Hmm.... I think we can assume Ms McVey will not be going away. I think next time we are in the pond there will be another barrage of negative media. So if I can assume that our aim is to ensure we have access to the flat water in the estuary, I think I will now go and ponder. Better to lose a battle than the war and all that sort of thing - Perhaps coming up with a strategy for playing a successful long game to ensure we dont lose access to the flat water in the estuary nor suffer the wrath of the well intentioned ill-informed.
Now is chocolate or icecream the best brain food....

elmo said..
Personally, get the ruling for the local authorities, then let it fade into obscurity....

I feel that the only way it will fade into obscurity is if we don't sail in there. I do not think Ms McVey will cease taking photos if people sail in there again.So certainly whilst no one is sailing in there I feel that doing very little is the best option, BUT what are we going to do when the next strong Westerly arrives in town, because I am pretty sure I know where the cameras will be again?
Is our strategy to say ; ok we stay out of Creery in order to not feed the fire and get ourselves banned from other areas?
This is what I am pondering tonight...

Hat's off to you all for trying to sort it out. I can't comment but will follow with interest. My only point will be to say there has been a similar thing at the Gold Coast with losing windsurfing areas. When meetings were held with council they will fall back to a ruling that ALL WATER CRAFT must adhere to the signposted speed limit. Not sure if you have the same rules as QLD but if push comes to shove we have to obey posted speeds like everyone else (motorized craft). Be careful how your proceed.

Have a read through here and hope something may help: www.seabreeze.com.au/forums/Windsurfing/Queensland/Last-Chance-to-Save-ALL-Sailing-Spots-in-Southport/
Cheers
Marty

As Joanne McVey is the main agitator in this issue, I think it would be best to engage in some dialogue with her, and see if we can defuse the situation. We already have the council onside, and Mr Lester, who was very upset initially has agreed on a compromise. Perhaps if someone spoke to Joanne now that things have settled down a bit, she may get a better perspective on the issue. I am happy to make contact with her if you think it is a good idea. Most of the guys who were there on the day are quite upset about the issue and are probably not the best ones to speak to her. I wasn't there, and have never sailed there, so that kind of makes me a neutral party?

No red thumbs Ben you've got green, and Dot agrees with you.
But you haven't got the addiction of sailing in there, believe me it's quite strong.

I have had time to ponder this a bit. I speak for me only.My concerns are that this is not going to die quietly, it may fester for a while and but blow up everytime we are on the pond. I do not believe Ms McVey will stop just because she does not have the legal system willing to prosecute her beliefs at this point in time. I suspect that she will continue to agitate until a politician becomes involved and then it will be a case of on whose side are ther votes to be won. If this should happen, I think our case for sailing in the pond would not be enough to overwhelm the emotion that goes with headlines of hoons running down swans.( and I want to make it perfectly clear I am not talking about Adam Goodes here:-)

At this point our worse case scenario is a review of the speed limits and whether they should extend to all craft as per Marty's post in QLD. In this litigious and politically correct world I do not think that it would be such a big leap for a bureaucrat to decide that windsurfers travelling at 'ridiculous speeds' near other users is inherently unsafe and would leave the governing body of that waterway open to litigation should someone get injured. Remember commonsense is not often in the driving seat in these situations;For example the people diving into shallow water at the beach breaking their necks and suing the council.

I also have a self interest in this that maybe a little stronger than most. It is my neighbourhood, it is my local spot next door to the pond. I do not want to go for a sail and be subject to emotionally charged encounters with those who believe they are championing the most righteous cause. I am very poor at confrontation and even struggle with being door knocked by the JW's!

So there is a very big part of me that agrees with Bender and Elmo. Perhaps we just walk away from the pond and let sleeping dogs lie. And hopefully the birdwatchers then do not feel obliged to protect every swan that lands on the estuary. But what if they do? What is our plan if they look at the disruption we cause at Fangy's,Liptons or Alphaland. We just assume from personal experience that there isnt any, but a well timed photo through a telephoto lens could change that perception in a heartbeat.

What I would like to see is an agreed strategy on use of the pond. The samphire and the Fairy Terns are issues that we have discussed and happily resolved. Why can't the rest be resolved? I have no evidence in front of me so far that suggests that there is any other threat to the wildlife. If I could be shown any scientific evidence that the swans are suffering from having to move upwind of us for a few hours a few times a year then I would happily change my behaviour. This goes for any part of that ecosystem.

Although I applaud Windxtasy in her offer, I wonder whether we will get anything other than emotive rhetoric from Ms McVey. But I do believe that discussions with someone in authority in the bird watching community and a scientifically informed neutral third party( Government Department?) could resolve this issue to the satisfaction of both sides. Our actions so far would indicate we are far from abominations and I feel we would respect the call of the umpire in this regard should it not fall in our favour. I do not believe, as yet anyway, that the two sides cannot co-exist. There are innumerable examples of man and nature co existing happily and it should not be assumed that the two are mutually exclusive in this case on the basis of some misleading photographs.

I would like to say thank you to Decrepit for driving this process in a constructive fashion. So far his efforts with officialdom and members of the bird watching community have been very effective. It's all very well for me to sit here saying that I would like to see more discussions requiring more of his organisation and time, but then not actually doing much about it other than turning up for the coffee and cake at the meetings.

So to wrap up this self indulgence, I have tried to look at this issue without the immense amount of negative emotion that Ms McVey generated. If we had been approached in a civil manner by, say CALM, what would our response had been? I think that the efforts by everyone in our community to try to stay approachable, open minded and constructive is worthy of praise. So well done peeps!

cheers
Ross

regarding Ms McVey - you are all approaching this from a very male point of view. Understandably.
Women like to deal with problems by talking about them. They don't necessarily want solutions, they want an opportunity to vent their feelings.
I dislike confrontation but I think our best chance of avoiding confrontation with this lady and her mates (other than by staying out of the pond) in the future is by talking to her and making her aware they we do care about the birds and we are happy to accept advice on minimising our effect on them.
I am happy to initiate a discussion with her. If she gets unreasonable I will back off, but you don't know if you don't try, do you?

re Bender's post - in the discussion with council yesterday there are a number of our favourite spots around the estuary which bird lovers have proposed as exclusion zones for everybody. If we allow ourselves to be excluded from the pond we may be opening the door for further exclusion zones. I have never sailed in the pond but I would like the right to do so if I want, as long as I can do that without endangering the wildlife.

Possibly worthwhile having a chat with Mr PD of the Swan River Mob to get his perspective as a member of CALM

Good point Anita, OK do your best, good luck.

Well put Hardie!

fangman said..
Nice summary there Hardy. I have one small point though and I am sure the others will correct me if I have got this wrong; but at the meeting the Council Environmental Officer asked that we stay away from the banks of the creek - the muddy sides as well as the samphire as this is where the birds feed. He suggested walking in across a sand track that Rod had identified would be preferable. Floating back out through the creek at the end of a session without touching the sides would be fine. I am happy to be corrected if I got this bit wrong Decrep and Windxstasy?

Thanx fangy, have just edited my post with your info.

Have been doing some scientific research and human threats to wildlife in the literature are reported as follows:

Habitat Destruction/
Hunting & Harvesting/
Introduced species /
Accidental Harms such as oil spills/
Disease/
Habitat change in wetlands such as drainage /
logging harvesting of plants /
changes to river flow and canalisation /
reservoir dam creation /
habitat change caused by erosion or salination of land due to deforestation/
pollution /
farming practices /
residential developments /
mining /
urbanisation /

Of these the only one we are at potential risk of is Habitat Destruction, and we can modify our behaviour so that this doesn't occur. To this moment (and I'll keep researching) Human activities such as water sports near birds are not documented as threatening to wildlife.

I am really impressed by the way you are addressing this issue. By the end of the process you will have an environmental impact statement for windsurfing in the pond

decrepit said..
Haven't had a reply to the telephone message I left at DPAW, so I've emailed them with a google earth view of both our track alternatives, and asked for their comments.

Hardie, that was one of Craig's concerns for the Swans, if we come at them slowly they will just move out of our way and settle somewhere else. but if we come at them at speed, and they have difficulty getting out of our way, they could panic, and that could scare them out of the pond for generations.

Swans are a very long way from an endangered species! Apart from the fact they are natives, they are more like Rabbits! Everywhere in large numbers.

Possible endangered species are more likely to be migratory waders. Probably small and far less obvious.

sailquik said..
>>>

Swans are a very long way from an endangered species! Apart from the fact they are natives, they are more like Rabbits! Everywhere in large numbers.

Possible endangered species are more likely to be migratory waders. Probably small and far less obvious.

Very true Andrew, but does that mean they don't deserve to have a feeding place on a stormy day.
Craig says because we sail there in big storm surge conditions the smaller waders can't reach the bottom, it's only the longer necked swans that can still feed in there.

The migratory birds are under a lot of pressure, the canal developments have robbed them of lots of habitat, erosion due to increased human use of the foreshore is also eating away at there feeding areas in shallow muddy bottoms.
But they don't get here until the storms have are just about finished, we are less likely to impact on them than we are the locals.