: SUDBURY 7-9pm tonight
I will be attending tonight. Anyone else going? We should meet early to recap what the issues are.
Anyone with insights please send me a PM or post as appropriate.
thanks and hope to see folks there.
04-07-2005, 10:37 AM
I think I can be at this one :smokin:
I am in the Burlington office today and staying over tonight.
I read in the CCT's that an effort is being made to eliminate all clamming in the refuge. This does not sound good. Was there any mention of this at the last meeting or has the press skewed things again?
If this is true and they are able to shut down the commercials who devire their income by accessing Monomoy seems like the recs would be an easy target.
I realize that the article states the feds have every right to ban commercial clamer per the wilderness act but why now? What's changed that makes it a problem today when it wasn't yesterday? Most likely someone with a bunch of cash or power would like the clammers to go away.
Here's a quote from the article:
"There would need to be some agreement whether - or how - to prevent predators, deer and rodents from using a new land bridge to the island and possibly destroying bird life in the refuge."
Give me a break - perhaps we should set up a toll gate and let the deer over if they promise not to harrass the birds. Why we (tax payers) are even funding a commitee with such a thought process is beyond me. If I sound a bit negative towards the whole "management plan" it's because I've been through this before when the Fed flexed it's muscles and essentially took over our local beach for the sake of the birders who have since started to buy property on the beach. Those on the beach commitee and it's supporters rallied, organized, fought and lost. I just cannot even think of going through that frustrating process again.
Many thanks to those of you who are active and trying to save access - I'm rooting for ya.
04-07-2005, 07:24 PM
I attended one of the meetings in Chatham and both the regional and the local U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service managers made it emphatically clear that at this time they have absolutely no problem with commercial clamming on the refuge. The culprits are conservation organisations such as the Audabon Society and the Sierra Club, which I understand were "rumored" to be considering legal action to force the Service to stop the clammers. However the regional manager did not believe that such action was likely. They indicated that if they were asked for a recommendation by the courts that they would recommend that commercial clamming be permitted. However they did indicate that if the courts ordered them to stop the clamming they would have to comply.
Thanks for clarifying that point, I've become leary of the papers stories but it sounded like it fit the Morris Island crowd's agenda. You can always count on good ol' Audubon to save the birds at all costs. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: They finally put the nails in the coffin at our town beach.
Attended Sudbury last night, special thanks to the Refuge Staff for having us.
Attendants represented Rec anglers, animal rights interests on behalf of coyotes, Chatham residents who were interested in preserving the status quo (access, clamming, ways of life). Also were representatives from Audubon, EPA and Cape Wildlife.
The process is still in it's second stage of many, the goals and objectives are still being formed but the importance of this phase is the opportunity to include perspectives of the refuge and it's usage into the requirements (we hope). It was a gracious gesture to have us get involved, and although much remains to be seen we all hope that what happens from here is truly in the best interests of the refuge and those who interact with it, not the interests of a few privileged and selfish people trying to take control of access as we know it today.
BTW - This is where it will be very important to get involved in large numbers as the few with money and power will take over where the public does not resist en masse, as history proves over and over again. The fight is only beginning in this respect and if we do not push hard things will be determined for us.
Rec Anglers outnumbered the others but not by much, it was a little disappointing that more did not show up frankly. Although on a June day on Monomoy we are outnumbered by tourists, we do live here and spend most days out there of all other than those who work there. Nonetheless I think Ron, Adrian, Brendan O'Brien, Ray and others did a fine job of raising the concerns for anglers.
Representatives of the clamming interests were not there in person but two people were there from Chatham and did a fine job establishing the importance of clamming in the community.
Second in number to the anglers were the coyote rights attendants, who sought an alternative to the current 'culling' of these predators as a way of meeting their federally obligated mission to protect the rare nesting colony during their nesting period.
It was pretty much a hearing of sorts, and we all got to express our concerns which were documented and accepted as input into the formation of the goals and objectives.
I will let others chime in but mine were:
- Prevention of small power/money group to control a federal and public resource as they are without any doubt making a strong effort to do (and have been for years). We should consider this to be totally unacceptable, such agendas have no place in the policy making of a federal, public treasure like Monomoy.
- Continued integration of the Refuge and Ferry service is a must. I made the example of our FORUM Big Brother Day and how we gather at the Refuge HQ, leave to the beach via ferry, then have a ceremony at the HQ and the kids do the scavenger hunt and learn about the refuge from the staff as part of one experience. This integration is a critical part of the experience for them. I made the point that separating things would create a precipitous drop in attendance in interest in the refuge and would harm the refuge as well as the rights of those who use it for access.
-> Libby mentioned that access to ferries from the refuge will be maintained (sought to be maintained as they made it clear nothing is definite) but the way it happens will / may change. Permits may be replaced with concessions; I am not completely sure what that means but will find out. (John? Brendan? Keith?)
- PARKING on the causeway is really one of the hottest issues, and there was only one representative from town of Chatham who had nothing significant to offer in this critical matter. His role was to look after clamming and access to the refuge in traditional ways.
** Among the most important things to resolve is the causeway parking issue **
I suggested moving the cable out a few feet to get the cars off the road, apparently this caused a huge ruckus last go around because it proposed a reduction in spaces combined with those who opposed access (Morris Island residents) so both pro and con were polarized on the same side it seems, a loser from the word go.
** We need a new better proposal to solving the parking problem **
This is where the public hearing approach lets us present our ideas. Let's hear 'em! Also, when it comes time to make things happen we will all need to speak out and get involved so the SNAFU of yesteryear that killed the improvements to the causeway will not re-occur.
- the other hot issue I could not resist talking about during the introduction :D is the shifting of jurisdiction caused by the potential merging of miles of south beach with south monomoy, and furthermore the potential cut of south beach away from the peninsula just south of the drop-off point.
Who will control access to the new lobe - National Seashore or Monomoy Refuge? How will clammer / angler / access rights be affected?
South Monomoy outside of the north tip where the rare tern colony nests is open for access through the year, so provided the birds do not nest on the new area (if it joins as it eventually will) we should be able to access it for fishing.
I am not sure how clamming will be affected but I assume it will be nix'ed if it's on the refuge.
I suggested a rotated flat approach like rivers in BC or elsewhere but not being any kind of clam expert not sure if it could work. I do know we all could understand more about the population densities because the guys clamming say there are fewer and fewer clams out there. Maybe rotating around all areas instead of putting clammers on limited access points might be a better well-rounded approach, dunno.
Anyway, back to fishing...
If the southway closes and the break cuts shore access then it would be important for the ferry to get us onto the new lobe without access problems. This would avail people to accessing the area surrounding the currently protected north end of south monomoy on foot, but we can do that now anyway.
If we lost miles of SB due to these changes undue pressure would result on North Monomoy to make up for it - that is not a good solution. My interest is not in approaching or bothering the nesting areas but I do not want to lose access to miles of SB if it becomes part of SM and would want access to the old SB.
I think I was assured that this is not the case, access to SM is open outside of the protected zones anyway.
But we need to keep the heat on to prevent things from getting restricted under our feet (or behind our backs) to appease the special interests of powerful private landowners who have the interest of the few (themselves) over the rights of the many. I might sound paranoid but there has been a lot of undercurrent in this direction with local businesses playing along and it goes far deeper than the aggression we experience from these fair-weather landowners with out-of-state license plates angry about the parking situation.
I can provide some details, but offline. My point is we need a loud voice to prevent these agendas from driving the direction of the CCP.
04-08-2005, 07:32 AM
Monomoy is one of the most famed salt water flyfishing destinations in the east and gets prominent coverage from national flyfishing publications. Perhaps someone with all the facts and some writing skills could notify John Randolf and other fly fishing related magazine publishers as to the plight this great destination is in. Most of them have a conservation section that would alert the nation. We will have letters streaming in from all directions! John, maybe Orvis can get involved. We need to act quickly.
04-08-2005, 08:05 AM
Both Ron (Paxton) and I attended the afternoon meeting which was a low key event. This was good because I got to interact with the US Fish nd Wildlife Service personnel. Here is what is going on.
It's the Wilderness Society that is pushing for the area to become a wilderness area refuge. This is the most serious issue here , it's not the parking. Once the area becomes a wilderness area no commerical activities will be allowed.
The clammers have not impacted the refuge and the Service has no problem with them. However, in a Wilderness area they would be prevented from clamming because of the way the Wilderness Act is written. The ferries would be allowed to continue in a Wilderness area because they could not access the area like a ATV other land based motorized form of transportation. Permits might have to be issued to the land based fishing guide service.
The most serious thing we as fishermen could do is to step on a Plover nest. A report would be written and go all the way up to Washington. This was stressed to me. So what ever we do don't cross into a closed of area and get in trouble.
Also, don't hang your gear on the refuge signs. This is not tolerated by the Service. I'm sure Ron will add to this report.
04-08-2005, 09:21 AM
Juro summed up the evening session very succinctly.
Regarding Wilderness Area designation, two points were made :
1) Commercial services that support public use of wilderness areas, subject to review, would be permitted (i.e. ferry services).
2) Commercial activity which has existed for centuries, such that it has become an integral part of the ecosystem (i.e. clamming) would continue. The legal representative from Chatham mentioned considerable scientific research that has been undertaken to support this position.
Apart from two small parcels of about 200 acres, the Monomoy Refuge is already designated as a Wildlife Area.
The jusrisdictional issue is interesting. Currently South Beach comes under the National Parks Service and Monomoy under the Fish and Wildlife Service. The good news is both come under the Department of the Interior and a common legal framework. Both groups are looking at a classification scheme that takes account of the constantly changing geography. Resolving jurisdiction is seen as a separate priority item that will be addressed within the next 12 months.
I came away from this meeting feeling a bit more positive than when I went in.
But, to reiterate Juro's point, it is up to each and every one of us to make our voices heard. The process currently underway is, required by law to listen to and take account of public concern. We need to remain attentive and vigilant over the next 3 to 5 years - that's how long this process is goint to take.
04-08-2005, 11:34 AM
Great Reports Guys... and thanks for the great detail in these reports. One way or another is the fact that we are Miles ahead of where we have been , even since last year...so we are now in the mix. Juro, Pete...I will be at CAC this weekend painting the porch... and doing a bit of clean up... so if you are on the Cape stop by (I will not put you to work ).
04-08-2005, 12:16 PM
Juro, Bill, Adrian.... great summary of the meetings! I have only one thing to add, and it may be just my gut feeling. Here goes: In the previous scoping meetings it appeared clear that parking/traffic were only the concern of a few residents of Morris Island (the vast majority of property owners were supportive of the reguge as it is...traffic and all)...the town of Chatham isn't complaining either........at both Sudbury meetings, no one in the audience brought up and complaints about traffic and parking.....at the very end of the 7-9 Sudbury meeting, Libby of F&W said..."we have to do something about the traffic" and then went on to say that possibly the solution would be to explore approaching the town to allow parking at the high school and then shuttle people to the refuge (I hope I understood that right)....so if that came to be, my thoughts are....that would make the traffic even worse(people would go like they do to the refuge, see a sign, drive to the high school to mount a shuttle and come back (that's 2 trips instead of one)....where do they turn around (in neighbors driveways???? when the see the sign (if ya wanna come here go away and come back).....is this in on demand bus shuttle?......do people sit in the high school shuttle till x number of people are there? Is the HS parking lot for overflow when the lot at the refuge is full (where will the neon sign be to alert people?)....Does this shuttle operate 24 hrs a day for people to access night fishing?......I must be missing the point of this potential solution to "traffic"...someone clue me in, please.
"Lost in Paxton"
04-08-2005, 12:29 PM
Ron I too am puzzled by this responce by Libby. At the 2 to 4pm meeting when I said that I was concerned about the parking issue and your input about this she never mentioned parking at the high school. Maybe she was thinking out loud. at end of the evening meeting. When I asked the rep for the town of Chatham what about the causeway parking he never mentioned the high school parking solution.
04-08-2005, 01:27 PM
A shuttle service might work well for non-angling users of the refuge. Birders and walkers tend to do their thing during daylight hours and casual visitors probably only spend a few hours at the center during the day. Saying that, I don't know what the actual visitor patterns are.
As I said at the meeting, a shuttle service isn't going to work for me and probably not for most anglers who's timetable is driven more by moon and tides than "normal" folks.
Would they let me bring my kayak on the bus? :lildevl:
The sense I got was there's not much F&W can do about parking outside of their boundaries but they are concerned. Improving the situation on the causeway needs to be carried out by the town. It sounds like the last time this came up the out-of-town 'big-money' successfully nixed it.
One of the things that struck me last night was the fact that this initiative has created a common sense of purpose for all refuge users - anglers, clammers, birders, local folks. It looks like the clammers have a lot of town support. Maybe joining with them on this our collective voice would be enough overcome the big-money and get the causeway fixed?
Do the clammers have an association we could contact? Maybe the legal guy at the meeting would know - I didn't get his name.
It sounds like the objections are coming from a minority of residents.
Remember: When the majority is silent, the minority rules the day.
Let's not let that happen to us.
04-08-2005, 01:41 PM
Look, Libby has another agenda... and she is very sympathetic with the Morris Islanders. The town of Chatham will not bend to the parking issues... The clammers park there as well. Libby needs to be watched... she is not on the Ferry side and is listening to the residents more than the public. The parking at the causeway is a non issue for the Fish and Wild life service!!!! So why is Libby hammering away at parking????? As long as the Town does not do anything about the causeway parking then the residents can pound sand and Libby can too.
What exactly is the situation with the area becoming a Wilderness Area?
#1 - What is the proposal?
#2 - Who is behind it?
#3 - What is the mission / objective of it?
#4 - How will it impact the availability of the area for it's current and established usage model (clamming, recreational, bird-watching and low-impact commercial use like clamming, seal watching, shore guiding, etc)
We did not really cover this in the 7-9pm hearing.
04-09-2005, 06:41 AM
Good questions Juro.
I did a bit of searching and found this:
I need to read this through a few times since there seem to be exceptions to the "no comercial activity" rule for example;
" PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN USES
(c) Except as specifically provided for in this Act, and subject to existing private rights, there shall be no commercial enterprise........
94% of Monomoy is already designated as a Federal Wilderness Area:
1) Is there a proposal to bring the remaining 6% under the Wilderness Classification as part of the current CCP?
2) As things change at Monomoy and existing Wilderness Areas become fused with non-wilderness areas (refered to as Geomorphology):
i) How does an area become re-classified?
ii) How is jurisdiction resolved?
iii) What is the review process, if any, for any commercial activities currently operating in the area if it becomes reclassified under the act? - e.g. Ferry Services and Guiding at South Beach?
Here's an excerpt from the Fish & Wildlife Serivices policy management document:
L. Commercial uses. The Wilderness Act allows commercial services with-
in wilderness areas to the extent necessary for realizing recreational
or other wilderness purposes, including guiding, outfitting, and
transporting in wilderness.
Right now, I don't see any specific proposals or answers on the table but the questions need to be kept front and center during the remiander of the review process and at each and every opportunty for public comment.
I was at the meeting in Sudbury last Thursday from 7-9pm and was surprised that the USFWS personnel almost outnumbered any specific group (think there were 8 agency people at the meeting). If my memory is correct - there were 8 people interested in recreational angling there, and we were the most represented user group. In talking to Bill Perry he mentioned that the most attended meetings were in Chatham where I believe he said there were 75 and 90 people at those two meetings. This management plan will take a long time to complete 3-5 years, but there is nothing like getting in on the process from the beginning, rather than during the review period of their draft CCP.
The situation reminds me a little like the FERC review of the Deerfield River about 8 years ago when they went through the relicensing of the dam. Anglers really didn't seem to present their side (me included), but other groups did - e.g., kayakers. What came out of that was a mess for anglers, but the kayakers did get guaranteed release dates and flows. I don't think anglers received much out of that deal and with deregulation of the electric utilities - now we can be guaranteed power generation on demand, so releases are unpredicatable and taking a trip out there to fish can be a hit or miss proposition. My point is that I would hate to see inaction on the part of anglers lead to a situation where we lose the ability to access the Monomoy refuge, or lose ferry service in that area.
The positives that I came away with at the meeting:
Although the refuge is primarily interested in protecting endangered species and migratory birds - they are also concerned with public use for birding, angling, etc. I got that they were not looking towards changing the access to the refuge for anglers (but you never know how things will turn out, so it is better to get your side heard).
There is still a chance to provide your input until April 22nd the email to provide your comments is: Northeastplanning@fws.gov (mailto:Northeastplanning@fws.gov )
Your review is spot-in Adrian.
I have been receiving offline correspondence with highest concern for the refuge becoming a Wilderness Area and what that will do to it's current usage. I understood as you pointed out that the majority already was, thanks for the clarification.
As far as permits for shore guides...
from a shore guide's perspective, getting a permit is not a big deal as the staff mentioned it will probably not cost anything. Therefore it seems a formality, with the possible purpose of limiting the number of permits to those who have established themselves as knowledgeable and experienced in the refuge.
I would even go as far as suggesting a certification process, involving a written, oral and demonstrative test of a guide's abilities and have all the confidence that I could satisfy such requirements if called for.
But I do feel that if a shore guide needs one, boat captains should also be required to have a permit because they are much more prevalent, impact the area much more with their motors, poling, getting out and wading in areas inaccessible to shore guides, and frankly impact more fish and habitat than the light footsteps of a wading guide in the shallows.
The shore guiding game takes a certain breed of cat and it's not a game that we should expect to see a lot of growth in, haven't for centuries. Yet the rate of exploitation by boats particularly by flats boat captains has skyrocketed as evidenced by the number of Florida style boats that people are buying and using in the area. Nothing against that, but what's fair is fair.
I would argue that shore guides tread lightly on the refuge without noise or pollution or invasion into areas where access is not permitted. They help by educating the wading recreational anglers in the proper pathways and assure safety as well as success. It would be ludicrous to require limitations on the humble shore guide while leaving no restrictions on the exploding number of flats boats using the refuge for commercial purposes, while allowing unrestricted use by recreational foot anglers - this could only be done in total ignorance of what is really going on out there IMHO.
Let's put it this way, if I would need to have a permit to wade guide but not if I were a boat captain, what would keep me from getting a 6-pack and coming back with a boat to exploit the resource with 10x the efficiency, pollution, noise, range, and frequency? Shore guiding only succeeds as a venture because of it's intimacy with the subtleties of flats. Boat guiding succeeds because of it's efficiency to motor about, pole over shallows and hunt and hook fish. It's no contest as to which is more impactive to the resource.
Once again, from a selfish point of view I hope it happens because I would gladly accept such limitations of my competition. But I am not driven by selfishness in this matter and can't agree with it's rationale even if it would help me.
Back to the wilderness act...
So it seems most of the area is already a wilderness area, and that what stands to be impacted the most is clamming. I am sympathetic to the clammer's rights and hope they would be willing to join forces with us as John Morin and I have discussed months ago. If the rec anglers and commercial clammers unite, it makes perfect sense as the issues controlling access for both are aligned.
Despite the current "it ain't broke" status, it seems that the writers of the CCP have already conceded to "fixing" a ferry service deal for operating on the refuge. Libby mentioned that it would become a "concession" which I was too shy to ask what that really meant.
I mentioned that it's operation should be integrated with the refuge or prepare for a precipitous drop in attendance and difficulty justifying the funding of their own existence.
I think this means they will put the business up for bid and choose ONLY ONE OPTION for accessing the refuge (???). I need to ask Libby for clarification of the objective and goal for this change. We clearly have a working situation that is balanced and provides a suitable amount of coverage. What is the goal, when no other boat restrictions are on the table?
Parking - the minority voice of private absentee landowners (who BTW did not even show up for the Chatham hearing!!!) rants about eliminating the refuge as a ferry location, but that would be extremely damaging to the refuge operation and contrary to the greater good of those wanting and needing to use the area. I have more faith in the group than to give in to such ridiculous demands for the sake of a few, at the loss of access for the many as federal representatives. Actions will speak louder than words, we will be watching this closely. Heck even I couldn't justify my tax dollars for keeping a refuge HQ open if no one goes there... and I am as green as anyone.
If the parking was restricted since the Big Brothers park on the causeway we'd have to explain to the kids that the refuge can't accomodate our parking because the rules for a federal resource were manipulated by a few neighbors and find a new place to hold our Big Brother Day. I hope they don't get the same bad taste for the antics of exclusivity on the Cape, of which Monomoy is one of the few 'last hopes'. When I was a young teen a security guard took a swing at my head with a metal flashlight when I was fishing on a jetty near a rich man's hotel a little ways down the shoreline.
One of the reasons I love Monomoy so dearly is because it is free of such exclusivity and self-serving power-mongering. I hope. We will certainly fight to keep it that way.
Per the ferry... I am not sure why there is a problem today. Things seem perfectly fine as they are. There has to be some form of hidden agenda. It seems they want to pull off some kind of power play with this CCP. We should watch this very closely as well. I have some connections in the press that might be willing to jump on this if it turns out to be what many suspect. We also have a very powerful medium called the internet at our fingertips.
(Correct me if I am mistaken)
Whether a wilderness area or not, the BIG 6 are part of the credo for the refuge and we will not be denied access for fishing.
However there seems to be some weird agenda going on to serve the few despite the good of the many (ferries, parking, etc) and this must be watched very closely.
Clamming, a huge part of the welfare of our beloved Chatham, is threatened by any changes to the status of the refuge - from both natural and human forces. We need to stand firm with the clammers for matters even beyond the refuge, like the causeway which is in need of some simple and inexpensive changes to remedy the road parking issue - move the cable rail.
The irony in all of this is that while recreational access by boaters, waders, et al is not even on the table. The rate of utilization / impact on the refuge is going to be huge yet it does not seem to be where the focus is.
Instead, the upheaval of existing commercial interests, which are subtle and have reached a proven equilibrium, seems to be the agenda even if private boats and hordes of recreational users can access the refuge without limits.
The good of the resource is not served by manipulating the few commercial interests that have settled in to low-impact usage models - the resource is served by understanding and acting on the best interest of the flora and fauna of the refuge, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to determine that the refuge is far more affected by private boat owners than a few ferry boats or clammers and guides.
Regardless of your views, PLEASE GET INVOLVED.
04-09-2005, 09:09 PM
I am supporting the clammers.... I know enough Chatham guys to understand the situation. There is also a friend who lives on Morris Island who used to live around the corner from me... a successful RE developer who's son is close to my boys. I have spoken with him and I also konw the Morris Island people who don't want the ferry are a VERY small group... there issue is simply the parking... they can't beat the town on this so they are trying to work the wild life route... sorry.. the town will allow parking there... this I know... Just like they are allowing parking down Bridge street to accomodate the beach goers at the light house... Drive down Bridge street on a sunny day and see what I am talking about. The clammers are there and help with conservation by simply rotating the harvest. MY major point is, as it always has been , is that despite all the issues.. we simply need to be recognized as a group that is supported by the statute... if we stay informed and step up when we need to we will be heard. I also expect to speak with Brady and ask him what we as ff can do to help with the educational thinking at the refuge. I will say this publically.. that the current manager of the refuge needs to get her act together...period! and do her job, and stop being "awed" by the big money..... there I said it... what do you think of that!
PS-Don't get bogged down with details...stay focused on the objective!
The impression I got attending the other night was that the current phase is to get lots of info on the table in order to determine what the objective is. This came across to me as a little bit indecisive, however I respect their process.
I think by saying keep focused on the objective you are referring to 'our' objectives, which should be made clear among our ranks.
What do you consider to be our objectives, and should these be kept offline for the time being to avoid exposing our strategy?
We could use two pieces of information, if anyone has it...
- contact who is responsible for roadways in Chatham
- person or persons who is a focal point of clamming interests in Chatham
04-10-2005, 09:12 AM
Here is what has happened in my opinion. Depending on the questions asked only selective information was given. The impression that I got about the current status of Monomoy was that it was not an Wilderness area and was about to be. After what Adrian reported I now know what the situation is concerning the Wilderness area. So Libby cleverly avoids information that would be helpful to certain focus groups.
For example, I mentioned the eliminatiion of some of the deer population by hunting . Well because the Humane Society person was there she side stepped the this question.
So from all our input we are starting to get a clearer view of the situation.
I'm glad that we got on top of this. It's only the beginning of the battle.
I missed something in the deer hunting point. As I read it, you asked a question but she did not answer. Is this to say she avoids certain questions?
So in summary, your assessment was that refuge personnel are filtering information to pursue a pre-determined agenda?
04-11-2005, 05:36 AM
I think they are very diplomatic about their answers. They don't want to stir people up. I think that's the way the process works.The USWF tries to remain neutral. Unless someone asks the right questions information is not given. Just look at the posts . Everyone got little bits of information that was given in a specific meeting and not given at the other meetings. That's why our focus group must have a consistant statement.
I think they know where we stand. It's like what Pete said about his Deerfield experience.
Only time will tell how this will play out. But as Strblue said we are much better off as a group now that the have come together.
Thanks for the reply. You allude to a consistent statement but I am unsure as to what this statement is.
What in your view is this statement that we need to be consistent on?
I am still building my way to it by analyzing the details. However I could not agree more that it's necessary.
04-11-2005, 08:04 AM
I have contacted Bill Perry and expressed my concerns and desires. I wish I were in a localle allowing me to be more active and to do more. Are there any other people it would be beneficial to contact?
If large numbers of respondents adding our concerns to the rolls of affected users of this resorce is helpful then would it be a productive tool for someone put togeter a form letter outlining our concerns for a mass mailing to the NFWS and others? I know there are many folks who use this site lacking in the language skills, confidence or savy who are equally concerned with loosing privilages to this resourse. Wouldn't form letter with an electronic, but agency recognized signature for petitioning purposes, and with links to the appropriate recipients email be an easy way for those folks to be heard who may not otherwise know how to express their wishes to accomplish this?
Most folks are motivated to be heard on this and many other issues of public/ civic concern. I do know though that many who are affected don't know how to be heard and are often on the loosing end when decisions are made for them. A simple form letter with links will help those folks be heard and help to support this cause. :wink:
04-11-2005, 08:26 AM
I have only seen a couple of mentions of this Libby woman. Can someone give some background on her and the axe she's grinding against us/ NFWS and whomever else she has it out for. I sense a lot of dislike for her but am not informed as to her issues. She seems to be quite the agitator and a pebble in a lot of wading shoes. :confused:
I have only met her briefly and she was quite accomodating with information at Sudbury 7p hearing, however when you stand back and put the puzzle pieces together there is something wrong with the picture.
Although I am not fond of jumping to conclusions and we need to uphold our even keel throughout this process in order to be effective, I can not figure out what the objectives and goals are behind some of the things she said. This being a typical federal process, no goals and objectives were discussed as the intent of these hearings was to "develop goals and objectives".
Yet it's hard to believe there is no hidden objective when there is a small group driven by personal agendas whose wishes seem to magically align with the actions she proposed and/or discussed. Such speculation remains to be proven, but you should all know that this is a belief that is shared among those who are most directly involved, and we can not discount it under any circumstances.
She spoke quite a bit about parking which is as John Morin pointed out not a matter which the feds are involved in...
But since there it's no secret that there is an alliance between her and a small group of Quitnesset landowners and certain local business who stand to gain immensely from her proposed changes we can easily read between the lines that there is an alterior motive - to shove personal agendas under the CCP carpet.
This remains to be proven, but there is reasonable suspicion to mention it out loud with the purpose of raising awareness and keeping things in check. Frankly, if this is true then it's behavior unbecoming a federal official. Indeed if she is catering to wishes of a small special interest group while ignoring the access models for the national resource that are proven to be well enough to be left alone for the good of the many, not the wants of a few with a personal agenda.
I think it's important that we are very vocal at all levels of the chain of command to say "it's unacceptable for a federal official to manipulate the CCP to address personal agendas". This would render the CCP to be corrupted.
One thing is for sure, we will need everyone who calls himself a member of this forum and every other forum who calls itself a flyfishermens group to effect a wave of communication throughout the chain of command all the way to Washington if necessary once we have clearly determined what is going on.
The key now is to determine what is going on, and eventually it will come out in the wash and we should be ready to pounce on it when it comes to public record.
It's not illegal to have a personal agenda, but it's certainly not acceptable to try to effect it under the management credo of a public federal resource, especially if this is being driven by a federal official charged with the responsibility to serve the greater good.
04-11-2005, 11:42 AM
Juro..good thinking here...you are spot on... Also this agenda thing and discussions of how to deal with the personel issue should be left off line since the site is monitored by the federal and Quinnessett people. But I know that Libby has her cross hairs on Keith and is listening to the Morris Island people on Parking . Since the Parking is a town thing...you get rid of Keith and you solve the parking issue...simple...see? This is why this particular federal official has lost sight of the big picture... We will need to go over her head and soon.
04-11-2005, 12:02 PM
I guess I missed where it was said she was a fed and part of the CCP process from that side of the issue. I appreciate the need for tact in discussing the issues or any parties involved which is the correct and civil way we all appear to be dealing with this and a reason for certain off line discussions. Another reason for my affinity toward this group.
I know the form letter suggestion reaks of spam. But isn't it a good and common tool in instances like this?
04-11-2005, 12:17 PM
Chris.. yes a letter is good. I mentioned the concept of sending a sort of.."white Paper', as the term is usually referred as... a document that provides a position and plan for the group that provides it.. I don't expect it to be a long paper... we know what the statute says and we know we need to maintain access, etc...so this should be our focus... not to mention all the other areas that we will need to address and balance to keep the primary issue of "access" unimpeded...Ok?
04-11-2005, 12:54 PM
Excellent idea Chris. The "White Paper' would put our views in writting about how and what issues are important to our group. Juro this is what I meant by a consistand message.
Since John is a lawyer by profession I feel he should write our "White Paper"
04-12-2005, 08:20 AM
Our group has done a great job geting the word out as to how we can be heard on this matter.
Not to belabor the point here and thanks for considering it. John, the " White Paper" as you called it would be a way for those who just may not get to it to be heard in a quick and easy manner.
Juro- You're the wiz at this how about setting up a side bar link to a form with a an email link to the folks who need to get it. Embed a brief document outlining our desires for the refuge, and personal information blocks for each respondent. They can just hit send and off it goes.
We see these all the time on many sites for petitioning our congressmen and senators for any number of issues and appointments. This can increase greatly our input if not our influence on the outcome.
You got it Chris!
We used a similar device for the recent Pacific Northwest email effort and the effect was very positive in expressing our collective views.
There are three elements at least we should stay on top of:
1) gathering our thoughts and making our input heard in the 'hearing' process (coordinate and proactively communicate) using white papers, emails, and forums
2) knowing precisely what is being proposed in terms of changes enacted by the CCP (track every step of the way, inform and educate each other) - this is still not available for our review so we should not get a false sense of security that we know what they are proposing, it requires constant review
3) effecting the desired outcome by targeting our actions where they make the most focused impact, which requires both (1) and (2)
As our good friend and honored member MikeZ pointed out it we should all hope it's just about the wildlife and that the CCP does not impose actions that disturb the currently proven and open access and usage model that is in place, and we all have nothing to worry about including the flora and fauna.
However as we all know from attending the hearings in person, this is not what we have heard so far and there is undeniably a cause for concern, albeit we are still early in the overall process it's important to stay one step ahead the whole way.
04-12-2005, 08:54 AM
Is there any word when the next compilation of input and mailing for the CCP is expected? How long before the positions/ concerns of the attendees into the records?