Poor Stewards of Our Trust
This is not a victory, it is a sham(e). Will Surfrider address the nuclear dump zones in our Sanctuary waters? A convenient truth often ignored, instead Surfrider agrees that a PWC poses a greater threat than nuclear waste? What is the consensus and backroom deal on this one folks? This is something that should be demanded from your organization and its board of directors in good faith of water quality and safety. The founding fathers of Surfrider would never stand for this kind of organizational behavior. What happened to Surfrider?
Surfrider has been duped into NOAA 'personalized' attack against a specific recreational activity that has absolutely nothing to do with management of sanctuary resources! PWC designs are well above strict federal environmental regulations, and NOAA and Surfrider are both aware of this. Surfrider didn't bother to look at both sides of the issue without prejudice and bias.
There was never a loophole as stated. When biased statements like this are published and adopted from language given by NOAA, groups and citizens are condemned and judged and the weakness of American's not following through on their own volition for truth and accountability. Socialist countries behave in this manner, this is un American. We end up less than informed, a complete injustice to honor and integrity, and our children lose privileges and rights that will probably never be given back. Less government involvement in our lives leads to a better quality of life! Has the Surfrider membership learned nothing about bureaucracy?
Citizen's taxes that would be better spent on making people's lives better, helping our infrastructure, and enhancing our enjoyment and stewardship of our Pacific Ocean and Mother Earth. Education, safety and enforcement policies already existed, we do not need another layer of government managing our lives for us!
Too bad Surfrider didn't study current boating laws and regulations and support our taxpayers in good stewardship and honor in endorsing the boating officers of California who do care about public safety and recreation, regardless of the activity chosen. Laws existed that addressed the concerns of recreational behavior, NOAA never engaged in partnership with California boating organizations, they partnered instead with environmental groups who have no stakeholding in recreational boating.
Take an honest look at surfing and it's impact. I follow a motion for surfing wax, neoprene, surfboard construction, footpaths and trespassing on private property, trash/litter, parking zones, traffic, aggressive abuse of surfers in the lineup, urination, and basically the negative aspects of human impact created by the surfing community to be addressed and evaluated in these same zones. Let's see who really creates more negative impact and accountability. Sounds uncomfortable doesn't it, but it could be a surfers worst nightmare, would Surfrider then support surfers or NOAA? Don't think it can't happen to you.
It would be nice if Surfrider and NOAA would finally provide/'produce their scientific data that has never been presented to the 'stakeholders'. Those who participated in the 'stakeholder' process are all in agreement it was not a democratic and open process that enabled recreational activities to benefit, but to lose. All data given in good faith was catalogued and used against the stakeholders not just boaters, but all stakeholders.
It would also be nice to see the financial report on how much this process from inception to date and into the future management of this review and enforcement will cost taxpayers? Where are those real numbers? How many millions of dollars have been spent from the beginning and in perpetuity to regulate a recreational boating activity, rather than focus on real world environmental concerns, instead of operator behavior of a vessel. And how many PWC's would this include versus surfers?
Any Surfrider member with intelligence could simply look at the 10 ten threats to the Sanctuary resources and sensibility would say a Personal Watercraft definitely does not fit the category of a top 'threat'. Isn't Surfrider supposed to be concerned about the near shore water quality for surfers? What would that exact threat be?
Perhaps it is time to lobby using the ATLAS study against paddle in surfing in sanctuary waters and elsewhere, you never know how much impact is damaging resources, perhaps we could solicit a scientific study from NOAA to research any probability. And Surfrider members could fund it in good faith.
Claiming one precedent as a victory can affect many other users groups, we are not protected from the water grab that is taking the entire western coastline of the United States. I fear for the future of my children and their access rights to recreational pursuits, if this is a victory, I am ashamed of the weakness in America. A chronic dysfunction of our generation lies in not participating and holding our government accountable for the stewardship we entrusted in them on our behalf.
Surfrider is just another pawn of those in power who will add such groups in favor or their goals as 'partners'. I do not see any recreational partners that are equal in stature and presence. "Stakeholders have been burned at the stake."
Who will be the privileged surfers who are granted the right to towsurf at Mavericks? Since when did Surfrider and NOAA manage recreational surfing as part of their charter? This is a sad day in the State of California for surfers, state boating resources and other recreationalists. Will surfing itself be targeted next? Surfrider has good programs in effect, but Surfrider is given a grade 'F' for failure on this one folks.
What a disgrace to justice and the right to due process, it is a direct violation of our Constitutional 3rd Amendment. This is not a victory, it is a shameless water grab using environmental concerns as an excuse.
Shawn Alladio
K38 Water Safety
www.TheLivesYouSave.com 
Linear Mode
