# Judge Boyle defers ruling on injunction



## Newsjeff (Jul 22, 2004)

He's going to let the NPS and the SELC work out a compromise.


----------



## JimInVA (May 17, 2005)

In earlier days, one could always hope for (and expect) the best of those things considered. In this day and age it often seems that "best" has become the lesser of evils. I hope that this proves to truly be the best of moves...

Jim


----------



## Drumdum (Jan 6, 2003)

Jody heard on the radio,that the judge recomended that the intervieners be involved in the negotiation as well... Not confirmed,but good news if that's true......


----------



## Flipper (May 6, 2006)

Drumdum said:


> Jody heard on the radio,that the judge recomended that the intervieners be involved in the negotiation as well... Not confirmed,but good news if that's true......


They can't appeal a settlement that they've agreed to.


----------



## pier_man0909 (Feb 28, 2006)

I talked to someone (who was there) on the phone who told me that we could sit at the table and know whats going on but not participate in the actual negotiations. I have also heard that we can be involved so I don't know. I'm sure more will come out as time goes on.


----------



## POMPINOLOVER (Jun 29, 2006)

Let's all just chill out for a moment untill we know more, for now the beach is still open..Let's let the dust settle then we can all get together and decide how to procede


----------



## Drumdum (Jan 6, 2003)

pier_man0909 said:


> I talked to someone (who was there) on the phone who told me that we could sit at the table and know whats going on but not participate in the actual negotiations. I have also heard that we can be involved so I don't know. I'm sure more will come out as time goes on.


 Yeap,the first is true,our side can sit in.. Not hoping much here though,word was first words out of Judge's mouth was "I'm ready to rule on the injuction,in favor of the plantiff".. Of course he also said that "if you couldn't draw up a plan in 38yrs how do you expect to do it in a week?"
All just hearsay,but kinda glim...


----------



## saltandsand (Nov 29, 2007)

*Balancing the Friction*

The judge has merely deferred for the moment. Our side had best prepare a better argument than loss of heritage and a lapse of livelihood. IMO the more reasoned plan is to focus on the core biological issues, emphasizing that fisherpersons are environmentalist, providing evidence of community policing, and joining force with the objectives of providing areas that humans do not touch. Then we all can cast around that area and enjoy our sport. There's an idea for a sportsman board, one balanced to pursue the core objectives of both sides.


----------



## pier_man0909 (Feb 28, 2006)

I almost think the best thing right now would be for the injunction to be granted. I think we actually have a pretty good shot at getting it overturned. it doesnt seem to me that we have as good a shot if one at all of appealing the case if it is reached by negotiations. in the interview the guy from audubon stated that "there will be more restrictions but will be fair" It really seems to me that they shouldn't have a leg to stand on with the way they have carried themselves. I think any judge in his right mind would say "you want to negotiate, sorry, you had your chance on the reg-neg committe" and I think they should be booted off the committe. somebody must be sleeping with somebody for this to go this far.


----------



## Flipper (May 6, 2006)

Wrong, wrong, wrong. There's so much malarkey floating around it's not even funny; especially over on the board named after that spottail fish. I've been laughing so hard that I'm in pain! 

I've been telling you guys for over a month now how this was gonna go down, but nobody wants to listen. Everybody's a legal expert all of a sudden. Oh, well . . . .

Oh, and the last thing you want right now is for the judge to impose that PI.


----------



## pier_man0909 (Feb 28, 2006)

why would the negotiations between them and the park service be better than the injunction? I must just be stupid or something because the way I see it it looks really bad. maybe I am just paranoid but why would they ask for a continuance to negotiate for less if the judge was gonna give them what they want? maybe because the park service does not dispute the injunction they think they will get more by negotiating. I dont know, it just seems odd that the injunction was so important to be issued immediatley becasue "if an injunction does not issue, certain, serious, and irreparable harm to the environment will result, in the form of further decline of the endangered and threatened species that reside at the Seashore, near certain extirpation of one or more of those species, and the death and take of endangered and threatened animals"
and all the sudden now it is okay to wait. I dont get it. one of the guys from the audubon society said "there will be more restrictions, but will be fair." it also doesnt look good to me being that we are allowed to listen but not participate in the negotiations. I want to hear everyone elses input, hopefully I am being paranoid and it is a good thing.


----------



## pier_man0909 (Feb 28, 2006)

flipper, I am no legal expert and I believe you have a lot of experience in the legal field so please explain it to me so I can understand it since I seem to be missing the point.


----------



## Cutbait Bob (Mar 24, 2004)

They won't be able to decide on LUNCH in one week.


----------



## Newsjeff (Jul 22, 2004)

Cutbait Bob said:


> They won't be able to decide on LUNCH in one week.


The NPS lawyers and the SELC lawyers have been working on a consent decree for a while now. 

Both sides are saying they need a few more days to hash out the details.

And the details are gonna be very, very important for ORV access, IMHO.

Then again, Boyle might be right. 

It's been 36 years, is another week really gonna help?


----------



## DrumintheSuds (Nov 19, 2007)

What you basically have is a bunch of blood sucking enironmental lawyers and an incompotent government run park service deciding the fate of ORV access next week. Worried? Oh hell no I aint worried. Petrified is the word I would use.


----------



## Drumdum (Jan 6, 2003)

Flipper said:


> They can't appeal a settlement that they've agreed to.


 I'm fully aware of that,but in your opinion what would be the best case scenario?? Why would the judge giving the injuction be such a bad thing,if it can be appealed,in compairisn to an agreement that was dictated by an NPS (that wants the problem to go away) and a set of special intrest groups that are dictating policy for the government???


----------



## Tmg (Mar 17, 2006)

Drumdum said:


> I'm fully aware of that,but in your opinion what would be the best case scenario?? Why would the judge giving the injuction be such a bad thing,if it can be appealed,in compairisn to an agreement that was dictated by an NPS (that wants the problem to go away) and a set of special intrest groups that are dictating policy for the government???


I agree Kenny. IMHO they're setting us up.


----------



## Fireline20 (Oct 2, 2007)

Newsjeff said:


> The NPS lawyers and the SELC lawyers have been working on a consent decree for a while now.
> 
> Both sides are saying they need a few more days to hash out the details.
> 
> ...


Since I have never fished the OBX, I really can't speak with any authority, so correct me if I am wrong.

From what I am reading and hearing there are "NO" guideline or rules in place now and has not been for almost 40 years. 

From that I take it that currently you can drive anywhere, on the beach and over the dunes. 

Also there is no ban on lights and fires or night fishing on the beach during turtle nesting time. 

There seems to be no speed limit enforcement and no regular patrol on the beaches, nor is there any permit required and no access fee.

Is this correct?

If so then why not look to Ft Fisher for guidelines. All of the above is in effect and I have no problem with any of these rules and I drive 500 miles round trip at least once a month during season and would go back more if my pocket book, my wife and my job would let me.:fishing:

Just MHO and my .02 worth, so don't jump me.


----------



## thebeachcaster (Aug 7, 2006)

Also there is no ban on lights and fires or night fishing on the beach during turtle nesting time. 

All of the above is in effect and I have no problem with any of these rules and I drive 500 miles round trip at least 

Ever had a good night at Hattie?


----------



## Cdog (Mar 18, 2002)

Fireline20 said:


> Since I have never fished the OBX, I really can't speak with any authority, so correct me if I am wrong.
> 
> From what I am reading and hearing there are "NO" guideline or rules in place now and has not been for almost 40 years.
> 
> ...


First, you make it sound like people just drive where they want, speed, and act like total tools.

Yeah there are cases of that but they get tickets and go before Judge Boyle.

Hence there are rules in place or there would never have been tickets issued in the first place.

As to your questions, 



> From that I take it that currently you can drive anywhere, on the beach and over the dunes.


No, you cannot drive on the dunes and there are pre nesting closures in place now.



> Also there is no ban on lights and fires or night fishing on the beach during turtle nesting time.


No ban on lights, but most people that fish at night are serious and tend to drive with out lights on. Also you can have fires but they must be below the high tide line.



> There seems to be no speed limit enforcement and no regular patrol on the beaches, nor is there any permit required and no access fee.


The speed limit is posted 25 except in areas near the villages where I have seen it posted as 15.Also you will see Park Rangers routinely patrolling the area. Most of them are quite nice and will give you fishing reports from what they have heard up and down the beaches.


So as you can see there clearly are rules.


----------



## Fireline20 (Oct 2, 2007)

Thanks for the input CDOG, as you see I said I did not know the rules and I did not mean to imply that people drove where ever they wanted on a regular basis.

Sounds like there are some reasonable rules in place, perhaps just perhaps not enough enforcement or "self policing" going on.

As usual it seems that there are just enough "fools" or perceived "fools" that are ruining it for the other 98%. Perhaps some high fines and jail time for violators are called for.

Believe me I have never seen a more dedicated group of protectors for the environment and critters we love to stalk, hunt or fish for, than sportsmen. Shame the environmentalist establishment just can't or won't see that. If they could or would, it would be one hell of committed group as I don't doubt their passion, I just question their motives and insights.


----------



## Drumdum (Jan 6, 2003)

*Fireline 20*

As Cdog stated there are rules in place as we speak... It's called "interim plan".. It has huge closures yr round on the point,Hat inlet,S end of Ocracoke,this is in the winter time.. In season 8 months,please make me more specific Ginny.. During the season they have closures as needed for the plovers and other shorebirds,as well as turtles.. These closures are during nesting and prenesting times.. They are huge,and take into account every move the birds could possibly make until they fledge..
During these times there are many places that are not accessable,niether by orv or on foot...
As for turtles they also have closures in season when layings are spotted they are inclosed with stakes and ropes.. 
As for lighting,as of yet no night closures,but Avon pier was instructed they must use amber lighting to be in compliance..
Some interdunal roads have been created by NPS to access parts of the beach,but only when closures are not in question are they open... NO DRIVING OVER DUNES IS PERMITTED AT ANY TIME...
Hopefully Ginny aka "For Access" will chime in here and be a little more specific......


----------



## for access (Jul 18, 2005)

*Fireline*

Drumdrum summed it up pretty well. To see all of the measures for protecting flaura and fauna, see http://parkplanning.nps.gov./documentsList.cfm?parkId=358&projectId=13331. While you are there take a look at the USFWS biological opinion. If fully describes the rules/regualations/protective measures, starting on page 5.

In addition to rendering a "no jepordy" opinion, USFWS stated that the Interim Plan



> Assuming a worst case scenario for NPS
> implementation of the protective measures described in the Interim Strategy, it may result in a slight improvement in the condition of wintering habitat. p.77


With respect to ORV regulations not related to resource protection, see

http://www.nps.gov/caha/planyourvisit/off-road-vehicle-use.htm


----------



## JeepMike (Feb 4, 2008)

We can't even have a horse on the dunes!!! Not that I would ride on them anyway (pending an emergency and had to get off the beach because a sea monster was about to get us), but like I said, we have plenty of rules and people seem to follow them! I spend everyday on that beach watching ORV's to make sure I don't get runover, and all but 1 have been very respectful. Ginny or DD, how quick is the park service at responding to calls on the beach?


----------



## Drumdum (Jan 6, 2003)

*From what I have experienced..*

Not very fast at all.. A few yrs back I saw atv's running rampid around Avon beach.. They didn't go over the dunes,but were running over 25,I'm sure of it.. Friend of mine called on the cell,but they didn't come till about 2hrs after they left.. My friend asked about it and the NPS folks said they were licensed,so they couldn't do anything..

They were going at a high rate of speed,and it was at night.. Not only was it not safe,but that's how we get the name "Beach Bums" in certian magazines....


----------



## Fireline20 (Oct 2, 2007)

Drumdum said:


> Not very fast at all.. A few yrs back I saw atv's running rampid around Avon beach.. They didn't go over the dunes,but were running over 25,I'm sure of it.. Friend of mine called on the cell,but they didn't come till about 2hrs after they left.. My friend asked about it and the NPS folks said they were licensed,so they couldn't do anything..
> 
> They were going at a high rate of speed,and it was at night.. Not only was it not safe,but that's how we get the name "Beach Bums" in certian magazines....


Which goes to my point of "inferred guilt by association" ie, atv's run rampant on the beach and they are lumped into ovr's which really pisses me off.

Gonna have to educate the public on the difference and nail the bastards you see


----------



## JeepMike (Feb 4, 2008)

I'm going to start riding with a lariat... Make a big ole loop and snatch up a few ATV'ers... That would get their attention! Dude wrapped in coils on the sand. haha


----------

