Turtles are nesting in record numbers – just don’t credit the new restrictions - Shooting The Breeze


Hi, and welcome to my "Editor's Blog"! In this space I'll be attempting to keep our readers informed on fast-breaking news and issues affecting our islands. Visit often. There's a lot going on!

Enjoy the Island Free Press and, even more importantly, enjoy our wonderful barrier island!!!




Latest Comments

Devildog (Protecting N.C. H…): Steve, Devildog, it is not a philosophy, but proven facts that Mr. Scott speaks of.. Negative. Dr…
John G (Year In Review – …): 100th Anniversary of the Mirlo Rescue.
Steve (Protecting N.C. H…): Devildog, it is not a philosophy, but proven facts that Mr. Scott speaks of..
Devildog (Protecting N.C. H…): Steve, I respectfully take issue with this statement: Overwash may be an inconvenience, but it is …
Steve (Protecting N.C. H…): Well said Michael Scott! More people need to realize that dune lines have been strangulating Hatteras…
Salvo Jimmy (Protecting N.C. H…): Michael Scott, Good analysis and I pretty much agree. Especially the dunes. Seemingly a long t…


Powered by PivotX - 2.3.11 
XML: RSS Feed 
XML: Atom Feed 

No quick resolution o… | Home | The Derb and Terry Sh…

Turtles are nesting in record numbers – just don’t credit the new restrictions

Thursday 19 July 2012 at 4:34 pm.

The public relations machines at the Southern Environmental Law Center, the National Audubon Society, and Defenders of Wildlife are probably ramping up even as you read this to declare another victory over off-road vehicles at the Cape Hatteras National Seashore.

The environmental groups sued the National Park Service in 2007 over its lack of protections for nesting birds and turtles, and that legal action ended in a consent decree in federal court that resulted in larger-than-ever closures of seashore beaches to the public.

The consent decree was to be in place until the Park Service instituted an ORV plan and special regulation, which it did Feb. 15.

The consent decree may or may not have ended then, but U.S. District Court Judge Terrence Boyle doesn’t seem in any hurry to let go of the case.

There will be another status hearing in his court on Friday, July 27, about the judge’s continuing oversight of seashore management.

And no doubt Derb Carter or one of his colleagues will be on hand in the courtroom to talk about how successful bird and turtle nesting has been since the environmental groups took over seashore management.

It has happened at the end of every nesting season since the consent decree was put in place in 2008.  It happens each time the Park Service issues its annual resource management reports.  It happens every time the environmental groups appear in Boyle’s court, and it has even happened in testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate as bills move forward that would overturn the Park Service’s final rule.

We are all happy to hear that sea turtle nesting reached a record number of nests at Cape Hatteras this summer – and that the piping plover chicks are doing well also.

But it is total nonsense, outrageous, and maybe just plain old dishonest to say this success has come because some environmentalists sued the Park Service and got the upper hand in seashore management.

It’s just not true, though you can expect to see the usual media releases and pleas for donations from Audubon and Defenders to save baby birds and turtles.

Park Service officials have been careful to say whenever they talk about increased nesting success that it is too early to tell if the new, more restrictive public access policies are having an effect.

Certainly, on these barrier islands, weather plays an important role in the nesting success of birds and turtles, and after a series of storms in the past decade, the nesting season weather has been much more hospitable to the wildlife.

Predation also plays a big part in nesting success, and the employment of a full-time trapper to kill such animals as foxes, minks, raccoons, possums, otters, feral cats and others that would dine on baby birds and turtles has surely contributed to nesting success.

And, finally, there are just the trends of good years and bad years for the island’s wildlife.

This has been a good year.

A record number of sea turtles have lumbered onto the seashore beaches, beginning earlier than ever.

Thus far, there are 180 nests in the seashore compared to the previous record of 153 in 2010 and 147 last year.

However, is this because of the consent decree and the final ORV rule, both of which have prohibited driving on the beach at night?

The truth is that we just don’t know.

Sea-turtle nesting records are being set all along the southeast coast, and it just takes a few minutes searching online to find article after article about record nesting in South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida.

Cape Lookout National Seashore, just to our south, is also having a record year with 173 nests so far compared to 157 in 2010 and 2011.

South Carolina has recorded 3,679 nests so far, compared to 3,150 for all of 2010 and 4,024 for 2011.

Georgia beaches and parts of Florida are also looking at record years for nesting.

At this point, most biologists have been hesitant to say why nesting started so early on the southeast coast and why the number of nests is so high.

Matthew Godfrey, sea turtle biologist for the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, wasn’t ready today to say what he thinks.

Sea turtles live a long time, he said, and “with these long-lived species, you need long-term data.

North Carolina, he said, has only been collecting data for 10 or 15 years.

“I wish I knew why,” he said, “because it would make things much easier for management.”

Some say that protections that have been put in place are working.  Some say it was the warm weather through the winter and early spring. Others just won’t speculate.

But you can be sure of one thing – the consent decree and final ORV rule have not been the reason for this impressive turtle nesting season.

But SELC, Defenders, and Audubon will claim the victory anyway.

Piping plover nesting success has also been good this year, but is it due to the huge 1,000-meter closures on the beach for chicks?

Maybe. But, just as likely, probably not.

So far this season, 11 piping plover chicks have fledged, and there is one active nest and one active brood on the beach, according to seashore biologist Britta Muiznieks. The brood has one remaining chick, and the nest has two eggs.

The only chicks to have fledged in the seashore this year have been at Cape Point.

In 2010, 15 chicks fledged, and in 2011, the number was 10.

It is true that fewer chicks fledged a decade ago, but that was before the Park Service was monitoring chicks intensely during daylight hours.

Since the 2007 Interim Protected Species Management Plan – which actually was the policy the park was operating under in 2006 – there has been intensive monitoring by park biotechnicians.

Who can say for sure that there were not more fledged chicks than were reported a decade or two ago because no park employee was out during every daylight hour looking for them?

The number of breeding pairs in the seashore was 15 this year, the same as last year.  And, again, more monitoring may mean more awareness of the birds.

American oystercatchers, on the other hand, have had a lackluster nesting season.  Thus far, 12 chicks have fledged and there are still four active broods.

Last year, 28 chicks fledged, and in 2010, the number was 30. That is out of reach for 2012.

I’ll bet Defenders and Audubon won’t blame the consent decree for the fewer fledged oystercatchers this year.


For more information on sea turtle nesting on the southeast coast, go to http://www.seaturtle.org/nestdb/.

For the Cape Hatteras National Seashore’s weekly and annual resource management reports, click on the Archives at the bottom of the Front Page.  You can check them out by year under Beach Access and Park Issues.


Al Adam

Dog Derb will be on hand so he can assure another paycheck is generated from his enviro extortion scam —- I don’t believe he cares any more about turtles then he does ethics. The good judge and him will then go lunch at the country club and chuckle about the islanders who are losing their livlihood.

Al Adam - 19-07-’12 17:49
Cap'n Obvious

Non-profit lawyers do not get paid for followup work post-judgment. Not do they get paid for intervening in litigation. So, unlike private lawyers, old Derb won’t make a cent from that court appearance or for the likely hundreds of hours he and the other enviro lawyers will spend defending the final ORV rule. That’s how it works. So, suspend your cynicism for one minute and try entertaining the possibility that people who do this work do it because they believe in it. You’ll be a lot closer to the truth. If you think environmental lawyers get rich working for non-profits, I’ve got a long bridge to sell you.

And Irene, good luck untying yourself from all the contortions it takes you to argue that changes in seashore management contribute not one bit to improved nesting success. Cite all the extenuating factors you want but we’ve had quite a few years of improvements now and someday even you wi have to concede a trend when you see one.

Cap'n Obvious - 19-07-’12 23:03

Cap’n O,

Environmental suits against government agencies are sponsored by the taxpayer — all expenses. This is thanks to some legislation passed in the early 90’s, no doubt in the name of the environment. It became law because it was voted so by a group of folks we elected to represent us. Unfortunately a very large percentage of them are lawyers —- and they are there to line the pockets of their fellows (and because they weren’t very good lawyers. They take their cases before former fraternity brothers and sorority sisters. In a semi-civilized, but brutally corrupt, system you would think we would have judges who were schooled to be judges —- while in reality we frequently haved failed lawyers or clueless political appointees sitting in judgement — as in this aprticular case. There are attorneys on the enviro side of this situation who have written the book on exploiting (extorting) taxpayer dollars via enviro suits. The income incentive explains why most of these ecos press their issues far beyond any degree of reason or logic. They just want to “keep ‘er going.” If you think the likes of old DD are involved out of committment to a bird, a turtle, a beach or a flower or the kindness of his heart (should he have one) —- you are indeed the one ready to buy the bridge.

Al - 20-07-’12 05:58
Denny in Dayton

Captain it’s Obvious you don’t know what you are talking about. AL is spot on. The law they are abusing is Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA)

Rep. Doc Hastings head of the Congressional natural resources committee recently asked the DOI for an accounting of how much they pay out, they have no idea. Part of the problem with this cottage industry is environmentalists within the government agencies who favor what these suits often ask for roll over and don’t fight on behalf of the greater public. Some claim it’s billions a year, others say that’s exaggerated, but it doesn’t include the costs the regulations inflict on the public. I heard they got paid six figures for the Consent work.

Good read here:


I wonder since they seem to take credit for everything that happens on the island will they take credit for the murder? Perhaps all the closures stressed them out and he snapped. It’s about as plausible a linkage as some they use.

Denny in Dayton - 20-07-’12 08:20
obx fisherman

the peaple of costa rica would love to eat those turtle eggs and mexico the turtles.but lets just keep importing shrimp and tuna from those countries while we put our own peaple out of work.

obx fisherman - 20-07-’12 08:41
Cap'n Obvious is Right

Well, it seems a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Yes, there is an EAJA that pays funds to victors in environmental cases, but Cap’n Obvious is spot on in his/her statement.

The Equal Access to Justice Act allows plaintiffs to recover fees in a wide variety of cases – not just environmental, but health, safety, and civil rights cases as well. One need not be on the side of the angels to recover fees, either. Fees are recoverable by any plaintiff, who actually wins the case. In fact, studies show that at least half of fees in environmental cases are paid out, not to environmental group plaintiffs, but to industry plaintiffs.

That is how CHAPA’s attorneys got paid during the first suit against the FWS critical habitat designation. The government paid Holland & Knight $155,000 for winning. That is how CHAPA’s new lawyers at Van Ness Feldman, will get paid, at least in part, if they somehow win their new lawsuit against NPS over the final rule. I assume you will not object if that occurs?

But private lawyers who work for clients get paid no matter what happens in a case because, unless they are on a purely contingent fee arrangement, they bill by the hour and the client is on the hook for the bill above and beyond what cannot be recovered. When the government reissued the critical habitat rule and CHAPA sued a second time, they lost, and the government paid nothing. CHAPA still had to pay Holland & Knight for their time—and it was a lot of $$. Enviros intervened in that case, and technically won the day, but because they were not the plaintiff they received nothing from the government. And since they have no clients to bill, the costs are simply written off. Try running a business that way. Maybe that’s why they are “non-profit”!

If you intervene in a case you are not entitled to fees from the government, regardless of whether you win or lose. Hence, again, the environmental groups who have now intervened in CHAPA’s latest lawsuit will not get a dime from the government regardless of what happens, even though they will spend hundreds of hours working to defend the ORV rule. EAJA pays the winner, but it pays the winner who FILED the suit. Interveners and amicus curiae are not eligible for fees. That’s the law. I don’t make it up.

Every lawyer I know who does environmental work on the non-profit side could make 2-10 times more in private practice. Why is that? It’s because most environmental lawyers who work for non-profits are paid a salary. SELC pays a salary. DOW pays a salary. CBD pays a salary. And it ain’t as much as you might think. It doesn’t matter how many cases the lawyers do or how many fees they bring in, their salary is the same. And for most it is not a heck of a lot. The average attorney salary in the environmental non-profits is $82,000. Compare that with the profits per partner at say, Holland & Knight, which were $695,000 in 2009.

Here is a news story that is pretty accurate about how environmental lawyers are paid. It’s not what you think. It is as I describe. http://www.statesman.com/news/texas-poli..

So to recap – Nonprofit lawyers don’t make a dime if they lose the case, nor if they intervene in a case on the side of the government, nor if they file an amicus brief in a case. Not one dime. They are only entitled to fees (and then in limited amounts, far less than they could bill) if they win a case they actually filed. To the extent they win fees, the funds go to the organization, not the lawyer. If the case is appealed they have to win that one too to retain fees. And if proceedings go on past judgment, as in the Boyle case, where fees have already been paid out, none of that time and expense is compensable.

So, Cap’n Obvious is right. Every hearing Judge Boyle has held since the consent decree was ratified has been on the lawyers’ dime. Don’t believe me yet? Then check the court records.

And, don’t forget, anytime a plaintiff wins a case under the Equal Access to Justice Act, be they the Defenders of Fur Bearers or Exxon/Mobil, that means that a federal judge has found that the government has in fact broken the law. You may not always agree with the decision but that’s what a court has found. Presumably if CHAPA wins the lawsuit you will have no issue either with the decision or with the fees Van Ness will receive.

That is why Congress created citizen suits in environmental and other health, safety and welfare laws, and it is why they allow these “private attorneys general” to be compensated. If the government consistently followed the law there would be no compensation payable to anyone.

People do environmental work because they believe in it, not for the money. And let me assure you that if the government stops paying compensation the suits will continue so long as there are wrongs to be righted. They will do it pro bono. You may end up with a bunch of trust fund lawyers out of Harvard and Yale, but believe me, they will still do the work.

What actually motivates such attorneys is a profound desire to leave the world undiminished for their own children rather than any desire for profit. Can Doc Hastings cite a few egregious payouts? Perhaps, but if you actually look at all the testimony in that hearing it will confirm what I have said here. Most fees don’t go to environmental groups.

As the comments here daily attest, others have clearly reached different conclusions about what is worth fighting for in this life. That’s America for you. All I’m saying is, if you disagree with the environmental groups’ philosophy that’s your right. But if you think you know what motivates them and how they make a living, you’re mistaken. The facts are quite different, if you care about such things.

You may not agree with everything environmental groups do, but our air and water is cleaner because of environmental lawyers who fought those battles in the 70s and 80s. We have more forests than we otherwise would. We have more wetlands and more fish and wildlife than we otherwise would. We have public lands we would have — in short we have a better quality of life. None of those folks are rich. And you have all benefited from their work.

Cap'n Obvious is Right - 20-07-’12 09:51
Hawk Hawkins

Damnn!Now I feel real bad for Derb!I had no idea he was so altruistic and impoverished.He certainly does look malnourished.

Hawk Hawkins - 20-07-’12 11:35

Why does it not surprise me that those defending the enviro extremists think they are the only people who care about the environment. They have this holier than thou, elitest attitude —- sort of like the guy we presently have in the White House. Sportsman are more connected with the environment than most —- but, for the most part, also have balance in their lives and include a humanistic approach. These Al Gorists are not our friends and not in touch with reality.

Al - 20-07-’12 13:12

Exactly! Do not credit new restrictions.

How assine to think that there may be any positive results from the restrictions based on years of research by environmentalists and the NPS.

Everyone knows that the off road vehicle scientists realize the positive increase to due to environmental groups paying off nesting endangered/threatened birds and sea turtles.

anon - 20-07-’12 17:20
The Demon

Is it Cap’n Obvious or is it “Cap’n Obnoxious”

The Demon - 20-07-’12 17:23

These “environmentalists” are the same crowd that will protect bambi to the point that in the area where I live are accountable for runaway lyme disease and have no issue with killing hundreds of what they deem to be lesser or preditor species in the name of what they consider their “chosen species.” Much the same socialtal attitude that subsidizes our underprivledged to the point that they can no longer can exist on their own. The same folks who believe it is ok to poison crows, along with whatever may dine on the poisoned carcasses for the sake of something that they are trying to save at the extreme ranges of their breeding territory —- it is these environmental extremists who are not in touch with reality. In the 50 -100 days average that I spend on the beach I do not see sportsmen doing anything to damage the environment that they appreciate much more than those who pretend to save our earth. The same hypocrites, like Al Gore, who have carbon footprints the size of ten normal people, can expouse their drivel to the weak minded sheeple who just want someone to tell them how to behave because their parents didn’t do the proper job in teaching them respect for nature AND FELLOW MAN. No, I have no time for these Dog Derb characters who have a clear conscience in making their neighbors suffer while profiting from an enviroscam with no good science behind it. My wife rescues raptors and song birds —- and I help her. Who the hell are these off road scientists? Another crock of someones imagination. The real “off road scientists” have been driving the beaches and enjoying the natural habitat of Hatteras while the enviro geniuses were studying what some left wing wacko was feeding them in the classroom. I know who the real environmentalists are —- and they are not the likes of Dog Derb. The proof is in the rangers flying around the beaches to harass somebody who walked on the dry sand so they can enjoy some surf fishing, instead of “not leaving a footprint”. Common sense is indeed no longer common and the likes of do gooder, know nothings who are simply exploiting their fellow man to line their own pockets are the true scourge. Those who capitalize at the expense of their neighbor are the problem! Perhaps they would enjoy spending a night in a leg hold trap —- like the fox, raccoon, or otter that they feel are “unworthy”.

Al - 20-07-’12 18:38

one big storm and a lot of those nests will be gone

bbc - 20-07-’12 21:16
Salvo Jimmy

A sort of related analogy with facts.

Anti gun folks rant about how the NRA contributes millions to political campaigns and how it has a huge influence on gun legislation.

From 2000 – 2012 (to date) NRA has contributed about $310M to politicians, most to Republicans.

During that same period trial lawyers contributed about $1.6B, yes B, most to Democrates. During the 2008 and 2010 election cycles about 77% of their contributions went to Democrates.

Source for above: NRA magazine article this month.

I report, you decide.

Salvo Jimmy - 21-07-’12 05:55
Denny in Dayton

Well to the two Captn’s (may I call you Derb?) the 2010 990 submitted to the IRS shows some interesting things. First this little “non-profit” had an income of over 16.1 mil (up 4 mil) and expenses of 10.8 mil for a tidy 5.4 mil “non-profit profit”.

What’s interesting is the statement of revenue, it shows a gov grant of over 306k then 15.572 mil lumped into “all other contributions, gifts, grants and similar NOT listed above”, the above would be “federated campaigns,membership dues, fundraising events, and related organizations” all which were 0. The only other amount were contracted services for 116k and investment earning for 541k. Yes what a struggling little non profit they have.

Does CHAPA get paid when they win? Sure, they are the ones defending. They aren’t the aggressors in these matters. If the environmentalists weren’t pushing CHAPA probably wouldn’t even exist. And yes the 70’s and 80’s environmental movement was a good thing, but now it’s going too far, groups like SELC have to keep suing to keep that balance sheet strong, and the government keeps paying millions or billions in these cases, the total cost is huge.

A good example of how far this is going is the new EPA standards being rammed through. 3 Congresses refused to pass those rules (2 Rep, 1 Dem), but the environmental crowd is going to do it anyway because of their ideology, to hell with what the greater population thinks.

Denny in Dayton - 21-07-’12 09:52

Yes, record numbers for the entire east coast. Sadly, the nest/survival at Cape Hatteras will be lower because nest that close beaches are not moved here. The black run ways also fill with water and sand that does not help matters.

James - 21-07-’12 17:33
Steve C. Sink

Mr. Capt’n Obvious——-My name is Steve C. Sink from Linwood N.C. , raised on a farm, taught school for 35 years, indoctrinated at an early age to be a good steward for all domestic and wild animals, and to harvest fish and game with a sense of good judgment and balance.
My question to you, which requires no answer, because none is available, is this.
Suppose that I were to walk into the SELC complex, assemble all the lawyers, secretaries, researchers, CEO’s, and go-phers, and seat all of them in a large assembly hall, and present to each of them a test with 100 pictures of the most common wild birds, fish, reptiles, and mammals indigenous to the Carolina’s, how many could identify, by name, even 10% of the pictures presented to them?——-It’s all about which groups have the most money to hire the lawyers.
Steve C. Sink.

Steve C. Sink - 22-07-’12 02:09

how long until a turtle is mature enough to lay eggs? wouldn’t one have to look back to see if there was a record number of turtles that year too?

how has the mild winter of 2011/2012 affected the population in the southeast? (water temps, lack of big storms, etc)

question - 22-07-’12 07:36


Assuming the one Plover Chick left fledges, we have 12 fledged for 15 pair or a fledge rate of 0.8. This is below the 0.87 for the Interim Plan period of 2005-2007.

Oystercatchers, the fledge rates for 2010 and 2011 were unusally high and I stated in the cost benefit analysis was

“Since we do not know if the fledge rates observed during the past two years is sustainable, the most that can be said
is that the fledge rate has shown modest improvement over the past 12 years.”

This statement was based upon Consent Decree fledge rates of 0.71, 0.48, 1.3, and 1.2. Preliminary data seems to place this year’s fledge rate around the 2008 obervation of 0.71—that assumes 15 fledge out of 20. If the population is higher than 20 or if the fledge chicks include green island the fledge rate will be lower. In fact, it may very well fall right around the median value of around 0.6. Furthermore, a total of 20 or less means a stagnant or falling population.

So again where is the success.

As for turtles—consider it takes a turtle 30 years to reach sexual maturity—yeah 4 years of management change has resulted in more nests. Turtles must be reaching sexual maturity in record time.

Ginny - 22-07-’12 09:39

The credibility of this blog has reached an all-time low. While it is true that weather plays a part in the number of turtle and bird hatchings, that does not mean that beach access restrictions haven’t all played a role.
This is merely a one sided blag where people who agree on the same subject just keep talking to each other. It is a totally biased blog and should be presented as thatt way. Even the advertisements on top of this blog are vehement pro beach access organizations. There’s a place for opinionated, gonzo journalism—this is one of them. I’ll take every opinion here with a grain of salt, just like I do the same with the beach control advocates’ views.

surfrider - 22-07-’12 11:47
Hawk Hawkins

Surfrider,thank you for your thoughtful,lofty insight.

Hawk Hawkins - 22-07-’12 13:41
Steve C. Sink

MR. SURFRIDER——-Everything plays a role in the outcome of a situation——-The unanswerable question is——just how much does any one of the complex factors contribute, percentage-wise?
I will have to say that I respect your bipartisan quote—-“just like I do the same with the beach control advocates”.
I think that those of us, like myself, who have fished the Outer Banks since the early ’60’s, feel that the restrictions have had so small an impact,if any, that their enforcement, and all of the negative effects that have been embellished by same, is self-defeating.


Steve C. Sink - 22-07-’12 14:56
Salvo Jimmy

I saw this somewhere but can’t remember the author. It went something like this.

Today we are replacing a lot of what worked with what feels good.

Salvo Jimmy - 23-07-’12 08:10
Hawk Hawkins

Salvo,dam if this “feels good” to me!

Hawk Hawkins - 23-07-’12 11:20

Many of these issues coincide with more than just the lack of what used to be “common sense”. Many folks have lost their ability to reason.
The perfect example in today’s headlines is the hub bub over Romney’s tax returns. Damned near every president has used the IRS as a tool to harass their oponents. Probably doesn’t occurr to the MSM medai we now have a president who was schooled in Chicago politics. Does anyone think that if Romney had IRS issues they would still be buried?
If we run over birds and turtles there is an exceptionla chance that they will perish. If we drive on the beach does it maen that we run over those critters. Too amny assumptions based upon bad and “convienient” science.

Al - 23-07-’12 12:08
Salvo Jimmy

And that “convenient” science can also be labeled as “feel good” science.

Salvo Jimmy - 24-07-’12 08:10

Next thing these folks will do is sue to remove headlights from cars as they cause illegal take of endangered moths… Sad part they will win that one too because the government is too incompetent to defend itself.

samsdad1 - 24-07-’12 11:51
Anon E Mouse

I have to laugh about the ridiculousness of this discussion. Not to be a snark, but the wailing, whining and teeth-gnashing does not matter, when a couple of Cat 5s come rambling up the Atlantic coast and wipe out huge chunks of OBX into the ocean, sort of like we have seen with many portions of grasslands and bayous of Louisiana over the past 30-40 years.

So…tell me why exactly you guys are spending time whining about nesting sites, when maybe a frank talk about whether or not OBX gets written off and you can’t come back after that Cat5 is what you REALLY need to talk about. (and I would ask that same question too if you are Miami Beach, Key West, Long Beach Island, hilton Head, Fire Island, blah blah blah).

Anon E Mouse - 24-07-’12 22:33

and California is going to drop in the ocean so dont go there either…

We want to spend time in a natural place and show our kids what relaxation is…

samsdad1 - 25-07-’12 06:45
Salvo Jimmy


Per NHC site below:


Since mid 1800s only 3 storms have made landfall on the lower 48 states as a CAT 5.

1935 Florida Keys
1969 Camille Mississippi
1992 Andrew Miami area.

During that same time the Banks have survived a number of CT 4 and lesser storms.

Could we get hit by a CAT 5, sure. But I worry more about the idiot shooting off illegal fireworks that will more likely destroy my 41 yr old house in Salvo by fire than a CAT 5.

BTW in the 41 yrs my place has had no major damage from storms. Worst was from Irene sound flooding getting to some utilities under the house.

Bottom line. Key West, Miami, and Miss seem to still be there. I think we will be too, IF, BIG IF, it ever happens.

Salvo Jimmy - 25-07-’12 07:28
Capt. Reality

Weak sauce when the best you have is enviro lawyers doing it for the money or the sarcastic comments like the enviros will want headlights removed.
I don’t know why I even give any of this a second thought because it won’t take a couple of cat 5s to devistate HI one big cat 3 at the right angle and speed will do the trick. It not if, it is  when.
No one is going to build any new bridges to HI and after the smoke clears from the storms the turtles and birds will be right back.
Go take a good google satellite look at Hi and OI.

Capt. Reality

Capt. Reality - 25-07-’12 07:37
Hawk Hawkins

Dear Mouse and Cpt.Non Reality,we try to focus on the things we might be able to change and the reasoning behind those who want take away our freedom and human rights.When the smoke clears…we’ll be here,too.But I bet you won’t be.

Hawk Hawkins - 25-07-’12 08:16

So Capt… why protect birds from us enjoying the few minutes we have left on this wonderful place before your storms destroy it… how about that for compromise?

samsdad1 - 25-07-’12 09:13
Dave Vachet

What is it with these folks that keep claiming a barrier island is going to dissolve from the affects of a Hurricane?

All the coastal geologists I’ve read say storms and overwash build barrier islands up as they move landward.

So, speaking of weak sauce, which is it Mouse and Capt. Obvious? Storms and Hurricanes dissolve barrier islands? Or do they build them back up?

Dave Vachet - 25-07-’12 09:59

In one breath the originator of this blog offers her evidence that no one knows just why the increase in nesting sea turtles this year and in the next breath claims that it is not due in any part to the new restrictions. Now who is trying to be the junk scientist?

Anon - 25-07-’12 10:57

Hatteras Island Villages were established long before United States of America was created.

Steve - 25-07-’12 12:03

Its not “junk science” its called common sense. The turtle nesting has increased all over the SE Atlantic coast. So common sense says the increase at CHNSRA is probably not due to any new restrictions. Looking at these numbers with a narrow view of only CHNSRA is not using common sense.

anon - 25-07-’12 12:47

I would like to see the study that shows the economic effect on the island.

So the turtles are happy and nesting.. Yipee.. Americans are now losing their jobs, companies are going out of business and the Hatters Island economy is crashing.

Glad to hear the Turtles are doing well..

Jeepers - 25-07-’12 21:38

With or with out the new plan, plovers and turtle nest numbers go up and down. Some years will be better than others when living on the borders of their natural breeding grounds. Watch Derb though, he seems to be nice and loves the blind judge dearly. They will be laughing hand and hand in just a few hours….$$$$$$$ rule their lives!

James - 25-07-’12 23:07
Steve C, Sink

Let me say that I try and respect the opinions of everyone on this site. But I would like to share with all of you, FROM FIRST HAND EXPERIENCE, the effect that money has on the decisions that are made in favor of the powerful environmental groups such as AUDUBON, DOW, etc., with the support of the SELC (Southern Environmental Law Center).
Now I have been a devout Red Drum fisherman for 35 years or so, and, also a member of a very small local bird club of a dozen or less members, that is in no way associated with AUDUBON, or any other wildlife group.
However I probably know from personal experience, far more about the shenanigans that go on with AUDUBON, and DOW than the average person.
Four years ago, the powerful Toyota Enterprise supported our local state authorities in the use of scare tactics to try and forcefully move my family, and two other families off of our adjacent farms that had been in our families for over 100 years, so that they could build an automobile complex on 900 acres in Linwood N.C. beside of I-85, and they damn near succeeded. The Japan executives were crawling all over this area, and so many illegal stunts were pulled that I won’t bother to go into any of them, and those stunts were the reason that we succeeded in stopping them.
Now, Toyota, a while back, donated 20 million dollars to Audubon. I would venture to say that the vast majority of the Toyota executives could not tell a Piping Plover from a week old white chicken, or a Crow from a Buzzard, and furthermore couldn’t give a damn.
Now let us suppose for a moment that any one of you were in the business of over-seeing the so called endangered species, and I handed you 20 million tax free dollars to further your cause, knowing the political power of your lobbyist in Washington D.C., and at the same time, I had aspirations of building a business complex in an area with potential wildlife concerns that could stop my project cold.
For the 20 million that I handed you, would you not be inclined to turn a blind eye to an endangered species that could stop my project? I think so.
Hush money, that’s all the 20 million was for. It is nothing more than a game with the big money winner taking all.

Steve C. Sink

Steve C, Sink - 26-07-’12 00:10
Salvo Jimmy


You are right about the hush $s.

Almost all the major auto makers have made such donations, including Ford and GM. Toyota was actually a hold out until Audubon started taking out big ads in major papers like NY Times, Wash Post, etc bad mouthing them for not being GREEN.

They finally caved and HUSHED Audubon up.

Toyota has recently partnered with Audubon on touting road trips on back roads to out of the way places. I have blasted Toyota and my local dealer for the hypocracy of this road trip stuff while essentially supporting no road trip in CHNSRA with my 4Runner.

Salvo Jimmy - 26-07-’12 06:30
Hawk Hawkins

I gave ‘em fire,too,Salvo!Shooting themselves in the foot for selling off- road vehicles,filming commercials on the beach,then helping to shut ‘em down.Think greenies are nice people?Think again!

Hawk Hawkins - 26-07-’12 09:34

i’ve known about the toyota donation and have vowed since then to never own another one of their vehicles…..even though some of their advertising campaign makes driving through the surging ocean water on the beach look like it’s so much fun (sarcasm)

bbc - 26-07-’12 17:33

There have been many admirable responses and I have to commend Capt’n Obvious for being a better person than I for ignoring the personal insults hurled his/her direction. I’ve never been able to let them go unchallenged or without at least a little tit-for-tat. All good fun for sure, but derailment always results.
Irene, I hope you can find a mental chiropractor, as your mind is surely knotted up from all of the mental gymnastics you performed to support your a priori determination the NPS management changes can’t have been responsible for any increases in the nesting populations or fledge successes.
Some folks try to dismiss it by saying the NPS predator management is the cause of all the increases, but the NPS has been trapping since before 2000. I was on the beach last week discussing the plight of piping plover chicks and a tech told me they see predator tracks in nesting habitat almost every day and all it takes is one predator to wipe out a nest, broods or an entire waterbird colony. So they surely haven’t eradicated the predators which appear to be reproducing faster than they can remove them.
Some folks try to dismiss the successes by saying there have been fewer storms without bothering to quantify the specific local affects to each nesting area they claim was historically affected. Correlation most definitely isn’t causation.
How many milestones or records need to be met or exceeded before you will give an iota of credit the change in management for those achievements? By the way, how long ago was the last time an NPS spokesperson said it was too early to tell?
Under the new management strategy, the nesting population of PIPL has more than doubled –from 6 to 15.
Under the new management strategy, there have been a record number of PIPL chicks fledged.
Under the new management strategy, there have been a record number of PIPL broods to fledge chicks.
Under the new management strategy, there have been a record number of AMOYs fledged.
Under the new management strategy, there have been a record number of AMOY broods to fledge chicks.
-I know the naysayers will say “but the nesting population of AMOY hasn’t increased” to which I say it takes 3-5 years for AMOYs to establish territories so if AMOY recruitment in similar to PIPL, needing a fledge rate of around 1.5 for recruitment to exceed mortality, it will be at least 2013 before we see the fruits – increases in nesting pairs. It takes AMOYs 3-5 years to establish territories and nest for the first time.
Under the new management strategy, black skimmers, common and gull-billed terns have finally returned to all of the seashore. Least terns in 2012 appear to be at record or near record numbers according to what the techs say they are seeing.
Under the new management strategy, the number of sea turtle nests has more than doubled (2012) and since 2008, exceeded the long-term avg and pre-2008 high nest total – 99 in 2002.
-I know some folks will try and disingenuously discount this by claiming the sea turtles don’t mature for 30 years so it’s not possible for new rules to increase the nesting, or that there are record numbers here and there on the East Coast. The latter is a very good dismissive response, until one looks at the numbers and the former is simply a red herring. The goal of night time driving was to reduce false crawls/disturbance which would result in more nests as well as protect nesting adults and hatchlings from being ran over.
Now, let’s look at the numbers:
The 2000 to 2007 avg for sea turtle nests for NC, without including Cape Hatteras is 594.
The 2008 (when CAHA night restrictions began) to 2012 (as of 7/26/2012) avg for sea turtle nests for NC, without including Cape Hatteras is 723. About a 20 percent increase.
The 2000 to 2007 avg number of sea turtle nests for Cape Lookout is 128.
The 2008 (when CAHA night restrictions began) to 2012 (as of 7/26/2012) avg number of sea turtle nests for Cape Lookout is 151. Again, about a 20 percent increase.
The 2000 to 2007 avg for sea turtle nests for Cape Hatteras is 78.
The 2008 (when CAHA night restrictions began) to 2012 (as of 7/26/2012) avg for sea turtle nests for Cape Hatteras is 142. BOLD An 83 percent increase.BOLD
So, folks can twist in the wind if they want, trying to spin it this way or that way, but it’s obviously way past time to say “Yes, CAHA’s management strategy is helping to restore the resource.”

Crotalus - 26-07-’12 17:46
Cap'n Obvious

Hard to argue with those numbers, Crotalus. Facts are stubborn things. Looking forward to seeing what Judge Boyle thinks of the plan, if as Irene reported, the case is transferred back to his court.

Cap'n Obvious - 26-07-’12 20:36

so sad what they have done to hatteras island. will never be the same. it is God’s beach and the livelyhood of many people. been jeeping on it with care for many many years. we can share with wildlife. it is all political and will be negative for the hatteras economy. many memories were had on that beach. now…it is just not the same.

SummerGirl - 26-07-’12 21:32

Just got home after being there for some time. 50 or 120 till Dec 12 to drive the beach. Do not have an issue spending some money…do have an issue of now the areas which are few and far between..are jam packed with people…like big ole parking lots. gone are the days of howdy to people you pass and also not passing people for miles and miles of sand. i saw less beach wildlife and birds then I have ever seen in thirty years…sad….

SummerGirl - 26-07-’12 21:35
Alamo Joe

I was on the beach last week discussing the plight of piping plover chicks and a tech told me they see predator tracks in nesting habitat almost every day and all it takes is one predator to wipe out a nest, broods or an entire waterbird colony

PIPL Nest in Tejas?

Alamo Joe - 26-07-’12 22:52
Salvo Jimmy

Only problem is bbc, we will all be hard pressed to buy any vehicle whose maker has not donated, unless we can get some military version Hummers. Don’t even think about the GM Hummer wanna b’s heh heh heh.

Salvo Jimmy - 27-07-’12 05:46
Salvo Jimmy

Speaking of ads. Some recent Jeep ones have some beach donuting, along with Mercedes as I recall.

Salvo Jimmy - 27-07-’12 05:48
Al Adam

Predators are part of nature. Since the NPS hasn’t figured out how to baet them in court they prefer leg hold traps. If the birdies have predator tarcks among their nests it is proof that the NPS is as poor at controlling them as they are managing a park. The arguements about more ppls or omoys or turtles are irrelevant. The folks who wish to have access to the closed fishing and recreational areas are fine with critters —- it is the poor science being applied to create extraordinary closures and perimeters that are disturbing. When corrupt officials cave to the bribes of further corrupt associations (Audobon, SELC, DOW) to help uninformed judges line the pockets of attorney’s who make a living extorting tax dollars via enviroscams it is the ultimate indications of a failed system. Weak arguements about the VALUE of 5-10 more or less birds of a given species are used to rationalize the pseudo-enviro’s goal of lining their pockets. If they cared about the environment they would understand the balance of nature —- and not poison crows or try to starve their neighbors.Most of us know “it’s not about the birds”.

Al Adam - 27-07-’12 06:22

I guess this means spending millions and millions of dollars for a few birds while getting rid of jobs and visitors is new NPS agenda and should be on every entrance to every national park. The national parks system is no longer “For the Benefit and Enjoyment of the People” They are simply a preserve to allow lawyers to rake in the big bucks while restricting access by loopholes and a weak goverment…

samsdad1 - 27-07-’12 07:00

It don’t matter now, Judge Boyle will put an end to your lawsuit post haste. No way your bill gets out of the Senate. Up, down, the numbers don’t matter. Judge Boyle is going to laugh you out of court, when he is done with you, you will be lucky to drive anywhere on the beach at all. You lost, deal with it.

anon - 27-07-’12 07:39
pat avon

Just got back from Ocracoke, the beach there is good.. just wandering why the bird closures are different, then on Hatteras island.. seem you can drive in FRONT of them over there.. lots more open..its very nice.. I think there is more of a balance there….also saw turtles nests that were over washed because of the winds.. If they were so concerned with saving the wildlife, why did they not move these..they did years ago..with volunteers.but they do not want any outside help WHY???.seems they want to blame all of the ORVs for there lack of common sense..

pat avon - 27-07-’12 08:08
Steve C. Sink

Too all——speculation is speculation. Yes there may be a temporary lose, and we’re all sitting here, arguing back and forth, like so many pigeons in a wire cage speculating when we will be released. Some accept defeat, and others, like myself are looking ahead at the overall picture, and I do not see ultimate defeat. These same types of arguments go and come in all of politics.
Lets imagine for example that the internet had been around prior to the Civil War. Try to imagine for a moment the things that would have been presented and argued.
None would have affected the final out-come.
We have to remember one thing——When one giant wave breaks on the shore and begins it’s backward slide, there is another one right behind it, over-rideing it’s effect.
No one knows how this will end, but my prediction is that Judge Boyles, temporary god that he himself and many believe that he is, is just what I say, temporary. The very fact that we continue to comment and argue back and forth, and make ourselves heard, is to me, a good sign that the final wave will restore, to some degree, a common sense solution.


Steve C. Sink - 27-07-’12 08:25

Crotalus, restore the resource to what? When was the resource at the perceived nominal level?
Didn’t the trapping only ramp up until 2010 when they hired a full time trapper and trained biologist to join in the killing field?

Way to spin the turtle numbers. Isn’t that big increase from 2008 to 2012 can be said about many other locations along the southern Atlantic coast as Irene pointed out?

anon - 27-07-’12 10:32

well I guess the real scientists Crot and ANON have spoken… All who enjoy recreating on the beaches of Cape Hatteras must leave now and allow only people who either enjoy watching birds mating or are allergic to beaches may now visit…

samsdad1 - 27-07-’12 11:01


according to the FWS the plover eastcoast population has been decreasing steadily from
“1,890 pairs in 2007 before declining 6% to 1,782 pairs in 2010”

I guess according to Crot’s science this means the closures in Cape Hatteras have been a severe negative to the plover east coast population just as it increased the entire turtle population. Or could it be that these turtles are eating the plovers?

samsdad1 - 27-07-’12 11:08
Kenneth S Cleveland

An Open Letter to the National Audubon Society, Defenders of Wildlife, National Parks Conservation Association, and the Southern Environmental Law Center

If I didn’t know better I would believe you. I love our national parks and favor conservation. Politically I am an independent who leans left on the environment. If I didn’t know better I would probably believe every word written by Ms. Sanders in Audubon Magazine and in a press release on the Audubon Society of NC website and in an editorial piece on the Defenders of Wildlife website. But, I do know better and I find your use of propaganda on this issue to be offensive and morally repugnant. I found each of these pieces lacking in objectivity and to have purposefully omitted important facts and in several cases used language that seemed designed to distort the truth or at best showed a clear lack of understanding for the situation. I know better because I know the Outer Banks of North Carolina quite well.

In none of these articles do you address the ORV permit fee. The beaches of the Cape Hatteras National Seashore on Bodie Island, Hatteras Island and Ocracoke Island have been free to all whether on foot or in a 4 wheel drive vehicle since their creation. The implementation of an arbitrary and substantial fee is completely ignored by you. Who does the fee benefit? What programs are being funded with this revenue? Is there the potential for a conflict of interest? I can tell you who it hurts; those who can least afford another bill in their life. If your argument is that the fee structure will reduce ORV use on the beach then my response is, “yes, low income families will no longer be able to drive on the beach, while the rich ones will”. If the goal of the fee is not to limit traffic then why is there a fee?

I also find that all of these articles refer to ORV enthusiasts as if they were some motorcycle gang tearing up the beach in dune buggies. The vast majority of people who drive on the OBX beaches are families and fishermen who drive down the beach at 10-15mph and are just looking for bit of solitude and sand to call their own for the day. In a similar vein I found comments on your website and others referring to the “National Parking Lot” to be outright fabrication and a means of manipulating public opinion. In the 30 years that I’ve been visiting Hatteras Island I’ve never seen anything resembling a parking lot and the only really high density area that I’ve seen is the Cape Point in mid-summer or during a fishing tournament. By shrinking the area open to ORVs you are actually creating a scenario by which more people will be crammed into a smaller space. You’ve completely ignored the fact that for decades huge areas of the OBX beaches have been closed to ORVs in the summer: most of Bodie Island, Pea Island Wildlife Refuge and in front of all the villages on Hatteras Island. The tenor of your articles makes it seem like that before this new set of rules it was chaos. That is not true. The only thing these new rules have really accomplished is to shrink the area of beach that can be driven on, particularly around Cape Hatteras Point, thereby increasing the likelihood that the so-called parking lot will actually appear someday as the space is squeezed tighter and tighter by more and more restrictions; and to charge a fee for something that was one of the last great free things that you could do east of the Mississippi.

I found your comments about the safety of children to be utterly ridiculous. You make it sound like vehicles are just driving into areas dominated by pedestrian beach goers. The children who were playing on the beach in areas where ORVs were allowed, most likely got there in their parents SUV. I always felt that my own son was completely safe playing on those beaches provided I actually acted like his parent and supervised him. The new pedestrian only area south of Cape Hatters Point is also a joke. People are not going to be lugging their kids through a mile of sand dunes for a day at the beach. I’ve hiked to the Cape Hatteras Point and it’s not easy. I’ve also driven on the section of beach now reserved for pedestrians and the ORV traffic was sparse. The pedestrian traffic was non-existent. Now the vehicles that used to park there will most likely end up at the Cape Point. I have to wonder if this part of your larger strategy to shut the Cape Hatteras Point down to all human traffic. I know those new pedestrian only areas will be deserted, which I’m guessing is your ultimate goal. While I’m writing this, the fact is that the entire Cape Hatteras Point is closed to all traffic including pedestrians and from Haul Over to Frisco is essentially closed to ORV traffic for a total distance of over 10 miles. Is it really necessary to shut down that much of the beach for nesting?

I began this by stating that I was a left of center independent who is pro-conservation. I have to tell you that you’ve alienated me and now I understand all of the vitriol that I’ve seen expressed toward environmental groups and “liberals”. You’ve shown almost no understanding of the long term fallout from activities such as these. You may say that you’ve made efforts to work with the locals who’ve built their lives on sliver sand but your articles reflect that you haven’t. You’ve managed to alienate the people who should be your biggest supporters, the citizens who love what you love. Rather than training and educating the locals to carry your flag, you’ve created enemies. You didn’t pick a fight with big oil or a logging or mining company. You picked a fight with families. We all want to preserve the Outer Banks of NC and all the other special beautiful places in our country but you’re not going to be able to sustain that by going to court. How long do you think your rules will last if we have a republican senate and president? You chose to sue rather than educate. You’ve made it more difficult for people like me and our political leaders to embrace conservation. For now on I will read your propaganda with my eyes open and hope that someday when these rules are repealed via legislation that your methods will change.

Kenneth S Cleveland
Galloway, NJ

Kenneth S Cleveland - 27-07-’12 11:52
Anon also


Reading this blog for the first and last time it seems to me that you, Capt Obvious and anon are the only ones who make much sense. I find it hard to bedlieve that there are people out there who deal only with the negative.

Anon also - 27-07-’12 11:55

Great letter Kenneth! Only correction, is that large crowds at the Point are from “the bite is on” gatherings, as no fishing tournaments wete allowed at the Point.

Anon - 27-07-’12 12:32

From cnn website

I guess the NPS informed these guys that cape hatteras is no longer open to fishing… we did not even make the list.

samsdad1 - 27-07-’12 12:38
Salvo Jimmy

I think the reason we are not on the list is that we are not a National Park as all on the list are.

We are a National Seashore Recreational Area and the only one that exists in the USA. Even the other Seashores are just National Seashores.

Of course NPS et al would like everyone to beleive we are just a National Seashore, regardless of the name given by law.

Salvo Jimmy - 27-07-’12 15:33

Sorry blind people, I hate to say it but my
bet is with Crot and Anon these days. Boyle has accepted the Audubon’s and SELC payday and you cannot prove any of it. Why do you think he sits up there and laughs with Derb before every session? Game over…money wins again!

Ricky - 27-07-’12 16:29
Hawk Hawkins

Any word on how the jocular “status report” meeting went?

Hawk Hawkins - 27-07-’12 17:55
Anon  RLI

CHNS was enacted as Cape Hatteras National Seashore. The official name was changed into Cape Hatteras National Seashore and Recreation Area to allow hunting and commercial fishing in the Park, because that was the only way to allow those activities at that time and the only reason the name was changed.
CHNS is considered by the NPS as one of the 10 National Seashores. Trying to make it something it was not could have negative unintended consequences. There is no mention of ORV use in the EL for CHNS and it is run by the NPS.  All the acts of congress, EOs, CFR NP and Mangment Policy will still apply to managment of this Park.

Anon RLI

Anon RLI - 02-08-’12 10:12

People who try and say that “ORV’s were not part of the EL of this seashore” should really get a reality check…

Of coarse they were as this was the only transportation available… it is kind of like saying that putting park closed to visitors (and yes when you shut most beaches on an island off to visitors it is closed) signs all over the beaches is beneficial to National park visitation to an Island…

I bet the EL of the national park system didnt put lawsuits, laptop computers and iphones but you do not mention these not being allowed… The new ORV is an access vehicle for 90% of the people who use them as is the cell phone for people who use them on the beaches.

samsdad1 - 02-08-’12 11:12

Lawsuits , laptop computers and iPhones aside the  EL doesn’t talk about or garintee any particular mode or amount  of access  much less  ORV access.  The Wirth letter does discuss access but that is not the EL and if my memory serves doesn’t mention beach vehicle access specifically.  The EL does say, “no development of the project or plan for the convenience of visitors shall be undertaken which would be incompatible with the preservation of the unique flora and fauna or the physiographic conditions now prevailing in this area . . .” which I guess means you can’t run over sea oats or baby turtles because you want to drive where they are. Yes these rules are very inconvenient but believe the EL address the inconvenience.
 Not saying the resource closures are not excessive and couldn’t be improved  but it is a gross exaggeration to say “most beaches” are shut. More accurate to say the beaches that you want to visit  by vehicular access are restricted when you want to visit them.
Once a state maintained road and a bridge were built it made using the beach to leave or return home for the locals a moot point in my opinion.

Anon - 02-08-’12 13:35

I believe you assume too much and if you believe what you are shoveling then walk to the point! Not only are most areas closed, but they are closed to protect animals that are not listed at all… therefore not unique to only this area.

The EL also did not say no matter where else this unique flora and fauna exist it must be protected here with extreme measures enough to close the island…

samsdad1 - 02-08-’12 13:42

Do lost plover chicks count as fledged? Do lost adult plovers count? How long will they search for the lost plover chicks? Or were they never there and called them lost when they were asked to prove this last brood? Finally, can I visit Cape Point this year?

Anon - 03-08-’12 05:23

There were no listed animals when the EL was written. So it didn’t mean flora and fauna had to be listed to be unique. We are talking about animals that are specialised to the unique habitat of the Seashore that unlikely would be found in a different habitat. For instance Common Crows are not unique to the Seashore but Oystercatchers are.
Walking to the Point is inconvenient for some. I’ll be glad when ithe Point will be opened for vehicles again.
The island is not closed. As a matter of fact it might be the busiest summer ever.

Anon - 03-08-’12 06:42

You can’t legally walk to the Point! It’s been closed to ALL for months!!!

AnonVisitor - 03-08-’12 07:05
Dave Vachet

Anon said:
“For instance Common Crows are not unique to the Seashore but Oystercatchers are.”

Veracity: FALSE

A simple google search for American Oystercatcher range shows they are found on the Atlantic, Pacific and Gulf coasts of North, Central, and South America. That’s a pretty large range, and hardly unique to the NC coast, much less CHNSRA.

It would seem these anonymous posters enjoy making things up in order to make their point. You’d think they would be able to support their rightousness with something truthful.

I must say, they sure keep me laughing…

Dave Vachet - 03-08-’12 10:50

Okay – the point is finally open. Thanks NPS for nothing you elitist jerks.

AnonVisitor - 03-08-’12 11:00
Ha ha!

You can be as obtuse as you want. I never implied that CHNS is the only place on the planet with the right habitat for Oystercatchers.
So I guess according to your logic the authors of the EL were just joking around when they put in the unique flora and fauna part.
Since your basically saying I’m lying what exactly did I lie about or make up?
I doubt you find me any more funny than I find you.

Ha ha! - 03-08-’12 11:15
Dave Vachet

Ha ha! said:
“Since your basically saying I’m lying what exactly did I lie about or make up?”

what did you lie about or make up?

Anon said:
“For instance Common Crows are not unique to the Seashore but Oystercatchers are.”

With that statement you said Oystercatchers are unique to CHNSRA. They are not unique to that geographic constraint, since they are found throughout the western Hemisphere.

Ha ha!

Dave Vachet - 03-08-’12 12:34

I thinks haha meant that this is the only region that closes beaches off because of the oyster catcher….

Samsdad1 - 03-08-’12 19:34

Oystercatchers are found all over the OBX and into Virginia. Only Cape Hatteras has closures for these non-endangered birds. I know this because I’ve seen them myself, which you now can’t do in Hatteras. Over regulation is ruining the Hatteras experience. How can you learn and admire the wildlife if you can’t even get near it.

Beachbum - 03-08-’12 20:46

At first I thought you were just a poor reader but that is not it.

My previous thought,
“We are talking about animals that are specialised to the unique habitat of the Seashore that would unlikely be found in a different habitat.”

Of course CHNS is not the only place with the type of habitat Oystercatchers frequent. But it is a type of habitat that was to be protected by the NPS which has some pretty stringent rules, even if recreation area is tagged to the name of CHNS. It is typical behaviour from beach drivers side when they can’t address something, just start slinging accusations. Someone will decided just what the authors meant when they added unquie to the EL. It couldn’t have been listed animals because that category didn’t exist then. I done with you, thoroughly satisfied in my responce and yours. Anon - 04-08-’12 07:08

Wow anon great English lesson as well as your excellent demonstration to why people dislike uneducated people.

Samsdad1 - 04-08-’12 19:41

(optional field)
(optional field)

Comment moderation is enabled on this site. This means that your comment will not be visible until it has been approved by an editor.

Remember personal info?
Small print: All html tags except <b> and <i> will be removed from your comment. You can make links by just typing the url or mail-address.