Received: from hplms26.hpl.hp.com by opus.hpl.hp.com with SMTP (1.37.109.8/15.5+ECS 3.3+HPL1.1) id AA26177; Thu, 16 Jun 1994 14:41:50 -0700 Return-Path: <westes@usc.com-DeleteThis> Received: from uucp9.netcom.com by hplms26.hpl.hp.com with SMTP (1.36.108.4/15.5+ECS 3.3+HPL1.1S) id AA02129; Thu, 16 Jun 1994 14:43:47 -0700 Received: from localhost by netcomsv.netcom.com with UUCP (8.6.4/SMI-4.1) id OAA29773; Thu, 16 Jun 1994 14:37:51 -0700 Received: by usc.com (NX5.67d/NX3.0M) id AA01809; Thu, 16 Jun 94 14:35:54 -0700 From: Will Estes <westes@usc.com-DeleteThis> Message-Id: <9406162135.AA01809@usc.com-DeleteThis> Subject: Re: Urgent:Crissy Field Access restriciton! To: wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis Date: Thu, 16 Jun 1994 14:35:54 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <9406151618.tn1231259@aol.com-DeleteThis> from "JefWNDHNTR@aol.com-DeleteThis" at Jun 16, 94 01:52:03 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text Content-Length: 2299
'JefWNDHNTR@aol.com-DeleteThis says:'
> On Wednesday June 29th, the Board of Directors the San Francisco Boardsailing
> Association (SFBA) will meet with the National Park Service (NPS) and the SF
> Fire Department and Rescue (SFFDR). This is the third time we have met to
> discuss poosible restricitons for access to Crissy by Windsurfers. Currently
> under consideration is a proposal to require that all sailors purchase a
> "Special Use Permit" in order to launch from Crissy. The rationale for such
> a proposal is that many of the problems at Crissy come not from "regulars",
> but from new sailors, and tourists who want to "try Crissy" without having
> the necessary windsurfing or self-rescue skills. The fee would be nominal,
> but would allow for more self-policing: If you did not have a permit and the
> reuired "rescue-pak", you would not be allowed to sail. Enforcement is an
> issue, but presumably we "regulars" would try to "inform" newcomers of the
> requirement.
The permit should be for sailing the Bay, or any waters under this division
of the Coast Guard's responsibility, rather than for just Crissy. The
problem is that localizing the permits tends to add a little too much
bureaucracy to our lives. No one who sails five different spots wants to
have to worry about acquiring multiple site permits, just to comply with
municipalities.
At the same time, if windsurfers take up a lot of Coast Guard resources,
there should probably be some sort of permit that helps the Coast Guard to
do its job. The advantages to this would be:
1) It creates an economic environment in which the growth of windsurfing is
a good thing in the Coast Guard's eyes, because it generates more revenue
for them.
2) It encourages some planning on their part to think of windsurfing as a
regional, rather than local (e.g. Crissy), activity.
3) It minimizes the number of permits/licenses that we as windsurfers need to
obtain.
Several other comments:
1) Whatever permit scheme they settle on, it should be easy to obtain these
things from many different sources.
2) Perhaps the best enforcement would be to charge a large fine to any
rescued windsurfer who does not have a permit.
-- Thanks, Will Estes Internet: westes@usc.com-DeleteThis U.S. Computer Saratoga, CA 95070
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Dec 10 2001 - 02:27:35 PST