hilton Head, in South Carolina. That is a remarkable place to visit, because it is remarkably dark there at night. How is this related? Because one of the biggest regulations of lighting on that island is to make sure that no light source is visible from any beach. This was done to minimize confusion for baby turtles when they hatch.

Is it an inconvenience? Perhaps. But the folks there feel it's worth it and they live with it, finding that there are still advantages to life there even with such rules. And really, I feel a lot of respect for the fact that they have those rules. In the same vein, I now think it's cool that Hatteras has started down this similar path, trying to live in harmony with the beautiful world of nature around there.

Yvonne

February 2, 2012 - 8:04 am EST

Beautifully stated.

itsjustron

February 2, 2012 - 9:19 am EST

" Is it an inconvenience? Perhaps. But the folks there feel it's worth it and they live with it, finding that there are still advantages to life there even with such rules."

I have been visiting and driving on Hatteras for decades, and know alot of folks down there (wife has family there)
These folks certainly dont feel its worth it, and certainly dont want to live with it.. It is a way of life for alot of folks, you can mock it if you so choose..Its more than just driving, its a way to make a living for some..

I mean the most important thing in the triad is golf and basketball.. what if they suddenly decided that a mouse that lives near golf courses needs protection, so you can only play golf on certain courses, during certain months of the year. This town would go ballistic.. and its not that far fetched. Dont go mocking people who have lived a way of life for generations, when they are upset part of it (not all of it) is coming to an end..

nemo0037

February 2, 2012 - 9:37 am EST

I'm not aware that my remarks had any sort of "mocking" tone to them. I merely think that putting limits on off-road driving seems to be not all that onerous a matter. For those who have made a living via off-road driving (sounds like a puzzling concept to me. Please advise), I wonder if they might be all that put out to find ways to live with the rules? Just curious.

itsjustron

February 2, 2012 - 9:50 am EST

For example. local surf fishermen, some who operate guide and tackle services, do not fish where the public access ramps are, they drive furher away, one because fish typically bite where the crowds arent and generally biting fish make a happy angler and leads to repeat business, and two they typically dont want to disturb other tourist simply enjoying the beach.

And in the case of the folks at Gray house, who are physically disabled to a degree, the only way they can enjoy
Getting out to Cape point is by vehicle, which they have done for a looooong time..

wctbl?

February 2, 2012 - 10:10 am EST

"The park service’s rules allow ORV use on the majority of the seashore. Twenty-eight of the seashore’s 67 miles are set aside as year-round ORV routes, with only 26 miles designated as year-round vehicle-free areas for pedestrians, families, and wildlife. The remaining 13 miles of seashore are seasonally open to ORVs. The plan also proposes new parking facilities, ORV ramps, and water shuttles to increase visitor access to beaches."

I'm not familiar with the fishing geography of the area, but it seems like an effort is being made to compromise. "The only constant is change." - Heraclitus

nemo0037

February 2, 2012 - 10:16 am EST

It really doesn't sound like they went to any sort of draconian lengths here. Sure some changes will be needed, but it really doesn't sound as bad as it could have been.

ramp 23

February 2, 2012 - 1:00 pm EST

I am very familiar with the fishing geography and I can tell you that most of the best fishing spots are now closed. All three inlets are off-limits. The first mile and a half south of Rodanthe/Waves/Salvo is closed as well as the first mile and a half north of Avon. There is absolutely no justification for closing these two sections of beach, other than to make things more difficult for fishermen.
The fishermen and beach access advocates were more than willing to negotiate a fair and workable plan but the SELC flatly refused to negotiate. Instead they threatened to sue to close ALL of the park to ORV's unless they got exactly what they asked for.

Ken Yount

thinkingman

February 2, 2012 - 1:55 pm EST

"There is absolutely no justification for closing these two sections of beach, other than to make things more difficult for fishermen."

So you believe that the only purpose of this action was to harass fisherman. There is simply no other possible justification? I wonder, is that the rationale provided by SELC? You would be more persuasive if you could rationally explain why their arguments are invalid, rather than simply writing them off.

thinkingman

February 2, 2012 - 2:09 pm EST

Well apparently the SELC does not claim to be trying to make things more difficult for fisherman:

"In addition to fishermen, daily beach-goers are using their trucks and SUVs for convenient beach access. In their path are nests of shorebirds and other animals including the threatened piping plover and sea turtles, whose existence on the seashore is imperiled by hundreds of vehicles per day. As a result, these species have been declining on the Cape Hatteras National Seashore at a rapid pace."
http://www.southernenvironment.org/cases/beach_driving_on_cape_hatteras_...

Maybe someone can provide evidence that those species are not declining, or if they are that it's not related to vehicles driving along the beaches?

dcribar

February 2, 2012 - 11:39 am EST

In what way will these "suits be funded by your tax dollars?" The SELC appears to get all of its funds from private support ( http://www.southernenvironment.org/uploads/fck/file/tax_forms/FY2010_Aud... ).

ramp 23

February 2, 2012 - 12:50 pm EST

ww.nowpublic.com/environment/environmental-lawsuits-rake-billions-lawyers

The Federal Government picked up the tab for all of the SELC's expenses concerning the CHNSRA.

dcribar

February 2, 2012 - 1:46 pm EST

The Defenders of Wildlife and the National Audubon Society received attorneys' fees in 2008 because the (then Republican-led) federal government agreed that they were the prevailing party (see http://www.defenders.org/resources/publications/programs_and_policy/in_t... ). The suit wasn't "funded by your tax dollars" but the settlement was.

And yes, if the SELC is successful in its suits it may be able to collect fees from the losing party. This hardly makes the suits "tax-payer funded."