1. Please don’t misstate my position. If you had a superior right to use the area for kiting than he did for his activity, there would be no problem with your explaining the dangers. However, as explained below, you do NOT. Furthermore, even if you did, if he was still uncooperative, you still have no right whatsoever to either actually put them in danger or give them the impression that they are in danger. Your ONLY recourse would be to attempt to have the authority (which would necessarily confirm your superior right), remove them.
2. You wrongly either actually put them in danger and/or annoyed them by making them concerned about seemingly being in danger.
3. He was ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. As explained below, he had a superior right to use the resource.
4. You explained that if he did not comply and move that you would continue to endanger them with YOUR ACTIONS. This is an obvious threat. At best, you could say it is implied rather than overt.
5. Completely immaterial. If someone was ruining your day by shooting at the ground around you, you’d probably leave because of it and the fact that they didn’t tell you to leave changes NOTHING.
6. Although you were not obligated to “ pack up our shit on a perfect day and just go home”, you were obligated to cease any kiting activities which interfered with his superior right of use.
7. This is distressingly sad because if even 5% of kiters do so, access will continue to be lost. If any majority do so, access will evaporate.
8. These are poor examples because they are both commercial in nature and if not authorized are probably illegal and if authorized, would probably have a superior right (depending on the specific authorization).
Therefore, for the sake of your example, lets assume you’re doing these activities recreationally (like your kiting). In this case there isn’t any easy way to determine use preference and it would hinge on any specific park rules or have to be settled by the authority.
9. If you thought you had the superior right, convince him. If unable to convince him attempt to get enough info to identify him to the authority and file a complaint. In the meantime, move.
10. Unless you have been told by the authority that you have a superior right to use the area and supposedly other uses are not allowed or must yield to kiters, then when conflicts such as yours arise, and the authority must take some action due to complaints, almost always the result will be either regulation or more likely, banning of kiting.
This is because the authority is tasked with the job of theoretically maximizing the beneficial use of the resource, usually for the maximum number of individuals (essentially, voters).
Some of the criteria which an authority must necessarily consider to accomplish this goal include:
1. Is the use dangerous to OTHER users? (To what degree (compared to other uses?)
2. Is the use dangerous to the PARTICIPANTS? (To what degree (compared to other uses?)
3. How much space does the activity require per participant? In total?
4. Is the use compatible with other uses or does it prevent other concurrent uses?
5. Will it have any adverse environmental effects?
6. And MOST IMPORTANTLY, in order for the use to be permitted in a way that there are minimal adverse impacts upon any significant number of OTHER users, will extra WORK be required on the part of the authority? In the case of kiting this usually means that new rules and regulations need to be created from scratch and then implemented in order to keep the irresponsible kiters from interfering with the vastly larger number of much less problematic users.
Except for #5, kiting will almost always be FAR AND AWAY at the TOP of each consideration and ESPECIALLY regarding number 6. Obviously, most bureaucrats will just take the much simpler action of banning ALL kiting rather than doing the work involved in #6.
Although you’ll see from my many posts on this subject that I believe in trying to FORCE the bureaucrats to do their job such that a reasonable accommodation can be made such that kiters can use the resource as much as possible, you’ll find that the vast majority of other posters do not agree with this concept.
At any rate, you can either understand and accept the concept of highest and best use regarding recreational resources which means EVERYONE ELSE has priority or you can aggravate non-kiters by wrongly asserting a superior right. In which case, you can expect that non-kiter complaints will close off access.
Malibu Kitesurfing - since 2002
(310) - 430 - KITE (5483)
Hubbs wrote:Looks like a ...
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 30 guests