Very interesting article! Let's see...spend more money and risk losing a piece of history... save money and save a lighthouse...or hang ten? I vote for save lighthouse!

Oooh...I'm a little stuck here.

I mean, obviously, I side overwhelmingly with the pharological cause. But from what I read, the Surfriders are worried about more than the (insert slang for "surfing" here that I am too uncool to know). Their statements about erosion could be plausible.

While I think that Global Warming is a fallacy, erosion is not. And it can effect more than just lighthouses - it can rip apart other houses, destroy public areas, destroy ecosystems...and especially on Long Island.

Let's not forget that Montauk Point is the tip of LI. So it has a HUGE effect on the distribution of waters in the area. If the boulder wall messed up this natural flow, it could cause unknown effects on the rest of the area. While I'm no engineer, I know that water moves sand, and when you move water, it moves different sand.

Now, I DO obviously want the lighthouse saved - if I was against its saving, I'd have to be stripped of my Wacko title. But I just think that the overarching effects of this have to REALLY be studied, and hard. I'm sure the ACoE has done a huge amount of research into it...but still...I'm not sure how much it could mess things up. And granted, this other test IS from a bunch of (stereotypically) long-haired hippies in wetsuits who stand on a board in the middle of the ocean. So a psychological review may be in order.

I don't know...I have to mull over it. As the NYT article says, let's save the lighthouse...but once. Is it in the position where a couple more years to boost the fund to move it help? The boulders will cost $14M. A move is $27M. That's twice the amount...but if action needs to be taken twice, that's now three times as much.

I need to hear more about this before I can form a true opinion. I want to form an opinion that is grounded in fact and reason...not one that's just "we have to be for it because we're lighthouse lovers." My sources so far are two articles. When I've read more, then I can make a real decision.

I was in NYC earlier this week and saw the article in the NY Times. If I had to think about what to do...I'd vote for the moving of the lighthouse to a safer distance away like we've done with other lighthouses. What would we do if Cape Hatteras LH was to remain where it used to be...we would not have a Cape Hatteras LH possibly today. What is wrong with moving it back other than spending the money? The surfers would be happy and I for one don't care about the "exact" location if the lighthouse is in danger of being lost or damaged severely.

Bob,

Here's part of the problem- the cost increses from $14 million to $27 million to do it the surfer's way.

The bigger part of the problem is this- the topography of the areas where the other lighthouses were moved was basically flat. The move at Montauk would require going up and down to get it to the spot picked out by the surfers.

There is a very big risk to the integrity of the structure given that scenario. I also still need more information to make an informed decision. I too would like to save the lighthouse but I want to be sure that all aspects are considered and as has been shown in the past artificially creating breakwaters has sometimes unforseen effects on other areas.

Dennis

Dennis,

Now that point is definately worth looking into further...I would not want to jeopardize in any way the integrity of the structure by moving it up and down and possibly risk it toppling or getting destroyed.

Montauk's a funny place. Usually deep pockets - they've had Paul Simon and others do fundraising concerts during the summer. They were working on the bricks one year, and I asked what need to be done next and they weren't concerned. There is already a rock collar around the Point. I've been to the LH more than 50 times, and have only seen surfers there a couple of times (and then only two or three). Dune Road towards town (5 miles) is the big surfing area. I took a photo of my kids on a rock in front of the LH (ocean side) in 1982 and we figure that spot is 15-20 feet in the water now. The cliffs along the ocean area west of the LH have been eroding and falling into the ocean for years. Some houses out there are in real jeopardy.
Not real concerned, something will be down. No way that this LH will not survive.
Bob

March Snow at Montauk Point

There's a lot of coastline on that south side of LI. I say do whatever is necessary to preserve Montauk Light for future generations and tell the surfers to take it down the coastline if they don't like it.

They could even install "Surf's Up, Dudes!" signs with arrows pointing to the west. How many of those surfing dudes have bumper stickers that say, "Piping Plovers Taste Like Chicken"?

I take them about as seriously as a guy who once came thundering down the beach at Shelter Island with a rather large Dodge Ram pickup with big wide tires. He sees Lorna and I with my Jack Russell Terrier on a leash and yells, "Hey we have Piping Plovers nesting on this beach, you better not be letting that dog run free!" Okay, big guy, did you check your tire tracks to make sure you didn't further help the extinction of the Plover?

I've gotta go! Surf's up!

Bob

Being part of both sides (lighthouses & surfer) I can understand both dilemas. Everyone says "Sorry surfers, but we gotta do it." So many great surf spots have been destroyed by groins, breakwaters and the like to save the beaches or some landmark. The lighthouse people should work WITH the Surfrider Foundation to come up with an acceptable PERMANENT solution. Sadly, the surfer's most likely will not even get a say. But at least Montauk will hopefully be saved.