SUDBURY 7-9pm tonight - Fly Fishing Forum
Stripers and Coastal Gamefish Stripers, Blues, Inshore tuna!

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-07-2005, 08:57 AM
juro's Avatar
juro juro is offline
Coast2coast Flyfishaholic
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Steelhead country|striper coast|bonefish belt
Posts: 20,593
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.
__________________
IFFF Certified THCI @ 2005
Capeflyfisher Guide Service
Island Hopper, Guitarist, Incurable Dreamer
and Founder, Worldwide Flyfishing Forum
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
  #2  
Old 04-07-2005, 09:37 AM
Adrian's Avatar
Adrian Adrian is offline
Flats Rat
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Connecticut/New England
Posts: 2,952
I think I can be at this one

I am in the Burlington office today and staying over tonight.
__________________
When sight fishing, look over your shoulder from time to time, you never know who's behind you
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #3  
Old 04-07-2005, 11:19 AM
JimW JimW is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: As long as it's Salty
Posts: 1,795
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #4  
Old 04-07-2005, 06:24 PM
Redfisher Redfisher is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Monomoy
Posts: 92
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.

Dan
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #5  
Old 04-07-2005, 08:10 PM
JimW JimW is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: As long as it's Salty
Posts: 1,795
Dan,
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. They finally put the nails in the coffin at our town beach.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #6  
Old 04-08-2005, 06:01 AM
juro's Avatar
juro juro is offline
Coast2coast Flyfishaholic
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Steelhead country|striper coast|bonefish belt
Posts: 20,593
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 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.
__________________
IFFF Certified THCI @ 2005
Capeflyfisher Guide Service
Island Hopper, Guitarist, Incurable Dreamer
and Founder, Worldwide Flyfishing Forum
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #7  
Old 04-08-2005, 06:32 AM
bonefishmon's Avatar
bonefishmon bonefishmon is offline
resigned
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Mystic River-Fishers Is. Sound- The Elbow
Posts: 1,368
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.

Phil
__________________
So many places to fish.. friends to make.......so little time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #8  
Old 04-08-2005, 07:05 AM
FishHawk FishHawk is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 2,039
Sudbury 2 to 4 pm meeting

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.
FishHawk
__________________
FishHawk
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #9  
Old 04-08-2005, 08:21 AM
Adrian's Avatar
Adrian Adrian is offline
Flats Rat
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Connecticut/New England
Posts: 2,952
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.
__________________
When sight fishing, look over your shoulder from time to time, you never know who's behind you
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #10  
Old 04-08-2005, 10:34 AM
striblue's Avatar
striblue striblue is offline
President of CAC
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Plymouth and Chatham, MA
Posts: 7,518
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 ).

Last edited by striblue; 04-08-2005 at 10:35 AM.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #11  
Old 04-08-2005, 11:16 AM
Paxton Paxton is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Central Mass and Chatham
Posts: 924
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"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #12  
Old 04-08-2005, 11:29 AM
FishHawk FishHawk is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 2,039
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.
FishHawk
__________________
FishHawk

Last edited by FishHawk; 04-08-2005 at 11:33 AM.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #13  
Old 04-08-2005, 12:27 PM
Adrian's Avatar
Adrian Adrian is offline
Flats Rat
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Connecticut/New England
Posts: 2,952
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?

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.
__________________
When sight fishing, look over your shoulder from time to time, you never know who's behind you
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #14  
Old 04-08-2005, 12:41 PM
striblue's Avatar
striblue striblue is offline
President of CAC
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Plymouth and Chatham, MA
Posts: 7,518
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #15  
Old 04-08-2005, 11:35 PM
juro's Avatar
juro juro is offline
Coast2coast Flyfishaholic
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Steelhead country|striper coast|bonefish belt
Posts: 20,593
Exclamation

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.
__________________
IFFF Certified THCI @ 2005
Capeflyfisher Guide Service
Island Hopper, Guitarist, Incurable Dreamer
and Founder, Worldwide Flyfishing Forum
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Fly Fishing Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
some more off the bench tonight Shaq >> Archive: Salmon & Steelhead Flies 6 02-25-2005 09:47 AM
Upgrade Tonight!!!! sean Worldwide Flyfishing Discussion 4 01-20-2004 11:10 AM
Fishing Tonight JimW Stripers and Coastal Gamefish 0 06-26-2003 12:58 PM
Sign up form may be unavailable 9pm-11pm on 6/8/2000 JimW Stripers and Coastal Gamefish 0 06-08-2000 06:56 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:18 AM.



Copyright Flyfishingforum.com (All Rights Reserved)