Since the issue seems to have come to a head in MAY, 2013, if it is true that governmental action may be imminent, this is a VERY BAD sign because it would tend to indicate that bureaucratic inertia has been replaced by bureaucratic momentum.
I'm curious as to whether or not anyone has any statistics regarding the following:
The total population of the island.
The total number of VOTERS.
The estimated total number of beach user visits per year.
The estimated total number of beach user visits per year attributable to non-kiters.
The estimated total number of LOCAL kiters.
The estimated total number of TOURIST kiters per year.
The estimated total amount of MONEY TOURIST kiters spend locally per year.
The estimated PERCENTAGE of the total amount of MONEY spent by all tourists which can be attributed to TOURIST kiters per year.
Theoretically, the above might help to indicate the likelihood that a petition will succeed.Two OTHER approaches
which might be explored include:
1. IDENTIFY AND CORRECT THE UNDERLYING PROBLEM:The underlying problem is NOT KITERS, it is the AUTHORITY in charge.
The underlying problem is that the AUTHORITY has abdicated its CLEAR DUTY AND RESPONSIBILITY to ENFORCE EXISTING restrictions at “the Pond” such that the problematic ILLEGAL behavior of a few SELFISH KITERS NEEDLESSLY created constantly escalating conflict.
(For a summary of the situation, please see the below copy of one of my posts from the deleted thread concerning the issue.) If the authority had DONE ITS JOB in the first place by ENFORCING the EXISTING regulations by issuing tickets as needed to the miscreant kiters, NONE OF THE CURRENT PROBLEMS WOULD HAVE OCCURRED.
The above being the case, perhaps it isn’t too late for the kiters to JOIN THE NON-KITERS and INSIST ON EFFECTIVE ENFORCEMENT.
A few multi-hundred dollar tickets and proper signage will positively solve the situation which lead to the conflict.
It should be noted that the kiters DON’T even need to stop kiting. As explained below
in the excerpted portion of the second copy of a previous post, they just have to alter their launching and landing technique.
I suggest that the best approach
would be that in addition to the above, that the local kiting orgs issue written apologies to as many non-kiters as want it (specifically denying any liability for any harm), pay for signage making clear kiting is ALWAYS prohibited at the pond and development in cooperation with the authority, of a reasonable procedure to obtain EFFECTIVE enforcement (reduced to written instructions).
2. INVESTIGATE AND DEBATE THE LEGALITY OF ANY BAN:
In reading some of the comments in the Maui News article, one possible legal attack (there are likely others as well) was raised by a poster named Balco regarding the definition of “vessel” in that the regulation mentions “vessels” AND “sailboards”. Legally this means that “sailboards” are NOT “vessels” and therefore neither should be “kiteboards”. In this case, technically, there is no PRESENT prohibition against kiteboards. Without doing more research, the letter from the Coast Guard alleging that kiteboards are vessels, also seems flawed in that the section quoted in support of the proposition, 46 USC section 2101, didn’t seem to me to have ANYTHING in it to justify that conclusion. Additionally, any Coast Guard determination of “vesselness” could probably be attacked on other grounds as well.
Although ultimately the question of regulating kiteboarding can be simply mooted by new regs which specifically include kiting, adding another front to the battle may help all parties decide to compromise rather than become involved in even MORE WORK. (Often creating new regs is a big pain, fraught with endless potential of MORE WORK).Copy of excerpted portion of post as SUMMARY of situation:
“So far EVERY bit of evidence so far divulged about the situation indicates the following:
1. Legally, non-kiters have exclusive use of the pond and kiters are prohibited.
2. Kiters have been violating this prohibition for a long time.
3. It has apparently only recently become a problem FOR KITERS because some non-kiters have been insisting that that the prohibition be enforced.
4. Assuming that it is true that there have not been previous serious objections to kiters violations (I personally think this is unlikely), this in NO WAY indicates that previous violations did not interfere with the non-kiters’ enjoyment. It is possible (likely) that annoyed non-kiters simply let their rights be infringed rather than deal with conflict resulting from complaining.
5. These currently complaining non-kiters have a PERFECT RIGHT to insist on enforcement. This is the PURPOSE of legislation that creates prohibitions. People that are afraid to enforce their rights DON”T HAVE ANY.
6. There is NO NECESSITY for kiters to use the pond. They do so ONLY because it allows them to enjoy their sport more conveniently. And apparently this convenience is magnified with offshore winds.
7. Rather than change or attempt to change the prohibition such that kiters are not prohibited, some kiters simply keep violating the non-kiters’ right to a kiterless pond, creating wrongful conflict which BESIDES violating the non-kiters’ rights to the pond ADDITIONALLY destroys much of the general pleasure associated with peaceable beach use. Furthermore, it is a likely inference that a significant portion of some kiters’ motivation for continued violations is SPECIFICALLY to create enough unpleasantness for the non-kiters such that they are ILLEGALLY driven from their entitled area.
8. There are a relatively small number of violators, but for reasonable and justified reasons, the non-kiters don’t want ANY.
9. So far, the authority charged with proper beach management has abdicated its responsibility to enforce the prohibition such that NO ACTUAL ENFORCEMENT has EVER occurred
10. Because of the high visibility of the location as the premier kiting spot in the WORLD, its kiting problems can be expected to attract the MAXIMUM amount of attention.
11. If it appears that kiters arrogantly FORCE non-kiters to concede their rights regarding beach use, especially for NO other reason than CONVENIENCE (not wanting to get WET ?), this is extraordinarily BAD public relations material which can be used by anti-kiters for YEARS to come, WORLDWIDE.
12. So far, the situation appears to be the result of the 100% unjustified conduct of a few selfish kiters who, because of no enforcement, feel that they are somehow entitled to ILLEGALLY FORCE the non-kiters to concede their legal rights.
”Copy of excerpted portion of post RE: altered launch/land technique:
“I want to know what facts I’m not seeing here. There must be some because what I see makes no sense whatsoever. From what I can gather, this entire massive, very unproductive battle seems to be caused by EXPERIENCED kiters, in the most ? world famous spot, blessed with beautiful, clear warm water but WHO DON’T WANT TO GET WET ? OR CAN’T SELF RESCUE
for a couple hundred feet?
If they can kite into the pond, why can’t they kite to whichever side of the pond the wind direction makes convenient, and put their kites down in the water a couple hundred feet out and swim in? Is it shark infested? What’s the problem, how long will it take for their kites to dry, it’s warm and windy isn’t it? Are they so feeble and decrepit that POSSIBLY walking a little further than they’d like is going to cripple them? "If you try to come in downwind to the pond, your kite will fall in the water, and then you have to swim to shore or walk up on the beach from very far down with all your gear. . . . It's really difficult."
Likewise, if it is offshore, it should be possible to drift launch
by swimming out past the swim area (actually the wind should push the kiter out so swimming isn't much of a problem). From the Google photos it looks as if it would be possible to swim out on either side of the pond and avoid it entirely for launching. Of course, this means they’d get WET.
I don’t think that it’s really too unreasonable to expect that kiters who want to go out with a less than ideal wind direction, which supposedly doesn’t happen all that often, should learn the basic and MINIMAL skills
necessary to deal with their WEATHER DEPENDENT sport.
I REALLY hope there’s a LOT more to this situation and that it hasn’t been caused by a few selfish kiters that are so arrogant and incompetent that rather than cope with a slightly tricky part of THEIR SPORT, that they want to solve THEIR problem of being somewhat inconvenienced, by taking away the NON-KITERS’ legal and reasonable entitlement to a kiterless pond, despite that doing so effectively ruins most of the benefit the non-kiters get from the spot.
I mean, talk about BAD PR. Please tell me there are sharks, sea monsters, something.”
Malibu Kitesurfing - since 2002
(310) - 430 - KITE (5483)http://www.MalibuKitesurfing.NETkfRichard@MalibuKitesurfing.NET