Beware of the Environmentalists | Eastern North Carolina Now

    Publisher's Note: Jim Bispo's weekly column appears in the Beaufort Observer.

    According to their web site, the Pamlico-Tar River Foundation (Pamlico-Tar River Foundation) Mission is:"To monitor and enhance the Tar-Pamlico River and watershed while promoting environmental justice".

    While just exactly what "environmental justice" means is not clear, it sounds like a rather laudable activity (if you are so inclined).

    It is somewhat of a mystery how the construction and renting of screened "camping shelters" along the banks of both the Tar and Pamlico rivers fits into that mission. These shelters will certainly entice so called "paddlers" out on to the river. Surely more folks out on the river will contribute to more pollution on the river - even if it is "paddlers". As an aside: Could these be the same folks who a couple of years ago were seemingly being aided and abetted by the WDN which reported in glowing terms the moonlight "paddles" across the Pamlico River from Washington to partake of wine and cheese?? (How upscale and cool.) When it was brought to their attention that being out on the water in the dark, especially after partaking of alcohol, can present a very "tricky" situation, they stopped touting the "moonlight paddles". It isn't clear if the wine and cheese parties stopped, but, give them credit, the WDN stopped touting them.

    The one thing that I have not seen, or even heard discussed, is any environmental review or environmental impact statement of the sort that the PTRF always seems to insist on when anyone else even ventures near the river. Could they be erecting shelters along the river bank without the benefit of a detailed environmental impact statement. Or, do you suppose the requirements do not apply to folks who purport to be dedicated to protecting the environment?? Could this be what "environmental justice" means?? One issue, which I expect would be a major concern in any environmental assessment would be the manner of taking care of human waste at all these camping sites. (Ugh...) Or are we to believe that is not a concern because "kayakers" are dedicated environmentalists?? And, by the way, what do you suppose happens to these structures the next time the river goes several feet above flood stage?? Hmmm...

    A friend of mine wondered out loud who owns the property upon which these shelters are being placed. That would seem to be truly valid question... Moving on....

    What about DENR?? Where is their outcry. What have their so called "scientists" been doing while the PTRF folks have been planning, designing, and erecting screened camping shelters (presumably for the kayakers among us)?? Short answer: looking at how much of a shadow people's docks cast on the water. After two years of picture taking they are surely going to "scientifically" determine the adverse effects of having those docks along the shoreline which will, in turn, provide them justification (in their minds) to ban all piers and docks along our rivers and creeks. Surely the shadows cast by all the docks and piers inhibits the growth of vegetation in the creeks and rivers. By the way, do you suppose they discovered (as the result of their scientific inquiry) that the shadow under each dock moves as the sun "rolls around heaven all day"?? Do you suppose that the docks and piers that they are taking pictures of serve as structure to attract fish. Of course, that may have not occurred to the "shade scientists". They likely don't fish. They think fish comes from the seafood store...Maybe they don't even eat fish. Lets face it, if they really wanted to do something to enhance the fish population, they would outlaw the use of nets (of all type and description) everyplace where trawling has already been outlawed. That would not take a two year study and zillions of photographs and a bucket full of money. But it would absolutely yield some quick and beneficial results. Actually, if they really wanted to enhance the fish population, they would ban the use of all nets (other than "landing" nets) in the rivers and creeks, period.

    Lets do a little mental arithmetic. Suppose the creek is 1/4 mi wide and there is a 100' wide lot on either side of the creek. Each lot has a 50 pier that is 5' wide. The number of square feet of the creek that is "shaded" by the piers is 500 sq. ft. (50' long x 5' wide x 2 [one on each side of the creek] ) The area of the entire water surface in question is 1320' across x 100' wide = 132,000 sq. ft. The 500 sq ft of shadowing equates to 500 / 132,000 = 3.787% . Of course if the creek or river is ½ mile wide (which isn't all that uncommon around here) the percentage shadowed is less than 2%. Of course, with the "movement" of the shadow, it stands to reason that (at least on sunny days) the amount of shadowing is considerably less that indicated above. Clearly studies such as this are among the most important things our government should be doing for (to??) us. (Not!!) They represent tax payer money well spent. Well.... spent anyway.

    This is beginning to sound like the "global warming" argument all over again. (Where is Al the Goracle when you need him??) I wait with bated breath to see what the DENR "shadow scientists" conclude based on their two years of data gathering. Do you suppose there will be anything that looks even remotely "scientific" that comes from this big dollar effort (aside from a lot of pictures and some area calculations - maybe). Or will their conclusions be based on their superior scientific knowledge and intellect?? That would be the same "scientific knowledge and intellect" that shuts down bridge construction projects every spring (at no small cost) to allow the anadromous fish to pass undisturbed - yet another fraud perpetuated on the long suffering taxpayers by the DENR.

    Memo to the NC State Legislature and our next Governor: Here's an area that is truly ripe for some big time budget cutting. The sooner the better...

    D'ya think??