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 AA02214; Thu, 16 Jun 1994 17:38:45 -0700 Return-Path: <west!golden_gate.cognex.com!fariborz@uunet.uu.net-DeleteThis> Received: from relay3.UU.NET by hplms26.hpl.hp.com with SMTP (1.36.108.4/15.5+ECS 3.3+HPL1.1S) id AA04159; Thu, 16 Jun 1994 17:40:40 -0700 Received: from uucp2.UU.NET by relay3.UU.NET with SMTP (rama) id QQwupm20215; Thu, 16 Jun 1994 20:34:58 -0400 Received: from cognex.UUCP by uucp2.UU.NET with UUCP/RMAIL ; Thu, 16 Jun 1994 20:35:13 -0400 Received: from west.UUCP by cognex.cognex.com (4.1/SMI-4.2) id AA13605; Thu, 16 Jun 94 19:44:08 EDT Received: from golden_gate.cognex.com by west.cognex.com (4.1/SMI-4.0) id AA07843; Thu, 16 Jun 94 16:04:41 PDT Received: by golden_gate.cognex.com (4.1/SMI-4.0) id AA03170; Thu, 16 Jun 94 16:04:42 PDT Date: Thu, 16 Jun 94 16:04:42 PDT From: fariborz@cognex.com-DeleteThis (Fariborz Rostami) Message-Id: <9406162304.AA03170@golden_gate.cognex.com-DeleteThis> To: wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis Subject: Re: Urgent:Crissy Field Access restriciton! Reply-To: fariborz@cognex.com-DeleteThis
Regarding Permit for windsurfing on the bay, Will Estates writes:
> From: Will Estes <westes@usc.com-DeleteThis>
> Subject: Re: Urgent:Crissy Field Access restriciton!
>
> 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
>
>
I agree with everything that Will, says and I would like to add:
1) Each permit should come with full explanation of penalties and fines
associated with any rescue efforts at the time of the sale, or on the
application form.
2) All windsurfing sites on the bay should have a bulletin board
explaining the need for having a permit and all the fines and penalties
if one does not have one.
3) It would be nice to have a bright waterproof tag that one would wear
on his/her arm. This way it would be easy to determine if one has a
permit or not, from a distance.
4) Each site on the bay should have clear marking explaining the level
of windsurfing which is recommended for that site.
5) As part of obtaining a permit, shops or sale sites can determine if
the rescue gear (flares, strobe light, whistle, ...) that one carries
is appropriate or not.
Fariborz Rostami
Fariborz@cognex.com-DeleteThis
(415) 969-4812
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Dec 10 2001 - 02:27:35 PST