Oooppps,sorry, I must have miss read this,my apologies.
looks like you did...
if mark told you to jump off a cliff, would you?
apology accepted 
Not all older people are wise and to take advise off would be foolish.Thanks.
Most would agree,
but
I think the council and SLS arent thinking of if we can play nice together (as we are minority and thats not their priority) but looking at keeping powered crafts away from swimmers.
I only sailed there once, and there was a guy trying to commit suicide by standing up to his neck in the break, with about 20 windsurfers sailing around him..
There is no way I would put myself in his situation, therefore it's safe to say windsurfers and cretin swimmers don't mix..
In a perfect world some 'strong rip' signs to deter the odd swimmer on windy arvos would be the simplest answer for everyone except kites, who should't be allowed near anybody..
But it's not a perfect world, it's OH&S mad, protecting idiots from natural deselection is big business..
All they have done is forward my emails onto the Beach Services Manager (amazing effort!) to whom I have liaised with.
^ yep, when I was informed of this, it all smelt very fishy to me.
I would say the reason why the southern boundary is so far south of SSLSC
Another excerpt from that letter states: "The introduction of this Policy is seen as formalising an already existing informal situation and providing a means for the City to police those wind or kite surfers that pay little heed to others in the water. It is unfortunate that the activities of a small minority result in a disruption to the majority of those that participate responsibly. A commonsense approach will be undertaken by those City Officers charged with policing this policy with education being of prime importance rather than taking a heavy handed approach to enforcement."
I think it's mainly about the insurance side of things for the CofS. They are making sure their a$$es are covered if anything goes wrong...
This stinks..
Has anyone seen The Castle..? might get some ideas.. (airport development = SSLSC)
My recommendations (from Karratha) cos I still dream of summer arvos sailing sucky shories at scabs.
-WWA coordinate a meeting with the council members at the carpark and on the beach on a windy day with a bit of swell - everyone sail as per normal. That way they can see the 50m of beach that windsurfers need along the whole coast.
- film the windsurfing, surfers, and clubbies at the same time. Count numbers of lost boards across all sectors to re-benchmark the risk ranking (also film the drowning asians without floatation devices. Don't bother filming the kook kiters; likely they will dig their own grave on the day.)
I know i'll get replies saying im missing the point(s) as everyone has stated in all of the previous posts - I get it.. But seriously this is rediculous...Ive sailed at scarbs for 8 years and the only problem ive seen is senior clubbies sending the nippers upwind through the windsurfers cos they like paddling upwind first and wont walk down the beach before setting out, and 2 or 3 of the 1000 surfers spread out along the whole coast line who decide to try and surf amongst us lot in 25 knots.
There is a serious conflict of interest here with the knobjockies from the club, and may be worth exploring .. again I agree with surflifesaving as an important aussie tradition but there are a few narrow minded members at SSLSC who think they own the beach/water and their fibreglass contraptions have right-of way everywhere.
Worst of all, the mums and dads send their nippers down to the trusted Surf Life Saving Club for "High Risk" fkwit X to supervise their kids.
Ok - A little more constructive:
I just spoke to the State Ombudsman's office - and can confirm that their scope does extend to reviewing complaints (including potential conflicts of interest) relating to local council decisions.
www.ombudsman.wa.gov.au/About_Us/Role.htm
Suggest that a formal query be raised by WWA relating to the consultation process in passing the rezoning legislation without consideration of WWA.
Further, to actually get the local members listening, raise the perceived conflict of interest of members of the SSLSC securing exclusive beach access rights to 'their patch' by or through CoS Beach Services Co-ordinator (John Snook) - a member of SSLCS. Potential abuse of elected position. Potentially mention also that visibility to risk assessment processes have been requested but not provided. Suggests a very polarised non-scientific use of 'risk assessment' to support their personal (seemingly emotive) views in order to gain more exclusive access to a public beach. Risk assessment takes into account two aspects, consequence and likelihood - the current classification definitions completely miss the point through use of size/speed/manoeuvrability. Consequence of a windsurfing board impact is in the same order as that of a surfboard/ski/kayak/someone's head/or a bogan's fist, (Note none of these are excluded from beach use). Likelihood - considering ~4 months max of late afternoon use, contrasting beach conditions to optimum swimming conditions and most importantly empirical evidence (remote likelihood of actually causing serious injury) suggests that the risk posed is medium due to windsurfing at worst. Especially when compared to daily medium risk activities of surfing, ski riding, kayak paddling during peak swimming times and walking home on the footpath getting bowled over by 30kph lycra clad warriors. Rogue surf ski's and glass paddle boards year round greatly outweigh the risk presented by windsurfing.
It is important to follow this up by raising that the complaint has been lodged to the State Ombudsman in subsequent CoS/WWA/WAKSA/SSLSC meetings - and backup with a summary regarding the less than forthcoming information or responses from CoS to the Perth windsurfing community. Hopefully we can get some attention...
Loa Shi - Great job on your progress so far in these meetings. Please don't be shy in yelling out if you need further support in attendance or writing up a submission etc. I don't know how WWA is resourced to take this up, but I feel it is an important issue for all of us windsurfers to nip in the bud - especially the re-education associated with our sport being High Risk. If we can achieve this, we can stop the rot and have a basis for negotiation if this arises again in the future.
I recommend raising with the Ombudsman - at least to have the complaint on record as early as possible given that there appears to be little interest from the CoS in responding to emails/letters from concerned windsurfers and that this could all run its course and be locked in very soon.
Note: In reviewing the MOM when the legislation was adopted, the emotive nature and reasoning behind this restriction is inherently observed in the Comments section on page 338.
The City of Stirling recognises that its beaches provide an ideal location for people to pursue a wide range of recreational activities, including, but not limited to, kite and windsurfing, fishing, dog exercise, surfing, surf life saving, swimming and the like. Many of these activities have been taking place for years and have developed informal arrangements, particularly with regard to locations where these activities are undertaken. In order to better manage the varying forms of recreational activities it is necessary to formalise some of the existing informal arrangements
Taking a step back, WHY when someone was talking about managing users of a beach would kitesurfing and windsurfing be listed first.. A normal statement would be bathing, sunbathing, swimming, throwing a Frisbee, surfing, boogie boarding etc A LONG way away from rare activities of windsurfing and kitesurfing.. Dog exercise, fishing etc have been thrown in for measure..
Lets work hard with the CoS through WWA to focus on "formalising the existing arrangement" and question the motives of the CoS Beach Services Co-ordinator/SSLSC via a registered query with the Ombudsman. If everything was undertaken above board, no harm done. But currently there is a significant lack of education and stakeholder consultation identified to support that the legislation should have been passed as written. The window of opportunity is the 1yr review period.
The Financial Implications of the MOM all that is identified is signage… No suggestion that rezoning of areas requires budgeting for additional infrastructure in the forms of access, carparks, amenities, services, security etc of land users who are subsequently ostracised. Pretty standard short-sightedness I guess...
Alternatively, we could draft a submission for social Heritage Listing to preserve the memory of our sport, rapidly being carried away by tangled kite lines into oblivion.
Child rapists are happy as they have now leapfrogged Kitesurfers and are now no longer the most despised group in society.
Just received a reply from John Snook regarding a letter that I sent last week concerning the situation at Scarbs. On the whole it seems like the same letter everyone gets with the same phrases. Interestingly the council is "attempting to reduce the potential, whether real or percieved, for conflicts between differing beach user groups". The perceived threats are obviously greatly enhanced when you have vested interest in removing a minority from your so called training area.
I also am amazed to notice that on the bottom of each page of the official City of Stirling letter head that is says "Beach Services / Scarboro Surf Life Saving Club (north end)" Ph Fax etc.
Am I looking too much into this or is it actually a rat that I smell?
If any one wants to read my original letter and their reply please feel free to post me and I will forward them on.
Ok, guys an update.
Firstly I think people need to be careful about making accusations. The office for Beach Services is in the SSLSC building hence the address.
A reply to WWA e-mail asking for an update from John Snook :
"· It is unlikely that signage will be in place and erected by 1 Dec 2011. I will personally advise you when the signage will be going up.
· Beach Inspectors have been speaking on a regular basis to both wind and kitesurfers of the area changes to be introduced. This will continue even when the signage is erected.
· The main focus over the summer will be education rather than enforcement.
· The southern boundary of the restricted area will be moved northwards to the pathway north of the Brighton Drain. Following the review in July 2012 and taking into account comments already received, should the Management Plan be adopted on a permanent basis, it is likely that this boundary will be moved further north again.
· It is still anticipated that a marker/indicator as discussed will be erected to identify the edge of the restricted area.
keep the push with this...
TO all Politicians..it is bloody illegal to BAN a water sport activity as awesome as windsurfing (or kite surfing when experienced riders do it) we cause no threat to any other beach users,,, we are a really intelligent bunch of guys and girls that love waves wind and water and care about the spot and everything surrounding it especially the beach, the ocean and you want to ban us???? hmmm maybe try banning surfing from scarbs or trigg and see what happens...i thought this is a free country hence why i moved from post-comunist Poland..but this is much worst..who is in charge of City of Sterling Lenin or Stalin? this is a bloody joke...and is not even funny..it is against FREEDOM, maybe you should start banning rude drunk littering bogans causing trouble everywhere rather than sports enthusiast that look after the environment...and than you will complain everyone is fat and sitting in front of tv drinking beer and eating maccas than spend millions of tax payers money on ad campaigns promoting active lifestyle -what a hypocrisy ..i guess more revenue in taxes...as windsurfing is still FREE..at least was up until now...I will never agree to this, arrest me for windsurfing if you can get on the water and catch me :-) PEACE
[}:)][}:)][}:)][}:)]LOL
[}:)][}:)][}:)][}:)]LOL
