Environment vs. Safety

This year 1 person has drowned at Mavericks, Sion Milosky, and another came very close, Jacob Trette; resurfacing the long drawn out issue of personal watercraft (PWC) use in the Monterrey Bay National Marine Sanctuary since 2003. Trette was rescued by a PWC that was illegally out in the water that day and those present during Milosky's death claim that this vehicle would have saved his life.

The history of this controversy dates back to the '90s there was a wave of environmentalism created the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) that brought forth the idea of banning PWCs in what we now call the Monterrey Bay Sanctuary.

This issue was a hot topic in 2003, 2008, and today. I could not find when the law was officially passed but the current law states that "PWCs are allowed at Maverick's in the months of December, January and February whenever the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration issues a high surf advisory." But sometimes while waves can reach up to 25ft, this might not be considered a surf advisory. You can check out the rest of the rules and regulations of the Monterrey Bay National Marine Sanctuary at its website.

Described on Frank Quirarte's blog, a well known surf photographer at Mavericks, the controversy is between the Surfrider Foundation in San Mateo County and local surfers. The Surfrider Foundation is concerned about harming marine life in the sanctuary and point to a number of problems with inexperienced PWC operators and emission problems of the PWC models at the time.

Local surfers, often sponsored by large companies like Quicksilver and Ripcurl, believe that it is an issue of safety and that lives could have been saved if these vehicles were allowed in the water.

It is great to see the Foundation, during the last decade, be so successful in protecting Monterrey Bay but maybe they have gone a bit too far with their resources.
Quirarte points towards larger issues: oil spills, commercial fishing, and garbage to name a few, that the Surfrider Foundation should be focusing on instead of going after surfers. I think the Surfrider Foundation is walking a fine line between supporting surfing and strictly the environment. Although, its mission statement

"the protection and enjoyment of oceans, waves and beaches through a powerful activist network" definitely leans more towards protecting the oceans for the broader public rather than surfers in general.

Taylor Paul, from Surfing magazine, suggests finding a middle ground where professional and qualified operators are allowed to drive PWC during big wave surf sessions.

Many could say that the environment should precede those few who want to put themselves in dangerous situations but what has changed is the environmentally friendliness of today's PWC.

Now, Paul does mention that with our State's budget crises there isn't a lot of money to go around and offers a solution where Surf Comapnies who have a vested interested in the sport should step in a pay for the equipment, training, and supervision of operating PWCs during heavy surf conditions.

I totally agree. Even if there were no sponsors--because there are individuals who feel that large corporations tarnish the sport-- I believe that these companies have some sort of social responsibility to protect those individuals that are pushing the limits of surfing and enhancing its image which directly effects these companies.