Records and Rants - 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 

« A fifth anniversary f… | Home | Lessons learned from … »

Records and Rants

Thursday 13 September 2012 at 4:50 pm.

The federal defendants in the Cape Hatteras Preservation Alliance’s lawsuit that seeks to overturn the National Park Service’s final off-road vehicle plan and rule at Cape Hatteras National Seashore have filed the administrative record of ORV rulemaking.

The record was filed on Thursday, Aug. 6, in U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia.

The record, as you might guess, is voluminous, consisting of about 3,500 documents.

At about 8 gigabytes it was too large for electronic filing, and the defendants were permitted to file it manually with the court – on two CDs.

The Outer Banks Preservation Association, one of the groups that comprise CHAPA, has received copies of the CDs from its attorneys at Van Ness Feldman in Washington, D.C., and posted the administrative record on its website at

Look at the top left on the website under “Administrative Record” for an index and instructions for using the index. Almost all of the documents are now posted, but there were some problems with the CDs that OBPA received. The rest of the documents will be posted soon.

On the Island Free Press website, you can find an index of the documents that have been filed and the Vaughn Index for the administrative records.

The index to the documents is pretty large itself and is divided into comments, correspondence, data, court documents, decision documents, references, and negotiated rulemaking documents. (See tabs along the bottom of the Excel document.)

The correspondence file is pretty interesting just to peruse and refers to a number of e-mails that could be revealing about the process of the rulemaking.

And CHAPA’s lawsuit is all about the process.

The complaint, filed on Feb. 9, challenges both the final rule and plan and alleges that in formulating the documents, the Department of the Interior, the National Park Service, and the Cape Hatteras National Seashore violated the National Environmental Policy Act, the Administrative Procedures Act, the seashore’s enabling legislation, and the NPS Organic Act.

District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan allowed the Defenders of Wildlife, the National Audubon Society, and the National Parks Conservation Association to join the action as defendant-intervenors. Those groups are represented by the Southern Environmental Law Center.

The Vaughn Index is a list of 96 documents in the administrative record that the defendants are withholding under several different privileges. In this case, the defendants are claiming attorney-client privilege for most of the withheld documents.

Of course, CHAPA and its attorneys will be carefully reviewing the documents for anything that will help support its case that the process of rulemaking was flawed.

Also, Sullivan is expected to rule soon on whether he will continue to preside over the case in the District of Columbia or whether he will send it to U.S. District Court Judge Terrence Boyle of the Eastern District of North Carolina.

Sullivan said in a telephone status conference in July that he was inclined to send the case to Boyle.

CHAPA objected to the transfer.  The federal defendants said they neither objected to nor support the move.  And the defendant-intervenors, the environmental groups, filed a brief supporting the transfer to Boyle.

Audubon rant is published on

No one was surprised when Audubon magazine published another rant by field editor and columnist Ted Williams about ORVs at Cape Hatteras National Seashore.

This one was entitled “Beach Bullies.”

As usual, it was arrogant and misleading and full of half-truths about the success of the Park Service’s new ORV rule and final regulation.

But that was to be expected.

However, eyebrows were raised when Williams’ rant was republished on by personal finance editor Deborah Jacobs – apparently in her column space.

Jacobs had this to say in a precede to the reprint:

This is a guest post by Ted Williams, a columnist for Audubon magazine and Fly Rod & Reel. For a more detailed treatment of the subject, see his article, “Beach Bullies” and an accompanying Editor’s Note in the September-October 2012 issue of Audubon.

The provocative headline is “The Outer Banks of North Carolina Become a Bloody Beachhead.”

Several readers posted comments about the fact that a respectable publication such as Forbes would reprint this one-sided trash.

The responses to comments are by Ted Williams, who is arrogant, condescending, and argumentative in answering the folks who posted.

I e-mailed Jacobs to ask her why this one-sided diatribe was reprinted on Forbes, what it had to do with personal finance, why it had an extremely provocative headline, and why Jacobs was being allowed to put down those who commented.

This is the non-response I got from her:

Ms. Nolan:
Thanks to you and all the others who weighed in with their comments on Ted Williams’s opinion piece. His article and the bumper sticker depicted in it accentuate the strong feelings on both sides of this issue. Those who think he was unfair have had equal access to the comment space beneath the post and added their dissenting opinions to the marketplace of ideas.
Deborah L. Jacobs

She did respond to my e-mail but did not answer the questions.

I also e-mailed the editors at, and got no response from them.

The “bloody beachhead” trash is still posted.  

So I suggest that you take advantage of the equal access and if you have a dissenting opinion, you add it to “the marketplace of ideas.”

Just don’t add to Ted Williams’ stereotyping of ORV drivers as a bunch of redneck cowboys.  Please be polite in your comments.


Salvo Jimmy

When I click on the index of documents, it comes up as a pdf file and I see no tabs that you refer to in an excel document ????

Salvo Jimmy - 13-09-’12 18:10
Annette Barr

I read and posted a comment on When will the real story of the Hatteras beaches be told. His rant was not worth the paper or web space it took up. It is a shame that people who do not seek to find out the real truth about this issue might believe his trash. Thank you for your continued truthful reporting on this issue.

Annette Barr - 13-09-’12 18:30
Pat Conley  Avon

I read it to, What has happened to the truth.. I looked the the Occupancy figures and if I had to invest in Hatteras Island I would not.. 0.80 % for all of Dare? They are spinning the numbers…to favor them..We are not asking for the world.. Just fair treatment.. open some more beach..The birds and turtles are not everywhere..And walkers are not 90% or more were do they get that????

Pat Conley Avon - 13-09-’12 19:05
Mike P

There’s nothing wrong with beach driving, provided you stay out of critical wildlife habitat.

He said it not me!!

Mike P - 13-09-’12 20:43
Denny in Dayton

From the look of the Vaughn index all you have to do is include your attorney on your emails and you can claim attorney client privilege. You could drive a semi truck through that loophole.

Regarding Ted Williams, as I’ve said before, I’m aware of two Ted Williams. One was one of the greatest baseball players ever, his head is now cronically frozen. The other writes for Audubon Magazine and his head appears to be in a similar condition.

Denny in Dayton - 14-09-’12 08:43
F. Vashti

I agree that the story was extremely biased and does nothing but fuel the fire inside many of us. However, I’ve always found that particular bird image to be inflammatory and objectionable. Why give them ammunition?

F. Vashti - 14-09-’12 16:02
Hawk Hawkins

Denny,one is “cryonically” frozen,the other is “chronically” frozen…LOL!!

Hawk Hawkins - 14-09-’12 16:21

When are people going to realize that” that particular bird image” is causing more harm than good?

billfish - 15-09-’12 09:04
Al Adam


That particular bird image may not be politically correct or appealing to the high minded phonies who are extorting our tax dollars under the guise of being environmentalists —— but it does depict the strong feelings of many of us poor, uneducated, beach driving bums who are probably better stewards of the environment that most of the “wantebes that oppose active outdoor recreation. The voice given an obvious bumbling idiot like Ted Williams is frankly as upsetting as that expressed is so many other primarily left wing rags. That is why newspapers are failing. Obvioulsy, to get his “bum” story written in Forbes takes some kind on iside relationship with a columnist who needs to be questioned about her motivation. Anyone familiar with the true story of CHNSRA, reading Williams’ work would simply react with “what the hell is this guy talking about?” His agenda as some kind of alledgedly elistest sportsman leads me to believe that he had a difficult youth or has some kind of hormone problem. He is pathetic and denounced by many real sportsmen. So yes, the “bird” may express some very hard feelings —- but I think it is more representative of the frustration that one with actual knowledge of the beach feels when dealing with a thoroughly corrupt agency fueled by self-serving groups, whose actual goal is to line the pockets of their board members, and judges who dine with and line the pockets of their fraternity brothers at the local contry club —- while laughing at us poor fools. I would cherish the cahnce to chat with Mr. Williams in person —- but suspect he is not available for any face to face conversation —- even with abroke down old beach bum!

Al Adam - 15-09-’12 10:11

Showing the finger to every visitor and little child is just plain stupid and has nothing to do with being a broke down old beach bum. It has everything to do with being inconsiderate and expressing your views with only yourself in mind. Didn’t your momma teach you that two wrongs don’t make a right?

billfish - 15-09-’12 11:07
bob davis

The Audubon Bird Sign is totally obnoxious. I fly it on my truck and on the cyclone fence near the school. It is no where near as obnoxious as the actions pepetrated by Audubon and its cohorts against the islands residents and guests. It needs to irritate the public to question the scam used by these groups to close our beaches and intrude into our lives. Apathy and ignorance is encountered every day from both visitors and our own residents. The signs are justified when just one more person learns the truth about beach closures that do not benefit wildlife survival. Maybe the rest of the country reads and believes the wacko-spin and lies put out by Ted Williams for Audubon, but for me the lies stop at the sign on the fence and that’s why it’s there. BOB

bob davis - 15-09-’12 13:35

“It needs to irritate the public.” Well, congratulation, you have succeeded.” But the only thing it really does, however, is to irritate the public to be ashamed for you and embarassed for the Island. You can’t be clever without being offensive in order to gain attention? Did you ever think about the eyes of young children and grandmothers, or are they just collateral damage in your quest to get your way? No matter the view of Audobon or NPS, you are flat out wrong.

billfish - 15-09-’12 17:39

Ah. The bird sign is not the only thing you are wrong about. I feel sorry for most of the followers of the ORV access crowd because they don’t even know they are being lied to by your leaders and you keep spouting their rhetoric, making you look so stupid. Such a shame fo create such a division here on the island. Time will prove you are wrong but I wonder if you will ever accept you were fooled by your own leaders.

bluwater - 15-09-’12 22:30
Salvo Jimmy

ORVs ORVs ORVs. Some of you still don’t get it.

Pedestrians are just as affected, maybe mopre so than ORV users.

For example, the 3 Vehicle Free Areas (VFAs) between Salvo and Avon were extremely difficult to access for almost all of the Summer. Unless you were willing to park along NC12 and walk thru the brush over the dune for a fairly long distance, you could not get to the VFAs.

So what did the peds do??? They used the ORV areas that were open because access was easier.

Thus, the idea of eliminating user conflict with seperate ped and ORV areas was a dismal failure. One person even wrote an opinion piece in a mid state paper complaining about the ORVs encountered while walking on the beach.

Now no doubt the lack of the new infrastructure required to support the new rule is a problem. However, many of us advocated strongly implementing the rule piecemeal as infrastructure went in place in a given area, particularly regarding VFAs. Of course that was not done because it would have required exercising common sense.

Salvo Jimmy - 16-09-’12 06:37

ORV’s, alcohol on the Island, taxes, whatever. No matter what the cause, using a sign or a billboard or a sticker of the finger is absolutely not in the best interest of the Island. We all have the joint responsibility to teach our children civility and life skills and to welcome our guests in a positive manner. The finger signs are obscene, offensive and wrong, not because of ORV views but because of giving every viewer a giant FU. Find another way. Where are our local goverment and church leaders on this issue?

billfish - 16-09-’12 09:32
Salvo Jimmy

Well billfish

No matter how offensive, obscene or wrong some feel the “bird” sign/sticker is, political correctness does not trump the first ammendment.

My guess is local gov’t / church leader ranting would just result in further proliferation, not removal.

Salvo Jimmy - 16-09-’12 10:44

Well Salvo Jimmy,

The “bird” sign/sticker provides the stereotype for the open access ORV group doesn’t it? For those who do not care about how others think about it being offensive, For those who do not care that it is exposed to family’s and children. For those who think that the end justifies whatever means.

It is becoming a crazy world for those who think that their wants trump common courtesy and decency. Let me know how you explain it to your young Grandchildren so I can do the same.

It is a common occurance among the open ORV access group that if you do not like the judge’s ruleing you personaly attack him/her.

If you do not like what or how the FEIS is implemented you personally attack the men and women of the NPS and the NPS Outer Banks Group Suptt./staff

If you do not like the role environmental/conservation groups take you personally attack environmental/conservation leaders.

This tact takes place from the Dare County Board of Commissioners Chairman to the members/leaders of open access groups and although you may think it advances your cause it only shows the selfish motives of a few who overlook and do not care about the common good of the National Park Service areas and those who visit them.

Anon - 16-09-’12 11:22

Salvo Jimmy,
Of course you can stand behind the first admendment. It has helped to bring an end to wars, worker exploitation, genocide, indentured servitude, slavery, not allowing women to vote, prohibition, corporate corruption…and it is now being used for a motor vehicle regulation. Somehow The last one denigrates the real reason for the Constitution and is just being used as an excuse for displaying a FU for every grandmother, child and visitor to see. Quoting the Constitution to show everyone you have the right to flip the finger is wrong and socially abusive. That’s just common sense.

billfish - 16-09-’12 12:57
Salvo Jimmy

Well anon and billfish

Please show me where I have flipped the “bird” or said I would flip the “bird”.

And anon, I can also explain it to anyone, including my grandkids. If you can’t, then that is your problem, not mine, to solve.

Whether I LIKE it’s use is neither here nor there and I don’t think I have said what I LIKE.

I SUPPORT it for a reason neither of you seem to understand. It is a form of free speech allowed by the constitution which I swore to “support and defend”, did directly for about 24 yrs, and still do.

My previous post had nothing to do with what I LIKE.

BTW I also SUPPORT Williams in exercising his first ammendment right to bad mouth access advocates as I do your right to bad mouth the use of the “bird”.

Salvo Jimmy - 16-09-’12 16:47

Well Salvo Jimmy,

As long as you said: “I can also explain it to anyone, including my grandkids” then do so, explain it for me!

Supporting the offensive symbol under the guise of free speech is sad that you would stoop to that level in your support of open ORV access. You seem to forget that such an open offensive symbol is a sign placed for all to see whether they want to or not.

Your faux support of Mr. Williams right for free speech is laughable. I do not see him posting any offensive use of the middle finger or hand painted signs of closed beaches on the Outer Banks for all to see, so please point out where he has.

Anon - 16-09-’12 17:55
Al Adam

The ultimate signs of disrespect are the closure signs that are a blight to the seashore. One sign of the frustration created by the bogus and “false facts” presented by the likes of Ted Williams and the Audubon society is the infamous bird. Although I choose not to display that symbol I certainly understand and respect the right of others to do so. In this age of runaway government, corrupt officials and courts, catering to one another for fiscal gains, music lyrics that are often unacceptable in any venue and degarding displays on prime time television I find it difficult to believe even the self-righteous among us are really offended by the bird.
When you tell SJ his “faux” approval of Mr Williams right to free speech is laughable perhaps you should consider that SJ spent a career defending that right —- and his actions are honorable, not superficial.
Have you considered the possibility that some may be offended by the fact that John Audubons vehicle to promote the study of various creatures was to shoot and stuff them?
Have you considered the motives of Audubon, who has cashed in on a number of inherited properties, earmarked for preserves, but sold to developers for top dollar to enhance the bank accounts of board members —- frequently to the tune of six figures?
Have you thought about DOW members who support the trapping and slaughter of non-native predators to “protect” non-native birds?
The little green bird symbol is ever so insignificant compared to the actions of the groups who, under the guise of protecting our environment, extort money from fellow taxpayers for their own purposes. The agencies and legislation that enable that farce are the ones giving us all the biggest “salute” possible.

Al Adam - 16-09-’12 19:05


The administrative record for off-road vehicle rulemaking at Cape Hatteras National Seashore is now posted on the website of the Outer Banks Preservation Association.

Here is the link:

Look on the left hand side of the site for the index of the administration record and how to find what you need. Read the instructions for using the index.

Most of the documents are now available through the OBPA site, but not all of them. The rest will be added before the week is out.


Irene - 16-09-’12 19:36
Salvo Jimmy


The explanation I gave to you is exactly the same as I would give to my grandkids when they are old enough to comprehend.

Here’s a harder one to explain, but I have.

“Papa, why can’t we go to Ramp 23 like last year”

And no, I’m not going elaborate, but I did not stoop to any level as you say in doing so.

You may consider my comment about Williams as laughable, so be it. He has posted 2 articles that are offensive to some. The fact they are not on a sign in Buxton is meaningless since my guess is far more people have seen the articles than the “bird”. Frankly I find your and billfish use of grandkids and grandmothers laughable, as if some switch is thrown when one becomes a grandmother.

Now FYI I have also pointed out to one access org that a sticker and T-shirt they are promoting do not comply with the US Flag Code. That is more offensive to me than the “bird”.

I personally don’t display the “bird”, but do not find it obscene or offensive. I suspect most who see it find it more amusing than offensive, at least that is my experience with visitors.

I even recall a very good use of the “bird” in a photo of Vietnam POWs. I guess that was also offensive to some, but not to me.

BTW keep in mind it is the Supreme Court who decides what is obscene and offensive with regard to the first ammendment, not you, billfish or me. Until they declare the “bird” as such, I will SUPPORT its use by either side. I may not LIKE it but I will SUPPORT.

Salvo Jimmy - 17-09-’12 09:22

Salvo Jimmy,
Your answer makes sense, and I respect you for standing behind the idea of free speech. I question the use of the finger related to a motor vehicle law, and one related to recreation at that. Quite honestly, the finger signs are really just a nuisance, an embarrasing one, but just that.
There must be a more clever way to express opinions than these childish signs. It’s a PR nightmare, not just for the island but for ORV groups.
The groups seeking limited access are tickled to death they were thrown such a softball. In my view, it was a bad move all the way around and truly hurts the open access groups.

billfish - 17-09-’12 09:47

“I question the use of the finger related to a motor vehicle law, and one related to recreation at that.”

Its not about a motor vehicle law. Its about loss of access to everyone. Its about not being able to even walk to the beaches. Its about using junk science and recommendations of excessively large resource closures. Its about turtle closures that go from dune to water for no reason. Its about putting recreation second to “resource protection” of species that don’t need “resource protection”. Its about calling beach goers being called “Beach Bums”. Its about a clueless judge that threatens to close all the beaches.

AnonVisitor - 17-09-’12 15:55

Actually it is about a motor vehicle law related to driving 4×4’s on the beach. The rest is just spin from unhappy surf fishers that want to drive the beach. The amount of pedestrians complaining about the new park service laws would not even add up to a rounding error. All this stuff about loss of freedom, big money troublemakers, etc., has to do with new controls related too many 4×4’s on the beach because everyone owns one now. Exactly what would you expect from an island that has undergone a building boom and now has mega mansions lining the beach?

billfish - 17-09-’12 19:14

Well bluefish what do you think restricting access to the remote stretches of beach will cause…. More people using the McMansions on the beach causing even more to pop up. McMansions do not cause Orv access but limiting the later will cause the use of the McMansions to increase…. These same people who used to utilize their vehicles to access the beach now will rent the house on the beach or be replaced by the people who will… This will not subdue the use of these houses and will only increase it. Proving once again you speak without thinking.

Samsdad1 - 17-09-’12 19:39

You are correct about more big houses being built in the future. I am correct that the increase of people driving 4×4’s will result in greater control on the beach. Take the emotion out of this and you will find the villages continuing to grow over the long run and the beaches becoming more restrictive. Times have changed…only density zoning will curtail the trend. Today’s ORV regulations could be just the beginning. Most beach goers nationwide don’t want vehicles on their beaches. They come with their families and set up their umbrellas and go boogie boarding. They see national parks as a place to get away from buildings and trucks and a way to enjoy a more natural environment. The views on this blog are often too myopic and really only have to do with the needs of people who want their truck next to them on the beach while fishing. That’s it.

billfish - 17-09-’12 20:01

once upon a time the families came and set up their umbrellas and went boogie boarding in the cove (behind cape point campground), at most times the safest beach for families on hatteras island. sadly this is a ‘no more’.

........ - 17-09-’12 21:43
Hawk Hawkins

billfish’s myopia causes him to only see “ a motor vehicle law” He cannot (or will not) believe that freedom and liberty enter into this issue at all.In his mind’s eye,it is ALL emotional response by misled intellectually challenged people who just aren’t bright enough to see his correctness.

Hawk Hawkins - 18-09-’12 08:10

Compare the stuggle for liberty and freedom in many other parts of the world with the “liberty and freedom” regarding beach driving regulations and the total argument becomes laughable. It’s a motor vehicle regulation for the beach, and a toll just like the NJ Turnpike. You can certainly be against it, but don’t turn this into anything else than people driving on the beach but with more regulations and less access. Liberty and freedom. Wow!

billfish - 18-09-’12 09:13
Salvo Jimmy


It ain’t all about having a truck next to you when fishin’

I want to get my toddler grandkids out to a safe place. So do my daughter and son-in-law. Walking is not an option to the sound areas at the inlets or South Beach, even if they happen to be open to peds.

Salvo Jimmy - 18-09-’12 09:25

Salvo Jimmy,
Of course there are downsides to driving resrtictions on the beach. The new resrtictions still allow for to take your grandkids out to a safe place, just not always the exact place you’d like to be. The restrtions are not the cause, but the reaction to long term growth and the explosion of 4×4 trucks and SUVs. If it weren’t for the turtle and birds, it would be for something else. I don’t know about you, but I’d rather overshoot the preservation of our national parks than undershoot them. This is our reality. This is the unintended consequences of visitor and village growth.
The Park Service is doing exactly what they were supposed to do, except 20 or so years too late. This should have been straightened out decades ago, and we should all have turned lemons into lemonade by now.

billfish - 18-09-’12 11:00
Salvo Jimmy


Name the safe places I have not mentioned, besides maybe around Ramp 49, depending on the bar topography/wind.

Don’t bother with other sound accesses like between Salvo and Buxton. Too many bugs, snakes, and/or water sport participants.

Salvo Jimmy - 18-09-’12 12:00

people should not be driving or living in a wildlife area.

anon - 18-09-’12 12:19

You seem to forget there were people living here long before it was designated CHNSRA. A
Pea Island is a wildlife refuge and no one is living there. Just saying……..

............ - 18-09-’12 13:42

The whole planet is a wildlife area. Try Jupiter. How about saying people should not build their houses on National Park property. Last time I looked, I didn’t notice this happening. As for driving, shouldn’t it be that people should adhere to motor vehicle regulations within the National Parks. A little hyperbolic, aren’t you?

Salvo Jimmy,
You might be right. Maybe the Haulover on bad kiteboarding days, but maybe not. National seashores will have their bugs and snakes. How about a trip by skiff and coming in the other way? I hope you find a way.

Billfish - 18-09-’12 13:44

Billfish you know nothing of conservationalism

anon - 18-09-’12 15:24
Al Adam

I expect some children, who are frequently tainted with extreme enviro views in school today, to lack the understanding of loss of freedom. I don’t care about those “other parts of the world” —- this is the U.S. and our freedoms have been hard fought for and protected. As the cancer of government control easts away at society some of you may come to accept is as —“just another toll”. Like the tea tax and the whiskey tax and the other unfair taxes inposed upon us some 240 years back —- that actually became the catalyst for our revolution and the resulting nation. When we fail to recognize what we are losing we no longer appreciate what it is that we have. As you fall in line with the rest of the sheeple you don’t even consider what is at the end of that line.
If you come to believe that it is good, sound reasoning to place emmission controls on vehicles that cause that vehicle to burn more fuel at higher temperatures, you swallow the solar energy scam until that 30K you put on your roof declines in efficiency from the minute it is installed until it is useless in 20 years, and you worship the laughable eyesores that are giant windmills, you need to look in the mirror and ask yourself what became of your common sense. If you look at a 1000’ perimeter around a birds nest, a non- native one to boot, and think that seems reasonable, you and the bird have similiar brain capacity. We don’t need more rules and regulations in this country. You can’t legislate decency and morality and they are seldom taught outside a good, old-fashioned household environment. To think that a toll to drive our beach in our designated CHNSRA is the same as paying a toll on the NJ turnpike is one of the most bazaar comparisons that I have ever considered. The toll on the turnpike pays for road improvements, the toll on the beach pays for more restrictions and funding of a corrupt agency and bloated bureaucrecy. When one generation cedes their rights it becomes much easier for sucessive generations —- who don’t miss what they never had. It is a slippery slope.

Al Adam - 18-09-’12 15:41

Billfish the restrictions are causing the areas that are accessible to be no longer viable to those same families who used the Orv access to get to the places without crowds and beach towels… This causes the overcrowding of the few areas left behind and this takes away from the paradise I once enjoyed… I for one can rent a house in nags head and have the same access as I can have in hatteras. That my friends is a travesty caused by people who think they can save the world by ruining it with closed signs.

Samsdad1 - 18-09-’12 16:51

Wow, I didn’t know that Hatteras Island is the final straw related to our national government and, of coursr, liberty and freedom. That’s heavy. I was just thinking about conservation as it relates to our National Parks. That’s the biggest fish I’d prefer to fry. I guess if you wanted to, it would be possible to extrapolate a recreational driving restriction into causing world hunger and the entire downfall of Western Civilization. I’d rather consider the situation as finding a way to handle the issue of too many 4×4’s in our National Parks because everyone seems to own one now. Maybe I’m just a small-town country boy that’s not seeing the big picture.

billfish - 18-09-’12 17:27
Cap'n Obvious

The big picture is just People don’t like change. But every indicator is positive. Birds and turtles are more successful and have been every year since the restrictions on beach driving, and night driving were put in place. Tourism set records this year, even on Hatteras Island. Local businesses on Hatteras Island were quoted in the paper saying this was one of their best years ever. Are there exceptions? Sure. A few tackle shops, probably, although, let’s face it, interest in fishing is declining nationwide too, and its never been clear that that’s a sustainable business model. But the fact is, other than the people on this board, the majority of visitors like the new rules, are willing to get a permit to drive on the beach, and are still coming to the seashore. You can flip the bird at Audubon or wrap your opposition in the flag, but it won’t change anything. The rules are here to stay.

Cap'n Obvious - 18-09-’12 21:21

mr. obvious

Which tourism records are you quoting? From which local paper?
Which Hatteras Island businesses are quoted saying ‘one of the best years ever’? Wings?

The birds numbers appeared to be down this year from reading the NPS weekly reports.

The majority of people we’ve seen in our store are very unhappy about the ‘new rules’, not so much the fees but lack of access to favorite places. Especially upsetting to some folks that came was not knowing about closed access to the point and inlets, not just to orv’s but pedestrians too.

Your majority and our majority are different majorities.

just asking……

... - 18-09-’12 22:42


It is obvious that all the things you listed are correct; however there are those to choose to ignore the obvious and think that things will not change.

The chapa lawsuit decision will be as the previous one against chapa … decided in favor of the NPS.

The two bills introducted by politicans who look for election year votes will die a slow death and by the remote chance that there is a vote taken by the Senate, the FEIS will remain intact.

end of story!

Anon - 18-09-’12 22:56
Al Adam


I am also a small town boy and, I reckon you can tell, am very leary of government intrusiveness. I do agree that government creates more problems then it solves and every superfulous new law created is a problem, not a blessing. I think the feds should protect our borders and maintain our highways and byways for commerce. Period!

Al Adam - 19-09-’12 10:50

Hey capn…

Does the new rules in Hatteras explain why numbers for the same are up on the entire east coast? I guess only you can parlay that into the effects of the new rules. I also want links to these papers stating the numbers you quote?

samsdad1 - 19-09-’12 12:23

Capt Oblivious “ Lets face it interest in fishing is declining nationwide too” Just picked this months Saltwater sportsman magazine and they seem to differ as does U.S. Fish and Wildlife.They found a double digit increase in the number of anglers the past five years more than 33 million anglers spent $41.8 Billion. Averaging $1,262 per angler.Secretary Salazar also commented on the huge economic impact on local communities . So WHY are Hatteras tackle and fishing industries suffering ??

Mike - 19-09-’12 18:32

I suspect over-saturation. Hatteras either needs more guests or fewer people in the “tackle and fishing industry.” You know what the real estates agencies want—and all staying in multi-family motels posing as mega-mansions. Choose your poison.

billfish - 19-09-’12 19:58

Billfish When anyone says “I suspect” I question there information . So a few years ago the “tackle and fishing industry” were doing okay making a living. can we say that now with NO new tackle shops. Over-saturation thats laughable

Mike - 19-09-’12 20:23

Haven’t you heard of the great economic reset? A few years ago everyone across America found out there were too many houses, too many retail stores, too many vacation homes and too much borrowed money. Every one and every business must adjust to this new and ever-evolving reality. Hatteras is no exception. What was has nothing to do with what is. Oh, now I get it: new 4×4 beach restrictions have caused a global financial meltdown in addition to the loss of freedom and liberty in America. Duh, what was I thinking?

billfish - 19-09-’12 20:56

Might be interesting to see how Hatteras Island compares to the county as a whole.

sal - 20-09-’12 06:25
Salvo Jimmy

sorry, my post on schools enrollment

Salvo Jimmy - 20-09-’12 06:26
Hawk Hawkins

billfish,you wouldn’t know freedom or liberty if they hit you in the head.The fight for both start in small places.Roll over and give up now and you’ll have niether in the future…not that it would bother you.

Hawk Hawkins - 20-09-’12 06:27

We have a criminal government. They prove it over and over.

Steve - 20-09-’12 08:25

Well, that about sums it up. A limited beach driving restriction is the result of the US Government being a criminal goverment out to take away freedom and liberty from its citizens. Well, hush my mouth. I thought it was about too many 4×4’s because everone now owns one now, and a fee to help manage the fact that there are too many 4×4’s on the beach because, once again, everybody owns one now. Good bye, and I won’t let the door slam behind me.

billfish - 20-09-’12 10:42
Bosun Preposterous

What was has nothing to do with what is.

The above has to be the most ridiculous statement that has ever been made concerning this issue, which is no small feat.


Bosun Preposterous - 20-09-’12 12:34

billfish,what a kook.

Steve - 20-09-’12 16:00
F. Vashti

Reading through this entire string of comments today leads me to conclude that billfish is not a kook and neither are many on the other side of the debate. Unfortunately history, issues of fairness, questionable science on both sides, legitimate and illegitimate environmental concerns, as well as financial consequences which have many causes unrelated to this issue all make it very difficult to find common ground for the debate. Biased articles like the one in Forbes AND inflammatory signs, t-shirts, etc. all keep us divided. I understand the deeply held opinions and emotions of many here, but finding a way to bridge our different thoughts, feelings, and opinions is going to be the only way to heal and move forward. And, back to the issue of free speech, just because we “can” doesn’t mean that we’re using good judgment if we “do”. As my Mama used to say: “Honey, two wrongs don’t make a right.”

F. Vashti - 20-09-’12 17:18
R Doswell

Good bye, and I won’t let the door slam behind me.
billfish – 20-09-’12 10:42

Good God….I thought you’d never find that exit

R Doswell - 20-09-’12 21:35
Salvo Jimmy

Once again I will say, it is not just about ORV access and those who continue to think that are missing the bigger picture on access.

Salvo Jimmy - 21-09-’12 08:33
Hawk Hawkins

Dearest Anon,you are certainly as brilliant as billfish and just as conciliatory.“Sure it is…” Just because you say so,does not make it so and I’m not going to quote my momma.You appear to have no clue as to the real cost to families packing into an ORV,with the best fuel mileage that they can afford, and driving to Hatt. from Maine because it has been a family tradition for decades to embrace that sense of freedom!They make their own rod racks,you presumptuous —— !Then they’re faced with a fee and grossly limited access!And YOU want them to believe the “battle and war” are over…My father would say,“This is NOT what I fought for”.

Hawk Hawkins - 21-09-’12 09:59
Salvo Jimmy

Most of the 4WDs I see today around the area have no rod rack(s) or fishin’ gear. At most a hitch haul or car top carrier to pack in the stuff that won’t fit inside.

Salvo Jimmy - 21-09-’12 17:31

One of my friends that vacations here in Buxton this time every year asked me where all the fishermen are that she usually sees everywhere.

yes - 21-09-’12 18:43
Hawk Hawkins

Dearest Anon,presumptuous as ever,I WAS at the recreational area recently…with my children,grandchildren,and a slew of the forementioned inlaws from as far away as Maine.You are wrong again and your focus is narrow and dim.Did your father fight for bird freedom ?

Hawk Hawkins - 22-09-’12 07:30
Hawk Hawkins

Anon2,I am far from an “infrequent” visitor and do not try to tell everyone how it is down there…just Anons who don’t believe I ever come there.The issue,to me,is freedom and intrusive government,something Anon finds laughable, not “motor vehicle laws”.Anon stated his dad would like these restrictions-thus the comment.Perhaps you’ve noticed the “anon family” can be a little condescending and arrogant…perhaps you did not.I find it hard to believe an anonymous entity can take something as being personal.Let’s meet on the beach this week,bring Anon,and we can discuss rod racks,neighbor.

Hawk Hawkins - 23-09-’12 08:19

The anon family is killing me.

......... - 23-09-’12 13:01
tryin again

US senate has gone home until after elections. Looks like nothing will happen with federal law.

tryin again - 23-09-’12 19:04
Anon E. Mouse

I guess no one reads what the Car manufactures are manufacturing.. I would be More than able to back it up that there were MORE Four Wheel Drive Vehicles in the 80’s and 90’s then they sell today.. Keep making it out to be about driving, when it is about Access.. JOKES ON YOU YOU CAN NOT WALK THERE EITHER.. Lose Lose Situtation.. With ONLY one Winner, Lawyers..

Anon E. Mouse - 24-09-’12 11:39
Al Adam


I’m not sure if we are better off when the legislators are in or out of session. Until we get some leadership who can bring these nitwits together we are doomed to disappointment. Citizen servants need to replace career politicians.

Al Adam - 24-09-’12 17:09
tryin again

I was saying I am pleased there will be no further action by the senate….aka…the law stands as it is now. Get over it.

tryin again - 24-09-’12 17:50

The NPS has made it clear that fishermen are not welcome anymore. Some of the traditional areas to fish are no longer accessible by walking or vehicle. The 7am start time is just to late and 9pm closure is too early. The $120 tax on access and the harassment by NPS has made it not so appealing anymore. With so many complete closures in the spring all but eliminates fishing the spring run. Hatteras is no longer the surf fishing capital of the world. Its now trying to be an overprotected wildlife refuge with fishermen and people crammed into the same spaces…Just not worth it.

FHB - 25-09-’12 08:37

Tryin’ Again,
Sorry to throw cold water on your theory that there will be no further action in the U.S. Senate on the bill to overturn the NPS ORV plan.
Actually, the Congress has recessed and will return in November after the election.
This Congress will not end until the end of the year.
So, yes, there could be further action.
It’s probably a longshot, but it’s not over yet.

Irene - 25-09-’12 21:36
Reality Ron

tryin again,

You called it correctly. The few in la la land need to get in the real world. Kaye, Hagen & Jones as well as other members of Congress will be trying to be reelected and thinking about the holidays when they return in Nov. A longshot? How about no shot. Not to worry about any cold water thrown about.

Reality Ron - 26-09-’12 07:15
tryin again

We’ll see about whether it is over or not. (with Congress) Time will tell.
As for the local ranting, that will depend on whether the people on this blog keep it going or accept what happens.

tryin again - 26-09-’12 10:54
Al Adam


Some of us are not accustomed to rolling over!

Al Adam - 27-09-’12 06:54
Dave Vachet

This thing is far from over. The most evident indication is the vehement grandstanding of all the Anons here that support the access restrictions currently in place. Ask yourself: Why would they be here defending their position if they thought it was over and a done deal? They are fighting to keep the current status quo because they know how tenuous it is…

And yes, the access advocates, both locals and those from other parts of the country will not give up. So, if you live there and are for the access restrictions, continue to expect pushback from far and wide!

Dave Vachet - 27-09-’12 11:28

Yes, “This thing” is over. Ask yourself: why does the open ORV access group spread their filth at the Audubon web site? The environmentalists local and from all parts of the country will not give up and will continue to support the NPS rules for protection for threatened and endangered wildlife and sea turles at Cape Hatteras National Seashore.

Thankfully here are many more of us than there are of you and we will continue to put our money and our voice where it counts.

Environmentalist - 30-09-’12 20:35

And the Audubon continues to print half truths on it’s website. Don’t forget, Audubon started all this mess by suing the NPS.

exenvironmentalist - 01-10-’12 07:53


You are now spreading the half-truths. Your facts are very much lacking as to who started what. The Defenders of Wildlife and the SELC filed suit AFTER no actions was taken by the NPS to uphold the ESA. for many years.

Research just when the first CHAPA lawsuit was filed and rejected and get back to us on that.

Environmentalist - 01-10-’12 08:24

nothing like half truths to keep us all going

ex - 01-10-’12 09:29

How many birds and turtles did Kay Hagan actually run over? Zero. But its okay for the Audubon, SELC, and DOW to make up lies.
No action? The Interim plan was vetted and approved by everyone EXCEPT Audubon, SELC, and DOW. They didn’t accept the plan because it didn’t meet their goal of denying everyone access to the beach.
And where in the ESA does it describe a 1000 meter buffer for a not endangered bird or dune to water line turtle closures? Or for pre-nesting closures for not endangered birds?
Audubon continued to fuel the fire with their deceitful and inflammatory article by the idiot Ted Williams. I hope the comments continue at Audubon’s site and continue to show their clueless members how misguided the organization is…

Reality - 01-10-’12 11:18

Lets get real here. You dont like Teds article and he is an extreamist on the other side of the fence. What do you think most of you extreamist on this side of the fence sound and look like? I can tell you, it’s about the same. Get rid of the stickers that make you look like bullies, stop the lies. It does not help your cause get real, speak as if you at least have a 12th grade education and seek better representation for your party, some white trash self pro claimed fishing guru claims to speak for all of you, but in reality it’s Just A Moron. Do it the right way get it together.

REALITY - 02-10-’12 22:11
reality check

Someone above ^ needs to spell and use grammar proving they have at least a 6th grade education.

reality check - 03-10-’12 08:06


... - 03-10-’12 09:14
Al Adam

Those of you wishing to learn a bit more about the environmental movement may wish to raed Behind the Green Mask — Rosa Koire. This is a rather enlightening insight to the highjacking of the enviro movement for entirley non-environmetal purposes. It is written by a left wing liberal activist from California who, I must say, has some great insight into U.N. Agenda 21 —- as does my “white trash” friend. It is curious that he is so much smarter than those who critize him!!!

Al Adam - 06-10-’12 06:57

(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.