OBX Connection Home > OBX Connection Forum > Pre nesting closure on the sound side ?
Pre nesting closure on the sound side ?

Pre nesting closure on the sound side ?




So much for changes. I wasn't real excited when that cobbled up bill passed and apparently neither was the NPS.

In your replies (if any) please define unusual terms like 'Jackwagon'. And disclaimer here, I LOVE my $1000 custom made Covert Cloth suit from Neiman-Marcus.


OBX Connection Sponsored Links




RE: Pre nesting closure on the sound side ?




I'll bet you are right pretty in that fancy suit as well! The oft arbitrary and subjective pre nesting closures were not specifically addressed in the new legislation. The test will come in access provisions and buffer sizes. I happen to believe NPS is paying attention. Time will tell who has the best source of info! I'll bet those patten leather sneaks look great with that suit!


RE: Pre nesting closure on the sound side ?




I'll bet you are right pretty in that fancy suit as well! The oft arbitrary and subjective pre nesting closures were not specifically addressed in the new legislation. The test will come in access provisions and buffer sizes. I happen to believe NPS is paying attention. Time will tell who has the best source of info! I'll bet those patten leather sneaks look great with that suit!


Couldn't agree more. I will be happy with the smaller buffers, easing of night restrictions, and a path to the point.

Love the Jackwagon reference! Beer


RE: Pre nesting closure on the sound side ?




The oft arbitrary and subjective pre nesting closures were not specifically addressed in the new legislation. The test will come in access provisions and buffer sizes. I happen to believe NPS is paying attention. Time will tell who has the best source of info!


Just curious, are all closures arbitrary and subjective? Are some resource closures not arbitrary or subjective? You might think I am fishing here but I am not. I intend to make my input known because it will be a public process, not exclusive to just ORV users. If some closures are less of a problem it would be good to know why, maybe find some mutual agreement.


RE: Pre nesting closure on the sound side ?




so we are all on the same page... Angel smiley

www.urbandictionary.com/d...


RE: Pre nesting closure on the sound side ?




When a closure is put in place because a bird has previously nested there, but not specially been seen in conjunction with today's closure I call it subjective.
Because something has previously nested in a specific area will they return? Should that area be closed in anticipation of a possible nest? If a specific pair of birds nested in one place one year does it mean that they will return or has that become an arbitrary decision to close the area?
If a bird nests within a few feet of a walkway or road is that an indication that they adjust to traffic or simply ignore it? We have birds doing both on HI and that is one of the reasons that common sense indicates 1000 meter buffers are not necessary - except to inconvenience, discourage or otherwise hamper homo sapiens.


RE: Pre nesting closure on the sound side ?




When a closure is put in place because a bird has previously nested there, but not specially been seen in conjunction with today's closure I call it subjective.
Because something has previously nested in a specific area will they return? Should that area be closed in anticipation of a possible nest? If a specific pair of birds nested in one place one year does it mean that they will return or has that become an arbitrary decision to close the area?
If a bird nests within a few feet of a walkway or road is that an indication that they adjust to traffic or simply ignore it? We have birds doing both on HI and that is one of the reasons that common sense indicates 1000 meter buffers are not necessary - except to inconvenience, discourage or otherwise hamper homo sapiens.


BSquid
So you assume that these birds don't have site fidelity or that researchers know this because many AMOYS and plovers have color coded bands that distinguish them from other AMOYS.  Are you saying all pre-nesting closures that have historically had AMOYs or plovers are subjective if the park closes them before birds are observed in the area even if the same birds have returned to the same area previously? I believe the NPS has examples of pre-nesting areas that were discontinued (Hatteras Inlet) when the habitat changed and birds didn't return. Unless you have specfic examples of areas that were closed for pre-nesting and birds did not use these areas then your assumption of being subjective is moot (for brevity sake arbitrarily means the same thing as subjective). How long do pre-nesting closures stay closed if no birds show up?  I thought the 1000 meter buffer was just for plover chicks? 
So I guess your suggestion is to do away with pre-nesting closures unless birds are actually seen nesting? That is something that will not happen, not trying to be in your face about it but I don't think the new legislation even has that up for debate. So I can see where you are inconvenienced but would disagree the closures are subjective.


RE: Pre nesting closure on the sound side ?




Is there any actual proof required? Do the biologists who log these pre nesting behaviors be it scrapes nests or mating document them with pictures or anything?
Since 2006 in looking over the submissions to NC eastern district as part of the consent decree I have never seen any photographic proof of the indicators of what is being used to close the areas.

I would think it would be good to know when where and what to look for for a laymen. beachgoer.


RE: Pre nesting closure on the sound side ?




Is there any actual proof required? Do the biologists who log these pre nesting behaviors be it scrapes nests or mating document them with pictures or anything?
Since 2006 in looking over the submissions to NC eastern district as part of the consent decree I have never seen any photographic proof of the indicators of what is being used to close the areas.

I would think it would be good to
know when where and what to look for for a laymen. beachgoer.


If you question the legitimacy of these closures you will be accused of being an orv ogre who cares about nothing except driving on the beach. I've interviewed those responsible for the pre nesting closures and you can believe that they are often subjective and arbitrary or choose not to do so.
It is similar to the ramp 23 closure. You can trust the decision as true or choose to trust and verify. When the verification is not independent of the agency effecting the closure I content it is subjective. Perhaps ride along by access advocates would dispell my doubts. Rumor has it only certain pro closure folks get that opportunity.
Another troubling fact is that we are closing beaches for non endangered species that are presently enjoying over 20 islands in our NC sounds that are totally closed from April or May until fall for said "birds of concern." Also, by the way, a somewhat subjective classification.


RE: Pre nesting closure on the sound side ?




"I've interviewed those responsible for the pre nesting closures and you can believe that they are often subjective and arbitrary or choose not to do so."
For me to come to that conclusion I would have to know the answers to the questions you asked along with where and when you asked them and the names of the NPS personnel they were directed to.

"It is similar to the ramp 23 closure. You can trust the decision as true or choose to trust and verify. When the verification is not independent of the agency effecting the closure I content it is subjective." 
The parks explanation.
Click to follow link...

"Perhaps ride along by access advocates would dispell my doubts. Rumor has it only certain pro closure folks get that opportunity."
If you ride along then somebody else needs to ride along to verify what you verified. Get it? I find rumors to be subjective and of little value.

"Another troubling fact is that we are closing beaches for non endangered species that are presently enjoying over 20 islands in our NC sounds that are totally closed from April or May until fall for said "birds of concern."
CHNS has a specific mission stated in the EL ("the preservation of the unique flora and fauna or the physiographic conditions now prevailing in this area.") to protect all the unique fauna of the Seashore weather they are listed or not. What difference is it where birds nest outside of the Park?
In addition to the EL of the Park and the ESL which manages endangered  and threatened species the MBTA also recognizes and manages all of the shorebirds in the Park regardless if the state recognizes the birds as birds of concern. Do you know the criteria that NC uses to establish birds of concern?
Do you think  non listed breeding shorebirds in CHNS should not protected? There is documented evidence of chicks being harassed and killed by ORVs on beaches.

Click to follow link...

Click to follow link...

Click to follow link...

" Also, by the way, a somewhat subjective classification."
There is nothing subjective about NC state's management of the islands in their jurisdiction (they are all posted and all entry is prohibited while birds are nesting and rearing their young)  and the management of wildlife in a National Park (Seashore) which is conducted with a very specific set of guidelines, spelled out in the ORV rule. It makes no sense for the Park  to not protect their birds because the NC does protect their nesting birds.


RE: Pre nesting closure on the sound side ?




We're not talking protection we're talking about setting aside public lands, deemed for recreational use by humans, as a preserve. According to your thought process the whole island should be turned into a preserve with no human use.
If you think for a minute I would tell you who I speak with at NPS, USFWS, DNER and expose them to the likes of those who would punish them for their honesty you must think you're dealing with one of your left wing wacko CH friends.
Quite a few conservation workers on and around Dare County do not agree with the excessive closures and extreme buffers. If one questions a number of the ten fulltime or ten part time NPS techs on the Island he will become aware of inconsistencies and contradictions. That is simply due diligence - and provides insight on the management program that you don't find in the script.
The new superintendent is very communicative and willing to work with locals. If he is allowed to employ his knowledge and complies with the law to enable more access and limit buffer sizes and duration he will provide both access and protection - in a reasonable fashion and as it should have been done all along. If Atlanta and DOI lean on him too hard under pressure from the likes of SELC it will result in more litigation.
Remember it is not about the birds.


RE: Pre nesting closure on the sound side ?




"We're not talking protection we're talking about setting aside public lands, deemed for recreational use by humans, as a preserve."
I don't see protecting nesting shorebirds as creating a preserve. Recreation comes in many forms some of which is the enjoyment and gratification of seeing specific habitat preserved in a way that encourages native species unique to remain in the park.

" According to your thought process the whole island should be turned into a preserve with no human use."
Know one I know, most of all me, believes that to be true or seeks that.

"If you think for a minute I would tell you who I speak with at NPS, USFWS, DNER and expose them to the likes of those who would punish them for their honesty you must think you're dealing with one of your left wing wacko CH friends."
Like you wouldn't do the same, even if you could verify that which you claim, which I have my doubts . Your the one who brought up "verifying".

"Quite a few conservation workers on and around Dare County do not agree with the excessive closures and extreme buffers. If one questions a number of the ten fulltime or ten part time NPS techs on the Island he will become aware of inconsistencies and contradictions. That is simply due diligence - and provides insight on the management program that you don't find in the script."
I don't  think you can site one documented example of that. I would expect different conservationist to have varying opinions on conservation regs. I want specifics if I am going to discuss it. As far as that goes there are things I would  change to make access more available. I don't agree with all the regs either.

"The new superintendent is very communicative and willing to work with locals. If he is allowed to employ his knowledge and complies with the law to enable more access and limit buffer sizes and duration he will provide both access and protection - in a reasonable fashion and as it should have been done all along."
Translation, as long as he does exactly what we want. Remember you (the ORV/fishing orgs) are not the only interests who get to communicate with Dave or have input on the potential changes.

"If Atlanta and DOI lean on him too hard under pressure from the likes of SELC it will result in more litigation."
Did the superintendent tell you that?

"Remember it is not about the birds."
True it has never been about birds, turtles or anything but ORV access for you all.



RE: Pre nesting closure on the sound side ?




You could save a lot of conversation if you simply said you are anti-orv. That explains a lot.
I have not had the pleasure of meeting Dave Hallac but have heard many nice things about him including from business folks who I chatted with on HI this week.
One must assume that if pressure to circumvent the new access laws results in violations of that law litigation will follow. Enviro extortionists are not the only ones with the ability to bring suit. They may not even be the only ones to be able to do so using taxpayer dollars.



RE: Pre nesting closure on the sound side ?




You could save a lot of conversation if you simply said you are anti-orv. That explains a lot.
I have not had the pleasure of meeting Dave Hallac but have heard many nice things about him including from business folks who I chatted with on HI this week.
One must assume that if pressure to circumvent the new access laws results in violations of that law litigation will follow. Enviro extortionists are not the only ones with the ability to bring suit. They may not even be the only ones to be able to do so using taxpayer dollars.


Why do you assume things that are not true? I am for managed ORV use. As a mater of fact Audubon, SELC and Defeners are also. There will probably be a suit because I doubt your going to get exactly what you want.


RE: Pre nesting closure on the sound side ?




I don't think anyone is disputing the notion that managed access is necessary. None of us want to see b@lls to wall vehicles flying down the beach or turning sand donuts. I do however think that both sides are still very far apart in what needs to be defined as "managed" access.


RE: Pre nesting closure on the sound side ?




I don't think anyone is disputing the notion that managed access is necessary. None of us want to see b@lls to wall vehicles flying down the beach or turning sand donuts. I do however think that both sides are still very far apart in what needs to be defined as "managed" access.


I agree with that. The big issue is not doing donuts in the sand but a disagreement on the interpretation of the Organic Act and what the EL for CHNS means, resource first recreation second or the other way around. For me looking at the conditions of this park when it was conceived and what is meant by primative wilderness has to be addressed. I believe there have to be concessions made by recreational users particularly ORV users that address this.


RE: Pre nesting closure on the sound side ?




True it has never been about birds, turtles or anything but ORV access for you all.


You mentioned "managed" access earlier, and I think this is where the fundamental difference exists.

The local and National Beach Access Community believes there is a better, reasonable calculus to balancing Public Lands access and preservation. We have been working, praying, opining, commenting and, in some cases, litigating for reasonable, fair and open access for citizens to our Public Lands at CHNSRA. At each turn, the Community feels ignored and set aside.

Simply disparaging those whose considered thoughts and personal experiences are different from yours gets none of us anywhere, but only furthers the divide between what is right, reasonable, science-based and fair.

As you stated, this is not about birds, turtles or anything [else]. I agree, and believe that any reasonable person would believe the same. It is about reasonable, Free and Open access to our Public Lands, and trusting the NPS and DOI to balance important historical and cultural rights with current realities.

I submit that the current Rule is not right, reasonable, science-based and fair, nor compliant. Not listening



RE: Pre nesting closure on the sound side ?




I have never seen an orv balls to the walls. The closures are are unscientific and arbitrary.
Get used to it because it is here.
We used to use nets but now it is verboten, enjoy your Asian talipa.
NPS= National Property Stealer’s. Check out it out when they stole Cape Lookout.


RE: Pre nesting closure on the sound side ?




I agree with you jack, on the science being less than compelling evidence.
It offends me that whenever any orv access minded ppl question any of the rules now in place we are painted as beach speeders or animal haters, which is clearly not so.


RE: Pre nesting closure on the sound side ?




So an agreement will not be made as to the fairness of resource management in this thread - but saying that SELC et co is for orv use in ANY fashion is completely dillusional!
I'm not sure (and don't care) if you have a spouse Sea Oat but if you do I would like to recommend he/she for sainthood.
I can't play with you any more - that statement about the benevolence of the SELC gang just indicates that you are too close to the edge. I hope you are feeling better soon.
Cheers,


RE: Pre nesting closure on the sound side ?




I agree with you jack.
It offends me that whenever any orv access minded ppl question any of the rules now in place we are painted as beach speeders or animal haters, which is clearly not so.

Judyk - my wife is a licensed rehabber and I have helped her with many sick, injured and orphaned animals over the years but, because we also like to fish and prefer driving to our favorite venues we are some kind of careless abusers to these self righteous enviro egos.
I fish with folks that likely know much more about the beach habitat than many so called or self proclaimed experts. The vast majority of sportsmen are very careful to take care of resources that they so enjoy. If any good has come from my concerns with fair access it is that I have shared the hypocracies of DOW and Audubon with many folks who were previously unaware of their very much for profit scams. If we can enlighten more people who donate money to these groups believing that they are helping animals we have done our part to help the low information contributors.


RE: Pre nesting closure on the sound side ?




So an agreement will not be made as to the fairness of resource management in this thread - but saying that SELC et co is for orv use in ANY fashion is completely dillusional!
I'm not sure (and don't care) if you have a spouse Sea Oat but if you do I would like to recommend he/she for sainthood.
I can't play with you any more - that statement about the benevolence of the SELC gang just indicates that you are too close to the edge. I hope you are feeling better soon.
Cheers,


What I said was they have never opposed managed ORV use in CHNS. Prove me otherwise.


RE: Pre nesting closure on the sound side ?




I agree with you jack.
It offends me that whenever any orv access minded ppl question any of the rules now in place we are painted as beach speeders or animal haters, which is clearly not so.

Judyk - my wife is a licensed rehabber and I have helped her with many sick, injured and orphaned animals over the years but, because we also like to fish and prefer driving to our favorite venues we are some kind of careless abusers to these self righteous enviro egos.
I fish with folks that likely know much more about the beach habitat than many so called or self proclaimed experts. The vast majority of sportsmen are very careful to take care of resources that they so enjoy. If any good has come from my concerns with fair access it is that I have shared the hypocracies of DOW and Audubon with many folks who were previously unaware of their very much for profit scams. If we can enlighten more people who donate money to these groups believing that they are helping animals we have done our part to help the low information contributors.



"painted as beach speeders or animal haters"
I have not done that as a matter of fact I don't see anyone on this board doing that other than the Ted Williams Beachbum article which some of the ORVers take great pains over (kind of funny really) there is little to support that.

"The vast majority of sportsmen are very careful to take care of resources that they so enjoy"
Other than trash pickups which has marginal bennifit to nesting shorebirds I would love some specfic examples of how sportsman take care of the resources (which resources) they enjoy?


RE: Pre nesting closure on the sound side ?




"managed" is an interesting term..... Is 1000 meters for an ORV and 300 meters for a pedestrian "managed"?


RE: Pre nesting closure on the sound side ?




"managed" is an interesting term..... Is 1000 meters for an ORV and 300 meters for a pedestrian "managed"?


Very good point.
There is a grand gulf between "management" and "leadership."

In my experience, Managers are more concerned with implementing doctrine, policies, procedures and limits. Leaders empower people to use judgment and discretion in the best interest of the intent of policies and procedures without doctrine.

I am hopeful that Mr. Hallac will act as a Leader. Prenesting and VFA/pedestrian closures in place, and the 1000M/300M closures under the Final Rule, are Management policies. A Leader will find a way to reasonably modify them in the best interest of the intent, not the words, of the Rule.


OBX Connection Sponsored Links