Pier and Surf Forum banner

1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,346 Posts
Yeah Wenk definitely hung us out to dry. If there was any doubt that the eco-freaks and DOI are in bed together, there is none now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,751 Posts
so tell me what is your take on it I not sure if this was a positive or a the battle just got harder and when are they going to vote on it
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,346 Posts
Carter kinda got the jump on us by pointing out we agreed to the Consent Decree. Also, like Jim/Ginny said, DOI threw us under the bus by basically saying that the NPS doesn't support the idea of going back to the Interim Plan. I don't necessarily think it got harder, but without being able to see all of the documentation submitted on both side there isn't really any way to know. Based on just the information presented yesterday, it got a little bit harder because of Wenk's testimony.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
10,102 Posts
It's all DOWN from here on out as far as the surf fisherman goes..

They got thier way both in court and in congress.. Bad part is this is an example that will be used against the surf fisherman all along the east coast,and no doubt they will try to take exempt status away from Padre Island...

It's a sad time in my life watching fishing holes that I have fished for years become unaccessable... Anti fishing and Anti hunting special intrest groups are drinking wine and cheese right about now....:--|
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
560 Posts
i said it before and i'll say it again ...
fishing as we knew it is over !!
and signing / agreeing to the consent decree was the worst thing that could happen !!
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
2,093 Posts
Still ain't over folks....but it sadly got uglier.

I'm disappointed to see some Park Service hack (Deputy Director of Operations? huh? who?) make it even harder on HIS staff on the ground.

Great, now all the folks that wanted to blame NPS to begin with are gonna focus their ire at the staff at CAHA instead of where it belongs. Please tell me I'm wrong....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,022 Posts
??? elaborate??
Latest vandalism report. ATV went cruising through closed areas up at ramp 23 and crushed an egg.

Here is a copy of the press release.

National Park Service News Release
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: DATE: July 31, 2008
CONTACT: 252-473-2111, ext. 148


A Sixth Deliberate Violation of Resource Protection Area

On the morning of July 30, 2008, NPS turtle patrol observed all-terrain
vehicle (ATV) tracks inside the posted bird closure located approximately
1.8 miles south of Ramp 23. After entering the closure the unauthorized
ATV had driven high on the beach through a least tern nesting area. The
vehicle continued through the closure and then exited where it did two
doughnuts and then headed back north through the closure. There were no
signs of ATV tracks south of this so it is thought that the ATV entered the
closure heading south and then returned north. Staff followed the ATV
tracks north and observed the tracks leave the beach over a dune near Sea
Haven Drive in Rodanthe; however, no suspects were identified. NPS bird
resource management staff were called in to survey the nest site and
discovered that a least tern egg had been crushed in the tracks of the
illegal ATV. The egg was located high on the beach approximately 100
meters inside and south of the posted closure boundary.


The April 30, 2008 Consent Decree related to shorebird and sea turtle
protection at Cape Hatteras National Seashore requires the National Park
Service to automatically expand a resource protection area when deliberate
acts occur that disturb or harasses wildlife or vandalizes fencing, nests,
or plants. The buffer has been expanded 100 meters to the north in
accordance with the Consent Decree.

The incident involved multiple federal criminal violations of NPS
regulations including, illegal vehicle use, entering a closed area, and the
destruction of the egg. Each violation carries a potential penalty of up
to a $5,000.00 fine and six months imprisonment. In addition, the
destruction of a migratory bird nest/egg is a criminal offense under the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 16 USC § 707(a) (Section 6(a), which carries a
potential penalty of up to $15,000.00 fine and six months imprisonment,
plus seizure and forfeiture of all equipment, vehicles, and other means of
transportation used when engaged in the violation.

"The egregious violations such as this one that result in the automatic
expansion of the resource protection areas represent a small percentage of
the total number of closure violations that have been occurring,” said
Superintendent Mike Murray. “For the most part, our law enforcement staff
has been successful in apprehending violators in resource closures,
although the staff clearly cannot be everywhere at once or in any
particular place all the time. In the month of July alone, rangers have
apprehended over 30 violators in resources closures. Our hope in
publicizing these most serious violations is that members of the public who
have any information about the violation or other criminal activity on
Seashore beaches will come forward and assist us in solving the case.”

No suspects have been identified in this case, though several leads have
been pursued. If anyone has information about this violation or illegal
ATV use in the Rodanthe-Waves-Salvo area, or any other illegal activity
occurring on the Seashore, please call the Dare County Crime Line at
1-800-745-2746
24 hours a day.

For more information, call 252-473-2111 ext. 148.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
69 Posts
So what do we do now?
As I said on another forum: Keep the letters, e-mails, calls, happening. This was only the Senate committee hearing, It still has to get out of committee and on to the full Senate. Remember it also has a House version that has to take the same path. Pressure, pressure, pressure, is what is needed. Everyone, their friends, family, co-workers, etc. needs to be the voices heard by our legislative representatives. We can not even slow down in our efforts to get these bills passed. Any pause on our side is a gain for the dark side.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
332 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
Don't give up

If Murray is not in step with Wenk, we need to support him.

If Murray is in step with Wenk, it doesn't matter because we still need to put the pressure on Wenk to do his job and support the only NEPA compliant rule out there.

Tell Wenk that while he has the right to the opinion "that the April 30, 2008, consent decree will accomplish this objective better than the original 2007 Interim Management Strategy", he does not have the authority to replace a NEPA compliant rule approved not only by USFWS but also by his own governmental agency with a rule that did not, by any stretch of the imagination, comply with the provisions of the NEPA.

Tell Wenk, the Consent Decree did not make adequate provisions for public comment. Tell him this is not just your opinion but the opinion of well over 10,000 people who signed the petition at http://www.gopetition.com/online/18790.html. Considering the fact that the DOI felt that it was necessary to appoint 30 stakeholders to the advisory committee for the final ORV rule, ask Wenk how he can honestly claim that the agreement reached by the 4 stakeholders (SELC, Government, Dare County, and CHAPA) who signed the consent decree can be considered a provision for adequate public comment.

Tell Wenk, there rule created by the Consent Decree did not include either an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Study. That is, the impact on the Human Environment and the Economy was not considered. Tell him that if he really believes that no one has been turned away from the beaches and that the economy will not suffer to read the comments provided by many of the 10,000 persons who signed the petition at http://www.gopetition.com/online/18790.html.

Tell Wenk that you are aware of provisions in Executive Order 11644 that provide for changes to ORV use should it be determined that is having considerable adverse effects on wildlife. Tell Wenk that you know he misled the committee when he attempted to prove considerable advers effects by noting that CHNSRA exceeded the incidental take provisions of the Interim Plan. In point of fact, under the Interim Plan CHNSRA either met or exceeded many of the performance measures stated therein. Tell Wenk that USFWS concluded that the incidental take for turtles was not violated and that the incidental take provision for Plovers was ill conceived and accordingly USFWS revised the threashold for Plovers.

Tell Wenk that since he cannot prove that the Interim Plan is having considerable adverse effects on wildlife that he is duty bound to support the rule that his agency approved and that you expect him to act accordingly--that is, recind his support for the non-NEPA compliant consent decree.

Carbon copy your comments to the secretary of DOI (NPS's boss) and ALL members of the National Parks Committee.
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Top