UFWDA Community Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
August 29, 2014, 03:02:36 am

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Due to spammers, registration via this forum is on hold. Sorry for the inconvenience. 
We are however happy to manually add you, so please email us at forums@ufwda.org
Admin Team
14,024 Posts in 3,234 Topics by 971 Members
Latest Member: onejsmith
* Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
UFWDA Community Forum  |  Regional Focus - News and Local Events  |  Southeast  |  Topic: Cape Hatteras ORV RUle to be published Monday, Jan 23 « previous next »
Pages: [1] Go Down Print
Author Topic: Cape Hatteras ORV RUle to be published Monday, Jan 23  (Read 1598 times)
Keith Holman
Middle Atlantic Four Wheel Drive Association
ghost

Offline Offline

Posts: 168


WWW
« on: January 20, 2012, 10:55:02 pm »

The National Park Service today released to the public the final off-road vehicle rule for the Cape Hatteras National Seashore.

The rule will be published Monday, Jan. 23, in the Federal Register and will become effective on Wednesday, Feb. 15.

Click here to access the PDF file.

A synopsis has also been published on Island Free Press blog

Although NPS has revised the rule to allow for the possibility of complying with the Executive Order encouraging easing taxpayer/user burden when interacting, it won't be so in the initial rounds.
Logged

What are you supposed to do when you see an "endangered" animal eating an "endangered" plant?
--------
Middle Atlantic Four Wheel Drive Association
Pat Brower
Great Lakes Four Wheel Drive Association
ghost

Offline Offline

Posts: 247



« Reply #1 on: January 21, 2012, 01:31:19 pm »

I love some of the comments at the end of the article too.

Thanks for posting it up Kieth.


Sad, and all too typical.

 Cry
Logged

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Pat Brower
Great Lakes Four Wheel Drive Association
ghost

Offline Offline

Posts: 247



« Reply #2 on: January 24, 2012, 03:18:25 pm »

“As stated in NPS Management Policies 2006, Section 1.4.3, Congress recognizes that the enjoyment by future generations of the national parks can be ensured only if the superb quality of park resources and values is left unimpaired. Congress has therefore provided that when there is a conflict between conserving resources and values and providing for enjoyment of them, conservation is to predominate. This is how courts have consistently interpreted the Organic Act.”
 

This statement has been bothering me since I read it.
Current interpretation says conservation is to predominate, but current environmental interpretation is closure. Therefore, current legal interpretation is essentially "Closure trumps use".

Either the environmental interpretation needs to shift over to a position where management techniques are attempted first and closure is the last option and only to be used in circumstances where nothing can be found to mitigate whatever 'issues' there are with a route ...

OR

The law needs to be changed to define recreation as dominant; thereby forcing managers to find a way to make it as environmentally friendly as possible without eliminating it.

My Dad always told me "S**t rolls down hill".  If you want change, it's easier in the long run to focus on changing the top and letting the rest follow suit, than working from the bottom up. 

I've seen a bit of a movement beginning to take shape, especially among the conservative politicians from the west; a movement to roll back the Federal Government's closure of public land.  It still appears to be in its infancy, but I think the Wilderness Release Act was a good indication of its growing strength.  Maybe someday we can turn that movement's attention to the underlying issue that seems to plague so many of our efforts; "closure trumps use" under current interpretation of the Organic Act.

As I see it, the Organic Act needs to be changed if there is to be real relief.
Logged

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Peter Vahry
UFWDA International Vice-President
ghost

Offline Offline

Posts: 1,321



« Reply #3 on: January 25, 2012, 02:18:10 am »

Sorry to joke abut this decision but Pat, your quote "My Dad always told me "S**t rolls down hill".  If you want change, it's easier in the long run to focus on changing the top and letting the rest follow suit, than working from the bottom up." has me confused ... surely Si**t always starts at the bottom?

However, it is certain that the final decision is going to impact widely on incomes and lifestyles. It also sets another dangerous precedent for recreations.

Peter
Logged

Auckland Four Wheel Drive Club Inc, 4x4 Challenges NZ Inc, NZFWDA life member
Paul Hittie
Just a guy with a Jeep!
ghost

Offline Offline

Posts: 121



« Reply #4 on: January 25, 2012, 09:20:03 am »

It is frustrating the way that word meanings change over time.  I am a tree hugger.  Not bashful about it, and I see nothing wrong with having a passion for natural conservation.  Protecting our natural resources from idiots is my definition of conservation.  Keeping weekend partiers from destroying the public lands around the Rubicon Trail for example.  But from a recreationalists point of view, I want to hunt, fish, snowmobile and wheel in nature, subject to reasonable limitations to make sure the resource is available for enjoyment in the future by others.

But what they call "conservation" is nothing short of "preservation".  Preserved in formeldahyde, not to be touched but merely photographed and enjoyed from a distance.  "Embalmed" for future generations.  Just to make sure I wasn't nuts, I did a little Googling:

pre•serve   (pr -zűrv )
v. pre•served, pre•serv•ing, pre•serves
v.tr.
1. To maintain in safety from injury, peril, or harm; protect.
2. To keep in perfect or unaltered condition; maintain unchanged.
3. To keep or maintain intact: tried to preserve family harmony. See Synonyms at defend.
4. To prepare (food) for future use, as by canning or salting.
5. To prevent (organic bodies) from decaying or spoiling.
6. To keep or protect (game or fish) for one's private hunting or fishing.
v.intr.
1. To treat fruit or other foods so as to prevent decay.
2. To maintain a private area stocked with game or fish.
n.
1. Something that acts to preserve; a preservative.
2. Fruit cooked with sugar to protect against decay or fermentation. Often used in the plural.
3. An area maintained for the protection of wildlife or natural resources.
4. Something considered as being the exclusive province of certain persons: Ancient Greek is the preserve of scholars.
________________________________________
[Middle English preserven, from Old French preserver, from Medieval Latin praeserv re, from Late Latin, to observe beforehand : Latin prae-, pre- + Latin serv re, to guard, preserve; see ser-1 in Indo-European roots.]

con•ser•va•tion   (k n sűr-v  sh n)
n.
1. The act or process of conserving.
2.
a. Preservation or restoration from loss, damage, or neglect: manuscripts saved from deterioration under the program of library conservation.
b. The protection, preservation, management, or restoration of wildlife and of natural resources such as forests, soil, and water.
3. The maintenance of a physical quantity, such as energy or mass, during a physical or chemical change.
________________________________________con ser•va tion•al adj.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
________________________________________
conservation [ˌkɒnsəˈveɪʃən]
n 1. the act or an instance of conserving or keeping from change, loss, injury, etc.
2. a.  protection, preservation, and careful management of natural resources and of the environment
b.  (as modifier) a conservation area
conservational  adj
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003
________________________________________
Logged

Member - What Lies Beyond Jeep Club
VP - Great Lakes Four Wheel Drive Association
Keith Holman
Middle Atlantic Four Wheel Drive Association
ghost

Offline Offline

Posts: 168


WWW
« Reply #5 on: February 08, 2012, 01:34:55 pm »

The analogy that has always stood in my mind was that of a baseball.
Current practice for our recreational opportunities seems to be that it should be placed in its little glass sphere and placed on a shelf where we can all walk past it and look as opposed to getting outside and playing tossing it around and hitting it with a bat. In 100 years, the latter will result in folks who love baseball, the former will result in folks who pass in line asking what it's for.

Obesity in America? I wonder how THAT happened.
Logged

What are you supposed to do when you see an "endangered" animal eating an "endangered" plant?
--------
Middle Atlantic Four Wheel Drive Association
Pages: [1] Go Up Print 
UFWDA Community Forum  |  Regional Focus - News and Local Events  |  Southeast  |  Topic: Cape Hatteras ORV RUle to be published Monday, Jan 23 « previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!