RichardM wrote:poacher didn’t say where this happened but assuming it was the US side of the Great Lakes and that there is no official policy or rule stating that kiters have any kind of priority, the boater was EXACTLY CORRECT. And any attitude that infers that any other user should have to yield their right to access in ANY way is EXACTLY the attitude which creates bans.Toby wrote:...
Assuming that poacher’s account is exactly correct and not slanted at all, poacher made a SERIOUS MISTAKE by telling the guy that he and his family would be in danger by being there. Not only is this a thinly veiled THREAT which could have been morphed into a dangerous escalation of the conflict with substantial potential for the “terrorist” kiters to be involved as defendants in violation of Park rules or laws, but much WORSE is the implication that they will use the inherent DANGERS OF KITING to threaten harm to the boater.
NO KITER SHOULD EVER TRY TO MOTIVATE AN UNCOOPERATIVE NON-KITER TO MOVE BY IMPLYING THAT ANY TYPE OF HARM TO THE NON-KITER MIGHT RESULT FROM KITING ACTIVITY !!! Note that “HARM” includes ANY anxiety as well as physical injury.
A better approach is to just say you need space. If they are the slightest bit annoyed or uncooperative, you should LEAVE THEM ALONE. If that means no kiting, then DON’T. If you don’t like BEING THE ABSOLUTE BOTTOM OF THE FOOD CHAIN REGARDING USE OF THE PUBLIC RESOURCE, your ONLY option is to get the local AUTHORITY to grant you some special use consideration (good luck).
I’m very surprised and disappointed that Toby would condone the above type of threat. If a kiter is such an a$$hole that he thinks it proper to threaten non-kiters, he should tell them he’ll shoot them or rape their daughter – NOT that they’ll be injured due to kiting activity.
Since you and some other rocket scientists think “we don't always have to be yielding pussys either.”, PLEASE list the reason(s) why not. I have a strong interest in access issues and I’d love to be able convince the people who REALLY matter (authorities) of your dangerous WISHFUL THINKING.POACHER wrote:...
Malibu Kitesurfing - since 2002
(310) - 430 - KITE (5483)
i don't see what the fuss is about. in the first post Richard was dead on right.
you don't have right to claim the beach just because your kite has 30meters lines.
in my place if the beach is watched by beachguards, kiters don't have a priority at all. they ride just in the area where they assigned to.
as for the unregulated areas and beaches without the beachguards kiters still yield swimmers. it would be stupid to go to discussions with the other beach users about who has the beach! if this kind of discussions reach the local council you'll be banned for sure.
so best way to deal in this kind of situations is cooperate and keep low profile. on unregulated and overcrowded beaches all the kiters should keep close together in a area of apr 50-100 meters wide and try to make all of kite launches and landings in the same spot in order not to disturb other beach goers. as i noticed swimmers are not so keen to go to lay in the sand in the "kite park" area.
and it is hard to reason some parents with the couple of children on the beach, so really it is worst time and place to describe kiteboarding as dangerous activity to them! enough harm is done by the idiots describing kiteboarding as "extreme" sport for the advertising purposes. despite much more casualties are in the cycling and snowboarding, result is stupid high insurance fees!