Author Topic: State Parks' Reasoning for the SUS restrictions at Sano and Doho  (Read 13278 times)

SUP surf chick

  • Malibu Status
  • **
  • Posts: 57
    • View Profile
State Parks' Reasoning for the SUS restrictions at Sano and Doho
« on: September 18, 2014, 10:23:56 PM »
I recently wrote a letter to  the state parks regional superintendent asking him to clarify  the reasons for the restrictions  for SUPs at Sano and Doho. After several weeks  and an appeal to his  superior in Sacramento I finally received a response.

The letter is a dense, five page affair thick with legal language. It says a lot of things but the gist of it  is about the states need to  "protect" non-SUS'ers. It's based on the definition of a SUP they as a "vessel", as many of us already know.  There are other things, too, and there are  definite holes in the logic. At the end of the letter I am encouraged to share it with the SUS community. I tried to attach it to this post but the file is too large and won't allow me  to. so if you private message me with your email I would be happy to send it to you,  along with
 the original letter  (in case it won't allow me to attach it here).

It arms us with a lot of information, and I see this as a good thing.  We can now formulate an organized, collective response  to challenge the idiocy  of the restrictions.. I look forward to all of your feedback.  Just a heads up, the letter will take  more than one reading to totally absorbed, once you get past all the legal language. So it will take some time to slog through.
Dina Whitaker
Living the dream in San Clemente!
Dogpatch (Sano) local
7'4" Simm style by Tom Whitaker

PonoBill

  • Cortez Bank Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 25864
    • View Profile
Re: State Parks' Reasoning for the SUS restrictions at Sano and Doho
« Reply #1 on: September 18, 2014, 11:12:02 PM »
I'm pretty sure the majority of spammers have my email address, so I don't mind sharing it here. Please forward the response to me, and feel free to use my email to send me any other correspondence you send or receive on these matters. I live in Oregon, but I'm interested.

Bill@ponostyle.com
Foote 10'4X34", SIC 17.5 V1 hollow and an EPS one in Hood River. Foote 9'0" x 31", L41 8'8", 18' Speedboard, etc. etc.

SUP surf chick

  • Malibu Status
  • **
  • Posts: 57
    • View Profile
Re: State Parks' Reasoning for the SUS restrictions at Sano and Doho
« Reply #2 on: September 18, 2014, 11:15:34 PM »
I divided the letter up into smaller sections and will try to upload them this way (in 4 separate documents).
Dina Whitaker
Living the dream in San Clemente!
Dogpatch (Sano) local
7'4" Simm style by Tom Whitaker

JayInSoCal

  • Sunset Status
  • ****
  • Posts: 328
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: State Parks' Reasoning for the SUS restrictions at Sano and Doho
« Reply #3 on: September 19, 2014, 12:23:36 AM »
Thanks for the info.  But let's hope they don't remind the guards about the 100/200 ft rule (I actually wasn't aware of it), or else we just got banned from our reserved areas.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
8'4" L41 SS3
9'2" Riviera Turbo Nugg
9'6" Wavestorm
10' Infinity Carver
14' Infinity Whiplash

Califoilia

  • Axis Demo Rep
  • Teahupoo Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 1510
  • San Clemente
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: State Parks' Reasoning for the SUS restrictions at Sano and Doho
« Reply #4 on: September 19, 2014, 05:23:10 AM »
After first reading the letter, it got me pondering that 100/200 rule also, and was wondering how others are interpreting the section that quotes H&N 655.2(a)(2)(A), which reads as follows in the bold:
Quote
Every owner, operator, or person in command of any vessel propelled by machinery is guilty of a misdemeanor who uses it, or permits it to be used at a speed in excess of 5 mph in any portion of the following areas not otherwise regulated by local rules and regulations:
(1) Within 100 feet of any person who is engaged in the act of bathing. A person engaged in the sport of water skiing shall not be considered as engaged in the act of bathing for the purpose of this section.
(2)  Within 200 feet of any of the following
(A)  A beach frequented by bathers

(B)  A swimming float, diving platform, of lifeline
(C)  A way or landing float to which boats are made fast or which is being used for the embarkation or discharge of passengers.

I understand the "within 100 feet of any person", and in my opinion, as long as the break is 200 feet or approximately 70 yards from "a beach frequented by bathers" (which is typically defined as the shoreline between the high and low tide marks), and is easily the case at most all of the breaks in question for the most part; then I have to believe that I'm well within the quoted H&N codes, as long as I'm not taking off and/or "operating" within 100 feet of a "bather"/surfer.

Now since the letter states that we must abide by those same H&N codes while operating south of both the "KO" sign at Dog Patch, and Thor's Hammer at Doho anyway, under what authority, rule, regulation, code, or ordinance are they acting upon or citing while excluding us from those breaks in the first place, when issuing their "Posted Order No. 925-14-018"?

Granted, this still keeps us out of the actual "lineup" if you will, but it does give us far more access to waves within the current exclusion zones than we're offered now, as long as we're 200 feet from shore, and 100 feet from other "bathers"/surfers.  No?   

So say it with me, "Mr. Superintendent, tear down these signs!"  ;) :D
« Last Edit: September 19, 2014, 05:25:09 AM by SanoSup »
Me: 6'1"/185...(2) 5'1" Kings Foil/Wing Boards...7'10 Kings DW Board...9'6" Bob Pearson "Laird Noserider"...14' Lahui Kai "Manta"...8'0" WaveStorm if/when the proning urges still hit.

SUP surf chick

  • Malibu Status
  • **
  • Posts: 57
    • View Profile
Re: State Parks' Reasoning for the SUS restrictions at Sano and Doho
« Reply #5 on: September 19, 2014, 06:19:30 AM »
As for the 100/200 rule: remember, in the letter they (SP) state that they believe that all beaches are "frequented by bathers."  If they were following the letter of the law, they would have to ban SUPs from every state beach. Instead, they invoke the "spirit of the law" and thusnot "contact sup operators who may be riding waves in excess of 5 mph within 200 feet of the beach that is normally frequented by bathers,, as no hazard currently exists. This will not apply to those exclusion areas specified in  posted order...... once bathers arrive, it becomes the responsibility of the setup operator to move to a different area where no hazard exists and no violation of [H&N codes] can occur, or curtail the activity.."

Okay, fine. We can pick this apart all day long, focusing on the minutia of the language, but doing that misses a much larger question: why are the rules made only for Sano and Doho and nowhere else in the state park system (with the exception of Crystal Cove's special use area)? If state parks (SP) logic is based on H&N's rules for "protecting bathers from harm" why does the rule not apply straight across the board everywhere? Why single out Sano and Doho?

The letter also states that they asked questions of Cal Boating and the US Coast Guard when making the posted order. All of their decisions are based on Cal boating's H&N code, and they are completely silent on the CG. Why? Hasn't CG denied that when SUP's are in the surf zone they are no longer vessels? We need to find this out for sure, and find out why SP defers to Cal boating's codes, when federal codes might say something completely different.

Furthermore,  if we are to talk about  the logic of "protecting bathers from harm" then that opens a whole other can of forms. This argument is based on the speed that a SUP supposedly travels when it is  taking off on a wave. Well, five years ago when all SUP surfing boards were huge and really heavy, this might have been true.  But what about 10 or 12 foot longboards in the same vacinity as short boards? Does not a longboard pose the same threat to a short board in this instance? And based on this logic, why not "protect" certain "bathers" from other "bathers" based on their equipment?

And what about now,  when SUS boards are much shorter, less heavy than most of those long boards  out at Sano and Doho, and maybe not traveling at a speed of 12 to 17 mph, like the long boards? this particular argument is based on an "assumption" about SUS boards  that is clearly outdated.

These are the biggest issues I see so far. The net effect of the restrictions is limiting access  to state beaches for certain populations. This is potentially in violation of the mandate of the California coastal commission whose job it is to ensure equal access. I believe this needs to be tested.
 
Dina Whitaker
Living the dream in San Clemente!
Dogpatch (Sano) local
7'4" Simm style by Tom Whitaker

PonoBill

  • Cortez Bank Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 25864
    • View Profile
Re: State Parks' Reasoning for the SUS restrictions at Sano and Doho
« Reply #6 on: September 19, 2014, 06:41:04 AM »
When you are undertaking an effort like this you need to understand the aim and intent of the other parties. Don't be mislead by the letter or the regulations. You won't win anything arguing about that.

The reason they didn't cite the Coast Guard is because the KNOW the coast Guard clarified their statements. They used it as an excuse previously. Cal Boating followed the Coast Guard in calling SUP's vessels, but hasn't followed the Coast Guard in clarifying so they are still useful as an excuse.

If you start chasing around in that mire the effort goes down the rathole. You don't want the regulation clarified and expanded, you want it rescinded. You have to tread carefully here.
Foote 10'4X34", SIC 17.5 V1 hollow and an EPS one in Hood River. Foote 9'0" x 31", L41 8'8", 18' Speedboard, etc. etc.

SUP surf chick

  • Malibu Status
  • **
  • Posts: 57
    • View Profile
Re: State Parks' Reasoning for the SUS restrictions at Sano and Doho
« Reply #7 on: September 19, 2014, 06:54:40 AM »
The Coast Guard has in no uncertain terms stated that SUP boards  when they are in the surf zone are NOT considered vessels. See attached document.

Another question that arises is  why would state parks privilege Cal Boating's H&N codes over federal codes?
Dina Whitaker
Living the dream in San Clemente!
Dogpatch (Sano) local
7'4" Simm style by Tom Whitaker

SUP surf chick

  • Malibu Status
  • **
  • Posts: 57
    • View Profile
Re: State Parks' Reasoning for the SUS restrictions at Sano and Doho
« Reply #8 on: September 19, 2014, 06:57:42 AM »

If you start chasing around in that mire the effort goes down the rathole. You don't want the regulation clarified and expanded, you want it rescinded. You have to tread carefully here.

It needed to be clarified first, though, so you can understand where they're coming from. THEN you can construct a counter-argument.
Dina Whitaker
Living the dream in San Clemente!
Dogpatch (Sano) local
7'4" Simm style by Tom Whitaker

Califoilia

  • Axis Demo Rep
  • Teahupoo Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 1510
  • San Clemente
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: State Parks' Reasoning for the SUS restrictions at Sano and Doho
« Reply #9 on: September 19, 2014, 07:04:22 AM »
As for the 100/200 rule: remember, in the letter they (SP) state that they believe that all beaches are "frequented by bathers."  If they were following the letter of the law, they would have to ban SUPs from every state beach. Instead, they invoke the "spirit of the law" and thusnot "contact sup operators who may be riding waves in excess of 5 mph within 200 feet of the beach that is normally frequented by bathers,, as no hazard currently exists. This will not apply to those exclusion areas specified in  posted order...... once bathers arrive, it becomes the responsibility of the setup operator to move to a different area where no hazard exists and no violation of [H&N codes] can occur, or curtail the activity.."
I'm not speaking when there are no bathers, but rather ALL the time!

Once we're 201 feet from shore we are now in compliance with the H&N 655.2(a)(2)(A), as to when we can "operate" our boards at speeds greater than 5 mph. 

Once we're in compliance with the distance from the "beach that is normally frequented by bathers" code, as long as we stay 100 feet from any bathers who might be there, there is no law, code, ordinance, rule, or regulations from which they can cite us for....other than their made-up "Special Order" nonsense.

Okay, fine. We can pick this apart all day long, focusing on the minutia of the language, but doing that misses a much larger question: why are the rules made only for Sano and Doho and nowhere else in the state park system (with the exception of Crystal Cove's special use area)? If state parks (SP) logic is based on H&N's rules for "protecting bathers from harm" why does the rule not apply straight across the board everywhere? Why single out Sano and Doho?
Be careful, as that is a VERY slippery slope.

The very last thing we want to do is have ALL state parks to begin enforcing the same code(s) that the Orange Coast District Superintendent is interpreting them to mean.

The letter also states that they asked questions of Cal Boating and the US Coast Guard when making the posted order. All of their decisions are based on Cal boating's H&N code, and they are completely silent on the CG. Why? Hasn't CG denied that when SUP's are in the surf zone they are no longer vessels? We need to find this out for sure, and find out why SP defers to Cal boating's codes, when federal codes might say something completely different.
That too would be a tough row to hoe, as the 10th Amendment gives states the right to enact laws outside of the scope of federal law, as long as they're within the boundaries of the Constitution.
Quote
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
So the State can create laws that might vary from other coastal States, and why the cities (San Clemente) and counties can have their separate/different rules, laws, codes, and regulations for beaches under their control, and not by the State.

Furthermore,  if we are to talk about  the logic of "protecting bathers from harm" then that opens a whole other can of forms. This argument is based on the speed that a SUP supposedly travels when it is  taking off on a wave. Well, five years ago when all SUP surfing boards were huge and really heavy, this might have been true.  But what about 10 or 12 foot longboards in the same vacinity as short boards? Does not a longboard pose the same threat to a short board in this instance? And based on this logic, why not "protect" certain "bathers" from other "bathers" based on their equipment?
No, it's based on the fact that we have a paddle in our hands, that puts us in the same category as those that do also, and not those who do not.

And what about now,  when SUS boards are much shorter, less heavy than most of those long boards  out at Sano and Doho, and maybe not traveling at a speed of 12 to 17 mph, like the long boards? this particular argument is based on an "assumption" about SUS boards  that is clearly outdated.
I think you'll get the argument that the new boards are actually faster, not slower than their predecessors.

These are the biggest issues I see so far. The net effect of the restrictions is limiting access  to state beaches for certain populations. This is potentially in violation of the mandate of the California coastal commission whose job it is to ensure equal access. I believe this needs to be tested.
Yes, I agree with you 100% on this, and why I believe that if we show that we are actually in compliance with H&N 655.2 once we're 201 feet from the shore, and we stay 100 feet from said "bathers"/surfers, the Parks dept. has no leg to stand on from keeping us from enjoying the two beaches they now have placed restrictions on.
« Last Edit: September 19, 2014, 07:07:36 AM by SanoSup »
Me: 6'1"/185...(2) 5'1" Kings Foil/Wing Boards...7'10 Kings DW Board...9'6" Bob Pearson "Laird Noserider"...14' Lahui Kai "Manta"...8'0" WaveStorm if/when the proning urges still hit.

1tuberider

  • Teahupoo Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 1005
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: State Parks' Reasoning for the SUS restrictions at Sano and Doho
« Reply #10 on: September 19, 2014, 07:31:55 AM »
I think tall dude should forward his clip of the long boarder running him over to the parks managers with a threat of a lawsuit for enabling the attitude of assault. The parks rules are creating dangerous conditions with the segregation of surfers and over zealous surfers thinking they have the right to enforce instead of calling authorities. I also think tall dude should show the clip to the da and see if an assault issue exists to give the clip more merit in front of parks.

I find it interesting that the rules apply to mechanical motion and not paddles in the 100 or 200 foot zones. Also note that the 5mph limit applies. These rules do not apply to us as we are ruled to be not a vessel when in a surf zone and the only time we exceed the speed limit is when we are riding a wave. According to the rules the parks use to exclude it could be argued that sup should not be subject to the rules as we do not have a motor, do not speed and are not considered boats buy coast guard regs.

I think we are back to managers coming from a surfing background abusing their authority. I am sure glad I live in the free California.


supsurf-tw

  • Teahupoo Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 1062
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: State Parks' Reasoning for the SUS restrictions at Sano and Doho
« Reply #11 on: September 19, 2014, 07:43:41 AM »
]Yes, I agree with you 100% on this, and why I believe that if we show that we are actually in compliance with H&N 655.2 once we're 201 feet from the shore, and we stay 100 feet from said "bathers"/surfers, the Parks dept. has no leg to stand on from keeping us from enjoying the two beaches they now have placed restrictions on.

Now we need to test this at Old Mans and Dogpatch surf zone and also Church, Middles and the other breaks. This looks like a step in the right direction as far as having a clear cut definition. Just memorize the HNN code 655.2 that specifies the 100 and 200 ft law if a LG calls you out. This would be the beginning of getting things moving in the right direction
Boards:

 
8-10 x 31 Egg
8-11 X 32 Double wing Fangtail Tom Whitaker
8-6 X 30 1\2  Inbetweener Tom Whitaker
8-4 x 30 Hyper quad Tom Whitaker (wife's now)
8-4 X 31 1\4.  Round (wide) Diamond Tail Quad Tom Whitaker
 9-4 X 30 1\2. Swallow Stinger Quad Tom Whitaker (ex wifes now)
10-0 Brusurf for teach

SUP surf chick

  • Malibu Status
  • **
  • Posts: 57
    • View Profile
Re: State Parks' Reasoning for the SUS restrictions at Sano and Doho
« Reply #12 on: September 19, 2014, 07:56:42 AM »
The very last thing we want to do is have ALL state parks to begin enforcing the same code(s) that the Orange Coast District Superintendent is interpreting them to mean.

True. However, I think that would create even more problems for them, especially if we start talking about restricting access, which creates problems for them with coastal commission.
Dina Whitaker
Living the dream in San Clemente!
Dogpatch (Sano) local
7'4" Simm style by Tom Whitaker

JayInSoCal

  • Sunset Status
  • ****
  • Posts: 328
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: State Parks' Reasoning for the SUS restrictions at Sano and Doho
« Reply #13 on: September 19, 2014, 08:26:19 AM »
The SP can enforce any rule in addition to federal and CG regulations as they see fit for the safety of visitors.  It seems that without getting the law changed, we could end up banned everywhere.   Please tread lightly on this issue. Honestly after reading that, it sounds like the SP have been gracious in providing designated SUS areas.  I'm not sure we have the numbers to change the law.  Put to a vote, surfers would show up in mass to ban hated SUP from line ups.  While designated areas suck, being banned outright would be much worse. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
8'4" L41 SS3
9'2" Riviera Turbo Nugg
9'6" Wavestorm
10' Infinity Carver
14' Infinity Whiplash

Califoilia

  • Axis Demo Rep
  • Teahupoo Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 1510
  • San Clemente
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: State Parks' Reasoning for the SUS restrictions at Sano and Doho
« Reply #14 on: September 19, 2014, 08:41:52 AM »
OK, while I'm with you guys (and gal :) ) on all of this, I'd like to at least bring up this reoccurring nightmare that I see happening if things go as we hope and/or plan.

The other day while taking a break, I got to watch this plastic fantastic type of steerable rudder "wave ski" of a deal, completely make a mess of the goings-ons in the area between the wash rack and "Pink Pole" on a pretty decent sized day (Wednesday).

Now this guy (and his buddy on a matching ski) I see regularly down at DP, and every time they paddle out, I shudder at the fact that we are now going to have to deal with these two guys paddling all over, around, and on top of the lineup.

Yes, tried talking with them about some etiquette, as have others out there, but these two guys just don't seem to get it, don't care, or just don't give damn, as I think they realize that they're always going to come out on top in a game of "bumper boards"....and I'm just not going to play the "drowning game" with them, as we're all just too old for that kind of nonsense.

Anywhose....my nightmare is that if we do get the state to allow us up in all of the lineups, what's to prevent these yahoos from heading up there also, as well as all of the middle-aged, weekend warrior newbs who've never been on a surfboard before (and are showing up in ever increasing numbers at DP), who suddenly feel the urge to attempt to channel their best Kelly Slater over at Lowers, on the new 12' "SUP wave blaster" that they just scored at Sports Chalet....or Costco while shopping for toilet paper?

While I'd like to think that only experienced and knowledgeable SUSers on "surf" oriented boards would venture into the now restricted turf/surf once it's opened up, "the sitting at the beach and observing" part of me knows that we're gonna get a whole bunch of inexperienced knuckleheads paddling out into the middle of "Four Doors", only to create havoc and chaos....even more so than is already there during busy summers, and weekends.

I don't know the answer, or if there even needs to be one, as I was more or less just thinking out loud as to some possible concerns of the "be careful what you wish for" nature.

Just saying.....
« Last Edit: September 19, 2014, 08:46:20 AM by SanoSup »
Me: 6'1"/185...(2) 5'1" Kings Foil/Wing Boards...7'10 Kings DW Board...9'6" Bob Pearson "Laird Noserider"...14' Lahui Kai "Manta"...8'0" WaveStorm if/when the proning urges still hit.

 


SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2024, SimplePortal