PULLING TEETH
There are a lot of things in this world that I don't particularly care for, and going to the dentist is high on that list. No offense, Dr. Schmidt, but it's just that I'm not a huge fan of having people poking and prodding around my teeth. Maybe I'm alone in this sentiment, but I think probably not.

Beware of promises that come in the mail, says Andrew

So it was with great disappointment that I discovered a few days ago a reminder notice in my mailbox. But they're sneaky, that bunch over at the dentist's office. They put a photo of a sailboat sliding along in the Caribbean on the outside. They lull you into that sense of serenity before sticking the news to you. I briefly entertained visions of warm weather, sunny skies and miles and miles of empty beaches. I think a smile even crossed my otherwise curmudgeonly visage.

Opening the card, however, was akin to awakening from a very pleasant dream. "Just a Friendly Reminder …" the text screamed at me. "It's time for your regular dental check-up." Suddenly I felt like Ralphie in "A Christmas Story." I'd just been told that Santa wouldn't be bringing me an official Red Ryder carbine-action two-hundred shot range model air rifle with a compass in the stock and this thing that tells time. I'd shoot my eye out if I got one. My dreams were dashed.

I consoled myself with the fact that I had a few weeks before my appointment, and sifted through the rest of the mail. Apair of oversized cards caught my eye, offering yet another respite from reality. Each featured a parent and child frolicking on the beach. Blue skies, blue water, the whole shebang. And being the sucker that I am, I found myself again getting lulled into the dream-like trance afforded by time spent in the tropics. But I soon discovered that, just like the card sent by those tricky dentally-inclined Sirens on West Creek Road, the senders of these cards weren't inviting me to come play in some scenic locale. Nope. They wanted me to vote in favor of the 'Sconset Beach Preservation Fund.

This thing has gotten more press in the last month than Hillary Clinton, so I'm not going to go into too much detail here. The basic idea is that these folks want to pump a bunch of sand offshore and barge it in so that they can build up the beach along the 'Sconset bluff. The hope is that they'll be able to stem the action of erosion out there and save their homes from literally falling into the ocean.

Despite my oft-cited bitter façade, I'm a teddy bear underneath it all, and I am the last person out there who wants to see somebody lose his home, regardless of how the home is lost. I feel just as bad for the folks out on the bluff as I do for the poor people who are getting their homes foreclosed on across the country. But I've got some issues with how they plan to implement this whole beach nourishment program because, as you have no doubt guessed by now, it's really going to do disastrous things to the fishing.

I'm voting for a segue on April 15.

Friends and neighbors, the SBPF folks plan to mine their sand from Bass Shoals, quite possibly the single best striped bass fishing area north of Maryland. What this excavation process will do is cover the rocks out there that serve as a home for the lower links on the food chain,

which in turn will wipe out

the food sources for the striped bass. But one of the cards I got in the mail reassures me thusly: "…similar beach preservation projects around the world have worked without damaging the environment." I'd feel more assured by that claim if it weren't followed up with, "See how tight, tough controls, [sic.] regulate to guarantee environmental protection and ensures [sic.] the project will stop if any damage results."

The group's own selfassurance tempered-by-contingency plans aside, the whole idea of their agreeing to stop "if any damage results" scares me to no end. My feeling about environmental damage is that once you notice it, it's a little late to have a do-over. And given that this thing has been going on for as long as it has, I'm thinking that any kind of damage will be studied ad nauseum, all the while allowing the project to continue while appeals go on and on. So the damage, a prospect they seem to think is not going to happen, will continue.

But, ironically enough, their own Web site claims something different altogether. The SBPF Web site says, "The Beach Nourishment Project will cover less than five percent of the cobble habitat in the project area. The project includes plans to mitigate this impact by building new reef habitat and supplying replacement cobble habitat directly offsetting the covered cobble to support the fishery." Now, I'm not an expert, but when you have "plans to mitigate" what you're calling an "impact," you're anticipating damage. And how they can feel so assured that they're going to limit this "impact" to five percent of the area is beyond me, given that they're also saying there's no impact whatsoever.

And, mind you, none of this even takes into account the fact that Peter Kaizer and Bobby DeCosta recently found mussel and sea clam beds in the area where the SBPF wants to dredge for sand. These shellfish beds somehow eluded the experts that SBPF hired to make sure there was no sea life that would be damaged.

The long and the short of it is that this thing is a problem from the word go. And I'm just giving the angler's perspective here. None of this is even related to the myriad of land-based issues that have arisen. You ever seen what a "nourished" beach looks like? Barring that, ever smelled one? Hate to break it to you SBPF supporters, but a quick look and a quick sniff are going to be all the enjoyment your kids are going to get out of the "nourished" 'Sconset beach for a long time to come.

If you're a supporter of SBPF, I urge you to consider finding other, less environmentally destructive ways to save your homes. Just please don't try to ruin our environment under the guise of saving a beach for your children.

And thank you for giving me something to think about other than going to the dentist.

Tight lines. I