Bottom Line: Let's follow the expert’s recommendations we are ignoring and look into a related additional proposal.

Erosion

 

As detailed previously, scouring erosion from runoff has done massive damage to Kent's Point over the years. The expert’s recommendations to alleviate this erosion have not been acknowledged or followed, and they should be. It’s that simple.
 

Tripping Hazards

The expert's recommendations to reduce tripping hazards are being largely ignored, while people walk at Kent's with babies strapped to their chests. This is indefensible. We need to act.

Education

There may be two points of resistance here: (1) the assumption that educational signage doesn’t work, and (2) a reluctance to make the whole place look “not natural,” by cluttering it up. Neither of these mindsets justifies the abdication we see at the bulletin boards, where the rules are in 12-point type and there is no eye-catching warning about the area's ecological fragility. We should start by making proper use of that important informational space.

Additionally, I’d like to present a slightly modified version of a proposal I’ve already made:

We used to make people watch a video to get a sticker for the outer beach. Why did we do that? Because we understood that behavior is shaped by knowledge, and that things which are obvious to one person might be revelations to someone else.

Here in 2025, it’s simple to put a video online, to pair it with a document presenting a list of questions, and then to allow those who score a passing grade to print a certificate of achievement (which in our case, could be a sticker). There is nothing to invent. Online teaching institutions are already doing this.

 

How about partnering with Nauset High School or Lower Cape TV or Four C’s to produce a friendly video about the ecological frailty of Kent’s Point? Then how about partnering with one of those institutions to create an online test which everyone who wanted to park at Kent’s Point would have to take and pass – one time only – for each vehicle they wanted to use? Then, as far as the sticker goes, which would have the test-taker’s license plate on it, that image could be printed at home and taped to a car window, or emailed to a dedicated Staples email address to be turned into a very affordable decal. This is easy! As a matter of fact, 10 years from now, there will be municipalities handling their stickers this way for the simple reason that its cheaper, because you don’t need a building, or staff. So, let’s be ahead of the curve on this.

 

As far as the costs of the sticker (which seems like it shouldn't exceed $50), the cleanest way to handle that is to make everyone pay for that online when they take the test, at a price based on the cost of the test itself. Potentially, the payment would be made right to the test provider, not the Town. This is easy enough to look into and determine, as are questions such as "what does someone do if they don't have internet access?" and "what if someone doesn't have a credit card?" Also, the fact that the cost would be one-time-only for each vehicle should tamp down the complaining we might otherwise have to endure about additional fees. We should put together a small group of people to create a detailed proposal. The worst that can happen is that we decide – in an informed way rather than through knee-jerk technophobia – not to do this.

By the way, the reasons for applying the sticker requirement to everyone, not just out-of-towners, are that some Orleans residents need the education, and the legal issues around denying or impeding access by nonresidents are eliminated.

Also, for anyone tuned into the legal issues, this proposal will certainly satisfy the "narrowly tailored" test likely to be applied, under the reasoning of the Leydon case, to a First Amendment challenge. Additionally, while it might hyper-technically constitute an interference with the easement of all Massachusetts resident to enter lands like Kent's Point recognized in the Smith case, the one-time-only aspect, the low cost, and the justification in terms of protecting the land as to which the easement applies make it a pretty solid bet that a court would dismiss the interference as "de minimis," i.e., trivial.

 

Fines and Enforcement

Fines for seriously destructive behavior, such as cliff-climbing, or allowing one’s dog to roam around in the habitat areas, ought not to be off the table. One virtue of a compulsory educational experience is that it creates a strong moral basis for fining the most consequential destructive actions. Of course, this raises a question about enforcement. In my judgment, if we really want to curb undesirable behaviors effectively, we need conservation wardens. If we’re not going to hire them, the best pool to draw them from is the Kent’s Point “regulars,” who can draw on established relationships to persuade and warn effectively before ticketing, but who have the power to ticket if necessary. Also, it might alter some of the toxic clannishness of the Town to allow dog walkers to be part of the solution in this way.

Change of Plan; Change of Custom

I realize that this is not where anyone in Town government is headed. We’re in the midst of copying Eastham’s regulatory experience with Wiley Park, down to the use of the word, "overuse," and the arc from beating up on dog owners to settling for a seasonal sticker. If we keep going, we will end up with a legally dubious measure which may help a little bit, in some vague, undefined way, and which may also invite a lawsuit against the Town. However, if we require everyone who comes to Kent’s Point to learn about the area first, we will change the culture. We will eliminate a lot of unconscious behavior, and we will make peer persuasion and enforcement vastly easier than it is today. 

The only "downside" I can see to proceeding in this fashion, apart from some routine complaining at being asked to engage technology and absorb a minor one-time fee, is that we will be innovators, and therefore we won’t enjoy the “cover” that comes from being followers. Is that we really want, though? People talk a lot about all the smart and accomplished people who live here. Does unwillingness to do something a little extraordinary really reflect our best qualities? How about at least getting some people who might plausibly be movers on this and letting them vet the idea and then, if it seems practical, come up with a plan? What have we got to lose?