Tough Justice, Mexican Style

Stu Nettle
Surfpolitik

Assuming moral superiority over people from poorer countries is one of the luxuries of living in the first world. Corrupt, feckless and lazy are some of the handy Third World stereotypes we can call upon when discussing the cause of economic disparity. It's quite simple really, this business of global economics.

But being unorganised, unethical and selfish aren't charges that I'm ready to throw their way. Not following the news that a small community in Mexico – surfers, no less – have negotiated an arrangement that no group of surfers in the developed world have yet managed to do, despite many wishing they could.

Last week an email was sent around the US surf media stating that no foreign photographers are allowed to shoot anywhere in the Salina Cruz region of Mexico for the next two years. Salina Cruz is home to Barra de la Cruz – where Rip Curl held the 2006 Search - and many other quality righthand pointbreaks.

According to Kimball Taylor, interviewed on Down The Line Radio in California, the photographic embargo is in place following a "blowout article" in a recent issue of Surfing Magazine. The article, according to Taylor, "named names" and "gave everything but directions to the spots" in the Salina Cruz region.

In short, it was another case of magazine exposure – the final in a series of indiscretions - and the Salina Cruz locals responded by formulating a plan to save their spots from further plunder. They acted collectively and they acted decisively, and even the people who had the most to gain from hosting foreign photographers - surf camp owners and tourist operators – were united in solidarity.

The email stated that any foreign photographer seen working in the region, irrespective of his or her company or publication, would be reported to immigration. Taking photographs for money is considered work and requires an appropriate visa, one that surf photographers rarely bother with due to hassle and cost.

Now, don't tell me that there aren't some folk around Australia that wouldn't do exactly the same thing and banish all visiting photographers if they could. Of course, the Eyre Peninsula comes immediately to mind. It's a place that has openly embraced its reputation as a hostile destination yet resistance, when it arrives, is usually in the form of a limp carpark threat, an anonymous windscreen waxing, or a random flying fist.

Yet isolated acts of violence and harassment won't change the status quo - in fact they only make for exciting magazine copy. No, for that you need unity and fraternity. You need an organised response such as the one occurring in Mexico.

So what would it take for the locals of the Eyre Peninsula – or any sensitive region around Australia – to gather together and put a halt to outsiders exposing and profiting from their spots? So often we hear about surfers abusing the places they visit, so how should civilised, intelligent people of the Western world respond to repeated indiscretions? With violence or with strategic resistance?

Economically, I can't say whether the Mexican photo embargo is a good thing – how will it affect tourism, for instance? But on principle alone it is a supreme act, and I, from my distant and privileged position in the Developed World, raise a clenched fist for each and every one of the hombres in Salina Cruz.

Listen to the interview on Down The Line Radio (skip forward to 30 min mark) Read a copy of the email

Comments

the-yub's picture
the-yub's picture
the-yub commented Monday, 26 Sep 2011 at 11:37pm

Wouldn't work here as most of the photographers are Australian....

stunet's picture
stunet's picture
stunet commented Monday, 26 Sep 2011 at 11:50pm

It wouldn't have to be the same method of enforcement, Yub. Strategy involves thinking up appropriate responses...

roubydouby's picture
roubydouby's picture
roubydouby commented Tuesday, 27 Sep 2011 at 12:15am

Way to name the Eyre Peninsula, Nettle! You're a dead man!

Results may vary.

the-yub's picture
the-yub's picture
the-yub commented Tuesday, 27 Sep 2011 at 12:56am

Any kind of strategy would be prohibitive of Australians enjoying Australia. I just don't see how it can possibly work for Australian photographers unless violence & intimidation are used.

Not saying I disagree, just don't see how it could work.

gman's picture
gman's picture
gman commented Tuesday, 27 Sep 2011 at 1:06am

Hmmmm, would be a good restraint of trade case to run...

stunet's picture
stunet's picture
stunet commented Tuesday, 27 Sep 2011 at 1:17am

..."Way to name the Eyre Peninsula, Nettle! You're a dead man!"

Err...Nettle isn't my real name. You'll have to wax someone else's windscreen.

stunet's picture
stunet's picture
stunet commented Tuesday, 27 Sep 2011 at 1:19am

..."Hmmmm, would be a good restraint of trade case to run..."

Guess who's a lawyer? Legal intervention - a First World malaise.

gman's picture
gman's picture
gman commented Tuesday, 27 Sep 2011 at 1:41am

Stu - unfortunately the cold hard reality of the First World, whether we like it or not (for the record, I don't like it)

prawnhead's picture
prawnhead's picture
prawnhead commented Tuesday, 27 Sep 2011 at 1:47am

maybe they could throw in a "no mobile phones ban" for good measure..
No videos !No photos! unoffically exists in a number of places already ! and it fucken rocks!!

fishheadsushi's picture
fishheadsushi's picture
fishheadsushi commented Tuesday, 27 Sep 2011 at 5:08am

So if you pick up a Visa it's all good?

stunet's picture
stunet's picture
stunet commented Tuesday, 27 Sep 2011 at 5:15am

Dunno, Fishhead. It's not the sort of place you'd go to push a point.

stunet's picture
stunet's picture
stunet commented Tuesday, 27 Sep 2011 at 5:16am

STOP PRESS: An editor has been found decapitated in Mexico because of things they said on social media sites.

Gulp...

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/09/26/world/americas/mexico-editor-decapitated/

freeride76's picture
freeride76's picture
freeride76 commented Tuesday, 27 Sep 2011 at 5:30am

Talk about cold hard reality........

whaaaat's picture
whaaaat's picture
whaaaat commented Tuesday, 27 Sep 2011 at 12:23pm

Let's keep some perspective here, please.

Maria Macias was "hogtied and disemboweled and left dangling from a bridge in Nuevo Laredo. A bloodied man next to her was hanging by his hands.
Signs left near the bodies declared the pair, both apparently in their 20s, were killed for posting denouncements of drug cartel activities".

We're talking about locals and the Precious. Much heavier than lightweight stuff such as drug cartel wars....

whaaaat's picture
whaaaat's picture
whaaaat commented Tuesday, 27 Sep 2011 at 12:24pm

Oh, nearly forgot. Legal intervention is a First World 'malaise'?

Puhleese.

Betcha you'd be a front runner to my office if/when the anarchists ever got around to taking away yer property and personal rights.

Lawyers are people, too.

Many of us.

Some of us.

Mebbe a couple.

Okay,we're all sub-human. That's my final offer....

camboboog's picture
camboboog's picture
camboboog commented Tuesday, 27 Sep 2011 at 3:23pm

With surfing still in a relatilvely infintile stage, this is a pre-cursor to a more stringent management of surfing reserves. It is quite comical, the whole premise of surf control will come full circle eventually. In the early stages of surfing in Australia, there was an attempt to formalise the activity with surfboard registration. Admittedly, this was not to deter people from sensitive surf breaks, but more a westernised view of how to structure an activity, with accountability for peoples actions and to in part fund surf life savers. A similar eventuality is not too far off.

My prediction is that sometime in the not-so-near future, all surf locations will be controlled. Don't get me wrong, i'm not a strung-out hippie looking for a conspiracy theory. It is a plain fact of life, if there is social disturbance, tension or violence, then the government has an underlying commitment to defend our basic human right to be free of violent or intimidating acts. This is somewhat different to our third world counterparts, where the government has no direct responsibility for it's peoples wellbeing.

The major flaw with any community act is that without sound legislation, a 'lynch mob' mentality is sure to ensue. I do not believe that we have the ability to self-govern. The only outcome will be violence or intimidation.

It will enevitably become a greater issue. The crux will unfortunately be a death from a violent act of retribution. Sorry, but it will happen at some stage, it is coming and we can't stop it. It will just take that one person,that one act of unforgivable violence, for whatever reason, to tip the balance and make it a spotlight issue on the political stage.

I don't have the answer for control over surf reserves, but I believe that eventually the control will lie solely with our voted representatives. Until that time enjoy it. The responsibility lies with us. Only take surf photos for your family album, show them to your friends when they come over for a BBQ, share them with your kids when they grow up and tell them how uncrowded it used to be. Eventually it will all be over.

What they have done in mexico sounds nice in principal, but I can only see very bad consequences.

z-man's picture
z-man's picture
z-man commented Tuesday, 27 Sep 2011 at 5:18pm

Reminds me of one of my first trips thru Mex enroute to CR in '71.
Friends of Pat Tobin/Petacalco asked us not to photograph 12' a-frames. Later made friends with PT in Sta. Cruz, Mex.
Continued down the coast of Mex and stumbled on to/ surfed Salina Cruz, point breaks north. - absolutely no one around - moonscape.
Many visits during the 8 round trips to CR via panel van.
Unbelievably perfect/sometimes too strong, offshores that can blow you out to sea!!! "Tehuantepec-ers"
Mex is not for the faint of heart.
Watch it get ugly.

my signature

freeride76's picture
freeride76's picture
freeride76 commented Tuesday, 27 Sep 2011 at 7:51pm

CBoogs, I know they have had regulation on the table at the Gold Coast....I sat in on a meeting at the Gold Coast City Council where men in suits discussed it.

I think it will start there.....but there will be very strong resistance to the idea.

stunet's picture
stunet's picture
stunet commented Tuesday, 27 Sep 2011 at 9:27pm

@ Whaaat,

My partner is one of those 'people' so I'll seek her advice when the anarchists come calling. Yeah, we'll see those anarchists in court!

@ Z-Man,

I read a great story on the Petacalco saga in TSJ a few years ago. Written by Gerard Saunders (I think?). You ever see it? Pretty amazing/tragic tale of a surfbreak.

p-funk's picture
p-funk's picture
p-funk commented Tuesday, 27 Sep 2011 at 11:02pm

Tortious liability - the hideous cancerous growth on the face of a profession once held in such high regard.

away's picture
away's picture
away commented Wednesday, 28 Sep 2011 at 12:29pm

Roubydouby, I seem to recall my geography teacher in high school mentioning the [email protected]#e Peninsula, Cape York too, if I remember correctly... the scoundrel! Are you going to kill him too? And how about cartographers? It seems you have an infinite amount of murders to commit or empty threats to make.

Enjoy yourself.

camboboog's picture
camboboog's picture
camboboog commented Wednesday, 28 Sep 2011 at 1:08pm

@ freeride76

I wasn't aware that it had already begun. What ideas were put on the table? Were there any realistic proposals? It would be interesting to hear how the Goldy is approaching this issue.

z-man's picture
z-man's picture
z-man commented Wednesday, 28 Sep 2011 at 2:22pm

@stunet

Yes, TSJ ran a good story. Sad day the sand washed away.
The players moved on. PT left a legacy of art. I still use one for my avatar on twitter.
I photographed some of his last works in Sta. Cruz, Mex. in '90.
Great left-hander but not as good as Nexpa.
http://www.gallerymccollum.com/p_tobin.php

my signature

w-bat's picture
w-bat's picture
w-bat commented Wednesday, 28 Sep 2011 at 11:23pm

Is it also a statement on the fact that it is impossible for an event such as the search contest to leave "no footprint". I mean really from that point on everyone wondered where "that" right was. I know I did. Then the pristiness of the place gets peeled back layer by layer.

What ever the end result, embargo, rough justice, localism or overrun mayhem, there is always a legacy.

In one form or another does this also happen in indo. Not first hand but doesn't something like this happen keremas(?) ie the local shooters don't like you setting up there? Could be wrong.

freeride76's picture
freeride76's picture
freeride76 commented Thursday, 29 Sep 2011 at 12:06am

CBoog.....the idea proposed was a sort of Ranger/Cop on a jetski issuing "warnings" and I assume some kind of witness to violent acts.

This was proposed for the Superbank.

freeride76's picture
freeride76's picture
freeride76 commented Thursday, 29 Sep 2011 at 12:07am

I think there has also been something proposed for Currumbin. I have some material someone sent me....I'll see if I can find it.

roubydouby's picture
roubydouby's picture
roubydouby commented Thursday, 29 Sep 2011 at 3:52am

@ Stunet & @ Away

I have no issues with you mentioning Eyre Peninsula - I probably should have put :P at the end of it or something.

Maybe my undertones of sarcasm were too deep.

Or perhaps you guys just take this stuff so seriously that you purse your sun-weathered lips together so tightly that they resemble a cat's sphincter.

Either way, good on the Mexicans for trying to take away the exploitive power of the surf industry. The only reason publications have for exposing the area is to gain the interest of and expand upon their fan base. Sure, there maybe economic benefits for the area, but this thinly veiled excuse is hardly the concern of magazines and sponsors.

And who wouldn't want to stop their area from turning into a place like the Gold Coast? The waves there would be great if it weren't for the hospitality of the people you have to share the waves with.

And lets face it, the majority of the people who would be travelling to the Mexican area from subsequent exposure would be Americans. And god knows they can be as loud and obnoxious as Australian surfers in Bali.

Also, I would like to point out that, while surfers have an image as being friendly, laid back people, this is often an inaccurate stereotype. The reality is that surfing is often ultra competitive, with many egos fighting for a finite resource. There really are a lot of jerks in the water. So who can blame locals for trying to stop exposure. They aren't trying to stop visitors, just to limit them.

And in the end, surf travellers would benefit from a lack of exposure, with friendlier locals and less crowded waves. If you want to learn about waves in an area, it isn't hard to suss it out, what with google earth, a fundamental knowledge of forecasting, and most importantly, talking to other surfers.

So will the Mexican's ploy work? - I hope so... but everyone, travellers included, need to support their ban. The only people benefiting are the publications exposing (exploiting) the area.

Results may vary.

stunet's picture
stunet's picture
stunet commented Thursday, 29 Sep 2011 at 5:15am

The undertones weren't too deep for me, Rouby. P'raps I should've put a :P at the end of my reply too, although pointing out sarcasm is a bore. I'd rather be misunderstood.

theprocratornator's picture
theprocratornator's picture
theprocratornator commented Thursday, 29 Sep 2011 at 5:46am

The actual Surfing Magazine footage of Salina Cruz which has caused all the fuss is of gutless 2 to 3 foot righthanders. It wasn't cover material by any means. I went there a few years back and had a similar experience. Amazing setups but winds from hell most of the year round and a need for some very serious swell. Not the kind of wave I'd recommend traveling over the other side of the world for.(Barra or Chiccuas on the other hand....indeed!) I can see how it could pump but based on that footage, if I was a local I would've been wiping the sweat off my brow and saying to myself, 'Close call'. Ironically, by creating a hullaballo they've probably created more interest in the wave than what the B grade footage would have.

jaybee's picture
jaybee's picture
jaybee commented Thursday, 29 Sep 2011 at 12:38pm

It seems I'm the minority, but I have an issue with the claiming of ownership of a wave.

It appears that the general feeling is good on them for making a stand and protecting their waves - 'formulating a plan to save their spots from further plunder', but what do you really think they're protecting them from? You state that it is to 'put a halt to outsiders exposing and profiting from their spots' - but what does this really mean? General thoughts of the big bad Surf Industry are presented, and a generic fear of it turning into the Gold Coast, but it really comes down to the fear of others coming to their wave - another case of localism with this basic idea of protecting 'me and mine' and everyone else can bugger-off. What I want is more important than anything or anyone else, a sense of entitlement over nature simply because of where they live.

Why are we OK with people saying this is my wave and you're not welcome? It is missing the more important point about educating people not to surf outside of their limits, and to respect others on and off the water.

Freedom is about the opportunity for surfing the GOR or Eyre Peninsula or Mexico or wherever - assuming I put the effort in to get there, not being a dickhead and respecting the locals and the wave is paramount. Unfortunately when ego's get in the way and mis-placed perceptions of entitlement come to the fore, we are not making progress with what it means to get along and share this planet, but selfish protectionism inherently creates this suspicion and mis-trust of the other.

saltmotion's picture
saltmotion's picture
saltmotion commented Thursday, 29 Sep 2011 at 3:33pm

Forgive me for being a little confused by your stance here Stu. Swellnet provide information on surf conditions, forecasts and live cameras for popular breaks. You run photographs of the best sessions that are caught on camera from around the world. Basically it’s this accurate information on when and where to surf and these images that keep your site running. You then applaud the decision to limit exposure of certain spots. Surely I am not the only one who sees the Irony in this… I know the internet is a hungry beast when it comes to content, but can you really stand with one leg either side of the fence?

For the record I actually agree that certain secrets should remain that, secret. And if a group of surfers in a local community decide they don’t want international photographers, then their decision should be respected. And I really don’t fancy the hassle of dealing with Mexican immigration officials!

camboboog's picture
camboboog's picture
camboboog commented Thursday, 29 Sep 2011 at 4:37pm

@ saltmotion

I guess the irony is that you no doubt use the site to check forecasts and make a judgemant on which breaks to surf, or when to surf, yet you nip at the beast for doing so.

I think that swellnets' agenda is somewhat honorable. Craig has confessed to being truly stoked at being able to provide us wave-seekers with accurate knowledge of when the conditions will be at their best. Other than drumming up Manly, which no-one can call a mystery spot, I can see no concerted effort to give away secret locations. Stu sometimes has opinions which should perhaps come under a new forum called 'Stew.Vent'. This is not one of them.

Someone is always going to make the call, pumping or flat. Protecting surf breaks from travellers? Not Possible. It's what is done to protect the people who seek out those surf locations on their annual leave, weekend away, or once-in-a-lifetime trips that is the important issue. It is much bigger than this article alone.

I guess I will go back to my comment above, enjoy it now, go the cliched 'step lightly' routine at places you know are out of your comfort zone. It works and you get waves, but don't tell 'em I told you so. My stance is that all of you should give up now. Sell your quiver for a few lawn bowls. Buy a shiny V8. Flannelette shirts are on special at Big W, comfy too. Go to the $9 snitty night and chuck a coupla' bucks in the pokies. Get a drinking habit, top shelf whiskey is a good bet. Stop all surf activities for fear of persecution and retribution. You have been warned.

z-man's picture
z-man's picture
z-man commented Thursday, 29 Sep 2011 at 5:17pm

Boycott Mexico!

That'll teach 'em.

my signature

camboboog's picture
camboboog's picture
camboboog commented Thursday, 29 Sep 2011 at 5:22pm

Erm, dunno what honorable is. I hope it's honourable though.

(crickets in background, a faint cough in the distance)

stunet's picture
stunet's picture
stunet commented Thursday, 29 Sep 2011 at 8:00pm

@Saltmotion,

The formula is simple: Take as many photos as you want but don't name or reveal them (by way of headlands, landmarks etc.).

I'm guessing you must be fairly new to Swellnet because if you were a regular you'd know we've been down this path many times. Hey, we'll probably go down it many more times yet, but I'll always stand firm on my position. That being, we'll give regional advice on swell but we won't name sensitive spots.

fitzroy-21's picture
fitzroy-21's picture
fitzroy-21 commented Thursday, 29 Sep 2011 at 10:09pm

@ stu,

I am just wondering what the stance would be on sensitive spots.

The tone is a light hearted question.( possibly 'cause I have bugger all on at the moment with time on my hands!!)

Are sensitive spots that way because they are relatively unknown and uncrowded? And when do they become no longer so sensitive? Is this when they become visited more and become "crowded"?

Are they sensitive because of the local factor, ie they are a well known break, but the locals attitude towards visiting surfers makes them somewhat sensitive?

I personaly think its a combination of all of the above but you guys are the ones in the spotlight on this issue and field all the questions and criticism that comes with that territory.

z-man's picture
z-man's picture
z-man commented Thursday, 29 Sep 2011 at 10:25pm

Surfing should be taxed!

my signature

mattyb387's picture
mattyb387's picture
mattyb387 commented Thursday, 29 Sep 2011 at 11:58pm

These issues often surface in this forum but also in discussion both in and out of the water, for me several factors always come to mind.

Firstly, no-one owns any break anywhere in the world, unless of course they've purchased the beach which does happen on rare occasions. But generally speaking everyone has equal rights to the ocean regardless of whether you are a 'local' or a visitor. Anyone who exhibits unacceptable behaviour towards visitors to their area is only showing how ignorant they are.

Secondly, there seems to be this expectation that visitors must 'respect' the 'locals' as if they have innate superiority because they live near the beach. That is insane, people should just respect people as a matter of fact, and if anything 'locals' should lead the way. More often than not people respond in kind so if you receive a friendly welcome to a break you are likely to be more courteous in return. It's not rocket science!

Thirdly, there are 7 billion people on the planet and growing. In every country people are moving to the coast in vast numbers. Anyone who thinks their 'secret break' will remain secret is kidding themselves. As coastal development increases so do bodies in the water and with estates being built that house thousands of homes what do you expect will happen? 'Locals' will find themselves with thousands of new 'locals' and so the cycle will continue. Best just to be social and respectful in the water and lead by example.

Finally, photography seems to illicit such strong responses in people some for valid reasons others not. But the reality is that photographers can take pictures of any break they want. Saying they cannot or attacking them is futile because like coastal development photography is the largest pastime in the world. There will be more people with more cameras every day and if they want to shoot a nice wave they can. Punching someone in the head and being charged is no way to spend a day. Photographers find themselves having the same stupid arguments in National Parks where rangers try and charge them for photographing a tree! It's land that belongs to everyone and if people are not careful things will get really out of hand.

roubydouby's picture
roubydouby's picture
roubydouby commented Friday, 30 Sep 2011 at 12:10am

@ Jaybee

Who can blame locals for not wanting good waves exposed? It's not that they are trying to stop visitors, just that they don't want their breaks to become OVER SATURATED by visitors.

In a short term sense, surf is a finite resource. In that given time period there are only X number of waves that can be ridden. As the number of surfers approaches and surpasses X, Surf enjoyment decreases (often exponentially).

If you are a surfer who wants to travel and search for waves and have even a basic understanding of wave forecasting, you can find secret waves on your own. And often these waves aren't secret at all. Locals will welcome you, share waves with you, tell you stories and maybe even have a beer with you at the pub later on. Just don't publicise the waves to everyone because no one wants to have to fight for waves.

Surfing is meant to be enjoyable. But there is nothing enjoyable about tense, hassly lineups where there are too many people competing for too few waves.

Results may vary.

roubydouby's picture
roubydouby's picture
roubydouby commented Friday, 30 Sep 2011 at 12:22am

@ mattyb387

Isnt the Mexican angle aimed at stopping professional photogs, rather than your average holiday snapper, or surfer snapping one for his (or her) own album?

And the idea of perfectly harmonised lineups is idealistic, but it is far from the reality of territorial, insecure humans.

Who gains from exposing these areas? A motivated surfer searching out these waves will find them, quite easily, through word of mouth from other like minded surfers, and find people are more than happy to talk. Why is there a need to show photos to the world?

Results may vary.

stunet's picture
stunet's picture
stunet commented Friday, 30 Sep 2011 at 12:51am

@ Fitzy,

We don't have any fixed criteria for what constitutes a sensitive spot. Generally it's lesser known spots - commonsense usually dictates which ones - although we've been instructed never to name one of the most crowded spots in Sydney. Which one? Well the Beach Boys included it in their 1963 hit 'Surfin' Safari' and I imagine every single surfer in the Western world knows of it. Yet we still can't name it. Ironically I see many of the locals from said wave freely name it on Facebook but that's another matter...

I guess you could say it's a bit of the uncrowded factor and a bit of the local sensitivity factor too. It's a fuzzy line and we've gotta be on our toes not to cross it. Still, I believe it's better to be aware of it than completely oblivious or indifferent.

roubydouby's picture
roubydouby's picture
roubydouby commented Friday, 30 Sep 2011 at 1:43am

Hey Stunet,

Has Swellnet become a large enough corporate magnate to necessitate an organisational wide policy surrounding exposure of sensitive areas?

It can sit on the Swellnet employee's network drive in the policies and procedures folder next to the code of conduct, leave provisions, and acceptable toilet break guidelines.

Man it'd suck to get a written warning for mentioning XXXXXXXXX (Deleted by Swellnet)

Results may vary.

stunet's picture
stunet's picture
stunet commented Friday, 30 Sep 2011 at 2:21am

Forgive my tardiness in replying to your post, Rouby, I was just reading the Swellnet policies and procedures manual for what to do when a commenter pretends to be one of us. It's a thick bastard, but I found the answer at chapter 3, paragraph 8, clause 4a) where it says to reply as such: Roubydouby is a XXXXXXXX (Deleted by Roubydouby).

Now it's getting weird...

stunet's picture
stunet's picture
stunet commented Friday, 30 Sep 2011 at 2:21am

And no, we ain't big enough and no-one whom such a policy would affect would listen anyway. It's up to the individual(s).

roubydouby's picture
roubydouby's picture
roubydouby commented Friday, 30 Sep 2011 at 2:51am

Bahahaha... Bunch of cowboys!

Results may vary.

saltmotion's picture
saltmotion's picture
saltmotion commented Friday, 30 Sep 2011 at 4:35am

Jumping online at Jakarta airport at 11:30pm to kill some time after a full days travel can result in some rather strange thoughts being upchucked online - I just read what I wrote!... mmmm better retreat with that tail between my legs...

stunet's picture
stunet's picture
stunet commented Friday, 30 Sep 2011 at 4:46am

That's cool. I read the comment early this morning before I'd scarfed my Coco Pops and didn't realise it was you. Lucky I didn't come out keyboards blazing, eh? Could've made for awkward conversation come Monday.

See you then...

z-man's picture
z-man's picture
z-man commented Friday, 30 Sep 2011 at 3:13pm

@saltmotion

you left too soon - swell is on the way!

my signature

camboboog's picture
camboboog's picture
camboboog commented Wednesday, 5 Oct 2011 at 1:53pm

@ Freeride76

Very interested to see the Gold Coast City Council's stance in writing. I'm somewhat miffed at why it hasn't become a 'surfpolitik' issue. I'm sure that online responses would be volatile yet honest in their composure. If possible, post the facts and see if the beloved people have anything constuctive to say.

dave's picture
dave's picture
dave commented Thursday, 6 Oct 2011 at 1:24am

Would be more worried about getting a beat down than immigration.
Check from 43 seconds when local mayor starts unloading rocks into the lineup at a famous spot. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMGDcXpMfaY

kno's picture
kno's picture
kno commented Saturday, 8 Oct 2011 at 12:28am

It could be good for local photographers, in mexico anyway, if there are any

cjlister's picture
cjlister's picture
cjlister commented Monday, 10 Oct 2011 at 1:27pm

I reckon people who go violent and aggressive because of some "secret" or "locals only" surf location, or even because they get dropped in on occasionally, are just a bunch of "HICK LOooSERS" who cant hack it in the real world. Grow up or just punch yourself in the head!

z-man's picture
z-man's picture
z-man commented Monday, 10 Oct 2011 at 2:35pm

I don't think it is a matter of too many, it becomes a point that draws the thieves(around every corner in Mexico) to any and all surf locations.
I was one of the first surfers to surf the Salina Cruz area in '73 - there was absolutely no one around. You had to drive thru a maze of salt flat scrub to get near, then hike thru sand dunes to get to the beach.
Now there are palapas on the beach selling the Wall Street Journal (joke).
Almost anywhere you go in Mexico nowadays there is potential for being ripped-off.
The last thing you want is to be out surfing and have your transportation and everything inside it removed.
Not to mention the 'attitude' of the locals now. If you don't lend them your board for a surf you become Public Enemy #1.
Mexico used to be fun.

my signature

brutus's picture
brutus's picture
brutus commented Tuesday, 18 Oct 2011 at 1:29am

Interesting to see that the meixican locals are using and obeying the law ,to slow down the exploitation of their surf...
here in australia,a similar situation exists,within national parks,you must have a permit to shoot commercial photos/film.....
Its sad when you think RC went in there and exposed the quality of the waves,and now RC have finished plundering and raping....locals are left with....nada...just more and more people....