BlueWaterRunner

Everyone knows how the National Audubon Society supports limiting OHV use. Look at the situation on NC's Outer Banks, so before you you buy that new Tundra think about what they are doing with the profit from your sale.

http://detroitnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll...803260431/1148

For more information on what we as fishermen, surfers, boaters (we could be next) and surfers can do st save our beach access please visit:

http://www.savehatteras.com/

Toyota lost all my respect. All of it.

I also invite you to read and post your thoughts on this Toyota blog:

http://blog.toyota.com/2008/03/toyota-and-the.html

http://blog.toyota.com/2008/04/toyota-and-the.html

Toyota has screwed up its reputation here in NC. What a shame.

__________________


"Freedom"

SeaProBoatOwners.com

glacierbaze

I wonder how many felt the same way while National Audubon Society v. Navy was carrying the fight to save Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge from the OLF. Maybe that's where they earned their Toyota funding.

Jlewis74

Well looks like a plan has been handed down and pretty much screws the beach goers when ever there is a nest or chicks on the dunes!

__________________

bstnsportsfan

Toyota has gained my respect. I'm not familiar with the OBX but I think giving $20 mil for conservation is excellent.

__________________
Chris

maggieIII

Toyota is not helping conservation, they are buying time or relief as they ponder the future of petroleum fueled cars. Guess What?? less than 20% of the entire United States is 'developed' So don't fall into this narrow-minded sprawl mentality. Of course, people are moving to the coast, this has been atrend for 40 years, write your local senators or congressman about the proper way to deal w/ zoning/traffic/infrastructure.

Huntersun

Here's the latest, for all those who think Toyota is helping read the links posted above.
This situation will impact the lively hoods of the entire OBX population.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The parties to a lawsuit over ORV use on the Cape Hatteras National Seashore filed a settlement today in U.S. District Court in Raleigh.

The settlement was filed in the form of a consent decree that now goes before U.S. District Court Judge Terrence W. Boyle, who must approve the terms of the agreement.

The end result of the settlement is that management of seashore resources is now in the hands of Judge Boyle and the private, special-interest groups that negotiated the terms of the settlement without input from the public. The role of the National Park Service will be to enforce the terms of the settlement until there is a long-term ORV regulation, perhaps in three years.

The settlement resolves all issues in the case that began last October when Defenders of Wildlife and the National Audubon Society, represented by the Southern Environmental Law Center, filed suit against the National Park Service over its Interim Protected Species Management Plan that is to regulate ORV use and species management until a long-term rule is developed through negotiated rulemaking and an Environmental Impact Statement.

The plaintiffs in this lawsuit are environmental groups, which claim that ORV use on the seashore is illegal, since the Park Service does not have a special rule to regulate it, as has been required since 1972. Also, the lawsuit claims that the interim plan does not go far enough to protect wildlife in the park, especially shorebirds and sea turtles. In addition, the plaintiffs asked Boyle in February for a temporary injunction to prohibit ORV use until the suit is settled on six popular areas of the seashore – Bodie Island spit, Cape Point and parts of the South Beach, Hatteras Inlet, and the north and south points of Ocracoke.

The defendants are the National Park Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and others, including the director of the National Park Service and the superintendent of the Cape Hatteras National Seashore.

In December, Boyle allowed Dare and Hyde counties and the Cape Hatteras Access Preservation Alliance to become defendant/intervenors in the lawsuit to represent the interests of the public.

The settlement filed today is a compromise among the parties that settles both the lawsuit and the request for an injunction and that the parties have been working on for at least several weeks.


The Interim Protected Species Management Plan will remain in effect at the seashore, though, in cases of conflict, the settlement will prevail.

The headlines in the settlement are that buffers for nests and unfledged chicks are more precisely spelled out and larger in the case of piping plovers and that there will be a prohibition on night driving from May 1 until Sept. 15.

Some of the details of the settlement include:

• A deadline for a final ORV management plan and special rule. NPS must complete the long-term plan by Dec. 31, 2010, and publish the final rule by April 1, 2011.

• Buffers for breeding and nesting shorebirds and for unfledged chicks will be spelled out in more detail and, in the case of unfledged plover chicks, will be more restrictive.

• In the case of piping plovers, a threatened species, buffers for pre-nesting and nesting will remain the same in the settlement as in the interim plan – 164 feet. Once the chicks hatch, the buffer zone for ORVs will be 1,000 meters or 3,281 feet – about the length of 11 football fields. The pedestrian buffer zone will be 984 feet – or a little more than three football fields. When the 1,000 meter buffer zone is in effect, pedestrians will have limited access during daylight hours to a narrow strip above the mean high tide line for walking, swimming, and sunning.

• After the nest hatches, the buffer will move with the chicks. Two weeks after the chicks hatch, the Park Service may modify the buffer and allow ORV access within the 3,281-foot buffer if a 984-foot buffer is maintained between the chicks and ORVs. Whether the buffer can be modified to 984 feet will depend on the movement of the foraging adults and chicks from the nest. Access to areas, such as Cape Point, will depend on the movement of the chicks and the physical topography of the beach -- whether there will be room for an ORV corridor above the high-tide line and at least 984 feet from foraging chicks.

• Unfledged piping plover chicks will be monitored from dawn until dusk, and any modification of the 3,281-foot buffer will not be open to ORVs until the location of the chicks is determined by a Park Service monitor each morning and an adequate buffer is assured.

• The provision for modifying the buffer will be eliminated if any plover chick is killed or injured by an ORV within the 3,281-foot buffer.

• ORV use at night will be prohibited from 10 p.m. until 6 a.m. from May 1 until Nov. 15 to increase turtle nesting success. This closure is for potential turtle nesting habitat, and it is not clear if that includes all of the seashore. There also is a provision for permits for night driving between Sept. 16 and Nov. 15. No details are available yet on permits.


• There will be penalties for violations of pre-nesting areas and buffers. If the Park Service can show that a deliberate act has harassed wildlife or caused damage to fencing or nests, the buffers will be expanded with each violation.

• Various reports on nesting success will be provided by the Park Service to the courts, the plaintiffs, and the intervenors, who will allowed to comment each year on proposed pre-nesting areas.

• The Park Service will provide education about protected species at access points and in the beach driving brochure and will provide a 24-hour phone line for citizens to report violations.

• The court can modify the settlement for good cause shown by any party, and the court retains jurisdiction to settle disputes.

• The settlement does not preclude any party from filing future legal action.

• The settlement is not a precedent and should not be considered binding or establish any requirements that will influence the negotiated rulemaking process. However, the terms of the agreement can be discussed by any party in the negotiation process.

• The environmental groups are entitled to “reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs” to be paid by the federal defendants.


Representatives of the intervenors – Dare, Hyde, and CHAPA – have not pretended to be happy about the terms of the settlement. However, all felt that they had no other option, given that the Park Service has clearly violated the law by not having a long-term rule on ORVs.

The environmental groups say that ORV use is illegal without that long-term rule. And, in fact, Judge Boyle ruled that ORV use on the seashore was illegal last summer in the case of a visitor with a minor ORV infraction.

In addition, the federal government was clearly not enthusiastic about defending ORV use under the interim plan, and in its response to the injunction request, just agreed that ORVs were operating illegally on seashore beaches.

It’s clear that these parties would not have been in Judge Boyle’s courtroom under these circumstances, if the National Park Service had done what it was required to do 35 or so years ago. In fairness, the environmental groups that sued have noted every chance they’ve had that they would not have gone to court if the federal government had done its job.

However, that said, it’s also true that a lot of time and federal money has been spent on developing the interim plan, and members of the public invested their time and effort to give their feedback during public comment periods.

The interim plan was a plan developed by a process, in the open, with public input.

The settlement agreed upon today was decided behind closed doors.

That’s not the way it should have been.

The National Park Service will have to enforce the terms of the settlement – no doubt at a great cost to taxpayers – but they will no longer be deciding policy in the next three or so years.

The beaches will be managed by Judge Terrence Boyle and the special interest groups that brought this legal action.

The best hope for the future of beach access now is that negotiated rulemaking manages to survive this divisive lawsuit, and that a final plan on ORV use on the seashore is one that is devised with input from all the people – on and off the islands – who have stake in the future of the park.

__________________


SeaVeyor

Lifes too short to own an ugly boat

Custom Crowther/DTP 49'

JB2C

How the heck are you going to know to stay 11 football fields away?? Maybe I'm just not sensitive enough, but this all sounds crazy. Can someone tell me how humanity will suffer it plovers die off? I'm willing to learn.

JB

schwammerl

special interests can't get what they want through public discourse so they shop their agenda to activist judges.

Another liberty lost. This isn't about ORV access. This is about liberty and the foundation of our government. This type of thing is happening all over the country.

God bless the good people of Hatteras Island. May they stand strong in this fight.

__________________
2005 Carolina Skiff 2180DLX / Yamaha F115

schwammerl

I own two Toyotas and was planning on buying a Tundra this year. They will never see one penny from my household again.

__________________
2005 Carolina Skiff 2180DLX / Yamaha F115

billf

they are taking our beaches away and we are paying for it (• The environmental groups are entitled to “reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs” to be paid by the federal defendants) our taxes at work

Goosedog

Do you think this Judge is an activist judge that this group would target?

__________________
"You have to, everyone is."
"That's why I don't want to."

BaitWaster

Hizzoner had a case of careless and recless on the beach and went on a long rant about birds & turtles & ORV not being legal since NPS didn't have a formal ORV plan. Oh, BTW, fine is $100.

Never mind
1)a plan with public input was developed in the 70's by the NPS after an Executive Order was issued and Congress never acted on it AND

2) an interim plan is in place as was successful in terms of plovers fledged and turtles nesting and essentially no grubling about the closures as they were situation and for cause. No skimmers or gull-billed tern on the Seashore but they were crowded and making bunches of little one several spoil islands (these don't count for some MF reason AND

3) the interim plan in place is consitstent with the Piping Plover Recovery Strategy and USF&W said it would have no significant impact AND

4) no birds or turtles have been killed by ORV in years except an oystercatcher run over by an ATV on turtle nest patrol AND

5) a negotiated rulemaking committee was in place (including 3 mofo plaintiffs Audubon, DOW, SELC) to develop a plan in open, public meetings.

And Audubon et al filed suit in Boyle's district after case. Cooincidence. I think not.

And when the plaintiffs and the NPS went off to try to work things out, Hizzoner has a long check list of what should be considered.

Hope a couple of brief intense storms & the preditors rub out the birds. Sorry birds, but this isn't about you. This is from a dude who surf fishing with a Peterson's in the 4X4.

I suspect Cape Lookout will be next. Then larger closures on Masonboro, Shackleford, Lea-Hutaff and the list goes on. Those of you who like to raft up on the soundside of Shackleford in the summer be very, very vigilent.

Audubon is getting out of control.

__________________
Life is like a jar of jalapeños. What you do today, might burn your arse tomorrow

junior34

Cape Lookout has an active and up-to-date ORV plan and so does Shack. On Shack no ORVs are allowed. I do understand this also involves on foot acitivities, if so WATCH OUT!!! If Toyota supports these ecowhackos, then we need to boycott Toyota!!

JB2C

Won't be any Toyotas in my future. Giving $20M to help hurt a local economy, especially during this economic downturn, is not what I would call 'excellent'.

JB

Overcurrent

If one can believe all of the posters in Toyota's blogs, they've lost close to that $20M in sales. Add me to the NO TOYOTAS list.

I usually go to Ocracoke for the July 4th holiday. IIRC I've seen maybe ONE turtle nest between Ramp 72 and the south point. I'll agree wholeheartedly that the nests should be afforded the REASONABLE protection they've had in the past, BUT to close the beach to night driving is ridiculous.

Maybe now NPS will get on the stick about an ORV plan.

Rough Rider

My understanding of the ruling is that the ecos will have unfettered access to the beach (how wonderful) to monitor the location of the birdies as they move about. The boundary lines will then be moved accordingly. Soooo in the morning you might be good but later in the day you might be off-limits. These people will make the environment so confrontational and cumbersome that it will drive a great many fishermen and pedestrians away. This of course will have an ultimate negative impact on the economy. These people incurred legal expenses, trial expenses, etc. that were already paid for and financed by the likes of Toyota....theeeen get a F$&^@% award for attorney fees. Add to this the cost incurred by both government agencies for legal fees, trial prep, etc., and then add the economic impact to the region and you have a well crafted and well funded organization that is being successful in tying up public lands that they will have primary, and possibly, sole access to. All done with other peoples money. UNREAL.

__________________
"....that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants."

Hydro

Judge Boyle certainly is an "activist judge", but most definitely not the type that you are probably thinking he is.

__________________
Proud member of Professor Eyeball, Esq., MD, MBA's ignore list since 2008.

sharkie1211

Believe it or not guys, Audubon was very instrumental in eliminating the U.S. Commercial Large coastal shark fishery from Maine to Texas too!!!
I'm sure there are some of you who see this as a good thing though...

__________________
"Fishing isn't a matter of life or death, it's more important than that!"

HillbillyTrader

What are you, a bunch of conspiracy theorists? Toyota gives 20mil to one of the oldest and most respectable conservation groups in the world and you all think Toyota is trying to shut down the OBs? Even the idea that the Auduban Society wants to shutdown the OBs is absurd.
"activist judge" = any judge that doesn'trule in favor of right wing fundamentalists and corporate interests on any issue.

__________________
2002 Sea Hunt 212 Yamaha 200 HPDI

Southern Fried

Well not taking up for Toyota !! Might the person making those desicion just be uneducated to the issues and repercutions @ hand. I'm sure there do the right thing, and give parks and recreation $20M or $30M. Just to keep it even. Get a couple of outboard mfg, boat builders, reel, and companies to fight against and help on the funding.

just another pot hole the road for NC