This one's for you Bobby J.....

:funn: when i opened this page i thought you were talking about the epic wave article under science times. that is pretty interesting too!

Although surfing is a sport, and I do sympathathize with the surfers, we are talking about a national monument here that would be difficult if not impossible to move, and at a cost of double if not more to move, not to mention possible damage.
I suppose the Corp. of Army engineers could have used their political clout to enforce the no surfing rule on the beach, but they didn't, they gave them their day in court so to speak.
I think the Surfers are pushing the card on this one.

:funn: when i opened this page i thought you were talking about the epic wave article under science times. that is pretty interesting too!

Yes it was.

All I see is this picture of:

and a bunch of aritcles, none about surfing and monuments.

All I see is this picture of:

and a bunch of aritcles, none about surfing and monuments.

The link given reflects the current issue of the Times. All you need do to get Monday's 11/13/06 article is type in "Montauk lighthouse" in the search box.

My point of view is the same as Mango's. The lighthouse is a unique part of our history. Since it is possible for it to stay in its original spot, it should stay there especially since moving it could damage it, a case of the "cure" being worse than the "illness" (the erosion). Plus, I didn't see any mention of any surfing organization offering to cover the difference in the price tag, or take responsibility if the lighthouse crumbles during the move. Furthermore, the Corps of Engineers said the wave wouldn't be compromised by the proposed rock barrier, so shouldn't everyone be happy? It seems like a win-win scenario.