The beaches will still be there even if they are not renourished but the
restuarants, hotels, motels and condos built directly on beach won't.  It
was a mistake to allow these structures to be built so close to the beach
and now we are compounding the effect of that error by renourishing the
beaches and killing the shells and other invertebrates which inhabit both
the beach environment and the offshore areas that are the source of the
sand.  If public money is used for this then it shouldn't be and if it is
done privately then there should be a tax placed on it and the money used to
buy beachside property and return it to its natural state. But this will
only happen if we make our voices heard.  Have you ever thought of inviting
your local representative to the next meeting of your shell club?
Beth DeHaas
[log in to unmask]
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Bob and Carol Simpson <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wednesday, December 02, 1998 6:26 PM
Subject: [CONCH-L] Legislation
 
 
>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
>