Poo over hooning in the Pond

Personally, get the ruling for the local authorities, then let it fade into obscurity.

If there is an article in the paper it will will have far more exposure than the online article and will have far more impact.

At the end of the day it will only be us who lose out when our other actions are put under the microscope (fangyland speedlimits etc).

We do have to remember that although we have permission at the end of the day it is a bird sanctuary and we will always be seen in a negative light if people sail in there.

Hence why I've never sailed there.

Welldone everybody who has been proactive with the council and there departments. Our case has been put forward and we are in good standing with the law makers.

But I cant help but think any extra attention will not benefit us only the wowsers.

The media can manipulate it very easy that is there job and they are highly qualified at that as we all know especially if there is a buck in it and we are on the menu.

once they took a photo of me sand boarding and blew it out so they could use it for a article then no more sandboarding so im not in favor for making the council look good! They don't need us to do that. They all ready have got that under control with there agendas and I mean this in a positive way.

We are all wise enough to do the right thing in there as we love this spot.

We will never please everyone no matter where we sail.

Life is to short to kiss everybody's arse because they wont kiss ours.

If we just keep sailing how we always have it will be all good because we don't and never have done any thing wrong especially running over birds!

Thats my view
Stroppo

Edit On the plus side Ross they take great pics and we get them out of the house which is a healthy thing!

Thanks everybody, lots of food for thought here, we'll see what Brad come up with, but I have a feeling we'll ask him not to publish.

OK so here's another one. Joe McVey has posted some very defamatory public comments about windsurfers as well as pics she hasn't had approval to publish.
There's legal advice that she would be very liable in a court.

Now personally I don't think this would be a good idea, it would only exacerbate the war she seems intent on starting, apart from being costly, but if enough of us got together, maybe it's a remote option?

I'm going to be hated for saying this but really, we have plenty of spots to sail in and around the Peel Inlet so lets leave this spot to the birds.
I feel some perspective needs to be gained here. Talk of lawyers, WTF!

Its just windsurfing guys, The birds were there before us so lets leave them there in peace and sail somewhere else.

I would like to know how one can justify putting ones own selfish needs ahead of looking after our environment.

Yes windsurfing will have minimal impact on the spot but there still is an impact.

Try looking at this issue from a non windsurfing point of view.

My main point is leaving this sensitive area alone to carry on naturally is far more important that chasing some numbers on a screen to bolster our ego's.

bring on the red thumbs

Cheers Bender

Xtasy I certainly don't want to talk to her, but you're welcome to try, however I don't rate you chances of succeeding, she seems hell bent on causing us as much damage as she can.

Thanks gratefully accepted Fangy,
Rod sent me a google image of their sand track entry, and I sent it to Brett. He agrees that this is better than walking along the channel. He says that the muddy bottom along the channel is where the migratory birds feed, and we're probably doing less damage going over the sand bank. But we should get DPAW's advice, it's there responsibility, so I'll have a go at contacting them.

Select to expand quote

Windxtasy said..
regarding Ms McVey - you are all approaching this from a very male point of view. Understandably.
Women like to deal with problems by talking about them. They don't necessarily want solutions, they want an opportunity to vent their feelings.
I dislike confrontation but I think our best chance of avoiding confrontation with this lady and her mates (other than by staying out of the pond) in the future is by talking to her and making her aware they we do care about the birds and we are happy to accept advice on minimising our effect on them.
I am happy to initiate a discussion with her. If she gets unreasonable I will back off, but you don't know if you don't try, do you?

re Bender's post - in the discussion with council yesterday there are a number of our favourite spots around the estuary which bird lovers have proposed as exclusion zones for everybody. If we allow ourselves to be excluded from the pond we may be opening the door for further exclusion zones. I have never sailed in the pond but I would like the right to do so if I want, as long as I can do that without endangering the wildlife.

An example of voluntarily avoiding an area.

We have a large area which kiters were requested by the authorities to avoid for 7 months of the year, on the basis that a study would be done to investigate the impact of kiting on the birds. The kiters voluntarily adhered to the request.

After a couple of years, at 2 locations kiting was permitted, 1 @ 3 hours around high tide and 1@ 3 hours around low tide. (So the kiters need the tide and wind direction to be good at the right time of day)

The study was done in the winter of 2013/4 - and its not my responsibility to define the results - but the results presentation in early 2014 sounded to me that the impact had been proved to be very small indeed. When they saw the number of kiters, and how rarely they were using the areas, authorities actually requested that kiters should use the areas more during the study. As far as I know, kiters were using the 2 areas as normal during the study. So far there has been no action taken as a follow up on the study.

The area has since been designated into a higher level of environmental control, so there is a lot of work to be done drafting new regulations, and that may be part of the reason for the inaction.

Yes Alby I did that last night, we'll see what he has to say.

Lots of great discussion here, excellent to hear all these different points of view. Hearing both sides of the argument helps us to make informed decisions. These are my views. I believe as much as possible we need to deal with verifiable facts rather than peoples personal opinions or emotional responses based on distorted perceptions, or personal bias.

Firstly, I believe the welfare of the wildlife is very important.

Secondly, Human life and activity also has value, but where possible must not conflict with the welfare of wildlife. On a strong westerly with a high storm surge there is very little sailable water that is safe for our sport. Human injury is very possible without safe flat water. Creery Lagoon is that safe place. In order to give up the Lagoon, and either not participate in our sport on those days, or risk serious injury sailing in dangerous waters, we need verifiable reasons to do so. So what is the evidence of harm?

The birdwatchers have claimed windsurfers are harming the birds and base their evidence on the use of distorted photography as well as making false claims that swans were struck by windsurfers. I would say the claims made by the birdwatchers have significant problems with validity and reliability. A local environmentalist has claimed the greatest harm he is aware of is people treading on or near nesting areas, which are predominantly located on land and grassy areas in the Lagoon area. This person also advised that the greatest harm he had observed to these areas was that caused by birdwatchers walking onto nesting areas and taking photographs of nests and hatchlings. (How interesting the birdwatchers cannot see this harm, ignorance or arrogance?) He was also concerned about windsurfers walking in these areas, so we must not walk in these areas.

So what we know is that windsurfers must avoid walking on or near nesting areas. Given, Windsurfing is not possible in the nesting areas, it is only walking gear over grassy areas that is potentially harmful and it must be avoided at all costs. Windsurfers must enter and leave thru the creek opening and always stay in the water. AS for the claims of striking and injuring birds, these are a total fabrication and cannot be used as the reason for abandoning the lagoon.

So the only potential verifiable issue to do with windsurfing on the water in the Lagoon, is that the birds on the water will move their position if humans approach too closely. Is this harmful or dangerous? At this stage I have no scientific information that establishes that when birds move themselves away from humans they are harmed by this? NB. However, to assist the birds you need to know that Birds need to take off into wind, they tend to be slow at take-off, and must be given all opportunity to move themselves safely.

Therefore, In order to minimize harm, Windsurfers who use the Lagoon, must take the downwind position when approaching birds, proceed at gentle speeds allowing the birds to move away. When the run is clear of birds and no wildlife is at risk, then we can commence our sport at full speed. Entry and exit from the Lagoon must always be through the water, and grassy areas need to be avoided at all costs. pLEASE READ eDIT BELOW

EDIT: Advice from FaNGY = "I have one small point though and I am sure the others will correct me if I have got this wrong; but at the meeting the Council Environmental Officer asked that we stay away from the banks of the creek - the muddy sides as well as the samphire as this is where the birds feed. He suggested walking in across a sand track that Rod had identified would be preferable. Floating back out through the creek at the end of a session without touching the sides would be fine. I am happy to be corrected if I got this bit wrong Decrep and Windxstasy? "

Co-operating with the relevant authorities is also highly recommended. If the case is established that we are harming the birds by causing them to move, or our presence is detrimental to the wildlife, then while it might be legal for us to be there, it might be more ethical to voluntarily abandon the place.

In regards to the behaviours of the birdwatchers who have labelled us as hoons and made false claims against us of striking wildlife, it tends to suggest they are not trustworthy, they have a prejudice against us, and I wouldn’t be basing any of my decisions on what they want.

Individuals as some already have done, can always choose not to use the Lagoon

Nice summary there Hardy. I have one small point though and I am sure the others will correct me if I have got this wrong; but at the meeting the Council Environmental Officer asked that we stay away from the banks of the creek - the muddy sides as well as the samphire as this is where the birds feed. He suggested walking in across a sand track that Rod had identified would be preferable. Floating back out through the creek at the end of a session without touching the sides would be fine. I am happy to be corrected if I got this bit wrong Decrep and Windxstasy?

Select to expand quote

fangman said..
Nice summary there Hardy. I have one small point though and I am sure the others will correct me if I have got this wrong; but at the meeting the Council Environmental Officer asked that we stay away from the banks of the creek - the muddy sides as well as the samphire as this is where the birds feed. He suggested walking in across a sand track that Rod had identified would be preferable. Floating back out through the creek at the end of a session without touching the sides would be fine. I am happy to be corrected if I got this bit wrong Decrep and Windxstasy?

That is how I understood it.

Hardie, I can vouch for no other areas being safe in those conditions. I sailed at Liptons and gave up after 2.8km. It was madness to be out there. Too dangerous.

OK I finally found some information about human activity that causes birds to move, from the research of the impact of planes on birds. Further reading would suggest that if there are any at risk species present, reducing human activity nearby during breeding season would enhance chances of that species breeding, and avoiding extinction. This theory comes from the impact of aircraft on birds. While windsurfing is hardly a jet plane, our activity causes them to move, and the big question is "Is this harmful"? What they talk about is energy conservation which is most critical during breeding season. Therefore what they saying is that human activity such as flying aircraft that causes birds to move will require the bird to expend energy that may be best reserved for breeding activity. The implication being that breeding numbers may drop which is critical for an at risk species. They also state that many birds can habituate to flying aircraft and there are many species that just get used to planes, and are not affected, and this is measured by bird numbers remaining within aircraft areas, and breeding numbers remaining the same.

So I guess to play it safe, if we can establish that an endangered species exists, and that our activity causes that species flight, and forces it to use up energy during breeding season, then we should probably stay out during breeding season. Specifically these would be an endangered species that use the water to wade and feed in, and our activity causes them to move. The information I heard about the local birds in Creery Lagoon, is that there is at least one at risk species, and the critical issue is not to walk on their nesting areas. So we need more info.

Haven't had a reply to the telephone message I left at DPAW, so I've emailed them with a google earth view of both our track alternatives, and asked for their comments.

Hardie, that was one of Craig's concerns for the Swans, if we come at them slowly they will just move out of our way and settle somewhere else. but if we come at them at speed, and they have difficulty getting out of our way, they could panic, and that could scare them out of the pond for generations.

Select to expand quote

decrepit said..
.........
Hardie, that was one of Craig's concerns for the Swans, if we come at them slowly they will just move out of our way and settle somewhere else. but if we come at them at speed, and they have difficulty getting out of our way, they could panic, and that could scare them out of the pond for generations.

Gee I wish the swans I remember as a kid were scared of me. My memories of the swans at Lake Monger consist of me being terrified of them because they always chased after me - I guess I forgot to give them the piece of bread in my hand ( I probably just ate it myself)

Select to expand quote

sailquik said..

decrepit said..
Haven't had a reply to the telephone message I left at DPAW, so I've emailed them with a google earth view of both our track alternatives, and asked for their comments.

Hardie, that was one of Craig's concerns for the Swans, if we come at them slowly they will just move out of our way and settle somewhere else. but if we come at them at speed, and they have difficulty getting out of our way, they could panic, and that could scare them out of the pond for generations.

Swans are a very long way from an endangered species! Apart from the fact they are natives, they are more like Rabbits! Everywhere in large numbers.

Possible endangered species are more likely to be migratory waders. Probably small and far less obvious.

The migratory birds are not there in the winter, which is when we are most likely to use the pond.