the judges now puts his 2 cents in ..

[derf]

http://islandfreepress.org/2008Archi...eWeighsIn.html

looks like he has his own agenda ...

[Steve Coleman]

http://www.islandfreepress.org/2008A...hsInDecree.pdf

looks like he wants permits, limits, and a variety of other things in lieu of just closing the beach.

Can he do that?

I think the defendants should tell him to kiss their grits, and get a change of venue.

Obviously this guy is prejudiced.

[d-man]

One would think that if the parties in a lawsuit agree on a settlement that the judge would enter and grant the consent decree. He is not a party to the suit and is just there to decide the merits of the case. By placing his own opinion or restrictions on the managment of the park it seems as if he is part of the leglastative branch of govt and is not acting in the judicial branch sense. Separation of powers still exists as far as I know. I don't know maybe he can do what he is doing. It smells bad though, real bad. My guess would be that campers and RVs modified for the beach might be banned if he has his way. Wouldn't any new fees like a permit system, etc., have to go through the public comment process before being enacted? This just plain sucks.

[derf]

Originally Posted by Steve Coleman

http://www.islandfreepress.org/2008A...hsInDecree.pdf

looks like he wants permits, limits, and a variety of other things in lieu of just closing the beach.

well that is what he has wanted all along

Can he do that?

he thinks he can , maybe that is our only hope ..he is / might be overstepping his jurisdiction...

I think the defendants should tell him to kiss their grits, and get a change of venue.

HELL YEA !!!

Obviously this guy is prejudiced.

sure looks that way ...

[surffishn]

This Judge has his own agendas.

[Mike S]

Originally Posted by derf

he thinks he can , maybe that is our only hope ..he is / might be overstepping his jurisdiction...

HELL YEA !!!


sure looks that way ...

Gotta love federal gods, I mean judges. I was thinking the same thing when I read it. I wonder if anyone has ever looked to see if this guy is a member of the Audubon Society.

[Large John]

Might be our best shot at getting back what was ours to start with....let him render a decision then APPEAL IT, he's been over turned enough it can happen again.
Still too bad the NPS didn't get off their a$$ 35years ago, we wouldn't have this problem

[ghmason]

I grew up in New Jersey, and thanks to the Marine Corps, have owned property, been a legal tax paying, registered to vote, state resident here in North Carolina since 1992. I had my first beach buggy and beach permit in New Jersey at Island Beach State Park. I have been watching and supporting the fight against this lawsuit and how it has deteriorated for us since it began . While I despise the fact that this judge is legislating from the bench, it almost seems as if he wants the NPS to implement the same kind of controls in place (at least used to be) at IBSP in order to drive on the beach. Given that the NPS hasn't implemented any control measures over the last 35 years that could be argued to be loosely or remotely in compliance with Nixon's order, I don't see how they (NPS) can get there by next week. Even if they could I doubt there there is the manpower to enforce it. Needless to say, these questions he now wants answers to should have been known requirements for the reg-neg process so they could have been part of the settlement/consent decree.
I feel like I have lost and old friend and this whole thing feels like the end of Eastern Tides by Daignault where the surfcaster winds up riding in a boat instead of driving on the beach in search of fish.

The only relavent question I have left is this: If he closes the beach to ORV access altogether, is it more ripe for an appeal than if he goes with some variation on the settlement?

Respectfully,
George Mason

[derf]

The only relavent question I have left is this: If he closes the beach to ORV access altogether, is it more ripe for an appeal than if he goes with some variation on the settlement?

that could be our only hope ...

[DE Beachguy]

Sounds like they need one of these, like the USFWS has for Pea Island Refuge just up the road.

http://www.fws.gov/southeast/plannin...igsBlocked.pdf

You'd think that cool heads could get together and agree on a reasonable width of access around all the beach shorelines, to allow ORV access (monitored in case turtles are using an area, etc) that is in keeping with the amount of width commonly used by ORV surf fishermen anywhere, and then have resource protection areas between there and the dunes that you don't drive in. What's not to like? Seems it could be pretty easy to agree to and show on a map. Of course, this would depend on the cool heads I mentioned and no one having any over-reaching agendas, like the ones we've seen driving things to this point.

So, what do you say we kick it around...what's a reasonable width of ORV access along the shoreline? It would include all of the intertidal zone up to mean high water, safe room back from the water to be set up, safe room for parked vehicles, ample and safe width for two-way vehicular passage behind that. What would that come to, on average? 200 feet? 300 feet? More? Just curious. I've never gotten a sense for the average distance (specifically in feet) back from the water that we all tend to be when fishing, but I'll pay closer attention next time I'm out.

Of course there are more factors, like extreme tides and different beach profiles, etc, etc, but I figured I'd just throw this out there for general discussion. What's a reasonable and safe access width to have around the beaches and still have a protected area higher up on the beach? Hey, even if we had some type of marked designation of the farthest back we could park, fish and travel back and forth - around ALL the beaches - we'd still have access.

It's just very hard for me to believe that ORV fishermen that stay within a couple hundred feet of the water would have any adverse impact on birds nesting another 500-700 feet back on the beach. Obviously, no good science can justify the extent of the closures.

[feetinsand]

http://www.islandfreepress.org/2008A...ulemaking.html

[Possum]

Originally Posted by derf

that could be our only hope ...

It seems like that could still happen...

Boyle seems to be asking the settlement parties to create a detailed ORV plan in an impossible time frame.
I just don't see how his demands can be met in a few days or a few weeks??
Judge Boyle may be getting ready to tell the settlement parties...

"See...I told you knuckleheads that an injunction was the right solution.I have thought this thing thru much more thouroughly than you have.Now get busy with the permanent ORV plan that the law requires.In the meantime, the beaches are closed to OSVs."
This is what Boyle wanted from the gitgo.The injunction was his idea.

The table was set for the injunction a couple weeks ago...Boyle sent out the engraved invitations,the candles were lit and the blood red wine had been poured into our glass. But...at the last second....the Toyotabon Society, DOW and the eco lawyers bailed out on the very injunction that they had asked for.They asked to have an opportunity to quietly settle out of court instead...
It seems possible that Boyle's agenda now includes a measure of comeuppance directed at the Eco guys for making him look like a fool with his finger stuck in his "ear" at his own injunction party...

If the the settlement is accepted,or if settlement effort breaks down due to Boyle's impossible standards and there is an injunction after all, the obvious " elephant in the room " question is the same = to what degree does CHAPA's well documented agreement to a settlement between NPS and the Ecos ( a settlement that would SEVERLY RESTRICT OSV access) compromise CHAPA's ability to challenge severly restricted access in the future??

[longcaster]

The consent decree is between wackos & government. We didn't fight it cause it would take too long and cost too much. There is a "opportunity for access"

The injunction would close the point & spits.

Which side of that coin do you like. Which would be easier to fight?

How much money will each of you donate to fight either option? What is it worth to you?

[derf]

How much money will each of you donate to fight either option? What is it worth to you?

i've been donating since CHAPPA was brought back to life ..
it is worth whatever it takes .
this compromise crap has done nothing but close more and more beach access !!

[Possum]

Originally Posted by longcaster

The consent decree is between wackos & government. We didn't fight it cause it would take too long and cost too much. There is a "opportunity for access"

The injunction would close the point & spits.

Which side of that coin do you like. Which would be easier to fight?

How much money will each of you donate to fight either option? What is it worth to you?

I don't like either side of that coin,Longcaster.
Don't like an injunction at all, although it might be easier to fight than the proposed settlement.
.
Don't like the looks of the emerging settlement either Long...If the settlement prevails, and we want to dispute it , who would we be fighting...CHAPA? Since they have publicly promised to support a settlement,they obviously could not also fight it.Who would we donate to then??

I have donated to OBPA and CHAPA.I am an AMSA member and we support NC beach access.We are all surf fishing access supporters here, as far as I know.. Hey.. I am ready to $ support a challenge to either the settlement or an injunction. I am "po", but I could and would come up with another hundred bucks for a group that would not compromise with the bs that is going down..

What is it worth to me?
Beach access is priceless...there is no amount of money that could define how much I value it.