I am concerned as to the suggested restrictions at Scarbs put forward by the local polies to Stirling Council.
Thread here:
www.seabreeze.com.au/forums/Windsurfing/Western-Australia/City-of-Stirling-Exclusion-Zones/?page=1
The area South of the blue line is suggested as the Kite area.
Having ridden at Scarbs for quite a few years now, I can say that I mainly ride North of the blue line up to where the Windsurfers congregate as this is where the best banks are.
If the Polies get their way with council, we will not be able to waveride there and will be relegated to the South where the waves are even more sh!tty.
Does anyone else have a problem with this? Seems like apartheid to me.
Is WAKSA involved and supporting this proposal from the Windsurfers?
If this is accepted, the Polies would have succeeded in basically inreasing the size of the area they ride while getting rid of the kiters completely - win for them and lose for us.
Not happy
According to the other thread there are sooo many other places to go (hundreds, apparently) and the polies should stop whinging 
Maybe, as per my assertion which I have been flamed for, the Council should leave us all alone - and leave it as is which has been working.
ADS said "If this is accepted, the Polies would have succeeded in basically inreasing the size of the area they ride while getting rid of the kiters completely - win for them and lose for us."
Trouble is the current situation has totally wrecked it for windsurfers but also put them closer to kiters which will create agro at some stage.
So either way is bad.
Separate areas designated by agreement between WAKSA and WWA - YES (like what we had)
New bylaws passed to ban us from an area and create even smaller areas with increased conflict just to protect swimmers from incidents that have not happened - NO
Mark,
So, like I mentioned, we will be banned from the best area? Win for the Windsurfers no?
Can't see it working...
"Separate areas designated by agreement between WAKSA and WWA - YES (like what we had)"
WAKSA may have recommended Kiters stay out of this area, but this certainly wasn't law or regulation.
We shouldn't just roll over and cop this. Once an area is lost, it may well be gone for good.
I read Marks report card from school , from 35 years ago.
It said he was a good student, but , dosent play well with others.
Nothing has changed in his senior yearsLOL
I dont think you got smashed by the kiters??
might have been the usual light hearted mucking around that always goes on between the sports. But you have been here a hell of a long time and know its all in fun.Dont take it to heart,,,we do love you.
Most just said it was a good idea to keep fast moving windsurfers/kiters away from swimmers which is the number one priority.
Select to expand quoteMost just said it was a good idea to keep fast moving windsurfers/kiters away from swimmers which is the number one priority.
Not my sandpit, BUT why not move the swimmers on to another beach if this place is heralded as a wind location, if this so called risk (kiter/poley smashes swimmer) that councils are ****ting them selves about move the swimmers on, litigation blah blah blah.
Have we accepted that swimmers have more rights than others ?
and yeh pollies listen to numbers and there own self survival and nothing else so we are all f....d.
Always stay well clear of swimmers and surfers, but as for the councillors they can get ****ed!! Come and get me on my downwinder Bitches!!
Select to expand quoteMIKO said...
Most just said it was a good idea to keep fast moving windsurfers/kiters away from swimmers which is the number one priority.
Not my sandpit, BUT why not move the swimmers on to another beach if this place is heralded as a wind location, if this so called risk (kiter/poley smashes swimmer) that councils are ****ting them selves about move the swimmers on, litigation blah blah blah.
Have we accepted that swimmers have more rights than others ?
move the swimmers on? for a handful of kiters/poleys you think the council should prohibit locals from swimming at a city beach?
Select to expand quotestamp said...MIKO said...
Most just said it was a good idea to keep fast moving windsurfers/kiters away from swimmers which is the number one priority.
Not my sandpit, BUT why not move the swimmers on to another beach if this place is heralded as a wind location, if this so called risk (kiter/poley smashes swimmer) that councils are ****ting them selves about move the swimmers on, litigation blah blah blah.
Have we accepted that swimmers have more rights than others ?
move the swimmers on? for a handful of kiters/poleys you think the council should prohibit locals from swimming at a city beach?
is there only a handfull ?
Select to expand quoteMIKO said...
Most just said it was a good idea to keep fast moving windsurfers/kiters away from swimmers which is the number one priority.
Not my sandpit, BUT why not move the swimmers on to another beach if this place is heralded as a wind location, if this so called risk (kiter/poley smashes swimmer) that councils are ****ting them selves about move the swimmers on, litigation blah blah blah.
Have we accepted that swimmers have more rights than others ?
and yeh pollies listen to numbers and there own self survival and nothing else so we are all f....d.
Miko the WHOLE WA coastline is a wind location over summer. Moving swimmers from this location is not an option at all. If the d/winder crew stays away from the blue zone (myself included) over summer the poleys and kiters should be able to utilize the current area without much problem. IMO
October, even most of November is too early for the exclusion zone to commence.
Water temps are still bloody cold in October/November. Good, dense, cold seabreezes just add to the chill.
I dont expect to see many swimmers in October. They stuffed up with the dates.
The original council exclusion zone (not the proposed one above) starts December 1.
