It is true that a cursory look at the reg suggests several avenues for legal attacks and a comprehensive examination will likely produce additional possibilities. Also, the actual physical area eventually designated by the buoys etc. may introduce some other legal flaws as might any actual method of enforcement.balugh wrote:You may be right.... It is 'silent' on kite boards...probably because they didn't really exist in 1994...although the intention is pretty clear. That said, kite boards are not considered craft because they don't support you on your own in the water. It is one reason a lost kiteboard is considered, legally, to be lost property instead of salvage when someone else recovers it and demands a fee.Haole_Built wrote: Edit: So it prohibits vessels and sailboards, I guess kites are OK then?
This might muddy the legal waters enough to require re-drafting before it is enforceable against kites... It would be ironic if it cleared the beach of kayakers and windsurfers but left it free for kite surfers to use...
And last, but not least, as all the best A$$HOLE attorneys know, always ATTACK - not only does it distract from their clients’ wrongdoing, but it may find sensitive subjects that their opposition would rather not deal with (of course, there’s also the remote possibility that they could even win based upon the MERITS). For example, in this situation, the TRUE CAUSE of the actual conflict can be laid squarely at the feet of the AUTHORITY who REPEATEDLY abdicated their responsibility to enforce the regs against the very small percentage of violators. Another potential can of worms is that it is frequently possible to mount legal attacks on regulations by finding flaws (or POSSIBLE flaws) in how they were originally enabled.
Unfortunately, assuming that the bureaucrats involved are typical of most, they will not care one iota about how illegal any enforcement may be and will go ahead with it. They will have justifiable confidence that any individuals against whom they enforce it will have neither the where-with-all nor the balls to try to fight it in the courts.
They won’t worry that enforcement will motivate opposition because not only will very few violate the regs to the extent of being subjected to the enforcement, but also, because enforcement effectively REDUCES the number of kiters who show up, as time goes on, there are LESS and LESS kiters to provide any opposition.
LEARN FROM THIS SITUATION.
The BEST RESULT that the sport can now obtain from this situation (but won’t), would be a FIRM BELIEF that the ONLY effective way to control miscreants who threaten access is to put effort into GETTING ANY CONTROLLING AUTHORITY TO DO THEIR JOB in the first place. This includes coming up with a reasonable way for the authority to do so (preferably involving the least amount of WORK possible). If this had happened, BOTH kiters and non-kiters would have avoided ALL the unpleasantness of this situation.
It also would NOT have ended up providing PERFECT PROPAGANDA for anti-kiters to use at locations WORLDWIDE FOR YEARS TO COME.
Let’s all say “THANK YOU”.
Malibu Kitesurfing - since 2002
(310) - 430 - KITE (5483)