Wind-powered sports should be pushed further out at Vazon
THE last few years has seen an increase in type, number and frequency of water sports activity at Vazon. No doubt such activity is a positive experience for participants; sometimes exciting and colourful to watch too. However, there are concerns about careless and potentially dangerous practice, and not only at times of the [surfer] overcrowding mentioned in recent Guernsey Press article on 16 April [Clear rules prevent problems]. One specific issue of concern noted.
A small minority of kite-surfers – three noted – have been observed traversing across the bay, far too close to shore, posing unnecessary deterrent or grave risks to swimmers and bodyboarders.
In contrast, kite-surfers are sometimes observed at active distances estimated as between 400 and 600m offshore, with the very occasional more adventurous wind-surfer bay hopping toward the Cobo area. These examples demonstrate feasibility and therefore a question as to why the risky activity of all wind-powered sports should not routinely be operating at much greater distance from the shoreline and more vulnerable users, such as swimmers, snorkelers and bodyboarders, who should not be squeezed out by other activities. Specifically in relation to wildlife, some wind and kite-surfers have been observed taking a diagonal approach to their activity – two noted – aiming at deeper waters, towards for example, a target area below Fort Hommet, then returning to shore, to complete what I would describe as a ‘fast swivel-turn’ mere feet from the shoreline before heading off again, then repeating the cycle back and forth.
This practice presents an unnecessary risk and deterrent to other users and repeated disturbance to shore-feeding birds. This is of particular concern in the area opposite Waves and the far north end of the sandy space below Hommet where a variety of birds roost and feed. Inconsiderate practices, combined with increased canine activity, invasive to extended areas of the bay over the last three years, has simultaneously resulted in noticeable reduction of shore-feeding birds over the period. By deduction these impacts must be linked to one or both activities. Although canine activity, due to much greater frequency and perceived threat, is by far the more significant issue, other smaller improvements or changes can also have positive effects. Can we agree? It is only the natural world of Vazon that makes it special.
All human activity on and around the bay surely needs to be respectful, that is if we are to continue in the privilege of its presence. Currently this is doubtful. We have rules for highway activities. Boats have a six knot speed restriction within bays, as well as being required to have third-party insurance cover (which in regard I suggest the plucked example £10k figure used in the article is likely to be a tiny fraction of what would be advisable for third-party insurance cover for more serious incidents). What is clear is an incident will sooner or later occur, that is if certain practices by the few careless ones do not change. With specific regard to wildlife protection, there currently appears to be no positive action for prevention of harmful practices and zero enforcement occurring. It is further unclear the extent of activity types currently under consideration for improved user guidance, the scope of new guidance, and associated new signage. With the above in mind, perhaps someone can officially confirm whether all issues are being considered.
VAZON.PROTECT@GMAIL.COM