NAUSET CLOSED for ORV? [Archive] - Fly Fishing Forum


06-26-2006, 08:54 AM
I am pissed.

I pay $180 for an off-road permit and they close the entire thing down.

My outrage is not for the birds, they are innocent. I don't want to run them over.

However because of the lack of cooperation / coordination and adverse relationships between the forces that be the entire complex is shut down and those who bought permits are SCREWED.

I think we need to file a class action suit against the town of Orleans to (a) refund the percentage of the fee that they do not deliver or (b) apply the amount as a discount toward 2007.

First of all they sell as many as they can and limit the daily access - which in and of itself is greedy but I can live with that. But to have no repercussion for shutting the entire beach down is not right. I know it's some fed birdbrain going overboard but it's the duty of the service provider to coordinate and the collector of funds is responsible for delivery of what we paid for or a credit is due.

Think also of the businesses in the area. I stopped in to talk to Harry Koons at Nauset Angler. The impact goes far beyond the beach bum.

Anyone else pissed about this?

This is BULLSH*T!!!

06-26-2006, 09:09 AM
I think a credit toward 2007 fees for current 2006 sticker holders is fair. Since the summer is essentially two months long (planned familiy vacations etc) and the closure is for 30 days after the eggs hatch and no one knows when that is; added to the fact that Orleans does not limit the number of stickers they sell...

it's only fair that current 2006 sticker holders receive a 50% discount on 2007 stickers.

If they are unwilling to do that then there is greed involved.

06-26-2006, 12:40 PM
Isn't Nauset similar to Smith's Point, Great Point or any other place that can be closed due to nesting birds...don't they then re-open them once the chicks have fledged?

If that is the case, then one can access the area both before AND after the
bird closures.

Or am I missing something?

06-26-2006, 01:29 PM
To say it's ok on Nauset because of some other area is like saying it's OK to sell a fake Rolex in San Diego because they do in Tijuana. Besides we'd have to compare the number of passes sold on the island verses Nauset to say there's any relevance. I would bet more revenue was collected on Memorial weekend at Orleans than both islands combined all year.

I am completely in favor of protecting the birdlife and all wildlife in the refuges including the islands, worldwide for that matter. I simply believe that the arrangement should be fair to those who pay for access in the form of credit toward following years if the beaches are shut down by the feds.

Look at it this way - there are four elements to this picture...

1) those selling passes

2) those protecting wildlife and making the rules

3) businesses depending on access

4) last but the biggest stake holder in all of this - the consumer buying passes

Currently the seller collects as much as they want, the protector makes the rules, and the consumer and businesses take the shaft.

To be specific, what I think needs to occur is that all parties who play a role are treated fairly and have an equal stake. Unless this happens, there is no impetus for 1 and 2 to work out their differences, there is no impetus for the towns to do anything about it because they blame the feds, and 3 and 4 just keep getting the shaft.

Don't evaluate this superficialy, the objective is not as shallow as wanting to fish and it's not about birds really. It's about a disfunctional system that takes the public's money without any accountability for it.

06-26-2006, 02:20 PM
I read somewhere the town of Orleans sold 6000 ORV passes ,does this number sound right?

06-26-2006, 02:42 PM

There is a front page article on the trail closures in this week,s "The Cape Codder".

The article indicated that the town of Orleans was against the closures but was ordered to enforce them by the state and federal officials who orginated the requirement. If Orleans failed to enforce the closures they could be subject to a $25,000 fine and jail time.

The town apparently offered alternatives such as fencing but all the alternatines were turned down by a state official (Scott Melvin of the Division of Fisheries and Wildlife).

According to the paper the town issued 1,600 resident, 1,200 nonresident and 125 selfcontained permits.

There is much more information in the article but I just wanted to point out where the requirement for the closures really originated.


Juro I didn't realize my first message went thru ( we had a power failure just as I sent it ) and didn't see it till this message was posted so I deleted the first one. Sorry!

06-26-2006, 03:01 PM
Thanks Dan -

I think it's a good point to point out where the closures originated, but with all due respect I think everyone knows that. The problem is that since there is no accountability to the customer for the half-million in annual revenue for the sleepy town they just shrug their shoulders and point to the feds.

Since the feds aren't hurting the town really (in fact it's got to be much easier for the town overall without any beach activity with the same revenue and no justifiable costs during the closure) they can push any agenda they want since there is no recourse from the consumer.

The core problem here is that not all players are represented. The birds are, the town is ambivalent because there is no impact and the feds only get pushback from the town who has nothing to lose but an argument presented at an obligatory hearing.

Everyone's covered but the people paying. And it's our tax dollars that pay Mr.Melvin's paycheck. Frankly if he's able to push the agenda then he's doing his job very well I might add. My point is that everyone's covered but us.

06-26-2006, 03:40 PM
Where is it written that one HAS to play in this particular sandbox? If you don't like the rules, do as all consumers do...take your money and yourself elsewhere.

How does one differentiate between those who only want to access the beach during the closure vs those who "claim" they do, but actually access it outside the closure period?!? From an operational standpoint, can you imagine the logistical nightmare of trying to refund passes on an ad hoc basis?

I assume that there must be some CYA language somewhere which suggests that the beach permit access is subject to closures. One would have to be living on a different planet (or the opposite coast) not have been exposed to instances of beach closure.

If a storm comes along and wipes out the trail, would you seriously expect people to whine and moan about a closure then?

This really seems like an excess of noise with little cause.

06-26-2006, 03:48 PM
When this happened in Plymouth they offered to buy back the sticker. In the years that followed the price has been significantly less than what it used to be, I think it's $40 now. They cage the birds on the beach to prevent the natural predators from eating them - that's just over the top.

Wouldn't it be a itch if the plover was what finally spread the bird flu:Eyecrazy:

Yeah I know that's ridicoulous but I'm just remembering how pissed off I was when they took the beach away from us.

06-26-2006, 03:51 PM
You are making it more complicated than it needs to be. It has nothing to do with when you want to go but what percentage you were able to for the season pass.

If a follow-on year discount approach was taken it could be as simple as bringing your 2006 sticker (wow hey it's already stuck to the window) to get the discount on the 2007 pass.

They have all the records, in fact each tag is on a MA registration basis AND we punch in every single time we enter and leave the beach.

Funny that logistic doesn't seem too difficult to do. They man the booth with a punch card at the gate. They count birds and nests, eggs and fledglings. They inspect our vehicles, remove our previous stickers, affix the new. Each sticker is individually hand written into the record. Why would it be difficult to credit a uniform proportionate discount for time lost from the full season pass?

The objective is to include the consumer in the accountability circle. However that's done I don't really care. But to say logistics rule out the possibility of doing this just doesn't carry water and I think you'd agree if you were familiar with the process.

Oh and they don't take credit or debit only cash or check.

06-27-2006, 06:57 AM

A camp owner over on R/T posted that the town chose not to add people to direct traffic around the nest because they could not afford the summer help.

So let's say that it would cost 20,000 to have someone there for the summer (if that) then out of the 500,000 dollars collected from stickers they can not afford this attendant you KNOW it's not about responsiblity.

So in other words rather than being accountable in terms of credits or refunds there was an option to hire a temp attendant to direct orv traffic around the nest. This person needs to be fairly knowledgeable and as stated 'certified' hence the hefty 20,000 price tag for a summer (which is unrealistically high).

At that rate the person would get $2500 a week thru August!!!

Yet it is only 4% of the revenue generated from stickers...

Most likely the cost would be closer to $10,000, or 2% of the sticker revenue leaving 98% for the treasurer to do with as he/she pleases.

How is that being accountable to sticker customers? Give me a break!

06-27-2006, 07:22 AM
I agree with Juro. It's a bit bogus in that it's amazing how easy it is for the various parties involved NOT to effect any one of several relatively simple remedies when there is $$$ to be lost (no matter how little). Why am I not surprised. Unfortunately, there are far too many people in positions of "power" who live life with blinders on and are incapable of seeing the bigger picture.

06-29-2006, 12:21 PM
The National Seashore ORV stretch from Race Point south is essentially closed too. As of this weekend only a .1 mile was open for what is called "Natural Resources Management," AKA plovers. I feel bad for those who don't call ahead; drive up there; and then air their tires down. I believe Coast Guard is open for night fishing only.

In ten seasons out there, I have only seen other fly fishers about a dozen times. Am I missing you guys out there?

Rip Ryder
06-29-2006, 04:27 PM
see should be online.


06-30-2006, 07:21 AM
Rhode Island has the same problem. My understanding is that the club I belong to has been helping fish & wildlife for years about the Piping Plover situation. When I went down in April for a beach cleanup Fish & wildlife already had the areas roped off for the Plovers. One of the signs at the area roped off, was within about 15 feet of our change house. This was so close to the house as the area lost a lot of sand over the winter and there was a lot of washover. on the clubs website it states that a nest near the club property eggs are supose to hatch on July 1st, and the sand trail is closed for night travel and only open for a very few hours for 5 days after the eggs hatch and restrictions will still be in place till all nests chicks fledgling. This is not only this year, but in years past. It is only through the hard work the club has done over the years to protect the plovers, thus keeping the access open as much as possible. It is not the towns, or the states fault the Federal Government is too blame. If I can find it iin my picture CD's I will edit, and show a picture.:frown: artb

Greg Pavlov
07-01-2006, 12:44 AM
3) businesses depending on access

4) last but the biggest stake holder in all of this - the consumer buying passes

Currently the seller collects as much as they want, the protector makes the rules, and the consumer and businesses take the shaft.
I like Harry, but I think that it's the ongoing gentrification of the
area that is hurting him.
I'm not sure what your point is about "..businesses taking the
shaft." Do you mean that the birds should be sacrificed for
Harry's sake ?

07-01-2006, 02:40 AM
I've been hunting plovers since moving to the Cape, and I must admit I have noticed a decline in the population. And yes, they do taste like chicken....NOT!:hihi:

07-01-2006, 11:21 AM

I'm sure you will be thrilled to hear that this week's Cape Codder indicated that to make up for closing the trails Orleans will now permit you to park for free at the Nauset Beach parking lot until the trails reopen.

The paper also indicated that the town "almost" negotiated the reopening a couple of days ago but it fell through.

Sorry the news isn't better.


07-02-2006, 07:01 AM
Anyone happen to know how long of a walk it is from the parking lot to the point?



Greg Pavlov
07-02-2006, 04:28 PM
Anyone happen to know how long of a walk it is from the parking lot to the point?-J
I've never done it without stopping to fish on the way, there or back - and the
point is a moving target anyway - but I would say that a good march would be
betw 35 and 45 minutes to the furthest point north for the "average" weekend

07-02-2006, 10:16 PM
North aint to far but south is like least 8 miles. Bring a tent :)