Sunday, April 6, 2008
Letter from Dr. Mike Berry
We believe that this very accurately describes the situation.
Here are my comments about yesterday:
It does not get much more totalitarian than when a federal court gives exclusive decision-making rights to a very small number of well funded environmental activists and special interest lawyers so as to dictate how the general public and local community will access public land that has a rich history of traditional usage rights. Public comment and participation in important, high impact policy making, like that which was being attempted through the regulation negotiation process, is being deliberately ignored by the court. This is an insult to those citizens who have taken the time and their personal resources to sit at the table to negotiate in good faith, provide factual information and constructive comment to the Park Service in order to prepare a much needed ORV management plan, and to avoid costly litigation. By its action, the court has sidelined the "reg-neg" process and is sending a very clean message that it does not care what the public thinks.
The facts are these:
1. The settlement currently being prepared beyond public view will result in much more restrictive beach usage than previously seen before. The environmental activists claim that "only 12% of the beach" is further restricted is a insult to the public's intelligence—that targeted 12% is the most enjoyed and accessible part of the Park, for all practical purposes, it is the usable portion of the Park.
2. Under the current "settlement" proceedings, there is no public discussion of economic impact. The settlement will affect the lives and economic well-being of thousands of citizens who live and own businesses and property in the villages on the Outer Banks. At least in the near term, businesses will close and families will suffer, not to mention the recreational enjoyment loss for hundreds of thousands of citizens from throughout the country who visit, or want to visit, the Park and its unique environment.
3. There is no body of science (criteria) to support the claims of species loss as the result of ORV traffic. Time and again, environmental activists organizations have claimed the loss of species due to ORV traffic on the beach. That claim has not been verified. Yet as of now, there have been no studies made available to the public for review. The environmental organizations claim expertise which the court seems to accept at face value, yet there has been no data, let alone peer reviewed data, to support the claims. Science is the process of hypothesis testing. Science explains how the environment works by way of measurement and quantification. Without data, there is no science. Without credible science there is no basis for effective management.
4. There is no opportunity for public participation, comment, and input under the current court directed "settlement" proceeding. The notion of "transparency" in a "settlement" between the Department of Interior and the environmental litigants is not possible without a public review and comment period.If the public is not concerned and outraged by the current situation, it should be. The only thing that will turn the current situation around is legislation that requires public participation or focused ORV management in the Park. Contact your lawmaker today and express your concern.
Dr Mike Berry
Chapel Hill
Here are my comments about yesterday:
It does not get much more totalitarian than when a federal court gives exclusive decision-making rights to a very small number of well funded environmental activists and special interest lawyers so as to dictate how the general public and local community will access public land that has a rich history of traditional usage rights. Public comment and participation in important, high impact policy making, like that which was being attempted through the regulation negotiation process, is being deliberately ignored by the court. This is an insult to those citizens who have taken the time and their personal resources to sit at the table to negotiate in good faith, provide factual information and constructive comment to the Park Service in order to prepare a much needed ORV management plan, and to avoid costly litigation. By its action, the court has sidelined the "reg-neg" process and is sending a very clean message that it does not care what the public thinks.
The facts are these:
1. The settlement currently being prepared beyond public view will result in much more restrictive beach usage than previously seen before. The environmental activists claim that "only 12% of the beach" is further restricted is a insult to the public's intelligence—that targeted 12% is the most enjoyed and accessible part of the Park, for all practical purposes, it is the usable portion of the Park.
2. Under the current "settlement" proceedings, there is no public discussion of economic impact. The settlement will affect the lives and economic well-being of thousands of citizens who live and own businesses and property in the villages on the Outer Banks. At least in the near term, businesses will close and families will suffer, not to mention the recreational enjoyment loss for hundreds of thousands of citizens from throughout the country who visit, or want to visit, the Park and its unique environment.
3. There is no body of science (criteria) to support the claims of species loss as the result of ORV traffic. Time and again, environmental activists organizations have claimed the loss of species due to ORV traffic on the beach. That claim has not been verified. Yet as of now, there have been no studies made available to the public for review. The environmental organizations claim expertise which the court seems to accept at face value, yet there has been no data, let alone peer reviewed data, to support the claims. Science is the process of hypothesis testing. Science explains how the environment works by way of measurement and quantification. Without data, there is no science. Without credible science there is no basis for effective management.
4. There is no opportunity for public participation, comment, and input under the current court directed "settlement" proceeding. The notion of "transparency" in a "settlement" between the Department of Interior and the environmental litigants is not possible without a public review and comment period.If the public is not concerned and outraged by the current situation, it should be. The only thing that will turn the current situation around is legislation that requires public participation or focused ORV management in the Park. Contact your lawmaker today and express your concern.
Dr Mike Berry
Chapel Hill
