Artificial Reefs

[2nd Reef]

I read through all 10 pages of feedback you lot gave old NC when he solicited questions for the Big Cheese Talk Fest. The thing that interested me most is the unquestioned support for artificial reefs (I know NC wasn't expecting detailed questions in that thread, much of what I'm about to say comes from previous experiences).

As a life-long surfer I'm used to surfers thinking that we have exclusive use of parts of the coast. We're territorial bastards we are. But while localism at a break is tolerable why should we lobby to dictate what surfcraft can and can't use the coast?

That is the philosophical priniciple behind my opposition. The environmental opposition is that we always f*ck things up. Admittedly, we are getting better but it's more from the acknowledgement that if we alter the natural environment in one place there will be subsequent changes in other places. It doesn't matter where it is built there will be flow-on effects. Therefore, before any reef is built all the effects should be assessed over a long period of time. Is the benefit of more waves for surfers of greater value to the community than any of the negative effects? It should also be noted here that environmental effects can have negative social and economic effects on communities.

Another quick point: I've heard it said that the environment can be improved by building artificial reefs for surfers. Understand that any time we change the environment we are degrading it not improving it.

Along with the environmental trade-off could also come political trade-offs. If we want to alter the coastline to suit our needs what right do we have to protest against other coastal users altering it to their needs? Witness the breakwater at Bastion Point in Eastern Vicco or the proposed mariner that will swallow Red Sands and The Shallows. It's extremely arrogant to deny the fisho's and boat owners their rights to coastal infrastructure after we have demanded ours.

On this point I think we should take the moral high-ground so we have some leverage against coastal development that may threaten our waves. Despite my objection I think artificial reefs will be built in the future, however we should be aware of the responsibilities and hidden consequences of building them.

[munch]

It's extremely arrogant to deny the fisho's and boat owners their rights to coastal infrastructure after we have demanded ours.

There's a whole bunch of places that I'd I reckon would be tops if we ripped down the breakwalls erected for fisho's/boat access, with yamba and moruya being on the top of the list the later would be another pambula, not that that works any more, given that it doesn't get the floods needed for sand build up any more due to damming etc .... from US

So "their rights" get twiddled down to comeuppance in my book

[oldman]

As a life-long surfer I'm used to surfers thinking that we have exclusive use of parts of the coast. We're territorial bastards we are. But while localism at a break is tolerable why should we lobby to dictate what surfcraft can and can't use the coast?

Not sure who was advocating that 2nd, but any suggestions that a reef could be built and only certain types of surfcraft could use it is a fantasy. It won't happen. As for being territorial, it is true, and the surf zone is for the exclusive use of those who enter it. Most humans don't enter the surf zone past a very shallow sand bank, so we probably do have exclusive use of the coastline in that respect.

The environmental opposition is that we always f*ck things up. Admittedly, we are getting better but it's more from the acknowledgement that if we alter the natural environment in one place there will be subsequent changes in other places. It doesn't matter where it is built there will be flow-on effects.

True enough 2R, but there would be many areas where the flow on could largely be limited to the local. For example, an artificial reef somewhere out in the middle of Maroubra would be extremely unlikely to have any flow on effects outside of the coastline between South and North Maroubra, so it could be manageable.

Is the benefit of more waves for surfers of greater value to the community than any of the negative effects? It should also be noted here that environmental effects can have negative social and economic effects on communities.

Not more waves 2R, just more areas for waves to break. Probably the fishos wouldn't mind it as well as any artificial reef provides opportunities for fish species to gather. Having an artifical reef out further than any natural area where waves break may actually reduce the erosion of the large swells. The effects could be positive.

Understand that any time we change the environment we are degrading it not improving it.

Have another read of that statement. It is the philosophical position of the deep green, not a statement of fact. The underlying assumption is that human beings stand outside the natural system. People who hold this opinion must mourn over the destruction of smallpox, or mankinds development of antibiotics, or agriculture. The definition of 'degrade' is critical here, and the statement doesn't hold up under the most benign scrutiny.

If we want to alter the coastline to suit our needs what right do we have to protest against other coastal users altering it to their needs? It's extremely arrogant to deny the fisho's and boat owners their rights to coastal infrastructure after we have demanded ours.

And that would make us hypocrites.

I'm not big on the artificial reefs idea myself. I don't think they will happen on any sort of scale 'just for surfers'.

Just some random thoughts, no real narrative there.

[Lucky Al]

artificial reefs are a stupid, obscene idea. talk about them embarrasses the hell out of me - i'd rather my girl catch me looking at slaughterhouse porn on the internet than designing artificial reefs.

[Nick Carroll]

I will be awfully cheeky here and offer up an argument that undermines the apparent rationale behind artificial surf spot construction -- ie, that it'll ease crowds.

Let's face it, that's what everyone thinks when they suggest 'em, there's no moral agenda, it's just simply, yay, more good waves, so less people.

ha ha ha ha ha! fat chance buckos.

There are no successful purpose-built artificial surfing reefs anywhere, they're all crap. So to examine what happens when a new good wave appears out of the near blue, we must turn to the few grand examples of accidental artificial surf spot construction.

Prime among these is the accursed Superbank.

Since its sand-pumpy creation, the Bank has cranked out some incredible gold. It has also become by FAR the most crowded surf spot IN THE WORLD. The Superbank has redefined the very idea of Australia surf spot crowding. It is crowded beyond previous comprehension. It has generated spillover crowds at surrounding points and beachies, some of which might rarely have seen more than one or two riders and now feature 20 or more on 2-foot mornings (been to Letitia Spit lately? South Straddie?) It sells real estate and Japanese and Brazilian holidays for god's sake.

Successful artificial surf zones could be created for sure, if the self-elected "expert" creators weren't more interested in generating bs publicity to support their real agendas. They would also be the biggest goddam crowd magnets and surf population encouragers imaginable. I mean, think about it from your own POVs for a second: if some new good wave sprang up not far from home, wouldn't YOU want to ride it as soon as possible? Of course ya would!

It'd be like when Bungan gets a sick rip bowl bank -- the first day or so there's 5 guys on it, by day three there's 40.

Set 'em up by all means! But forget the empty-wave motive.

ps I heartily disagree with you munchy in the case of the Clarence rivermouth, seems to me the NSW river groynes have unwittingly provided an incredible quantity of classic beachbreak surf for rural Aussie east coast surfers over the past 40-plus years and while a couple of 'em have had less than desirable effects on nearby natural surf zones, the majority are things to be thankful for. Including that one.

[Nick Carroll]

slaughterhouse porn on the internet

holy f**k Al let the cat out on that one didn't ya

[Lucky Al]

but that's not my bag nick, i just mentioned it for effect. as a lifelong vegetarian i much prefer looking at naked ladies harvesting watermelons or threshing grain by hand to seeing them stunning cows or gutting sheep.

[munch]

ps I heartily disagree with you munchy in the case of the Clarence rivermouth, seems to me the NSW river groynes have unwittingly provided an incredible quantity of classic beachbreak surf for rural Aussie east coast surfers over the past 40-plus years and while a couple of 'em have had less than desirable effects on nearby natural surf zones, the majority are things to be thankful for. Including that one.

Well I'll agree to disagree with ya but it's a toothless argument cause we'll never know cause there ain't anything like it on the east coast that hasn't been interfered with break walls&/dredging :?

And the best surfs I've had on this coast have been at river mouths that haven't been fucked with. But on the other hand the most consistent spots on this coast are the ones that have :?

[pinhead]

If you've used a skatebowl, been skiing, kicked a footy on an oval, been to the races or taken a sport fishing boat from a port – then you’re altering the environment for recreational purposes.

Do surfing reefs work? Well I think only three have been built to date so we are looking at the early stages of the technology.

Are we losing the moral high ground when opposing coastal development that damages surfing ammentity – yes but if reef tech gets better, groyne and break waters could be designed to replace waves that are lost. This is an important one – because wave power is just around the corner and vast streches of coast may be used to generate power. Now you might be able to beat recreational boaties on the odd breakwater, but you’re not going to be able to prevent the construction of renewable energy facilities on environmental grounds. However if reefs can be made to work then surfers could benefit from the new use for waves, rather than being a tiny special interest group trying to stop it.

[mozzquito]

I would hazzard a guess that you would not be able to build artificial reefs quick enough to cope with the new surfers hitting the water every year let alone thin the already crowded breaks.

there is a philosophy that says the more you provide the more shall use - classic example is Roads - building more does not reduce traffic it simply increases the use and number of cars!

given the (I would imagine) direct relationship between crowds and population density in the vicinity and a similar relationship between population density and nearby infrastructure - how about erecting bloody great lights so the masses can shift surf?

[Surfin Turf]

I think you're onto something mozzy .... if you build it they will come .... in droves .... I wouldn't bother surfing an artificial reef because everyone else will make it their new favourite break and then finally I might get some peace ...

I can't see it ever happening anyway, despite all the discussion etc our useless councils etc. fart around for eon's and bitch and complain and go over budget putting up a simple skatey ramp or similar ... how the hell are they ever gonna cope with building an artificial reef .... unless they fence it off and put in a turnstyle and charge by the hour ....

[Shaunm]

I thought Cable Station was a disaster, a very expensive one

[2nd Reef]

Geez you're a contrary bugger sometimes Oldman!

As a life-long surfer I'm used to surfers thinking that we have exclusive use of parts of the coast. We're territorial bastards we are. But while localism at a break is tolerable why should we lobby to dictate what surfcraft can and can't use the coast?

Not sure who was advocating that 2nd, but any suggestions that a reef could be built and only certain types of surfcraft could use it is a fantasy. It won't happen.

I wasn't suggesting that some surfcrafts would be allowed to use an artificial reef and some not. I shouldn't have used the word surfcraft but, instead 'ocean user'. I was attempting to make the point that surfers think they have the mortgage on coastal use. This is often displayed when surfers say "we should put an artificial reef at our local beach" without ever entertaining the thought that many non-surfers quite like not having an artificial reef there. The similar sentiment is displayed by boat users that want to put marinas or breakwaters in without considering the effect on surfers.

Is the benefit of more waves for surfers of greater value to the community than any of the negative effects? It should also be noted here that environmental effects can have negative social and economic effects on communities.

Not more waves 2R, just more areas for waves to break.

Wouldn't more areas for waves to break equal more waves?

Understand that any time we change the environment we are degrading it not improving it.

Have another read of that statement. It is the philosophical position of the deep green, not a statement of fact. The underlying assumption is that human beings stand outside the natural system. People who hold this opinion must mourn over the destruction of smallpox, or mankinds development of antibiotics, or agriculture. The definition of 'degrade' is critical here, and the statement doesn't hold up under the most benign scrutiny.

I'll agree it doesn't. But I wrote this very quickly and it makes more sense if read with the preceeding sentence that you didn't quote. The point being that surfers only see the worth of a coastline if it has a good wave on it. I have heard, and indeed it was written in NC's thread, that a coastal environment can be improved by putting in an artificial reef!

Is there such a word as surfocentric? If there isn't there is now.


Anyway, keep picking holes. Keeps me on my toes.

[bc]

I'd love to take that big old bulldozer on Kuta beach out and have some fun at dead low tide.
There's about 6 miles of potential banks to be made from closeouts there.

[mustkillmulloway]

when 2nd reef/oldman/nick nack argue my head hurts

wat ...exactly was wrong with greeno's idea of sewing hessian bags together , anchoring too the sea bed ..inflating with a air blower (see chamberlass latest thread 4 more detail)

simply unplug when crowd arrives

too simply maybe :?

[mad]

NC wrote

ps I heartily disagree with you munchy in the case of the Clarence rivermouth, seems to me the NSW river groynes have unwittingly provided an incredible quantity of classic beachbreak surf for rural Aussie east coast surfers over the past 40-plus years

Hey I've got a good idea, why not put it in a DVD and send it out nationally in a surf mag. Make sure you promote the name and quality.

And repeat the effort twice.

[oldman]

when 2nd reef/oldman/nick nack argue my head hurts

Sorry about that fongers. Wasn't even arguing, just throwing out a few random thoughts.

[oldman]

Geez you're a contrary bugger sometimes Oldman!

I wasn't suggesting that some surfcrafts would be allowed to use an artificial reef and some not. I shouldn't have used the word surfcraft but, instead 'ocean user'. I was attempting to make the point that surfers think they have the mortgage on coastal use. This is often displayed when surfers say "we should put an artificial reef at our local beach" without ever entertaining the thought that many non-surfers quite like not having an artificial reef there. The similar sentiment is displayed by boat users that want to put marinas or breakwaters in without considering the effect on surfers.

Nah, not contrary, again, just throwing a few thoughts out there.

Here is a contrary thought though. Don't even know how wedded I am to it, just putting it out there.

I think that people who have nothing to do with the ocean other than 'just looking at it' have no say whatsoever about whether an artificial reef should be made or not.

If you have a point of view about the environmental effects, or how it will affect sailors or boaties or other water users, then I would say that you have a right to have your say. If you never go to the beach, or all you ever do is watch, then I'm not sure you would have much right to have an opinion even.

So, yes, surfocentric we are, but I think it is with some justification. If some real estate developer didn't want it because he thought his land would be more valuable watching waves hit a beach rather than an artificial reef a couple of hundred metres out to sea, I would say, "sod off, who asked you dickhead."

But then again, I would probably want to say that to a real estate developer regardless of the topic.

Is there a greater scourge in society today than real estate developers?

Discuss