OHV enthusiasts and other people who enjoy driving their vehicles on the beach believe that beach-driving is a tradition of beach recreation that should be carried on for future generations to enjoy.  They believe full access to the beach is a right.  Allowing access only to joggers, walkers, handicapped, and permitted fishermen/women, they say, would be denying access to families with small children who can not hike to the ends of the beach, and would make it difficult or impossible to take heavy recreational equipment, coolers, (and kegs) onto the beach.

With two hours total for public comment, and 3 minutes allowed for each individual speaker, there was copious comment.  Different beach access needs and wants, values, interests, and approaches to conflict were demonstrated, but, as many speakers made points nearly identical to speakers who preceded them.  Therefore most speakers were presumed to speak for a larger community of individuals not present at the meeting.

An equestrian asked that we stop considering the “slippery-slope argument” as a valid objection to closing the beach to vehicle traffic.  He informed other equestrians and the board that OHV users were attempting to scare equestrians by claiming that if vehicle access was restricted, access for horses would be restricted next.  This was the first example of and individual speaking out against the supposed positions of their sub-group.  These instances were some of the most powerful public testimony.

A woman also said, essentially, that the vehicle users are different as people, not just in their choice to recreate on the beach in vehicles.  She mentioned cases where vehicle users have threatened others with knives.

Interestingly, one individual who I heard gasp earlier at a comment about vehicle-driving hecklers applauded at a woman’s comment that Option 3 was an appropriate compromise.  The woman who urged the adoption of Option 3 emphasized the importance of pedestrian safety, claiming that she did go out on Clam Beach with her young child (who she held in her arms as an effective visual prop).  The fact that this gasper also supported Option 3 highlights the ineffectiveness and danger of generalizing about “the other side” — her support could have potentially been lost if the issue became more polarized.  I later found out she was there representing disabled people who need vehicle access in order to enjoy the beach.  

Tim McKay of the Northcoast Enivronmnetal Center related an incident that Sam Merriman had told in which vehicle users were playing “chicken”.  This incident resulted in a fatality when an occupant was thrown from a vehicle — and then run over by the other vehicle.

OHV users and other beach users for the most part offered very different descriptions of vehicle use behavior on the beach, except in a few very notable cases.  One OHV owner said that he had grown up driving on the beach and still fondly remembers buying his first OHV.  He said that he and his friends had many good times on the beach, including times when they were not following vehicle use regulations.  His first-hand knowledge and self-identification as an OHV user made his statement all the more powerful.  He said vehicle use has increased substantially over the years, and that current levels of vehicle traffic are unsafe, obnoxious, and potentially hazardous to wildlife.  He lamented this loss of tradition but saw it as necessary.  He concluded that it is sad but necessary to end the “era” of vehicle access to Clam Beach.

Scott Greacen of EPIC delivered a 60-day intent to sue.  “You are currently, and have been for years, in violation of the endangered species act.”  He said that though Public Works staff have withdrawn Option 3, the Board of Supervisors has the power to enact Option 3.  The progress made so far toward enacting a plan, Greacen said, has been insufficient, and the county needs to expedite the planning process.

Mike Zamboni got up at the podium and said that many environmental groups have not been able to cite any environmental reason for closing Clam Beach to vehicles.  This apparently false statement did little to improve his credibility.  He said that even though many people walk their dogs for recreation and exercise he runs his dog behind his truck.  Again he emphasized a cultural divide between vehicle users and non-motorized users, saying “those who work — physically — during the day” don’t want to go out jogging on the beach because they’re tired from hard work.  He added  “physically” after a pause as a kind of afterthought, suggesting that he only thought to clarify his meaning after he considered who his audience was, but that in a less public setting he might consider desk jobs to be false substitutes for real work.

A woman spoke out against “crazy agendas,” saying that she has not seen any of the kinds of incidents that are being related at the podium.  She called people for the closure (or partial closure) of Clam Beach to vehicle use “eco-terrorists,” an extreme label indicative of a values-system conflict.

The public hearing format meant that it was difficult to impossible to gauge any immediate effects of public comments.  Speakers directed their comments to the board, not to each other.  Occasionally speakers responded to a previous comment, but most often to agree with it, meaning there was little of what could be called dialogue.  Even though they were discouraged to by the board and other facilitating personal, audience members frequently expressed approval or disapproval with applause, head nods, murmurs, or gasps.  This, in my opinion, decreased the quality of communication among attendees.

Speakers frequently grandstanded, trying to make their case impressive or dramatic.  The fact that EPIC chose this meeting as a venue to announce their intent to sue is an example of this.  I think EPIC may have made this choice in order to get press coverage.  Since representatives of the media were already at this meeting, this was the perfect way to make sure that EPIC’s intent showed up in the local news outlets.

In this particular meeting, beach users in favor of unrestricted vehicle access were strongly outnumbered by those who felt that some sort of vehicle restriction was in order.  No decision came fourth from the board, however.  Some members announced their intent to support a plan calling for restricted vehicle access modified to take into account concerns leveled at the 13 September meeting.  As of today, it has been over 60 days since the meeting, but I was not able to find out any information as to whether the Board of Supervisors directed Public Works to settle on a management plan option, or whether EPIC has gone through with their threat to sue.  It still appears that whatever outcome that is decided on will result in distinct winners and losers.