Aardvark’s Kayaking And Self Defense Blog

Let’s start with more Manatee Paranoia. Capt Mike from Sunshine River Tours, previously featured in A Legend in My Own Mind continues his paranoid rants with the following response to an SMC Guest Editorial in the Citrus County Chronicle. First Dr. Tripp’s editorial followed by Mike’s comments:

By Dr. Katie Tripp

“As an organization, the Save the Manatee Club has never advocated for an end to Crystal River’s “swimming-with-manatees” programs. We understand the value of tourism to the local economy. However, we are committed to stopping manatee harassment that we believe is occurring in Crystal River, and are adamantly opposed to any human behavior that threatens to compromise manatee health or safety.

The first rule of ecotourism is “never promise too much.” Trying to guarantee customers a specific experience when they are dealing with wild animals is an unnecessary mistake. The pressure to deliver can lead to bad decision-making and behavior that is dangerous for the customers and for wildlife. While many operators clearly understand this important fact, at least some tour operators in Crystal River seem to ignore it, possibly with dire future consequences that could threaten the existence of the swim-with programs themselves.

When people try to touch or pursue manatees, they can alter the manatee’s behavior, even causing them to leave a warm-water area, which can be fatal. Human interactions, which include touching, riding, poking, chasing, feeding or giving water to manatees can make manatees more tame and encourage them to approach humans, which further alters their behavior. Additionally, such interactions can lead to inadvertent separation of mother manatees and their calves, which can lead to a calf’s death if the two are not reunited quickly.

The effects of harassment on manatee health and well-being may at times be subtle, but that doesn’t make the cumulative effect of these interactions any less severe. Furthermore, the problem is magnified by the sheer number of annual visitors (upward of 100,000) that come to Crystal River to view manatees.

Promising an encounter with a wild animal is bad policy, and promotes a petting-zoo mentality where the success of the encounter is measured by, “Did everyone get to touch one?” There is so much more that visitors to Crystal River could take away from their experiences if they were instructed to observe manatees at a respectable distance and watch them feed, rest, travel or otherwise just be manatees. These manatees and the aquatic habitat in which they live have so much to teach all of us about the beauty of nature and the importance of respecting the environment.

If we really want Crystal River’s visitors to become stewards of the manatees, then tour operators need to offer their customers the unique opportunity to view wild manatees exhibiting natural behaviors in their habitat. It is from these passive observations of natural behavior that tourists will gain the most appreciation and respect for manatees, which should be the ultimate goal of any tour operator.

Our organization believes improvements must be made to the tourism industry, and we do believe that a no-touch policy is needed to increase the quality of manatee encounters and better protect manatees. We urge all interested parties to work together to stop manatee harassment before the courts weigh in and force an end to all in-water manatee encounters in Crystal River. To read more about our position, and additional recommendations, please visit our Web site at www.savethemanatee.org.”

Dr. Katie Tripp is director of science and conservation for the Save the Manatee Club.

Reader Comments:
I do not believe
I do not believe a word that anyone associated with the Save the Manatee organization says. They distort scientific facts and ignore the known ones. It is my opinion that their ultimate goal is to stop swim programs in our area. They gather unsubstantiated evidence from underlings and feed that to the media wolfs to further increase donations to their organization. One statistic that they cannot ignore is that the manatee population has increased to over 3800 from the 1991 figure of 1267. And it cannot be proven that the touch of a manatee has resulted in even one death. As with some of my opinions theirs are purely hypothethetical. At least mine are based by what is told to me on the water daily and not from an office building in Maitland. Florida.

If they truly wanted to help manatees in our area they should concentrate their efforts on a year round slow speed zone in Crystal River as well as the hiring of more enforcement officers at 3 sisters and the Kings Springs areas in the winter months.

Their was a time when the Save the Manatee Club worked within the government to further their agenda. But the more radical that they became the less government would have to do with them.

I have so many persons go on my tours that have adopted manatees and after I tell them what the Save the Manatee Club has become they drop their memberships.”
Captain Mike 08/24/2009

Alert us if this message is inappropriate

Statewide Swim Policy
“I would like to make one other comment. I have looked at other parts of the state and with a no touch policy implimented in Crystal River I could probably move my business to a few other larger metropolitan areas with manatees and access to 1+ million people to decrease advertising costs. Other businesses in the area would probably follow. Anyone can snorkel anywhere in the state of Florida. Crystal River would not be unique anymore and the East Coast has a lot more people that would not have to travel so far.”
Captain Mike 08/24/2009

This is all very suspicious in view of how Sunshine advertises it tours. They actually present a reasonable approach but stopping short of the “No Touch” policy. Too bad it doesn’t translate into anything but these ridiculous, defamatory rants. And I really wonder when Mike was last actually on the water, hopefully no paying passengers aboard. USCG wouldn’t like that.

Final Update:

Despite attempts by Sunshine River Tours to divert the the discussion to kayak outfitter bashing (for more on that please read the blog post A Legend in My Own Mind) the ordinance passed on a 3-1 vote with the Mayor dissenting. In his defense, he has legitimate concerns about allowing a swim area that close to a boat channel. The end result is pretty much the status quo except for power boaters. They will no longer be able to power in, however, the way I read the ordinance, they can still land. just not under power. That would mean poling or paddling in. Check that before you do it, that’s just my interpretation. If the city follows the Waterfront Board’s (and Aardvark’s) recommendations, a separate boat landing will be created at the west end. Now kayakers pay attention, even though this has always been the law, you cannot enter the swim area marked by the swim area buoys. That has always been illegal, but it is further spelled out in this ordinance. You may launch only from outside the official swim area. Article Here

UPDATE:
Well the anti-kayakers are rallying for the August 10 City Council Meeting. I would urge you all to attend if you want to insure you are heard. Here is the Agenda

A friend of mine who lives in the Hunter Spring neighborhood just gave me a flyer that was placed on her front porch. According to the anonymous author, you all are a danger to society and is urging everyone to attend the August 10 City Council meeting to keep Hunters Spring for the people who pay for it.

As I predicted, they are trying to get rid of all kayakers by creating non-existent conflicts with the commercial folks. Where’s the gripe about dive instructions in the park? Or dive boats picking up and dropping off there? From the comments, I’d say some the complainers are either related to the swim programs or dive shops.

UPDATE: I just received a copy of a package Mike Millsap, owner of Sunshine River Tours presented to the Waterfronts Board. It contains much of the same language as the post below. It seems that there is now a vendetta against commercial kayak operators. Rather than blame themselves for letting manatee harssment get to the point where a national environmental group threatens to sue, blame the commercial kayak operators for complaining about the harassment. Get some stones and debate real issues rather than make up crap.

Here are some excerpts from the Citrus County Chronicle: Full Piece Here.

“Commercial Kayaking”
Why should residents be resticted to parking only when the commercial kayak business is done with the park? Charge the commercial kayak business a parking fee or permit. It is $5.00 per car to park at Pete’s Pier. Doesn’t the volume of launching commercial kayaks erode the area around launch? If manatee swim programs are stopped how many kayaks will be launching there per day? 100, 200, 300? I’m sure the surrounding residents won’t have any peace if the traffic increases.
Swimmer 07/26/2009″

and

“Commercial Kayaking if Swim Programs are Stopped
What would be the consequences to the city, county, state, fish and wildlfe, and the coast guard if manatee swim programs were stopped? If kayaking took over as the main fuel for our economy some questions would have to be asked. 1. Where would potentially 50,000-100,000 cars with kayaks park. 2. Imagine 300 kayaks per day in three sisters springs on the busiest of days. 3. How many officers would have to be employed to contol this water traffic jam. 4. Kayaks don’t have porta potties on board, where would they be able to go. Residents lawns? 5. For emegency situations such as drowning and CPR who is going to be on hand for that many kayaks. 6. Who is liable for onwater incidents, City of Crystal River, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, County Sherrif, Coast Guard, State. 7. Would the Sherrif’s Department need additional patrol units for traffic control at kayak launches and on the water. 8. Who is going to pay for this? 9. What happens to the tax revenue if private persons with kayaks overtake the city. They would not pay sales tax, unemployment insurance, pay no taxes on gas, pay no maintenace on boats to local marinas, buy no motors locally, pay no property taxes to the county and pay no business taxes. 10. Who would be in charge of rescue on a 20-30 kt day wind at Kings Springs or pop up storms of 30-50 kt winds.
Kayakers 07/26/2009

“Crysatl River RESIDENTS WAKE-UP
Residents of Crystal River especially in the Hunters Springs Park area.

If you feel as if you cannot use Hunters Springs Park for reasons:

Commercial Kayak operations has taken over YOUR Park

Commercial Kayak operations has taken over available parking spaces in YOUR Park

Commercial Kayak operations has made it UNDAFE to walk in the parking area due to the increased traffic by cars and trucks and trailers related to Commercial Kayak operations.

Commercial Kayak operations is eroding YOUR beach are

That Commercial Kayak operations cars, trucks, and trailers may be, in the future parking on YOUR lawns

Do you think YOUR tax dollars YOU pay to the City of Crystal River should be used for cleaning up after, facility maintenance, and more Law Enforcement due to increased activity of Commercial Kayak operations in your neibhorhood of Hunters Springs Park

Do you think YOUR city tax dollars should go to a building of a KAYAK LAUNCH for COMMERCIAL KAYAK OPERATIONS

You can voice your concerns to the City of Crystal River City Council meeting at 7:00 P.M. on August 10th at CITY HALL.

The City Council and YOUR Mayor are very receptive to the voices of Crystal River residences.

GIVE HUNTERS SPRING BACK TO THE PEOPLE WHO PAY FOR IT

Crystal River Residents WAKE-UP 07/26/2009″

and yeah the spelling and grammar was that bad.

More:

UPDATE AUGUST 4

I just got back from the Waterfronts Board’s regular meeting where they voted to send a memo to City Council with their recommendations on kayak access. Pretty good from the private use perspective although Mike, owner of Sunshine River Tours parroted some of the comments above about kayakers parking in people’s yard’s and overunning the bay. (See Kayakers comments above)

I’ll post the boards memo when it becomes available prior to the August 10th council meeting. For right now, the highlights are as follows: UPDATE: Full Recommendations of Crystal River Waterfronts Board (PDF)

Under Observations
Access at Hunter’s Spring for both kayakers and swimmers is important and should continue.

Under Recommendations for the Short Term
The small sandy beach area located to the west of the large beach area should be made a kayak launch site. Proper signage should indicate that it is a kayak priority launching area.

These recommendations are sure to infuriate the anti kayak crowd who I anticipate will show up in numbers at the August 10 meeting. I’d plan on being there if you value your access. I’ve been to too many of these meetings where numbers trump common sense and reason.

”

Thanks to all who could make it. Round one to us, but remember there is still two to go. August 10 will be the final vote and that’s where the rubber meets the road. Brack observed that there were more swimmers than kayakers who spoke, but there were other paddlers there.

If this issue tracks like the speed zone issue last year there will be many more swimmers at the final hearing. After the first reading on that, we though we were in good shape too.

There will also be other entry points into the process as well. Once a final ordinance is adopted, FWCC and DOH (I think) will have input as well. We have gotten slightly different responses from different FWCC people, but it does confirm that they will have input. Next step is to check with DOH and focus on some real safety issues

Here’s a link to today’s coverage by the Chronicle

Matthew A Clemons
Aardvark’s Florida Kayak Company. Inc.
707 N Citrus Avenue, Suite A
Crystal River Florida 34428
353-795-5650

July 9, 1009

The Honorable Mayor and Council Members
City of Crystal River
123 N HWY 19
Crystal River, Florida 34428

RE: Park Access for Paddle Sports

I am writing to you today to express my views on recreational and commercial access to our parks, specifically Hunter Springs Park and Kings Bay Park. I, with my wife, own Aardvark’s Florida Kayak Company. We have been in business in Crystal River proper since our inception and have maintained a full service paddle sport business (retail, tours, instruction, and rentals) which we consciously located, and twice relocated, within the confines of the CRA district. We are firm believers in maintaining our down town’s business district. We obviously have a business reason for wanting to maintain and even increase access to the water and parks that are so vital to the success our community. Without that access we will likely be forced to consider other options in order to stay in business.

We have identified a number of issues that we believe need to be addressed individually to come up with a comprehensive plan. I am concerned that the conversation in certain circles is revolving around removing paddle sport access entirely. That would be a mistake and is, in my opinion, unwarranted and unsupported by fact. To the best of my knowledge there has been no data collected or presented that supports limiting or removing paddler’s access to Hunter Springs.

I have talked to a number of people involved with the Waterfronts Florida Program and Florida Recreation Development Assistance Program (FRDAP). One of the primary goals of the Waterfronts Program is maintaining public access to working waterfronts and coastal resources. Limiting that access could be seen as contrary to those program goals, especially in the absence of any real reason to do so. The State of Florida has provided a substantial amount of funding at Hunter Springs. Former Governor Bush, when speaking on this program said, “Recreation areas play an important role in Florida’s economy, drawing both residents and visitors to the state’s natural resources.” I believe that if there is an attempt to limit access, future funding for park improvements could be in jeopardy.

In order to provide you with some data, we ask the subscribers to our newsletter to provide us with some information on their uses of Hunter Spring and their opinions on some of the issues. We will be happy to provide you with the raw data for inspection, but here is a summary of the responses:

There were 80 respondents . Not all respondents answered every question. Of those, 11 claimed to be Crystal River residents (live inside city limits), while 69 were from outside the city limits. 85% of the respondents used Hunters Spring for kayak access to Kings Bay. 68% of the responses indicate that people either used other park amenities during their paddle or they use the park but don’t always paddle. Less than 1/3 used the park solely for access.

95% eat at restaurants while they are here to paddle, 99% shop at local stores and 75% spend more than $25 per person per day.

97% own their own paddle gear, but 36% would sometimes rent equipment. 66% of those said they would not rent if the outfitter could not transport gear for them.

60% of them have come as part of a larger group. 89% of those carpool.

99% said that they had never experienced a significant problem with other park users. Only 13% said they had experienced parking problems.

When asked if “parks should be themed and only activities that strictly fit the theme be allowed? For example: Hunter Springs is a beach and only swimming and sunbathing should be allowed. No kayaking.”, 96% said no.

When asked if the current beach launch was adequate, 95% said that it was adequate. When asked if kayakers should find an area other than Hunter Springs, 91% said no. 72% said they would use a floating dock and ramp at another location if it was provided.

When asked their opinion on commercial outfitters sharing Hunter Springs, 92% were in favor of allowing outfitters to use the park, provided no money was collected on site and the outfitter did not solicit business in the park.

We need to separate the “commercial” and recreational use issues. Outfitters (re: commercial users) and recreational paddlers use the facilities much differently and have different needs. There is also a difference in how local outfitters and visiting outfitters use access. Visiting outfitters are primarily here in the winter months running manatee tours while local outfitters are here year around and not only provide tours, but provide rental craft to park users. (Please note that our surveys show the majority of park users who paddle do so only as part of their park outing and frequently are there to take advantage of other park amenities as well. Only a minority of paddlers use the park simply for access.) Many picnic and swim as well as paddle. Outfitters are generally more proficient at loading and unloading. It has been suggested that outfitters use one parking space for every client. I flatly reject that claim. Most paddlers that we deal with carpool, which we actively encourage. On a ten person trip, we may take three spaces and they are generally cleared out by noon. One of the reasons that outfitters and recreational paddlers can coexist at Hunter Springs is that use peaks in the winter months and there is plenty of room to spread out. That is not the case at Kings Bay Park. All paddlers generate income for the local business community and both local and visiting outfitters contribute significantly.

The following are a few of the claims being made

Claim: Kayakers are dangerous to swimmers.
Point: Have there been any injuries reported to officials at Hunter Springs? If so, did they occur in or out of the designated swim area? If the concern is actually in moving boats from the loading zone to the water, that can be easily addressed by creating a designated path to and from the water away from the waders using an under-utilized part of the park behind the bath house. This is a low cost simple tactic that will eliminate most of the problems while still providing access for all. Let the paddlers have a small section to the west and the waders the larger section to the east. See closing comments.

Claim: Kayakers take up too much of parking.
Point: The city passed and repealed an ordinance in 1988 implementing a park fee to deal with crowded parking conditions, long before kayaks became popular. There is an overflow lot that is available a few blocks away. We have done a few traffic counts and our observation is that even if no kayaker used the park, a parking problem would still exist primarily on weekends. Do kayakers contribute to parking congestion? Yes they do, but no more than, and more likely to a lesser degree than, other users during the period where parking is a problem. Given that the majority of people who paddle also swim and /or picnic and are therefore park users just as swimmers are park users, banishing kayaks can be seen as discriminatory and unless someone can show a real danger, unjustified and ill advised. Banning kayaks would be akin to driving a nail with a sledge hammer and it still wouldn’t stop the problem. You would be excluding a substantial portion of the public from using public resources for no other reason than the complaints of a few people who are experiencing minor inconveniences on one or two days a week during a few months of the year. There are much better options that will preserve access at this site.

Claim: Kayakers should “find their own water”.
Point: This was actually in reference to me, an outfitter. My store is located in the Community Redevelopment Area (CRA). I have a city business license, I pay rent which pays property taxes, which fund the CRA which expends funds to economically revitalize the city. They build sidewalks, which I and my customers may use, I can use city streets in the CRA, but I and my rental and tour customers can’t use the park facilities? To say I make money off the parks is a distortion. I don’t charge people to use the park or its facilities. I make as much money off the park as I do the street going to the park. I don’t sell in the park and I don’t solicit business in the park. My customers often shop and dine at businesses located within the city limits. I find this particularly disturbing in that it came from a CRA board member. While she wrote to you as a private citizen, I don’t understand her motives and I certainly don’t agree with her views when it comes to CRA resources. I was under the impression that the CRA was all about economic revitalization of the downtown. In this struggling economy, we cannot absorb any more new costs or afford to lose existing revenues. We are a small mom and pop shop operating on slim margins. There are already enough vacant businesses downtown, please don’t add another.

Claim: City parks should be for city residents only.
Point: The Florida Attorney General was asked to render an opinion on this very issue in another county. His finding is summarized as follows:
MUNICIPALITIES
EXCLUSION OF NONRESIDENTS FROM MUNICIPAL
BEACHES AND PARKS
To: Henry B. Sayler, Senator, 20th District, St. Petersburg
Prepared by: Baya M. Harrison III, Deputy Attorney General, and
Gerald L. Knight, Assistant Attorney General
QUESTION:
Can a municipality or any governmental entity prevent
nonresidents from the use of its facilities, particularly
municipally owned beaches or parks?
SUMMARY:
Although duly enacted state and local legislation is
presumptively valid, legislation which excludes
nonresidents from public parks and beach es is probably
invalid because such legislation exceeds the authority of
the local legislative body concerned, violates the
privileges and immunities clause and equal protection
clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States
Constitution, and violates the “public trust doctrine.”
The question presented is of paramount public interest affecting
every citizen of, and visitor to, the State of Florida.
Our dramatic population increases, concentrated heavily within
coastal areas, have resulted in a situation tinged with irony. The
Florida Constitution, statutes, and decisional law confirm the right
of its citizens to the use of the sovereign beaches and waters of
this state.”
Claim: Swimmers have more of a right to use the park than paddlers.
Point: Those folks staking claim to the sandbar as a traditional swimming area are using the park exactly as paddlers do. Remember the water and the sand bar are not part of the park and are considered waters of the state. I can find no submerged land lease on record, nor can I find any ordinance creating the designated swimming area. The park boundaries end at the mean high water line, so swimmers just like paddlers use the park as access to the waters. The only difference is how far away one is capable of going. I understand that the city will be putting forth an ordinance to address the issue of the designated swim area. I am in support of proposed Ordinance 09-O-07 as it is currently written with the provision for a “Manually Propelled Vessels Only Zone”.

We have put forth a proposal that we believe is achievable at minimal costs, allows every segment of the public to enjoy public resources, and alleviates any of the perceived safety concerns related to kayak use at Hunters Spring. The area marked staging on the graphic that follows designates the paddle sport zone.

The idea is to visually designate a path and staging area (outlined in green) from the existing loading zone to an area behind the showers that is essentially unused at this time. For this to work, waders need to respect the rights of others to use the park and paddlers need to use the areas provided to them. We suggest that the shoreline erosion can be controlled within the paddle sport zone without the need for expensive armoring. By adding a wooden access ramp like that used at Marion County’s Rays Wayside Park in the existing break in the vegetation and then making the rest of the existing vegetation a conservation area (with fencing if needed), the erosion problem can be controlled in an attractive, low cost, environmentally friendly way. There is currently no erosion along the vegetated shoreline between the breaks. The wading area is more problematic, but could be addressed in a similar manner.
Power boat access is maintained by rebuilding the old dock behind the restrooms so that segment of the park users also maintains access, but places them away from waders with paddlers serving as a buffer between the two uses.

Please understand that this access is critical to the paddling community. That community is made up of city residents and visitors and is both private boaters, paddle clubs and outfitters too. Kings Bay, our manatees, and our springs draw people from far and wide and enrich our city. The trend statewide is to increase water access, not restrict it. It is not necessary to spend tens of thousands of dollars on access projects when it is already in place. Please keep our access intact.

Respectfully,

Matthew and Susan Clemons, Owners
Aardvark’s Florida Kayak Company
Crystal River

attachment

Share

It will be worth your while to plan on attending Monday’s Council Meeting. Here’s a link to the Agenda.

Council meeting starts at 7:00 pm at City Hall on Hwy 19. The address is 123 N Hwy 19 Crystal River 34428.

One of the items is directly related to paddler access. As they say, the devil is in the details.
Right now it reads as follows:

Item 9. CITY MANAGER

A. Consideration of Approval for First Reading of Ordinance #09-O-07 Establishing a Designated Swim Area at Hunter Springs Park, and Setting the Second Reading for August 10, 2009

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CRYSTAL RIVER, FLORIDA, ESTABLISHING A DESIGNATED SWIMMING AREA AT HUNTER’S SPRINGS PARK; IDENTIFYING THE LOCATION OF SWIM MARKERS IN THE DESIGNATED SWIM AREA; ESTABLISHING A VESSEL EXCLUSION ZONE WITHIN THE DESIGNATED SWIMMING AREA AT HUNTER’S SPRINGS PARK; ESTABLISHING A MANUALLY PROPELLED VESSELS ONLY ZONE; ESTABLISHING AN IDLE SPEED – NO WAKE ZONE IN THE AREA IMMEDIATELY SURROUNDING THE DESIGNATED SWIMMING AREA AT HUNTER’S SPRING’S PARK; PROVIDING FOR THE LAUNCH OF MANUALLY PROPELLED VESSELS; PROVIDING FOR ENFORCEMENT FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ORDINANCE; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING ORDINANCES; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE

1. Read Ordinance by Title Only on First Reading
2. Hold Public Hearing
3. Motion to Adopt Ordinance No. 09-O-07 on First Reading

More info:

“As proposed, the designated swimming area would be extended to the west to incorporate the sandy area now used by both waders and kayakers, with the intent of providing separation from the adjacent boat channel. Pending a final decision on the continued use of that area by kayakers, it is being proposed that this specific part of the designated area be marked as a “Manually Propelled Vessels Only Zone”. This would prohibit power boats from pulling up on the sandy area but still allow for the launching of kayaks and other manually propelled craft. Alternatively, Council could direct staff to pursue a designation of “Vessel Exclusion Zone” for the entire designated area. This would exclude both power and hand-propelled craft.”

The full text of the ordinance is here Ordinance 09-O-07

The referenced aerial is here: Backup Map Note: There is no key provided to the symbols.

If you don’t think that your access is threatened, think again. Here’s a few lines from the Waterfronts Board’s Agenda.

Kayak Launch

“Mr. Houston spoke on behalf of Mr. Farley as he had to leave early due to a prior engagement.

Mr. Houston stated that City Council has asked him to put together an ad-hoc citizen committee and to coordinate that through the Waterfronts Advisory Board. He stated that the original plan that the City had been working on was to dredge the boat channel near the tip of Hunter Springs, in order to get the permit to dredge that, the City had to rip rap the shoreline so we didn’t continue to have erosion. He stated that in order to rip rap that and still allow the existing kayak access, we had designed a kayak launch in that area. He stated that the original idea was for this to be a small kayak launch, now City Council has rethought their original idea and now we’re considering only having the one kayak launch at Kings Bay Park, that is why he has suggested to Ms. Evans that she delay further design work until they know for sure what City Council decides to do….

Mr. Houston also mentioned that in the Management Plan that Ms. Evans spoke of calls for a canoe trail which includes both Kings Bay Park and Hunter Springs. If the plans change we may have to have modifications made to the Management Plan to reflect the changes.”

Then there is the Kayak Committee Report that I mentioned in an earlier post. I requested a change or two that apparently was denied. One specifically related to parking for an alternative site on 19 needing to be on the same side of this busy highway. Here’s the full report.

I can only hope the council reads the disclaimer that this was not a concensus statement or you won’t be seeing me around Hunter Springs anymore. For example:

Individuals should be allowed to launch their personal kayaks there, but commercial operators should have to use Kings Bay Park.
and
Kings Bay Park should be the boating-themed City park and serve as the City’s kayak launch site; if the configuration of the ramp there results in people waiting to launch, that is no different than boaters waiting to launch at a crowded city ramp.

Commercial operators should be required to use Kings Bay Park in order to alleviate the crowding at Hunter Springs Park.

Anyway good luck to you all. As I stated before, if you all want access at Hunter Springs you need to fight for it. That starts Monday. When I finish my letter to council, I’ll post it here.

Help us gather some data. So far this access question is being discussed with no knowledge that a problem even exists except for the carping of a few locals, who have probably never even been in a kayak. The people making the decisions haven’t much knowledge of kayaking or the kayak community. This survey is an attempt to inject at least some facts into the discussion.

Take our Survey

Seems like someone is upset about some of my posts. Sorry, but that’s the way I see it. I’ve put up links to all the pertinent correspondence and even went back and edited entry’s with notes when their views changed from one meeting to the next. Please read them all and you decide. All I know is most of the outfitters that use Hunter Spring were not happy with that plan, so I’m not alone in my interpretation AVIS. When you send a letter to city council, don’t identify yourself as an outfitter who is recommending things contrary to everyone else’s interest and then write and I quote: “So we come to how and who pays for these upgrades to our parks? I propose the City create an “impact fee” or user permit for commercial operators. These companies are making money off services they provide. They use and have the biggest impact to the launch sites, parking areas, park, and pier. It seems only right they should pay for that convenience, not the taxpayers fitting the whole bill for the commercial users. The fees will also help maintain those launch sites. Out of town users will also need to have a permit.”

That last line doesn’t appear to be in reference to just commercial users.

Ok enough personal business stuff, it’s a tough economy and we are just trying to get by like everybody else, but I can’t just sit back and let somebody kick dirt in my face. I promise to limit this kind of stuff in the future.

Anyway they suggested people follow this blog, so you all are welcome. Please feel free to leave comments and suggestions. The more the sun shines in the better the paddling community can defend itself.

Please take our survey linked above so we can say we tried to influence the discussion.

It’s been up just a short time and it’s hit the Greenwave Forum at Club Kayak and Paddling.net. We’ve begun to enter the data so take this with a grain of salt. There is no statistical significance to any of this. It looks like so far that the majority of people who have responded do not live within the city limits of Crystal River, but live within easy driving distance, own their gear, and sometimes rent but think outfitters should have access too with certain conditions, use other park amenities on their visits (swimming, picnicking, sunning), spend more than $25 per person eating and shopping during their stay, carpool if with a group, have never experienced a parking problem or significant problem with other park patrons, would use another launch if provided, but feel the beach launch is just fine and that kayakers should not have to find another location to recreate.

We’ll break it down further as more responses come in. See Post “Letter to City Council Ordinance 09-O-07” for a summary.

July 13, 2009 City Council to Decide Fate of Paddlers in City Park!

Paddlers, if you value your access to Hunter Springs, you all need to turn out in numbers for the city council meeting on July 13 at City Hall. The folks who want you out will be there in great numbers to tell the city council about how you endanger their children, are rich SOBs who could go anywhere they want and are crowding them out, you use too much parking, and you don’t live here anyway! I wish I was kidding, but I’m not.

I grew up in Port Clinton, Ohio. It was a small tourist town on Lake Erie, a little larger than Crystal River. Instead of manatee we had walleye. Summer was tourist season and tourists clogged the roads, restaurants, and grocery stores and all us locals bitched. Much the same here, except we all realized that if it weren’t for the tourists, nobody would make any money and learned to live with it for the greater good. Crystal River, like Port Clinton is not big enough for the businesses to survive on city residents alone.

One of the flaws in this whole argument is that there is no data to support any of the claims being made. Here are some points to ponder and argue:

Claim: Kayakers are dangerous to swimmers.
Point: Have there been any injuries reported to officials at Hunter Springs? If so, did they occur in or out of the designated swim area?

Claim: Kayakers take up too much of parking.
Point: The city passed and repealed an ordinance in 1988 implementing a park fee to deal with crowded parking conditions, long before kayaks became popular. There is an overflow lot that is available a few blocks away. We have done a few traffic counts and our observation is that even if no kayaker used the park, a parking problem would still exist.

Claim: Kayakers should “find their own water”.
Point: This was actually in reference to me, an outfitter. My store is located in the Community Redevelopment Area (CRA). I have a city business license, I pay rent which pays property taxes, which fund the CRA which expends funds to economically revitalize the city. They build sidewalks, which I and my customers may use, I can use city streets in the CRA, but I and my rental and tour customers can’t use the park facilities? To say I make money off the parks is a distortion. I don’t charge people to use the park or its facilities. I make as much money off the park as I do the street going to the park. I don’t sell in the park and I don’t solicit business in the park. The water belongs to all.

Claim: City parks should be for city residents only.
Point: The Florida Attorney General was asked to render an opnion on this very issue in another county. His finding is as follows (click here for full article):

Pertinent part is as follows:
MUNICIPALITIES
EXCLUSION OF NONRESIDENTS FROM MUNICIPAL
BEACHES AND PARKS

To: Henry B. Sayler, Senator, 20th District, St. Petersburg

Prepared by: Baya M. Harrison III, Deputy Attorney General, and
Gerald L. Knight, Assistant Attorney General

QUESTION:
Can a municipality or any governmental entity prevent
nonresidents from the use of its facilities, particularly
municipally owned beaches or parks?

SUMMARY:
Although duly enacted state and local legislation is
presumptively valid, legislation which excludes
nonresidents from public parks and beach es is probably
invalid because such legislation exceeds the authority of
the local legislative body concerned, violates the
privileges and immunities clause and equal protection
clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States
Constitution, and violates the “public trust doctrine.”
The question presented is of paramount public interest affecting
every citizen of, and visitor to, the State of Florida.
Our dramatic population increases, concentrated heavily within
coastal areas, have resulted in a situation tinged with irony. The
Florida Constitution, statutes, and decisional law confirm the right
of its citizens to the use of the sovereign beaches and waters of
this state.

This should end the argument about local vs vistor, however it doesn’t address the right to kayak. It just says they can’t treat outsiders any different than locals. If they ban kayaks for everybody that’s perfectly legal, so watch out.

Claim: Swimmers Use the Park Differently than Kayakers.
Point: Not really. Those folks staking claim to the sandbar as a traditional swimming area are using the park exactly as kayakers do. Remember the water and the sandabar ARE NOT PART OF THE PARK. The park boundaries end at the mean high water line, so swimmers just like kayakers use the park as access to the waters. The only difference is how far away one is capable of going. Swimmers certainly don’t stay on the sandbar. They regularly cross the channel and end up on the docks on the far shore.

The only legal argument the city can use to exclude kayakers is safety. They can try to expand the designated swim area to “protect” swimmers and exclude kayaks that way. I did a search for kayak swimmer collisions and I found quite a few references, but significantly these were all surf kayak related. A much different type of sport from the recreational kayaking that takes place here.

If you all don’t turn out in numbers at the July meeting, that new sign at the park entrance is likely to look like this.