re: "These overly restrictive closures have changed our families traditions. While there is some beach access, the remote places we shared with kids, grand kids, and handicapped and elderly parents are closed."

That's at least an honest (and understandable) reason for some locals and long-time users to be opposed to the current closures and management plans. It's human nature to resist changes that threaten our personal preferences and lifestyles.

Similar unhappiness exists in other parks around the country as situations change over time (witness the ongoing disagreements at Ozark Riverways.) Does that make the local's traditions more or less valid than other opinions about how to best manage the area? Depends on who you ask :-)

There will never be a perfect solution to make everyone (including ORV users and wildlife supporters) happy when it comes to managing these public lands. Probably the best we can hope for is some balance, and willingness for give and take by all sides. 

Perhaps some perspective can be found by asking what all this coastal area would look like in terms of public use and access if it were all in private ownership today. I'm not sure very many people, other than those who could afford to buy it, would be happy with that scenario.

Probably the best we can hope for is some balance, and willingness for give and take by all sides.

Agreed.  But if beachdumbs claim that the USFW has found no positive benefit from the restrictions, it would appear the restrictions aren't necessary.

Now, Beachdumb hasn't documented that claim, but then I have seen anyone refute it either.

This article, which I take it you have not looked at, has a segment on how human disturbance can affect Pipe Plovers, and how they may abandon their nests. Judging from stats in this article, the plovers almost failed to have any chicks, or had a declining fledge rate at nesting sites in many of the years that ORV use was rampant. For the two years this ban has been in place, they now tend to fledge chicks at least with upward momentum, so just from 2 years worth of stats, I say it's having a positive effect if it's showing upward momentum on fledge rates. I don't think 2 years is adequate enough time to declare anything considering how small their population is on this island. I also would like to see stats on Plovers nesting rates outside of the National Seashores. I bet the fledge rate is even lower.

I think it's pretty much common sense that if a bird species nests in open dunes on a beach, and you have rampant ORV use on those dunes, that eggs or chicks being crushed, or nests being destroyed by a lot of ORV's just MIGHT have an effect. Obviously, the Park Service is trying to minimize the human impact and once again, defend their mission.  Personally, I don't think there is a place for ORVs in National Parks, but that's another discussion.

http://www.nps.gov/caha/naturescience/upload/2013-PIPL-Annual-Report.pdf

I would agree with Gary that two years' time is not enough to determine if the closures are having a positive impact. There are too many other variables that can upset the apple cart and, in a two-year period, skew everything.

I do believe fledging rates are higher in other locations, and recent research has claimed that settings such as Cape Hatteras are not optimal for plovers.

Fledging rate on mainland shorelines was 4.3 times greater than that on islands. Previous work has indicated that plovers prefer islands for nesting, but our results suggest that this preference is not optimal and could lead to an ecological trap for chicks. While other researchers have found nesting-habitat requirements to be gravelly areas on exposed beaches without fine-grain substrates, our results suggest that chicks fledge at lower rates in these habitats. Thus, breeding plovers likely require complexes of these nesting habitats along with protected areas with fine, nutrient-rich substrate for foraging by hatchlings.

http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1650/CONDOR-13-001-R1.1

But does that mean efforts to have the plovers succeed on Hatteras should be abandoned? Sea turtles also nest in much greater numbers south of Cape Hatteras, indicating it might not offer the best turtle habitat, either, but in recent years nesting has gone up on the national seashore, as I noted above.

Now, for what it's worth, the group opposed to the current ORV plan has failed to prove in court that the Park Service used poor science in crafting the plan. We'll have that story in another day or so...

This article pretty much describes the horrendous abuse of ORV, from an ecology point of view.  This seems to be a perfect text book example of what happens when the park service allow local groups to strong arm the system, when it's evident that their actions go completely against the main mission of the park service.

http://www.audubonmagazine.org/articles/birds/war-rages-cape-hatteras

However they fail to explain to these pedestrians that concurrently they are actively lobbing politicians to reduce or eliminate as much of the newly established VFAs (vehicle free areas) as possible. 

So? These new VFAs were created by the NEW plan, so thier on the table. I'm fine with some these VFAs as long as they are seasonal. These VFAs are currently virtually unused anyways and some without access. One of them requires destruction of habitat to provide access to the VFA, sadly comical. 

Previous to the NEW plan they were nearly 20 miles of VFAs on Hatteras Island, did we need more, I  and many others don't think so. There are long established VFAs like 16 miles of PINWR, other many traditional VFAs other areas north and south of Buxton. 

I think some aspects of the NEW plan are okay, like $120 permits which by itself dramaticly reduced visitation. 

The over a mile wide closures for the piping plover are not reasonable. I believe pedestrian corridors could be allowed for some areas, but instead you have to avoid NPS jurisdiction by walking in the surf, which is not safe for kids or elderly. The USGS science purported to back the dramatic increase in resource closure sizes is not legally peer reviewed but that's how the NPS roles... 

This article pretty much describes the horrendous abuse of ORV, from an ecology point of view. This seems to be a perfect text book example of what happens when the park service allow local groups to strong arm the system, when it's evident that their actions go completely against the main mission of the park service.

This is one of many smear articles by Audubon who were actively litigating against the NPS at the time.

This comment was edited to remove a gratuitous attack.-- Ed.