The Derb and Terry Show gets even more bizarre - 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 

« Turtles are nesting i… | Home | News from Frank »

The Derb and Terry Show gets even more bizarre

Friday 27 July 2012 at 6:01 pm.

Just when you think things could not get much stranger on the issue of who’s managing the Cape Hatteras National Seashore, U.S. District Court Judge Terrence Boyle has another status conference on the 2008 consent decree.

The consent decree was the resolution of a lawsuit filed in October, 2007 by the Defenders of Wildlife and the National Audubon Society, represented by the Southern Environmental Law Center, against the National Park Service for its lack of an off-road vehicle regulation on the Cape Hatteras National Seashore.  The groups complained that there were not adequate protections in place for nesting birds and turtles on the seashore.

Boyle allowed the Cape Hatteras Preservation Alliance and Dare and Hyde counties to enter that lawsuit as defendant-intervenors on the side of the National Park Service.

All parties settled the case in April, 2008, with a consent decree that put in place much more restrictive regulations for access to the seashore beaches and much larger buffers for nesting birds and chicks that have closed down large areas of the seashore beach from spring into summer.

The consent decree was supposed to end when the Park Service had a final off-road vehicle plan and special regulation, which became effective on Feb. 15.

So some legal minds think there is no longer a consent decree.

But Boyle has shown no inclination to let go of his management of the seashore, and now a Washington, D.C., federal judge has said he is inclined to send a lawsuit filed by the Cape Hatteras Preservation Alliance to stop the final plan and rule back to Boyle’s courtroom.

Boyle’s status conferences are remarkable in several ways, not the least of which is how he defers to Derb Carter of the Southern Environmental Law Center and addresses most of his questions and comments to Carter.

He questions the Park Service and the assistant U.S. attorney as somewhat of an afterthought.

Carter and Boyle are strange bedfellows.

Environmental lawyers are known for their liberal bent.  And Boyle, who is 66, is a Jesse Helms Republican.

He was a legislative aide to Helms, one of North Carolina’s most well known conservatives, and Helms was instrumental in getting Boyle nominated to the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Richmond.

Boyle was first nominated under President George H.W. Bush in 1991 and again by President George W. Bush in 2001. His nomination was blocked by Democrats who think he has a lousy record on such issues as civil rights.

His nomination from 2001 until 2007 was the longest in history not acted upon by the U.S. Senate.

Some judges do grant interviews with the media occasionally, but apparently not Boyle.  I’ve been told twice that he does not give interviews.

But I and many other sure would like to know what this judge is thinking about.

His lack of understanding of the access issue at the seashore becomes more apparent with each of his status conferences.

At today’s status conference his responses indicated that he didn’t know that there was an interim protected species management plan in place before the 2007 lawsuit was filed.

At each conference, he has been obsessed with public safety, which has never been an issue with ORVs on the seashore. It’s not like folks get run over by ORVs on the seashore on a regular basis.  It rarely, if ever, has happened.

Today, he opined that there might be more people driving on the beach than ever because they are buying permits, and, hey, if you buy one, you are going to drive on the beach.

He then likened the repeal of the final ORV plan and rule to “repealing the Declaration of Independence.”

He takes Carter’s word for the miraculous increase in nesting birds and turtles, and no one ever questions SELC’s opinion of the success of the consent decree.

Boyle is obviously eager to keep all of the litigation in his courtroom, and Derb Carter said SELC won’t oppose it.  Why would they when they have the chummiest possible relationship with the judge?

Renfer, the federal attorney, seems all in favor.

CHAPA will object, but will it do any good?

Today Boyle complained that CHAPA was “forum shopping” – or choosing a court more favorable to its claims – by filing in Washington.

And the environmental groups were not “forum shopping” when just months after Boyle threw the book at a reckless driver on the seashore and declared ORV use illegal on the beaches, they rushed into his court to file a lawsuit?

The CHAPA complaint asks the court to determine that the Park Service acted improperly and to prevent NPS from implementing its final plan and rule, which became effective Feb. 15, and in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act in its rulemaking process.

Boyle apparently just doesn’t get it that there has been little or no transparency in this rulemaking process and has never asked any question about the process – as far as I can tell from reports on his conferences.

He has never asked about the science behind the consent decree or the economic impacts.

The future of the NPS rulemaking is still playing out in Congress and in the courts and has a way to go. A different judge, such as Emmet Sullivan, looking at the issues would be a breath of fresh air.

But, at least for now, Boyle seems to think there is still a consent decree, that he can continue to have conferences, and that he is the savior of the Cape Hatteras National Seashore.



These people are criminals

Steve - 27-07-’12 18:19

And should be treated as such

Steve - 27-07-’12 18:20
Salvo Jimmy

My guess is that Boyle, and maybe the gang of 3, told Sullivan on the QT that Boyle knows all about this and that if it’s thrown back to him, he can get rid of it real quick and save the gov’t and court, and maybe gang of 3, a whole lot of time and $s.

Salvo Jimmy - 27-07-’12 18:20
pat avon

This is insane..where is the justice..He is not a judge.To friendly with the other side..a conflict of interest here..Why can the people not see this??? His wife is to close to it..He just want his name out… Has he ever even been here?? Where are the good judges that here both side…??? NO JUSTICE HERE………….

pat avon - 27-07-’12 18:20
Hawk Hawkins

“…repealing the Declaration of Independence”!?!…pretty much seems to be what Boyle,himself,is doing.

Hawk Hawkins - 27-07-’12 18:25
pat avon

GO TO THE DERB CARTER on line..Southern E group… and look at the pictures.. they have showing dead birds and the turtle in tire tracks.. they look staged.. and old like they were all ready dead… not run over by cars when the were alive…you have seen dead amimals on the beach… In the Winter.. this is what they are showing people.. and the point on the 4th of July when packed… like its like that all year.. what lies… They do know how to use a little info the wrong way.. POLITICS……I could not believe what I read a saw…

pat avon - 27-07-’12 18:33

I don’t believe he is clueless. It would be better were this judge just totally inept —- rather than the distinct possibility that he is totally corrupt. I suspect that the flow of cash from Audobon/SELC/DOW has reached far beyond Dog Derb, chief in charge of extorting tax $$$ from the public trust.

Theya re partners in crime —- or the good judge is senial and ease pickings for the likes of his fraternity brother, Dog Derb.

Al - 27-07-’12 19:18
Mike Berry

Irene, your blog is spot on and today’s confrence was indeed “bizarre”.

I have attended all but one of Judge Boyle’s conferences related to the Consent Decree since April 2008 and what I heard today from the bench and from SELC and NPS testimony was the height of absurdity.

‘The Interim Plan was really no plan at all’ (The fact is the plan was subjected to NEPA review, instituted closures and an enhanced monitoring program. SELC and NPS never gave it a change to show its effect.)

‘Congress in trying to restore the Interim Plan is trying to overturn the National Environmental Policy Act’ (Judge Boyle ignored NEPA when he signed the Consent Decree and displaced the Interim Plan.)

‘The current regulation reduces crime rate and seashore driving accidents’ (Judge Boyle says so.)

‘The permit program actually increases driving on the national seashore’. (Judge Boyle speculates as NPS stands speechless.)

‘Birds and turtles have thrived like never before’ (We don’t know according to USFWS what actually happened before the current monitoring program, there is no credible benchmark data.)

I have taken part in and observed environmental cases in Federal Court for 40 years and I have never seen such baseless opinions and misrepresentations of facts as I heard today in Judge Boyle’s courtroom.

Keep up your analysis and investigative reporting Irene. The public deserves to know the facts. Facts related to the Consent Decree have clearly not been properly presented in a Federal Court thus far.

Mike Berry - 27-07-’12 20:54
Cap'n Obvious

Where to begin? Irene claims the final rule which had at least three public comment periods and two years of negotiated rule making with all parties present was non-transparent? Maybe you weren’t paying attention, but this was one of thr most transparent rule makings in history. The vast majority of public comments supported the park service’s rule. it came out just as any honest observer would have said it would five years ago. Permits just like every other seashore. Prices in line with other national seashores. Pedestrian areas like every other national seashore. The only difference is that Hatteras allows more driving than most other national seashores.

And Mike, the interim plan was not a valid ORV management plan. It did not comply with the executive orders, organic act, or NEPA, which of course is why NPS did not vigorously defend it. There was no designation of routes and areas as required by law. I don’t know what cases you observed but you seem to be missing the point here.

I kind of hope the case stays with Judge Sullivan. Because any reasonable federal judge will uphold the plan. How could they not when it complies with the law and is in fact very similar to all the other ORV plans at other national parks? Maybe having two judges rule the same way would satisfy you.

Cap'n Obvious - 27-07-’12 22:34
Mike Berry


The claim from your side for the past five years has been that the “Interim Plan” that was publically reviewed did not provide for resource protection, which is nonsense. It was found to be protective of resources by USFWS in their opinion.

The Consent Decree was a highly restricitve environmental policy put in place without public comment and ignores NEPA altogether. Its claim to fame is that it provides resource benefits over and above those of the “Interim Plan” which is a baseless claim that cannot be demonstrated unless of course proposed legislation is enacted. Show me where the Consent Decree specifies routes and is in full compliance with the EO.

As demonstrated yesterday, Judge Boyle is very confused, not to mention biased and defensive. We agree on one thing, the case belongs in Judge Sullivan’s court.

Mike Berry - 28-07-’12 06:31

I’m so sorry Irene. I feel badly for all of Hatteras’ residents. And I’m so ashamed of what passes for “rule of law” and our judicial system, these days. Judge Boyle’s and the eco-nutz’ egos (and total disregard for other people) knows no limits. I was so hoping that CHAPA’S lawsuit would finally get a fair and unbiased hearing.

I guess all that’s left, is to appeal to the real, independent justice that’s still there: whether you call it Karma, God, comeuppance, whatever.

This is so disappointing and frankly, Judge Boyle’s remarks are so disgusting for his lack of concern for evidence, facts, and the truth… he’s the poster boy for electing judges, instead of appointing them. He certainly ought to recuse himself, if he is so buddy-buddy with the SELC.

MawMawNature - 28-07-’12 07:12

“This is so disappointing and frankly, Judge Boyle’s remarks are so disgusting for his lack of concern for evidence, facts, and the truth… he’s the poster boy for electing judges, instead of appointing them. He certainly ought to recuse himself, if he is so buddy-buddy with the SELC.”

Part of the reason that our system is ripe with frivilous suits and outlandish insurance rates is the large number of unqualified judges sitting on the bench. This will never change —- particularly when so many legislators are lawyers. We elect WAY TOO MANY lawyers who then provide legislation to assure that their fraternity bros and soriety sisters can fatten their bank accounts. They stand before judges who, that’s right, in many cases were also lawyers. In many other civilized countries lawyers go to law school —- judges are schooled to be judges.
Now this is not something that we can change over night —- but it is sure something to think about when you go to the polls. Think long and hard before pushing that button for a lawyer/wannna be elected official!!
It is not unusual to encounter judges like this character in Raliegh. He is uninformed and really doesn’t care to change that status. Everybody recognizes that he doesn’t understand the significance of his decisions regarding Hatteras and seems totally out of touch with the reality of the island and beach driving. You have to wonder if he’s ever been there.

Al - 28-07-’12 07:52
Salvo Jimmy

I attended every REG-NEG meeting except the last where a final vote was taken on a plan proposed by the pro-access side. The con-access side never laid a plan on the table. Just rejected each and every plan proposed by the pro-access side. The pro-access side kept iterating their plan to the end, but never got more than basically rejection from the other side.

They will never say where their line is. Why??

They take what they can get at the moment and then come back later for more. And believe it, they will be back. By never taking a stand there is nothing to hold them to.

It’s like the Senate rejecting ever House proposed budget, but never offering an alternative. Or the fair sharers never defining what fair share is. Or gun control advocates never defining what they mean by reasonable or common sense gun control.

The strategy is clear. Never define what is acceptable, so you can not be held to something and can later return for more.

They eventually hope to get it all and don’t care if it takes decades to do it.

Salvo Jimmy - 28-07-’12 08:01
Fred W.

Copy that, Jimmy. It’s called “incrementalism”, and it’s been their strategy for a century, right under our noses.
How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time.

Fred W. - 28-07-’12 08:48
Denny in Dayton

A letter to Judge Boyle

RE: Repeal the Declaration of Independence

Sir your recent comment that the Congress passing a law to return to the Interim Plan was akin to “repealing the Declaration of Independence” was yet another example of why you have been and likely will continue to be passed over for promotion in the court system of The United States. You are a legal lightweight, biased and perhaps a bit confused.

The Declaration is not a law passed by a legislative body that can be repealed, it is rather a letter penned to King George III, expressing grievances and stating a set of principles, primarily that no man has the right to rule over another, that the power to govern is derived from those being governed, and people have the right of self determination.

When they developed a legal document detailing who our system was to work they wrote what we call The Constitution of The United States of America. Perhaps this is what you meant? But again if it is you have again displayed legal ineptness.

Our Founders, or more correctly the 13 original sovereign states, created a central federal government of limited powers. It’s called a republic (not a democracy). In this system laws are to be written and passed by legislative bodies made up of of the peoples representatives. Laws are not to be created by the executive orders of a President or by fiat from the courts, nor should they be created by governmental agencies.

Yet you express dismay that the Congress of the people of the United States would dare override rules created by a government agency at the request of special interest groups with the cooperation of the courts (You). You seem to have a fundamental lack of understanding of our system, and are among the many who work to breech the firewalls of our Constitution undermining the fabric of our magnificent society..

You sir are among the many who seek to be rulers instead of leaders. We have the government our Founding Fathers warned us about.

Denny in Dayton - 28-07-’12 10:06

Excellent letter Denny. Is there anyway some of us “commoners” out here could sign our signatures on to this to send to “His Honor”.
I’m sure there will be comments on the incorrectness of this letter by the many Constitutional geniuses out there. Most will be signed by “ANON”.
Hank Brooks
Avon, N.C.

Hankavon - 28-07-’12 12:14
Tony Hess

I am still dumbfounded that this isn’t getting national attention. Frankly I’m a little confused about the term “public servant” ie Boyle. It seem as though he couldn’t care less about the “public” and is more interested in pandering to the eco nazis. And the “I don’t give interviews” crack shows that he really has no clue as to what is going on at CHNS. That line tells me, “I don’t know so I can’t talk about it” Go figure. There is something seriously wrong here and unless the national media gets involved it will stay a local matter.

Tony Hess - 28-07-’12 12:19
Michael O'Brien

We will take our land back… not in the courts… but in Congress…

Michael O'Brien - 28-07-’12 12:58
Cap'n Obvious

You mean the public’s land? Land entrusted to all people and future generations? Land supposed to be managed for preservation by NPS. The reason this doesn’t get the attention you think it deserves is that outside of the echo chamber that is this blog the American people support protecting wildlife and oppose beach driving. That is why the majority of comments received by NPS support the final rule. You guys slay me with all this flag waving. The government at the request of citizens, in compliance with longstanding law, makes rules to balance the use of a public resource, does so openly, transparently with tons of puic input—most supporting the plan—and a few locals and special interests act like Stalin himself has taken over. Try living in country that really isn’t free for once and see if you even have a blog to whine on.

Cap'n Obvious - 28-07-’12 15:24

cap’n……following your logic……i guess most american citizens oppose beach walking also since that has been closed down in some of the most popular spots too

bbc - 28-07-’12 15:37
Hawk Hawkins

No,Oblivious,we mean YOUR land.We’re going to take it from you and preserve it for future generations,forever,because the government and the people want it but YOU can’t use it.It’s going to be a bird sanctuary and your wails will mingle with their song.

Hawk Hawkins - 28-07-’12 15:39
Salvo Jimmy

No doubt public comment favored the plan.

Couldn’t possibly be the half truths put out to the clueless over a vast network that it was all about ORVs crushing birds and turtles showing pictures of the Point and Bodie island Spit on a holiday along with pictures of dead birds, etc in tire tracks.

Naaahhhh, can’t be.

Salvo Jimmy - 28-07-’12 16:03

The well funded PR and “ action “ engines of the Audubon and DOW significantly affected the comments. Most of those pro rule commenters couldn’t find Cape Hatteras on a map. Their demonizing, half truths and miss characterizations of ORV users has successfully deceived their followers. You know this is the truth about the comments. They got caught during the DEIS but got away with it for the FEIS.

RealityChecker - 28-07-’12 16:10

The 2007 Interim Protected Species Management Strategy was found to comply with NEPA, complied with Organic act, had designated routes and ORV areas, included species protection buffers/closures and complied with executive orders.

If the IPSMS wasn’t a valid plan, then why did the NPS call it an alternative “PLAN” in the DEIS?

RealityChecker (URL) - 28-07-’12 22:30
Anon 321

Unless I missed something I just read/skimmed the Interim and I all I can find is how the Park is  going to protect birds. I can’t find where ORV routes, safety or recreational conflicts concerning ORVs are addressed. It really doesn’t make any difference if you think those issues were not relevant, they had to be addressed to satisfy the EO. Isn’t that why the NPS tried to use the negotiated rule making and ultimately to address those concerns. The Interim Plan was always just that, a temporary fix for resources. It wasn’t necessarily suppose to be the final answer to anything. And come on the Interim  (interim protected species management plan) was obviously crafted with political direction from  someone in  DOI with a decidedly ORV point of view. If the environs had had the consent decree worked out as the old interim and a Judge had given the access side the chance to change it to something else they would have jumped on it just like they are jumping on the final rule right now. It is just like republicans and democrats, there is no middle ground.

And the “Superintendent’s Orders” there is a strange animal. I don’t know how a superintendent can decided something on his own with no official public comment then inject it into a doc and say there was public comment. There were/are big problems with the Interim plan.

Anon 321 - 29-07-’12 06:43
Salvo Jimmy

Supt Orders specific to a given NPS run park, seashore, etc can be issued. They are generally more temporary in nature. For example safety closures on the beach where it might be too narrow to safely pass in a vehicle. Supt order #7 was issued to go along with the interim plan to specify ORV management aspects.

Additionally the supt can issue a rules compendium for rules specific to a park, seashore, etc. These are generally of a permanent nature and CHNSRA has one. It covers a lot of stuff specific to the seashore.

In addition most NPS areas assimilate all state law into their rules. CHNSRA has done so, thus any NC law applies on NPS land in the seashore.

To my knowledge, none of these require public vetting, because I’ve never seen any comments asked for over the years when one was issued or revised. For example a revised rules compendium was put out within the last year.

Salvo Jimmy - 29-07-’12 07:20

I hate to say I was right, but you guys should have been hiring private eyes to watch over Derb and the store bought judge a long time ago. By the way, it seems Dare County’s lawyers are in on it to. They have not done much to expose the truth. I guess the good news is sooner or later a majority of intelligent people will eventually notice something is very strange about Derb and his relationship with the judge. Very strange….

Ricky - 29-07-’12 08:11
pat avon

I think all any one has to do is to check this Judges record..special interest is his calling.. from day one…check his record on line..and why he was not picked to go to Washington..and the Helms have wonder who he judges for..$$$$

pat avon - 29-07-’12 08:29
Mike M.

Congress needs to hear about and expose what this paid judge is doing now!!! Call yours tomorrow. Also remember the media is also paid by Derb and Audubon.

Mike M. - 29-07-’12 17:19
john winnicki

Why does Boyle hate the good people of Hatteras?

john winnicki - 29-07-’12 20:30
Hawk Hawkins

Apparently,he’s paid to…

Hawk Hawkins - 30-07-’12 08:39

You all are so full of nonsense, unproductive rumours and worse. You don’t have one lick of proof that Derb or the Judge except bribes or money. 
Typical, when you can’t make a constructive argument you just resort to making up stuff.
The Judge doesn’t hate the people of Dare County . He is just trying (right or wrong) to address the federal government interests, it is federal property. .

Anny  Anon

Anny - 30-07-’12 09:33

Well Anny it is kind of like saying turtle populations increasing is a direct result of the new ORV plan… purely speculation and nonsense, but it seemed to work for the enviro lawyers…

samsdad1 - 30-07-’12 09:49
Anny Anon

There is a big difference between accusing a federal judge and an established lawyer of a serious federal crime ( bribery) and someone’s speculation of the success of resource protection measures.

Anny Anon - 30-07-’12 10:23
Hawk Hawkins

There is a big difference between speculating on why a judge and a lawyer seem so chummy and accusing anyone of anything.

Hawk Hawkins - 30-07-’12 10:46
Mike M.

Anny, who’s accusing? That judge is getting paid by ‘‘the people’‘. He also is suppose to have a non-bias approach to each case. When he sits up there and laughs with Derb before the hearing with half the state watching, most people find it very odd to say the least. You can safely bet more people will watching him after last week’s puppet show.

Mike M. - 30-07-’12 11:36

Judge Boyle is buddies with Derb, they started their relationship in 2003. I think Boyle just doesn’t care about Hatteras. He does not care to understand the situation, to much work. He know’s he’ll never get appointed anywhere else so why do anything. All he has to do is show up and do whatever he wants.

7ounce - 30-07-’12 12:59

Anny Anon,

After reading the blog and the responses, this should be titled The Irene show gets more bizarre. If nothing else, Judge Boyle must be given credit for understanding what journalism is and is not by not agreeing to an interview.

The same names, the same rants and you wonder why no one takes them seriously?

Anon - 30-07-’12 13:40

Why can you now walk to the Point but not drive out to ramp 44? A 1000 meter buffer is a 1000 meter buffer. Something is not right again. What happened to the rules? It’s time to open this Park back up and everyone knows it!

James - 30-07-’12 14:36

yes anon and the fact that we have consistency and the enviro lawyers change their tune to what ever the animal du jor is. They even once tried to close these same beaches to driving to protect ghost crabs… and still protect a beach plant that has not shown itself on the island in years… yeah we rant the same but at least we can say wed are consistent as opposed to not standing up for anything in particular or whatever will get you a few bucks from a weak government!

Where were you people twenty years ago when the plovers became listed? Was the money not enough for you then?

samsdad1 - 30-07-’12 15:55

“Where were you people twenty years ago when the plovers became listed? Was the money not enough for you then?”

good question samsdad1

yes - 30-07-’12 16:49
Hawk Hawkins

The same names…the same rants…but you sure don’t give YOUR name when YOU rant,“Anon”.

Hawk Hawkins - 30-07-’12 18:07

James, the NPS claims that there is one brood(possibly with chicks) of piping plovers somewhere at Cape Point. The new plover with chicks buffer policy is 300m for pedestrians and 1000m for ORVs, except for NPS white ORVs that have a magic anti-disturbance shield.

I looked at 7/30/12 NPS’s “Current Interactive Beach Access Map using Google Earth” and according to it, you can’t legally walk on land to Cape Point. There are two closures at the narrows, about a mile from the ramps.

If you want to be an outlaw, walk the mile from the ramp to the closure, find the magic “mean low tide line”, and wade in water below it for about 1700 feet past the closures. Once your past the closure, technically its legally open to predestination’s again.

But if NPS LE approaches while your there, they’ll be driving a white ORV, immediately run to below the mean tide line again to avoid having to see Judge Boyle. If you get caught, you will pay a fine because Judge Boyle does not want just anyone to be able to walk to Cape Point. Be careful too, its a federal charge with possible of up to a $5,000.00 fine and up to six months imprisonment for visiting Cape Point today.

7ounce - 30-07-’12 18:46
Al Adam


The reason that some have alluded to possible bribery is that the judge has made decisions and statements about CHNSRA that could only be made by a) someone with “zero” familiarity with Hatteras or the issues thereof or b) is being persuaded to see only one side of the issues. I also understand that Derb is the only one called upon to speak in court when the big O makes his superfulous declarations.
I respect your consideration of the courts and their operatives as an uncorruptable part of our system —- and wish that was actually the case. It is $$$$ that speak, not truth, wisdom or science. Those defending the closures have no substantial evidence to prove any of their points —- but many of them are improving their bank accounts, with money extorted from the public trust. They are parasites.

Al Adam - 31-07-’12 07:09

Facts—the land was transferred to NPS based upon an agreement that traditional use would not only continue but would also be encouraged-NPS own administrative record.

Second, the vast majority of comments were against Alt. F and for more access—both written and delivered at reg. neg. No agreement came out of reg. neg. rather the plan was another rule that was promogulated without any deference to the comments or the economic realities.

That said, now that the rule is in place—giving us access and promoting beach driving

Next time you have a good fishing trip, consider this I suggest the following.

Since I am always struck when I hear comments like—it takes skill and years of learning. Well lots of anglers have spent years educating themselves. Or, I fish hard. Well lots of people fish hard.

I’m sorry but you caught fish because someone mentored you. You caught fish because the DOI had the foresight to buy this land and set it aside for public use. You caught fish because the NPS built ramps and provided the infrastructure for you to get to the beach.

So based upon this logic, I suggest we each give up one fish out of our catch and send it to someone who made it possible for us to catch the fish. Now, the question is who deserves to receive this token of your appreciation?

Maybe Captin Obvious and several of the annon posters!

Maybe Boyle, DOI, or NPS?

Any other ideas.

Ginny - 31-07-’12 09:34
Hawk Hawkins

Might I suggest sending “trash fish”?

Hawk Hawkins - 31-07-’12 10:43

I think its funny that SELC, DOW and others get so worked up about beach driving at Cape Hatteras. Just up the coast, in the northern part of OBX, is coastal shoreline of 11 miles long that hundreds people drive ORVs on the beach every day. Horses, birds, and turtles are home to this area and there are no closures/restrictions. Last time I was there I watched juvenile and adult American Oyster catcher’s happily combing the surf line as ORV’s whizzed by. They even allow ATV’s and families/kids dodge ORV’s all day and all night.
Why are they not “protecting the resources” of the beach there? Is it because they are not easy pickings for SELC?

anon (URL) - 31-07-’12 11:20

The honorable Judge Boyle is simply following federal law that requires protection of certian species. there are no laws that state beach access must be protected

annony - 31-07-’12 14:17

I don’t understand the 1000 meter buffer thing. That’s more than half a mile. This year I went to Chincoteague and Assateague Island has a beach driving permit but is a true year permit, expiring ONE YEAR from date of purchase. I didn’t drive on the beach as I was only there for 3 days, but I saw the closures for plovers there and they were only a few feet wide, certainly no more than 20 feet. This was the Virginia part of Assateague, can’t vouch for the Maryland part, didn’t visit up there. The birds did not seem disturbed by SUV’s driving by. The lady at the campground I stayed at is on the Board of Supervisors of Accomack County, Virginia and she has testified in Congress for open beaches. I told her that people on Hatteras were starting to feel paranoid and that there was a hidden agenda to get them off the island. “They should be paranoid, honey,” she said, “that’s exactly what the plan is!” I thanked her for her testimony. She did say how pleased she was to be at the hearing where Senator Joe Manchin, D-West Va., tore the special interest group people a new one. hmm, I wonder if it’s on YouTube, I would like to see that, but yeah, what’s up with the 1000 meter barrier for plovers on Hatteras, and only 20 feet on Assateague? Sounds sort of suspicious to me.

Marty - 31-07-’12 14:41

welcome to the club Marty… you are soo correct that this is nothing short of an island killing agenda by groups who pick the low hanging fruit cases with the government. They could use the same buffers as those beaches but that would not kill the island.

samsdad1 - 31-07-’12 15:36

An archived video of the Senate hearing is available on the committee’s website at


irene - 31-07-’12 16:58

1000 m – 770 acres. Mr. Obama doesn’t get that much. Thre is a resolution in Isle of Wight Co, Va. No dogs on leashes; inhumane.
There is a important decision in 100 days.

ZuniKev - 31-07-’12 18:26
Salvo Jimmy

Hey Hawk,

You sound like a newbie who has never had sauted skate wings or doggie in fish-n-chips. heh heh heh

Salvo Jimmy - 01-08-’12 06:33

Last year a bio-tec who everyone knows at Hatteras told several people, including myself, that the 1000 meter buffer was indeed ‘‘over kill’‘. When ask why it’s found no where else on Earth he said talk to Mike Murray. We keep his name out of the picture.

James - 01-08-’12 07:24
Hawk Hawkins

Salvo,you crack me up!Honestly,I don’t consider any fish as “trash” but thought it just sounded good…and I’m way to old to be a “newby”,as you know! LOL!My dad actually taught me how to “skin out” all kinds of critters at areas that we can’t even walk to now!Any smelly old fish would do but they might think we’re sending a threatening message,like,“Luca Brazzi sleeps wit da fishes”.We wouldn’t want that,now would we?

Hawk Hawkins - 01-08-’12 08:08
Salvo Jimmy

10 day old shrimp, never been on ice. Maybe throw in a little 10 day old bunker.

Salvo Jimmy - 01-08-’12 09:19
Hawk Hawkins

Yeah!“De-bunk” the situation with bunker!

Hawk Hawkins - 01-08-’12 09:25

Obviously it cannot be more one sided than a single page copy of coupons. This type of behavior of a federal jurist makes one wonder. The concerns of the folks living and working in the affected area is naught whereas the scales of justice are supposed to be fine tuned not lopsided.

JW - 01-08-’12 10:29

Seem they do not have an answer to where these people and exaggerated closures were twenty years ago. Even the bps admits it was not monitoring these birds so I confirm what was already said there is not one stitch of proof that there is any more plovers now than before these draconian closures started…

Samsdad1 - 01-08-’12 19:48
Salvo Jimmy

Yep Samsdad1. All ya gotta do is read Bob’s commentary to see it ain’t working.

Salvo Jimmy - 02-08-’12 06:48

How about a good ole nice peaceful protest in Front of Hiz Dis-Honors House on the Edenton Water Front..Let him know how Hatteras Feels about Him..


JAM - 02-08-’12 07:33

Jam I agree we should take our fishing gear and kids and all of their gear and park there for a couple of weeks to get his attention…

We would only need one sign…

“This is where you pushed us to!”

samsdad1 - 02-08-’12 09:14

i just read the latest NPS report.

why is the point still closed?????????????????

bbc - 02-08-’12 17:27
Salvo Jimmy


They are waiting on the new supt to get here to make the call on that.

You know, like not committing to the Final Rule on what could be open for a grandfathered tourney.

Salvo Jimmy - 02-08-’12 18:35

“Where to begin? Irene claims the final rule which had at least three public comment periods and two years of negotiated rule making with all parties present was non-transparent? Maybe you weren’t paying attention, but this was one of thr most transparent rule makings in history.”

Mr. Oblivious apparently thinks the negotiated rule making had something to do with the final outcome? That got thrown out with the lawsuit. It was obvious from the NPS responses to public comments that the final rule was a foregone conclusion, and the NPS was just going through the motions. With the 1000’s of rules made by the US government in any given year, Mr. Oblivious’ claim that the final rule to be “one of the most transparent rule makings in history” is a bit dubious.

“The vast majority of public comments supported the park service’s rule. it came out just as any honest observer would have said it would five years ago.”

Given the reach and PR apparatus available to DoW and Audubon, is it any wonder they can out-comment any other constituency on this issue? Yes, an honest observer can see that money and influence pre-ordained the outcome, especially given Judge Boyle’s attraction to Derb Carter (put some glasses on Derb – he looks a little like Jesse Helms).

“Permits just like every other seashore. Prices in line with other national seashores. Pedestrian areas like every other national seashore. The only difference is that Hatteras allows more driving than most other national seashores.”

Mr. Oblivious with an obvious lie. Cape Lookout National Seashore, just to the south of CHNS, does not have permits or pedestrian areas (I know, I know, they are working on it – part of their “agenda.”). South Padre Island National Seashore in Texas – no permits required, and entrance fee is $20 per year, with a vehicle entry fee of $10/vehicle/week.

Boogamite - 03-08-’12 13:05

Park Service’s chief law enforcement ranger, Paul Stevens, responded to this letter saying “I recently found out that Assateague Island National Seashore had outside stickers, and they switched over to inside stickers, which alleviated theft and issues such as this.”

But the NPS OBX Group was too stupid to do anything that smart. They were too good to ask how other Seashores handled their permits. This statement speaks volumes about poorly the current plan was developed.

anonVisitor - 03-08-’12 16:56
Anon ha ha!

That’s because you are a slovenly reader. I can’t do anything about that.

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

What makes you think CHNS is the only place with the type of habitat Oystercatchers frequent? It is typical of the rest of the ignorant miseprenstations your side comes up with when you can’t make a decent argument. I done with you, thoroughly satisfied in my responce and yours.

Anon ha ha! - 03-08-’12 19:11
Salvo Jimmy

And the Assateague annual permit runs for 1 yr from month of purchase, not ending 31 Dec, even if purchased in Dec.

Salvo Jimmy - 04-08-’12 06:38

and they do not have a 1000 meter buffer in every direction for a non-endangered piping plover…….but neither does any other another place on Earth except Cape Hatteras.

james - 04-08-’12 14:27
Hawk Hawkins

…“ignorant MISEPRENSTATIONS? “I done with you”? “my RESPONCE”??? You GO! Anon ha ha…

Hawk Hawkins - 04-08-’12 18:44

(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.