A New Rule Balances Wildlife and Off-Road-Vehicle Use on a North Carolina Beach

A New Rule Balances Wildlife and Off-Road-Vehicle Use on a North Carolina Beach

Page 2

“We feel the final rule was very much a compromise,” says Heather Starck, executive director of Audubon North Carolina. “It was not everything we hoped for in terms of protecting wildlife,” she adds, noting there are more miles devoted to ORV users than she thought were necessary.“The folks that use ORVs in Cape Hatteras are only about two percent of the people that visit the seashore.”

Still, the Cape Hatteras Access Preservation Alliance continues to fight the new regulations even though the majority of the 21,000 commenters on the final environmental impact statement were in favor of the restrictions. In the past the group successfully lobbied in favor of the interim plan on Cape Hatteras. Between June 2008 and January 2009 members of the North Carolina congressional delegation introduced three bills, two in the House of Representatives and one in the Senate, to return to the more lenient management of ORVs under the Interim Strategy. None of those bills passed, but after the final rule was put in place, Representative Walter Jones presented one bill in the House, and Richard Burr, supported by Kay Hagan reintroduced another in the Senate. Both are designed to abolish the regulation and return to prior management measures under which protected species had declined.

Despite the previous bills’ failure to pass, Mike Daulton, Audubon vice president for government relations, is cautious. “As long as there’s legislation pending, the birds of Cape Hatteras are in danger,” he says.

Even if the bills don’t pass the House or Senate, the final ruling’s supporters have civil litigation to contend with.

The Cape Hatteras Access Preservation Alliance also filed a lawsuit against the Interior Department alleging that the National Park Service failed to give ORV riders’ interests meaningful consideration. Audubon and Defenders of Wildlife joined the National Parks Conservation Association, represented by the Southern Environmental Law Center, in an effort to help defend the National Park Service’s regulation in the lawsuit. (The alliance declined to comment on Cape Hatteras for this article.)

“The case is basically posturing, utterly without merit,” explains Ted Williams, Audubon field editor. When Williams visited Cape Hatteras beaches in 2005 and 2006 he encountered the damage ORVs cause to bird breeding grounds (see “Beach Bums,” January-February 2007). The park service’s new rules, he says, will sustain imperiled species. But for the rules’ dissidents, human access, not species protection, is the issue.

“It’s sickening to drive down this island and see rope and signs saying no,” explains Carol Busbey, who owns the Natural Art Surf Shop on Hatteras Island in Buxton. Busbey has run the shop for more than 30 years, but since the draft interim plan was replaced,her business has lost a lot of weekend business. “They closed off a lot of places that were special for a lot of people,” Busbey says. One week, there were two piping plover nests out on the point, she says, and “they’ve got acres and acres of land closed.”

Commenters on Ted Williams’s Fly Rod & Reed blog also express their discontent. “It’s not just about ORVs,” wrote one. “One piping plover nest closes over 700 acres of beach to all. This is the kind of thing we’re fighting.” (More fervent comments contained obscenities and had to be edited by Williams.)

Williams’s response is that “when we talk about ‘fairness’ we need to consider all Americans for all time, not the immediate appetites of a few loud, greedy ORV operators.”

Although the conservation groups are hopeful that neither the bills nor the lawsuit will reverse the progress made, the attacks do distract the groups from determining if the new protections are effective, says Starck. Even more threatening is the potential result if the new rule is overturned, she says. Political camps opposed to wildlife conservation would see the success of these measures and attempt to reverse other rulings. “If that user group sees that it was overturned here, it could be a really dangerous precedent for wildlife in this country,” she says.

Keep an eye out for an upcoming story on Cape Hatteras written by Ted Williams. 


*This story was updated on June 13, 2013, to reflect a factual change. 

Magazine Category

Author Profile

Anna Sanders

Type: Author | From: Audubon Magazine

Comments

Hatteras ecomony in trash can

To say that the hatteras island economy is doing fine is an outright lie.... I started going to hatterAs island shortly after returning from southeast Asia , about 1966. My family and bought land and built a house which we rent to visitors on a weekly basis. In the last five years, our house usage has gone down 70% , With this year so far looking to be the worse ever. The total lack of real time data and constant lies from the Eco-nazi groups is a true disgrace. The title of the park is "The Cape Hatteras National Seashore and Recreational Area". It does not say Wildlife Refruge". recreation for ALL the people......

Hatteras ecomony in trash can

To say that the hatteras island economy is doing fine is an outright lie.... I started going to hatterAs island shortly after returning from southeast Asia , about 1966. My family and bought land and built a house which we rent to visitors on a weekly basis. In the last five years, our house usage has gone down 70% , With this year so far looking to be the worse ever. The total lack of real time data and constant lies from the Eco-nazi groups is a true disgrace. The title of the park is "The Cape Hatteras National Seashore and Recreational Area". It does not say Wildlife Refruge". recreation for ALL the people......

the beach closures...

It's disappointing how sarcastic and nasty many comments are. Unfortunately, the Audubon article opens with hyperbole, which sets the tone. I've been vacationing in Hatteras for almost 20 years, but I've never seen a destructive path of eggs smashed under ORV tires, nor a beautiful blooming nature resurgance. Hatteras is always beautiful, full of wildlife, and full of people who love to be outdoors.

It appears the National Park Service did allow public comment on the new ORV policy, but as HatterasKeith points out, there appears to be no scientific explanation for the recent decline of plovers, and especially no particular link to ORVs. (What I've read is that plovers were mostly wiped out by hunters at the turn of the previous century, and that the overall population has increased since '91, long before this latest mess...).

It's hard to understand why half the shoreline is now effectively closed to any access. Particularly when, driving down the main highway, you're often just yards away from the protected bird nesting sites, since the islands are so narrow. I'm having a hard time understanding what plants are being saved also. If you see pre-Depression pictures of the islands, you'll realize that the long narrow sections were just sand spits. A WPA project created dunes, and everyone today knows to stay out of them to preserve some wave protection. The Pea Island Wildlife sanctuary, which has a lot of vegetation, is already protected.

Another odd thing is that no one mentions the cats. There are hundreds, maybe thousands of them, on the islands. The idea that leashing a few pet dogs will solve the animal problem seems questionable. A local group works to neuter feral cats on the islands, which seems a better approach.

Writing this I've been tempted to dive into the hyperbole, anger, and nastiness myself.But we need to figure out a way forward. Audubon could do better by being more transparent about their funding and causes, by getting better informed about the islands as well as the birds, and by being more inclusive in their approach.

You may not like ORVs. You may not even like to see a single person on a beach where you bird watch. But if Audubon has any interest in the actual birds themselves, it would pay to do a little more listening and research.

Karleen is mistaking the

Karleen is mistaking the market hunting of terns, egrets, and herons that took place at the turn of the last century with studies published in peer-reviewed journals that show that Piping Plovers nesting in areas that have corridors for beach-driving fledge half as many chicks as those that are closed to beach driving. Piping Plovers were not a target of market hunters. Further, the NPS's own data shows declines in nesting birds, particularly since 2000. HatterasKeith, like many of the other negative commenters here, is just being dishonest. Studies have linked beach driving to declines in productivity.

As for feral cats, neutering and re-releasing them does not solve the problem, as they are still free to predate native wildlife. However, if cats do not find colonies (particularly if nesting areas are far enough away from human habitations where food is more available), they do not impact nesting birds. Of course, when they do get into a colony, they kill adults and chicks, and of course they kill other species of birds and small mammals.

Dogs are a different matter. Any four-legged animal looks like the the birds' natural mammalian predators. When nesting birds see a dog--and dogs are very visible on a beach and are most often on the beach during the day, with their owners--they flush off their eggs or chicks, at greater distances than they do when a human without a dog approaches. When birds are flushed off their eggs even for less than 20 minutes, they can overheat and the embryo developing inside fails. High temperatures are also lethal to young chicks that can't yet thermoregulate for themselves. That is why dogs and nesting birds are a bad mix.

Beach driving can impact birds and sea turtles in graphic ways--crushed chicks and eggs and even the adult sea turtle--and the chicks are so small that in the multitude of tire ruts left behind on a beach where driving takes place, bodies can easily go unfound. But what is more dangerous, and what does not leave behind a gory scene is the toll that high levels of disturbance takes on nesting birds. It can cause colony abandonment, lethal temperature stress, or prevent the birds from nesting in otherwise suitable habitat in the first place.

None of this is new to science. Peer-reviewed studies quantifying the effects of disturbance are easily found. A good place to start is http://elibrary.unm.edu/sora/about.php.

I'm sorry, but Audubon is perfectly well informed.

all based on the best

all based on the best available science...

That's the problem if you had

That's the problem if you had to consult a book to ID the difference between AMOY and a laughing gull you probably don't know much about birds and your ID becomes even more questionable and laughable. Get a photo of the Oyster Catchers in the parking lot a lot of people would like to see that.

i saw two laughing......

So just to check myself I looked up a photo of laughing gulls.....nope, not them. If you were there you must have been one of the people circling the ABC store on a Sunday to see if they were open.

".....I saw two oyster

".....I saw two oyster catchers mating in the ABC store parking lot in Buxton a week ago."

Nope I was there they were laughing gulls, big difference.

mating birds

.....I saw two oyster catchers mating in the ABC store parking lot in Buxton a week ago. They were not the least bit disturbed by human presence. But, I'm not allowed to walk out to cape point because I might disturb them out there?

"No Value In Desolate

"No Value In Desolate Beaches"

I agree that the spring season will be  slower for  businesses in Buxton due to resources closures but it will not "kill  Hatteras Island" as the the ORV  proponents  like to exaggerate.  It appears the established business on Hatteras Island are not going out of business and that the fall seasons have been above average with the exception of the time when   highway  12 was breached. There are many variables that affect the economy of Hatteras Island other than temporary resource closures but the ORVers don't consider those.

 Wildlife protection measures are necessary to fulfill the Enabling Legislation for this Park. I don't see how the Park can get around that. I think  the regulations should and will be tweaked to allow better access (pedestrian and ORV) but the closures are still going to be a problem for access to Cape Point etc during nesting season.

Many visitors have been duped by the constant rhetoric of the ORVers  who have started and promoted the  doom and gloom scare tatacis in and effort to get what they want. This is about ORV access not economics. Read the position statements, talking points for official public comments sent to ORV members and the public comments that were submitted  to the park that are available for anyone to read via the NP government website and  it becomes  clear their concern for pedestrian access is just about the pedestrians that are accessing the ORV accessible beaches.  The ORV agenda is for less  pedestrian only access areas and shorter pedestrian access only seasons  in front of the villages. They see no value in desolate beaches in the National Park unless they are allowed to drive there.  Their logic is that if  people are allowed  to walk on a beach then they should be allowed to  drive there.

Add comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.