# So much for good faith



## Cdog (Mar 18, 2002)

and Reg neg given a chance. They have filed for a injunction and the sad thing is they might get it. I'm pretty pissed right now....

http://www.islandfreepress.org/2008Archives/02.19.2008-EnviromentalGroupSeeksInjunction.html


----------



## squalus (Sep 26, 2007)

I guess all we can do at this point is wait and see what happens tomorrow, huh?

It'll be a loooooong walk to the point...


----------



## Drumdum (Jan 6, 2003)

This was predicted by some,but I didn't believe our government would allow "special intrest" to rule the roost.. Instead of negociated rule making committee making decisions,they (enviormental groups) would enter a law suite and have it thier way,no matter what.. 
When reg-neg was started it was agreed upon that all parties would stay out of court and avoid confrontation,but it appears as though some are going to take a National Park and make it into a National Wildlife Refuge no matter what..
Our only hope is OBPA jumps in with NPS on the law suite,and between the two they can block this..

First access to landbased fishing,next limitations on the places you can fish with a boat.. Our privelges are dwidling rapidly..


----------



## CrawFish (Sep 23, 2003)

I couldn't sleep last nite because of this and I'm waking up early because of this. Please keep us updated on this.


----------



## Hannibal (Aug 10, 2007)

I posted about this on the F/F site. If they are filing an injuction, I believe they will have a hard time having it granted as they'd in fact be asking for change - an overruling of previously negotiated regulations.

That is what a hearing/trial would be for - not an injuction. Typically an injunction serves as putting a stop on newly implemented change - thus reverting things back to how they were until more "court bs" can take place.

For example, if beach access was previously NOT allowed and through whatever process, that policy changed to allow it - an organization such as EPA could come out and submit an injuction saying that "we need to look at this more before making a drastic change - there are impacts here." At which case, the court may side with them and say "Yes, let's keep things the way they were until we get a little more research."

In the OBX instance, beach access was allowed under the old policy and the interim one - thereby implementing an injuction should just revert it back to previous policy. What it seems like they are asking for is an overturning of the current policy which would (I believe) require more court BS.


----------



## Hannibal (Aug 10, 2007)

This was copied and pasted from another site (I added some stuff) ...... I had to make sure my above thoughts were accurate .....

In most courts in the United States, the party seeking the preliminary injunction (EPA) must demonstrate all four things together:

1) That there is a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of the case, 
2) That they face a substantial threat of irreparable damage or injury if the injunction is not granted, 
3) That the balance of harms weighs in favor of the party seeking the preliminary injunction (EPA) 
4) That the grant of an injunction would not disserve the public interest (OBX beachgoers). 

The "balance of harms" refers to the threatened injury to the party seeking the preliminary injunction (EPA) as compared to the harm that the other party (OBX) may suffer from the injunction.


So again - it looks like if anything, that things would revert back to how they were temporarly. If EPA had a shoe in case, they would have brought for a suit long ago. More so, being that any trial/hearing would be in a court of NC, it would be clearly evident that the financial and economic harm of closing beach access would far outweigh the environmental impacts of keeping them open. This is unless EPA can produce overwhelming evidence that access (specifically ORV) has led to a huge impact on the environment - and I don't think they can, otherwise they would have already.


----------



## Cdog (Mar 18, 2002)

Hannibal, not sure if you are aware but about 6 months ago a Fed judge issued a order that the NPS was not in compliance with the 1976 presidental orders.

I'm not a lawyer but part of the order was that until they were brought into compliance that beach driving was illegal.

Therefore the group files for a injunction and if they get it no more beach driving.


----------



## Hannibal (Aug 10, 2007)

Ahh, I did know about the previous issue but I thought it was that they needed to ennact more stringent policies - such as those followed elsewhere so that beach access could be available. I thought in the meantime - access was still granted.


----------



## justinstewart (Nov 23, 2007)

"The Defenders of Wildlife and the National Audubon Society, represented by the Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC), filed a lawsuit against the National Park Service on Oct. 18 in federal district court in Elizabeth City over its failure to adopt regulations to manage beach driving at the Cape Hatteras National Seashore."

What does the audubon society and the defenders of wildlife have that we don't? 

representation. 

we, as a collective group of ORV users and fisherman should try to get some.


----------



## basstardo (Jun 5, 2006)

Not only representation, but money as well. Representation costs through the nose. They'll fight until we give up or run out of money.


----------



## dirtyhandslopez (Nov 17, 2006)

Damn, no computer for 2 days and look what happens.:--|


----------



## dafishguy (Apr 13, 2006)

*You are right Terry!*

They have plenty of money behind them but we could have more than just fishermen. Hotel owners, restaurants, all the businesses this would affect on the OBX, and even surfers and the business they support could all be affected by this. We need to rally the troops against these evvironmental groups that cast a dark image on us ORv users. We care as much about the quality of the environment there as anyone.


----------



## justinstewart (Nov 23, 2007)

obviously money is a part of representation. 

how can we get money to get representation?

any ideas?

i was thinking about maybe a sticker. 

buy a sticker for your car that costs $11. $10 from your purchase goes toward representation. the other dollar is for website costs and postage.

sell 50,000 of these and you'll have a half million dollars. with those funds, we could get some representation.

obviously this is a rediculous idea and will probably never go anywhere. but how many cars have you seen around with OBX stickers. or yellow ribbon magnets or pink ribbon magnets. 

what if you put these in tackle shops and gift shops right by the register. and sell them online?

guess what you get when you join the audubon society or the defenders of wildlife organization. i have no idea, but you probaby get a sticker.


----------



## Hannibal (Aug 10, 2007)

They will ultimately have some restrictions put in place. I don't think this thing could ever go to a carte blanch suspension of driving on the beach. It's just not practical and the NC legislation wouldn't allow it as it could severely damage the local economy.

What will likely happen is that certain points will be designated off limits full time or part time (like the Piping Plover sections). Additionally, you will likely see them implement a controlled access program such as vehicle tagging.  We will likely end up need to get a pass to access the beach - maybe pay a fee for yearly access like other places. This will limit access by eliminating those not willing "to pay". It will also generate funds to benifit the beach. In the scheme of things, I am fine with that.


----------



## Drumdum (Jan 6, 2003)

*Good Time to Sponsor 2009 OBPA Prize Calendar*

This is a good time folks for people to seriously THINK about becoming a sponsor on the OBPA Prize Calendar for 2009. OBPA is going to need all the financial backing to help pay to win this fight for access....
**************************************************
**
SPONSORING = To maintain a fair and balanced system for our sponsors we do have minimum buy ins.This also allows us to present an excellent product to our particpants 

Regular: Buy in is a minimum of $100.00 

Full Moon Madness: minimum is $200.00 

Monthly Grand Prize: $250 or more 

These can be purchased by individuals or business'. If you are wanting to contribute a product than the said product's retail value should fall into of the categories. 

To become a sponsor or to get more info about becoming a sponsor..Please call 

Rob Alderman -252-305-2017 
or 
Jody Wilson -252-995-6769 or email at [email protected] or private message "drumdum" on this board

**************************************************
Join OBPA today...here's the link:

http://www.obpa.org/


----------



## basstardo (Jun 5, 2006)

Hannibal said:


> They will ultimately have some restrictions put in place. I don't think this thing could ever go to a carte blanch suspension of driving on the beach. It's just not practical and the NC legislation wouldn't allow it as it could severely damage the local economy.


I've got disagree with you. These folks aren't out for a compromise. They're out for blood. They want us and everyone else off the beaches. This is far beyond the NC government, and resides at the Federal level. If the Federal Goverment decides through its court systems that it's in the best interest of the environment to keep us off the beaches, then we're done. The fellow that did the ruling back in October could have nailed this coffin shut if he wanted to. I do feel that the NPS is doing what they can to work our a fair solution for everyone, but when you have people like DOW and SELC who are blatantly violating the charter of the REG-NEG committee that doesn't speak well for any of us. They couldn't care less about REG-NEG because to them it's a compromise, and that's not what they want. If it was, they wouldn't be filing suit to get an injuction.


----------



## Hannibal (Aug 10, 2007)

Speaking from ignorance on the subject (other then what I've read through the boards), wouldn't such a decision be challengeable by NC at that point - or even more so the residents of OBX? A decision like that could and would be devestating to the local/regional economy. Along those lines, I have a hard time believing that the injunction would be honored because of that. 

This isn't an instance where EPA issues are creating a hassle for the population - such a decision would be destroy a LARGE part of the economy/business by eliminating a huge pull factor of the area.


----------



## basstardo (Jun 5, 2006)

You're absolutely right, but what grounds are NC going to challenge on? The economic impact survey that was done has obvious problems and inaccurate data, but the folks in the positions to right that wrong don't seem to be listening. That's about the only ground they'd have to stand on. If they did close the beaches to ORV's, there would be a serious wake up call to the actual impact of the local economy. Check out OBPA's site and read up on this stuff.


----------



## JeepMike (Feb 4, 2008)

I would be in *big* trouble if this happens. I make my living taking people horseback riding on the beautiful beaches, and horses are classified as vehicles. So not only can I not fish/enjoy the beach, I won't be able to make money either. What gives!!?? I had a lady yesterday on a ride making comments on "why do they even let people drive on the beach", to that I replied "well your riding a horse on the beach, and you are paying money for it". Greenies drive me nuts, I'm more of a sportsman and care more for the environment than all of them put together. Grr,, sorry, I'm just venting. I hope they don't close the beaches...


----------



## for access (Jul 18, 2005)

*The injuncition is based upon*

SELC's contention that failure to meet one of the performance measures in the Interim Protected Species plan is evidence that irreparable damage is being done to the piping plover recovery effort and that continued ORV use will result in more damage this year.

Despite the fact that USGS made it clear that their protocols are only one recommendation to be considered in combination with other data, SELC alledges that the USGS protocols are the only acceptable measures for protecting threatened and endangered species at CHNSRA. 


Based upon the fact that Judge Boyle formed the opinion that ORV use at CHNSRA is illegal and that he wrote this opinion as a by product of a traffic violation, what do you think?

Will he decide 1) That there is a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of the case?

Will he decide 2) That they (the wildlife that SELC claims to be protecting) face a substantial threat of irreparable damage or injury if the injunction is not granted?

Will he decide 3) That the balance of harms (possibly whiping out the CHNSRA populations of not only piping plover but NC species of concern) weighs in favor of the party seeking the preliminary injunction (EPA) ?

Will he decide 4) That the grant of an injunction would not disserve the public interest (OBX beachgoers).? Everyone knows that only 10% of visitors to CHNSRA are ORV users.

I hope Judge Boyle proves me wrong. The only hope we have is that Hanniball is right in pointing out that the EPA has not jumped into the fray thus making it unclear whether SELC has a leg to stand on. The other hope is that someone, anyone takes the time to note that the Interim Plan received a no jeapordy opinion without the performance measurements and the the Interim Plan received a finding of no significant impact from NPS at the federal level. In fact, the current reinitiation of consultation with the USFWS regarding the once missed performance measurement represents exactly the type of interagency give and take intented by the framers when they wrote section 7 of the ESA. It would be really nice if the SELC would just let the agencies do their job.


----------



## for access (Jul 18, 2005)

*Not more stringent*



Hannibal said:


> Ahh, I did know about the previous issue but I thought it was that they needed to ennact more stringent policies - such as those followed elsewhere so that beach access could be available. I thought in the meantime - access was still granted.


The point is the NPS needs a formal regulation for ORV use. It does not, as of this date have one. Access was granted in the meantime because no one asked for it to be adjoined.


----------



## for access (Jul 18, 2005)

*Unfortunately*



dafishguy said:


> They have plenty of money behind them but we could have more than just fishermen. Hotel owners, restaurants, all the businesses this would affect on the OBX, and even surfers and the business they support could all be affected by this. We need to rally the troops against these evvironmental groups that cast a dark image on us ORv users. We care as much about the quality of the environment there as anyone.


This group (business entities) has not been very vocal. That has been changing slowly. Maybe if the beaches are closed for just a few weeks, more will wake up and smell the roses.


----------



## for access (Jul 18, 2005)

*Permits*



Hannibal said:


> They will ultimately have some restrictions put in place. I don't think this thing could ever go to a carte blanch suspension of driving on the beach. It's just not practical and the NC legislation wouldn't allow it as it could severely damage the local economy.
> 
> What will likely happen is that certain points will be designated off limits full time or part time (like the Piping Plover sections). Additionally, you will likely see them implement a controlled access program such as vehicle tagging. We will likely end up need to get a pass to access the beach - maybe pay a fee for yearly access like other places. This will limit access by eliminating those not willing "to pay". It will also generate funds to benifit the beach. In the scheme of things, I am fine with that.


Have you seen them in work. What starts with a reasonable price quickly snowballs until the average person has difficulty affording them. The reason, they just don't generate enough revenue to pay for implementation. Then comes the limits on numbers and the waiting lines for getting permits or for one person to leave so you can go onto the beach. The track record is not good and it is not necessary.

Bird nesting areas are protected by closures that are so vast that you can't see the nests without high powered scopes and sometimes not even with high powered scopes.


----------



## for access (Jul 18, 2005)

*Judge Boyle did nail the coffin shut*



basstardo said:


> I've got disagree with you. These folks aren't out for a compromise. They're out for blood. They want us and everyone else off the beaches. This is far beyond the NC government, and resides at the Federal level. If the Federal Goverment decides through its court systems that it's in the best interest of the environment to keep us off the beaches, then we're done. The fellow that did the ruling back in October could have nailed this coffin shut if he wanted to. I do feel that the NPS is doing what they can to work our a fair solution for everyone, but when you have people like DOW and SELC who are blatantly violating the charter of the REG-NEG committee that doesn't speak well for any of us. They couldn't care less about REG-NEG because to them it's a compromise, and that's not what they want. If it was, they wouldn't be filing suit to get an injuction.


The judge was ruling on a traffic violation. As such, his opinion went beyond the issue at hand--that is, he had to go out looking for this argument.

A judge is not a cop. They don't go out looking for broken laws and enforce them. Someone must come to them with and request action and/or interpretation. Once someone comes to them, they must rule in favor of the law. Where are we now?:--| Me thinks I hear them nails being sent home.


----------



## for access (Jul 18, 2005)

*NC Challenge*

Well NC Wildlife Resouce Commission was involved in a post Isabel assessment that challenged the repair of the breech in Hatteras and called for blowing out primary dunes, removing ALL human presence from a variety of areas, closing sound side access points, moving the Ocracoke ferry landing to area of the pony pens and allowing natural processes to dominate the area on the north end, etc., etc., etc.

I doubt we could get much help from them. As for other governmental agencies in NC, NCDOT is having has not been able to get environmentalists to budge on the bridge replacement. Their contention is that the bridge (because it requires maintaining highway 12) is not compatible with Pea Island wildlife refuge. If NCDOT cannot fast track a bridge replacement that has been in the planning stages since 1993, which has a safety rating of 4 out of a possible 100, and which contributes greatly to the economic viabililty of many Island businesses, I doubt NC governmental agencies can secure access to a few miles of beach for purely recreational endeavors.


----------



## JeepMike (Feb 4, 2008)

Recreation? Taking people on the beach with horses is how I eat. I don't want to see this passed. They love their wild horses up in Corova, and protect them with an iron fist, and I am happy about that. The idea that allowing vehicles on the beach is purely recreational is not true.


----------



## for access (Jul 18, 2005)

*Economic Impact*

.05 to .08 percent that is 5 100th of a percent to 8 100th of a percent. Stated another way no impact.

Where does this come from? The flawed economic impact study that accompanied the critical habitat redesignation. :--|

Oh, that was based in part on the 10% from Vogelsong.:--|:--|:--|:--|


----------



## Rockfish1 (Apr 8, 2005)

the tree huggers keep harping about driving on the beach harming the lil birdies... the gulls, fox, and other predators cause more harm to the birds then all the orv's ever have...


----------



## Drumdum (Jan 6, 2003)

Rockfish1 said:


> the tree huggers keep harping about driving on the beach harming the lil birdies... the gulls, fox, and other predators cause more harm to the birds then all the orv's ever have...



They've trapped all the foxes out,so now it's ghost crabs,gulls,and the biggest culprit of all,mother nature and her storms....


----------



## Hannibal (Aug 10, 2007)

Any updates?


----------



## big brother (May 15, 2002)

My main problem with all this is, where is this man?
Marc Basnight
and has he made any public comment on what this will do to DARE county.
charlie


----------



## Custer (Jun 14, 2001)

The EPA has no dog in this fight. They protect the general environment, Not specific species. That is the balliwack of the USFWS.


----------



## squalus (Sep 26, 2007)

Drumdum said:


> They've trapped all the foxes out,so now it's ghost crabs,gulls,and the biggest culprit of all,mother nature and her storms....


If these self procalimed environmentalists really put their money where their mouths were, they would allow *mother nature* to be the determining factor. Don't they realize that species, on their own, become extinct??? Happens all the time, even without interference from man.

The problems that occur in nature is when man deliberately interferes with the natural cycle, for whatever purpose. 

Most of the times I think their main purpose is self-promotion and glory.


----------



## basstardo (Jun 5, 2006)

big brother said:


> My main problem with all this is, where is this man?
> Marc Basnight
> and has he made any public comment on what this will do to DARE county.
> charlie


Dare County spoke out against the injunction. I think I read something on another board about them coming out with an official statement.

Found it:
County Battles to Preserve Beach Driving on CHNS

Dare County and several user groups filed a motion Thursday to dismiss claims environmental groups are asserting to thwart the public’s enjoyment of the long standing tradition of driving on the beach within designated areas of the Cape Hatteras National Seashore. The battle is taking place in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina Northern Division.

“This motion to shut down access to a large portion of the Cape Hatteras National Seashore to the recreational fishermen is unfounded,” stated Attorney Lawrence Liebesman of Holland &Knight LLP, a Washington DC environmental attorney representing the Counties and a coalition of beach access groups. The Counties and the user groups motion to dismiss is based on grounds that the court lacks jurisdiction to intervene in the Service’s expert management of the Seashore. “The Park Service’s own data contradicts the conservationists claims that a federal judge must intervene now to avoid dramatic declines in shore bird populations due to beach driving while a final plan is being negotiated,” he said.

The Park Service’s 2007 Report shows that a number of breeding pairs of the piping plover, a shore bird protected under the Federal Endangered Species Act, was the highest since 1999 and equals that of 2006. That report also did not find any direct evidence that vehicles actually caused the deaths of any of this species and other causes such as predation and unleashed dogs were likely responsible.

Last year, the National Park Service put into place an interim plan to protect the habitat, while ensuring vehicle access while it pursues negotiations with numerous stakeholders, including the Plaintiffs, to develop a final vehicle management plan over the next few years. Leibesman asserts that the environmental groups cannot “have it both ways” by asking the court to intervene and “police” the Park Service’s management of the seashore while at the same time sitting at the negotiation table.

Dare County has long been active in the ongoing battle for preserving beach access for vehicles in the National Seashore. The official position is justified by positive economic impacts brought by fulfilling a unique visitor experience not found elsewhere and other access oriented legislation. The county signed a resolution in 2006 expressing a need to formulate a resource protection policy in order to fulfill a promise to the public to manage the CHNS for recreation and conservation purposes while ensuring continuous free and open access to pedestrian and vehicular use. 

“Public access to beaches was guaranteed by the founding legislation creating the Cape Hatteras National Seashore,” said Warren Judge, Chairman of the Dare County Board of Commissioners. “ORVs are used at CHNS by our residents and many visitors to enjoy different activities including fishing, bird watching, swimming, water sports, and sightseeing. Beach driving is an essential part of our heritage and an important aspect of our local economy, and Dare County is committed to doing everything possible to ensure this access to our beaches.” 

At a scheduling conference today, the court will determine a date to hear the parties’ motions to begin resolving these issues.


----------

