The right thing to do is let people find other livelihoods.  Mother Nature
will always win.  The bigger question is, what will it take to force
politicians to stop propping up unsustainable and unsafe coastal
development (which is mostly in pursuit of the tourist dollar)?  Assuming
we're talking about barrier island-type beaches, sand moves, islands move,
inlets open and close, and everything man has done to make it "permanent"
just causes other problems.  Without the beach replenishment and the snow
fences, the beaches would still be there.  They'd just be a little farther
away because you wouldn't have the hotels and condos towering over the beach.
 
BTW, as a potential tourist, I would not go to a replenished beach.  Not
because it is ecologically unsound or any other environmentally conscious
reason, but for personal comfort because the pumped in sand is not as fine
as natural beach sand.
 
Peter
 
At 06:25 PM 12/2/98 -0500, Bob and Carol Simpson wrote:
>At the risk of being jumped on tooth and nail about renourishment, etc., I
>would like to throw this out.
>
>The beaches are being renourished in our state and many others because our
>economy depends so heavily on the tourist trade........mostly along our
>coast.  Without beaches, there are no tourists and no tourist dollars .  We
>were at Fripp Island for Thanksgiving and at high tide, there is no
>beach--and this is also true of Hunting Island.  They have thrown in the
>towel at Hunting Island, and the ocean is regaining its territory.
>
>So, where does that leave our fight on banning renourishment?  When
>people's livelihood is dependant on the beaches, what is the right thing to
>do?
>
>Please don't holler at me!
>
>Carol