Maldives exclusivity: A dangerous precedent
Words and photo by Joel Coleman
Who owns a surf break? Throughout modern surfing history there are many instances of waves being restricted to some or all surfers. In California, the military owned – and indeed still does own – vast tracts of coastline keeping civilians out. In Fiji Tavarua Resort held an exclusive lease to Cloudbreak for two decades. While in Hawaii the military controls areas of coastline containing surf breaks which are off limits to all but those wearing uniforms.
To most surfers the concept of excluding people from a surf break is repulsive; it's akin to denying someone the very air they breathe so strongly do they feel about it. However it was not until I recently spent five weeks in the Maldives that I really started to question the issue of surfing exclusivity, who it affects, who benefits, and also who loses.
*****
Understanding why a resort would try and gain exclusive rights to a surfing break is obvious to anyone who surfs but probably not to people who don’t. For the non-surfers, a surf break is best enjoyed with only a small number of people surfing it at any one time. There are only so many waves each day that break so if you are in the water with just a few other people you can pick and choose the best waves to surf.
Now, take a second and consider this hypothetical scenario. I am a wealthy forty-something man who works in finance and only get to surf weekends due to my demanding job. When I go on holidays I want to surf as much as possible and catch as many waves as possible. I don’t want to have to compete with younger, fitter, stronger surfers with a far greater ability and understanding of the surf than I have. So I book to stay at a resort with exclusive access to a wave. The only other people who will be in the water with me are those staying at the same resort, who have paid the same premium I have. Without competition, the odds are I am going to get my fill of waves.
Now consider another scenario, slightly changed. I am also a forty-something man who works in finance. I get up at 4:45am every day and drive to the beach to surf before I go to work. I commit to the surf no matter what the conditions are so I can maintain my fitness and skill level. When I go on holidays I want to surf the best waves I can, and my lifelong commitment to surfing means that when I arrive I can compete with whoever else is in the water for my share of waves. The only problem, however, is that the region I have booked my next holiday has only one world-class wave and a nearby resort has just been granted an exclusive license over it!
There are a few issues to unpack in the above scenarios. The first being how exclusivity limits certain waves to the wealthy. There are both philosophical and economic aspects to this: Should the rich have exclusive access to nature? What if the money helps the locals? The second issue, closely related to the first, is how exclusivity disrupts the way surfing hierarchies work. Surfers worldwide understand that commitment and sacrifice have a payoff: they ensure you remain competitive in the water and so secure your share of waves. The third issue is that this scenario isn't wholly hypothetical, it's happening in the Maldives right now.
*****
The North Male region of the Maldives is where surfing's argument of exclusivity is currently focussed. The region has eight well known and well visited surf breaks, two of which are considered exclusive or were until recently. Two more were earmarked for exclusivity, although that did not eventuate as the government has recently gazetted a law stating that if a surfing or diving point forms part of the leased area of a resort then that point will be excluded from the lease. Effectively it is not exclusive. However the same document also states that ‘new laws’ are to follow. So what appears to be happening at the moment is a state of transition where no-one really knows if a break is exclusive or whether it is freely accessible but going to become exclusive again in the future. Add to that the fact that certain resorts have sold packages to guests on the basis of them having access to an exclusive surfing break, only for those guests to arrive and find others surfing the breaks. Will they be refunded for their lack of exclusivity? Are other surf tourism operations following 'Gentleman's rules' and not infringing on the existing arrangements?
My experience seems to suggest that the surf tourism operators are taking tentative steps toward surfing waves that have been exclusive in the past. While I did not see large groups of surfers descend on the previously tightly held exclusive spots, I personally surfed some of these locations and had no hassle from their guests or their management. In fact, quite the opposite was true. In one instance I was welcomed out as there was only one person surfing and he was happy to share a few waves.
You may wonder where the problem is when someone who's paid for exclusivity willingly shares waves with two others who haven't. The simplest explanation is that it's a matter of degree; if instead of two people that person had 22 people joining him in the surf, thereby drastically reducing his wave count, I'd wager he would have been less than inviting.
At this point there are two rock solid certainties to consider, each opposing the other. 1) the world's population will keep rising, and with it the surfing population, and 2) the market for exclusive surf resorts will also increase. With increasing friction these two aspects are rubbing against each other. In broader terms, the problem of exclusivity has nothing to do with wanting to surf a particular 'exclusive' wave and everything to do with wanting to limit the number of surfers in the water.
It's been suggested that a Management Plan be put into effect to control the number of visiting surfers in the Maldives. Yet even the suggestion invites controversy as the Maldives makes 90% - yes 90%! - of its tax revenue from tourism, so why should the Maldivian people have to limit the number of visitors (surfers) allowed at any one time. Local arguments aside, a Management Plan is a system where the total number of surfers in an area is limited to ensure overcrowding is minimised. The visiting surfer stands to benefit from this and the local community could theoretically charge a fee and also derive extra income.
However there are very few management plans in existence and if there was one that worked surely it would have been implemented in the busiest surf breaks in the world already. Instead the only one I know of is the Surfing Association of Papua New Guinea (SAPNG) plan in PNG. The system is great in theory, however there are already operators who have said they are not going to participate in the scheme and there is nothing that SAPNG can do about it. I spend a lot of time surfing and photographing in PNG and I’ll say this with absolute certainty, its surfing resources are relatively untapped so the Management Plan has never really been put to the test.
The only other sport that I can think of that has a similar management system is mountain climbing. While researching this article I spoke with a mountain guide who has worked in the Himalayas for nearly a decade, has summited Everest twice along with every other major peak on every continent. He explained that climbing permits for the major mountains like Everest are paid to a mountaineering tourism authority; you pay a fee and they give you a permit either as a group or individual. Funds are supposed to go to infrastructure and cleaning up the mountains (apparently there is a massive pollution problem on Everest and other popular peaks).
Unfortunately the Himalayan management system has not succeeded in reducing pollution or limiting the numbers of climbers. Corruption has played a major part in the system's ineffectiveness and, according to my source, even if they increased the fee by ten times there would still be more people on the mountain this year than last. It’s simple, as the population grows, so too does the number of people wanting to climb. It’s the same as surfing; as the population grows so too does the number of people learning to surf. That just puts more pressure on locations that are already struggling to cope under the weight of numbers.
So what can be done?
Well, if you want to get uncowded waves there are a number of measures you can take. Firstly, forget luxury, forget time, and get adventurous. There are plenty of places out there left to surf uncrowded waves. You just have to be willing to engineer your lifestyle a little differently, forgo the cocktail waitress, chef prepared meals, and air-conditioning and you can still surf alone. And when you find one of these places, don’t tell anyone! Seriously keep your mouth shut and the camera in the bag. I know what you are thinking right about now, here is a surf photographer who makes his living from photographing waves telling us not to do the same. Well, I promise you, there are places I have been and continue to return to that I keep hush about and, year in, year out, I surf there without any thought to crowds.
Secondly, if the first option isn't appealing, then do a little research. There are in fact surf charters and camps out there that have very few visitors (and great waves) but you have to be willing to go a little further afield and test out a few new locations. If you want a tried and tested guarantee then you are going to be there with everyone else who wants the same.
Thirdly there are simply too many people in the world – but that’s another discussion altogether…
So what about the issue of exclusivity? Well, on one level, if you look at the points above then who cares? At present there are other uncrowded spots so why worry about a handful of waves being held as exclusive? However the reason we should be worried is because it sets a precedent, a dangerous precedent. Each year as the surfing population grows so too does our spirit of adventure, and in turn the world shrinks. Surf breaks that were once unheard of will become popular and with that popularity will come people looking to capitalise financially out of it. And if exclusion is seen as the best fit by big business then the very thing that attracted most of us to the sport – freedom - will slowly be taken away, and only those with the bank balance, who can buy themselves into waves rather than commit to a surfing life will benefit in an evermore crowded planet. //JOEL COLEMAN
Joel Coleman is a photographer and business owner. He and his wife Sherrie run Saltmotion Gallery in Manly as well as providing a daily report and photo gallery. Joel spends many months of each year working and photographing in regions such as those mentioned in the story above and also those far from the beaten track.
Comments
Great article!
Joel is right though, if you want to escape crowds, go search! No point sitting around at a resort on the bukit waiting for Padang to break with 100 people on it, go east or west! So many uncrowded quality waves in the world, especially in Indo/SE Asia, may as well release your inner traveler-hippy and rough it out for a while in return for some uncrowded perfection.
Agreed. Regarding the conundrum of the rich guy who thinks he can pay his way into uncrowded waves - he can, but not by way of exclusivity. Instead he should hire a charter boat and go somewhere completely untapped. Much easier to explore when you have money to burn. The rest of us who have a lower travel budget should be free to surf anywhere we want, and free to choose our means of transport/accommodation without being penalised by exclusivity.
Just wait, in little over a decade the Russians will own some of the worlds best surf breaks......exclusively ....the mighty Russians and there U.S. dollars
Take Thailand for example, Phuket and Pattaya there everywhere ......how many Ruski surf schools in Bali in operation at present ? 10 I think
Violence to enforce exclusivity at surf breaks.....yep ...these fuckers make the Tavarua boat heavies look like a bunch of gay choir boys
Search out cold water waves.
With the right gear it's not that bad and after you surf in 6 deg water and sub-zero air temps you certainly know you've earned your waves. More than likely you'll be happy to have someone join you too.
For the record though, I'm totally against exclusivity. As far as I'm concerned, as soon as you hit the waterline, that's where exclusiveness should end.
seems like the trend is against exclusivity not towards it so it's hard to see where the premise of the article comes from.....
I head Occys Left at Sumba is about to be opened up.
If you want to look at management plans look closer to home, there is one being formulated for the Gold Coast as we speak.
@freeride 76 - In certain areas, namely Fiji, the run of exclusivity is over, however I have heard that particular resort interests are looking at trying to renew exclusive leases to popular waves they held in the past. I can't confirm this so I did not put it in the article. However in the Maldives over the past 18 months there has definitely been a push towards more breaks going exclusive. For now it seems to have been halted, but as i said in the article the Gazette from the Maldivian government states 'new laws to follow' - What these will be no one yet knows...
Could you please point me in the direction of the management plan being formulated for the Gold Coast, I would love to read it.
Occys left will never open up while indonesia remains corrupt
I'm totally against exclusivity of waves, although I think one important oversight in this article is the question of local laws. I think there needs to be respect for traditional rights and rules regarding land ownership which differ from place to place. To some people, the reef is considered part of the island and any activity which occurs on the reef (surfing, diving, snorkeling, fishing, etc) is akin to walking into their house and helping yourself to their food. Compare this to most of Aus, where private ownership cannot include the coastline - there must always be public thoroughfare between private property and the high tide line, such as a beach, nature strip, footpath or other public space.
@johnson - In other areas I have been such as the Solomon Islands this is exactly the case. In fact there were certain reefs we could not surf because the local village did not grant permission, fair enough, we moved on. This has also been the case in PNG where we have to ask for permission to anchor the boat before we can get in the water.
However the Maldives is in some regards different. The waves we are talking about are situated off islands where a resort has the commercial lease over the whole island. My understanding is that their lease line would include up to X many meters out to sea. For those resorts that have a surf break inside this zone they could call it 'exclusive'. However these islands are not inhabited by locals, they are 100% leased by a resort. The local Maldivian surfers do not have access to surf these waves. In fact some of the biggest protest about exclusivity in the Maldives came from the locals who did not want to be excluded from surfing waves in their own country.
The Gazetted laws state, as mentioned in my article, if a lease line includes a surf break or dive site it will be excluded from the lease.
Having said that, I don't think that will be the end of the debate, it's just where it is up to now and I would gladly invite anyone with any more information to share it here.
Difference being ....local laws traditional rights and the ability to grease a palm with $$$$$$
Get up a 4.30 every day? WTF does that in their mid fifties (particularly in a mid winter Victoria - Tommy Hafey maybe however he just passed away), haven't you heard of a thing called sleep? It isn't bad you should try it. I am one of those old farts who surfs on weekends and tries to keep fit out of the water during the week and am totally against exclusivity. If I can't cut the mustard anymore, bad luck, plus I want a bit of adventure on my holidays not 5 star boredom. You can get that anywhere and it is all the same. Give me a bit of grunge and getting down with the locals and reality anytime, as long as the weather and water are warm (no wettie) and the beer is ice cold. It is all about the overall experience not just the surf.
So, in a world where routinely large chunks of the planet are privately owned for private use, what it is about surf breaks that makes them somehow immune from private ownership? Other than simply our desire to surf them, what is it that makes surfers think that surf breaks are communally owned property of the surfing world? Are we in a special private ownership free zone of a world in which private ownership of natural resources is universally accepted as central to almost every society?
Maybe you're all closet anarchists who think that property is theft, but I suspect that you're all actually quite happy with private property except for this single, extra special case where your desires are curtailed.
You think you own these surf breaks in Indo, Maldives or where ever, just because you surf? I'd say you probably have the weakest claim of all. These breaks are the assets of the country in which they located, and it is up to the legal and governmental system of each country to determine how ownership is attributed, not you.
If you're looking at what should happen, ownership and access rights should be allocated in a way that benefits the local community. And if that means that they feel exclusivity is the best outcome, tough.
Seriously, you could count the number of access restricted waves around the world on one hand. If you don't want to fork out the dough to surf them there's an almost infinite number of alternatives.
To answer your initial question, maybe it's because surfing transcends all on-land laws and customs? You an take all the laws of all the countries and throw them away, surfing line ups operate upon a universal, informal set of rules. Does that explain why we discard the sovereign rules? Maybe...
The second half of your post ignores the fact that exclusivity in Less Developed countries is often a product of dubious/exploitative/corrupt arrangements that rarely benefit the locals in the way they should.
I take it you get that is not a defensible position. Much as we feel special, there's no magical difference between a surfer and any other member of the human race.
Two things.
Firstly, that undoubtedly true in some instances. But a) that not why people are pissed off. It's more that they're trying rationalise a selfish position with a selfless reason, and b) surely an internal political issue for the country?
Secondly, there are examples where it's definitely not true, even though there's plenty of baseless scuttlebutt around pushing the opposite point of view. Anyone who would argue that for instance that Nihiwatu hasn't had a very strong positive impact on the Sumbanese community is simply ignorant of the facts. Just because they are businesses chasing a profit doesn't mean they are evil. In Nihiwatu's case, the fact that it is a successful business is key to it's power to make a difference. The two go hand in hand.
Nihiwatu's (Claude (pesta tangan) Graves argument for exclusivity was to prevent a surf slum from happening, his sham organisation which did very little but funnel huge amounts of money into his pocket, provide a few showy water tanks that SURF AID are now having to spend money to remove as they are a health issue and stop the locals from earning tourist dollars, last time i checked Bali, Lombok, Sumbawa, Roti, Java, and mainland and island Sumatra weren't slums and locals are doing quite well for themselves.
It was sumba locals that pressured their local Bupati (government member) to open beach access last year so they could enjoy their own country, however it didnt last long as Graves once again made the trip to the Bupati with a huge bag of cash, the first time he was told to go home with the words "this is not America we are not for sale" however on subsequent return with a larger bag nothing more was said and it is once again exclusive.
once again local businesses and local surfers are left with nothing and corrupt government makes the money.
@grazza - I see your point and in some ways agree that the local population should be in charge of their resources, surf or otherwise.
The main point I tried to make however is the fact that in a world with an increasing population, more pressure will be placed on surfing locations. If exclusivity is a way for big business to capitalise on that and if the precedent is there for it to happen, it probably will...
A hypothetical question: How would you react if a landowner managed to secure a lease over your local surf break and you could no longer surf there?
Hi Joel - I guess I'm not too fussed about the way business can control surfing resources. I'm not too impressed with the way that unfettered surf tourism has destroyed places like Bali - if that's what free access delivers, I'm no fan.
It's interesting looking at somewhere like Bhutan, where tourism numbers are controlled using pricing mechanisms to maximise the benefit to the local economy while minimising the cultural and environmental impacts.
If I were a Maldivian surfer being excluded from surfing somewhere that I had been surfing for ages, then I'd probably be protesting. If someone did the same in Manly (as if), same reaction. But that's not the situation we're talking about here, is it?
Unfettered surf tourism didn't destroy Bali . Tourism destroyed Bali . I don't think too many of the people staying at the Mega Resorts that line the coast actually surf....yet.
Joel, great article, well argued. Do you think exclusivity bring a greater return to the locals? My understanding is that exclusivity will return to Sultans and Honkys when new resort opens.
I have just returned from the Maldives. The charter boats and their crews posted up at Sultans all day, every day for the week we were there.
The charter boats save money and fuel by not motoring to check other options.
What obligations should the charter boats have to spread out?
How crowded is too crowded? Should numbers be limited?
Should it be survival of the fittest? Sultans dosent have a group of hardcore locals to enforce etiquettte so if you were riding a mal or an SUP it was much easier to catch waves unimpeded.
What assistance should be provided to get the locals into the water?
Does the Maldivian or locals opinion matter? The maldives have actively sought out a higher end of tourism in developing the island, should the decision be left to them?
I understand that the charter boats in the the Mentawais at Macaronis are limited to 2 boats, as the locals feel that precedence should be given to the Macaronis resort guests whose dollars go to support the locals.
Interesting times in the surf world.....
Joel, I think you spoke to the wrong people to write this article. Australia is taking all the money from Maldivian surf exclusivity, Atoll Travel, World Safaris and Perfect wave are not local... They just enroll local boys to protect their jack pot. Anyone who tries to book an exclusive surf spot in Maldives is stupid, be a real surfer or sit at ur financial desk instead.
On the contrary freeride, I think exclusivity will make a comeback. It's something to ponder over as the wave resources around the world get stretched further and it becomes more crowded. If they managed to lock out the Maldives as they clearly were on their way to doing, it would just be a write-off with Ruskis and Israeli's having the lineup to themselves. You wouldn't go to just surf one wave at your resort.
I'm not sure the revenue aspect but surely Fiji has got more Tourism money since the decree was made to open up the reefs. I heard Roseman is currently lobbying the Fijian government to get exclusivity back for Tavarua. I mean it just takes paying off the right guy.
I thought the Maldives were going to be buried by global warming anyway?
I am with Johnson and Grazza on this...
Joel writes beautifully, I am sure his heart is in the right place and I like the guy.
But this article stinks of neo-imperialism. Wouldn't it be way cool if the whole world was just like Manly with an art gallery on every corner? OK, to my understanding in the English speaking world, private property ownership usually extends down to the high tide line. Lower than that it is public crown land open to all, exceptions to this free access would be the odd oyster lease, marina and the Red Bull contest at Ours (no, you can't go and watch it, which is a precedent). Meanwhile, in many traditional/Indigenous communities, ownership includes the (surfing) reef. Would you try telling some big Western Samoan rugby player on Savaii Island you are entitled to free access over his reef? No. And if Indigenous locals (in Fiji or the Maldives) choose to lease/sell the use and rights to that reef - that decision should be respected, not patronised.
@andrew-pitt - Firstly the comment you made about not being able to watch the Red Bull event at Cape Solander, is this fact?
When it comes to surfing exclusivity in the Maldives the local surfing population have also been excluded from surfing certain waves. I agree with you that if the community decide to restrict numbers, offer exclusivity, lease reefs then that is their decision. However I am trying to look at a bigger picture here and see the precedent that could be set for other areas around the world.
A couple of questions to ponder...
Does the local population benefit from an exclusive deal or could they benefit more from having more visitors and hence more tourist dollars spent in their country?
As I said in a comment above, How would you react if your local break was leased to a resort and you could no longer surf there?
Pardon Andrew-Pitt ? You're not allowed to watch the Red Bull comp at Ours ?
For real ?
Maldivian surfers don't want to sell their breaks! It's these surf travel company owners who wants to sell these breaks. Doesn't matter if they are American, Australian or even from mars. All they want is to take over the whole place and make some money by crowding the breaks! Why would Indigenous people want to sell their land, that's dumb! Australians/Brits/Americans think they can take over the world just like they took over the Australia/America from the indigenous people! Tourists Go home. We have survived in this country for 1000s of years, we will survive! We don't need your blood money!
@DarkMatter - Through my time in the Maldives I have heard several different opinions on exclusivity from the local surfers, but never have I heard a request so strongly worded for tourists to leave altogether. Is this a view shared amoungst many of your peers? Either way could you please encourage them to voice their opinions in this forum, I for one would be very interested in hearing what they have to say.
Darkmatter, you'd better be nice to us or you'll be living on a life raft if global warming swamps your nation.
Red Bull comp surely they want spectators ? Stu got some info on his ?
Nup, what they want is online viewers. Botany Bay National Park will 'apparently' be closed to the public - or at least the part of it housing Cape Solander - on the day the competition runs. It's the first time they've restricted access in this way, the justification being safety.
Last Friday, when a large south swell hit Sydney, a rumour got out that the competition was on and the carpark was full. Couldn't move in or out, despite the comp not running. I think they've got Buckley's of keeping people out of the park. Cars, yeah, they can put a blockade up, but there's no way in hell a couple of park rangers are gonna be able to stop wily groms and determined photogs from getting in. It's only a kay or so to walk to the Cape through bush or along the rocks.
Maybe we should start by having Brazilian free zones and go from there!!!
Yes, no spectators allowed at the Red Bull Cape Solander event.
http://www.redbullcapefear.com/faq.html
Q. Is the event open to spectators? How do I watch it?
A. Unfortunately the event is not open to spectators, sorry. Red Bull Cape Fear is located in a national park. In accordance with the event agreement with NSW Parks and Wildlife and to minimize impact on the local environment, only a limited number of people are permitted at the event site. This will be made up of surfers, production crew and event staff.
Interesting topic, one I've commented on before. It's a complex issue and while we struggle with the concept of someone owning the waves or having exclusive access to the water and fringing reef of an atoll, its not new in the Maldives. I have been told that exclusive access to the water and fringing reef has been a feature of life for the residents of the atolls in the Maldives for along time. Basically it was about preserving the fish stocks in the water around the atoll for the people who lived there. Sounds fair. So the waves that break on the fringing reefs are an extension of that. Bear in mind these places have very limited resources. So you might say its not the locals who have built these resorts and reap all the financial benefit however from what I've seen the resorts do employ a lot of local residents in places where other employment options are non existent. The same cannot be said for the surf charter boats. I've seen the same in the Mentawais, third world poverty, limited resources but great waves. Surf tourism offers a great opportunity for development and improving living standards for the local people but crowded waves could bring it undone. One of the things we all love about surfing is its 'free'.You don't have to pay to use the waves. But in reality more and more surfers are paying to do just that so as competition increases for waves so too will various forms of regulation. Just like any crowded city beach where every patch of sand is 'owned' and the subject of rules. Lets hope surfing never ends up there but my guess is 'ownership' and various forms of regulation is where some places are going.
Great article.
What do people think about wave pools?
They have the potential to reduce crowding and surf travel as the 40 year old finance guy with 3 kids and 4 weeks leave may be content surfing a futuristic wave pool offering up say 10 3-4ft 100m waves in an hour session. Wave pools within a 30 min commute from home/office would easily fit into the corporate/family schedule and people may pay a premium for that.
On the other hand, it may get more people into surfing that wouldn't otherwise and after a few goes at the wave pool, they would be keen to hit the real surf. Imagine if wave pools in China took off then there were a few million 'graduating wave poolers' booking flights to SE Asia and wanting to surf some real waves.
I'm in agreement with Grazza. It seems those opposed are doing it for purely selfish reasons.
I for one support exclusivity in the right scenarios. Namely if a resort/camp is the sole operator on an island/in an area (e.g. Lohifushi). The primary reason for this is, if they've bothered to put up the capital to invest in a permanent contribution to a local area, why should they not have exclusivity in some form or another?
Take the Mentawis for example. Which operation do you think contributes more to a local population, the 30pax resort with lounge area & restaurant, made in a chic fusion of local and western design, with 80% of staff from the local area.....or the various motor yachts that come into the area every second day, surf for a couple hours, maybe come ashore to buy some water, bintang, and a bag of rice and a couple of vegies....?
To those here saying "oh but money never really goes to the community", mistakenly attribute this to resort exclusivity agreements, the real culprit is corruption. Put another way, exclusivity does not in and of itself mean a community won't benefit - whether they do benefit is entirely up to local government officials and/or community leadership regimes.
As someone else said, there's a plethora of empty waves out there if you're willing to forgo western luxuries. And, as someone else pointed out, look what the "free access" approach has done to Bali and is doing to Lombok (although will be interesting to see how everything unfolds in Sth Lombok with stacks of land having been bought up by Russians and Arabs).
The best example is Bhutan's solution, they've put a cap on visitors in order to maintain the integrity of their natural environment and local culture, resulting in a high entry price. If you don't like it/can't afford it, then boo bloody hoo, that's how supply:demand/The World works.
No one owns owns anything, we are all just custodians. Before an injury I surfed three times a day at one of the most crowded spots in the surfing world. I never went without waves because my attitude was one of being blessed, not competitive. I hooted others on waves, i embraced the whole experience and hence I always-always, had great waves come to me. I invite others to realise that when you embrace a consciousness of being at one with the ocean, the wind, the tides, the waves, other surfers, not only will you feel like a grommet every surf, you will get waves that are unforgettable. The secret is not to focus on who is in the water, but to focus on the relationship between you and the waves and the law of attraction will ensure you will be stoked. Surfing, its a love affair between you and the waves.
I am just about to go to the Maldives and had no option but to take the surfer package at $100.00 per day. You can't take alternate days or get your money back on no swell. I think that is bullshit because if they sell me surf and I don't get it, wtf won't I get a refund?? A lot of people on this forum think that this is only for the rich, but what about boat tours through Indo? They also come with some expectations regardless if you pay $2k or $10k - I've been there and get just as pissed off as the next bloke when a boat load of Brazo's turn up. This isn't just about the Maldives, it is about anyone paying for the privilege to get uncrowded waves. This has been happening for years and will continue to be a draw card for tourism to these countries, especially for those (like me) with young families. If the waves weren't there I certainly would not be going for the religious experience or the over-priced booze....
You can keep the crowds down by giving everybody a free Swellnet leggie .
The string came untied on my brand new one ( first time out ) and I spent half an hour swimming Kuta Reef , not surfing it !!! haha
Must have been a dodgy one because mine handled double overhead 19 second period Sumatran pits.
Surely we don't need to include string-tying instructions with each leggie?
Yep Indo dreaming , it didn't break , just untied itself ....it must of been put together on a Friday when the weekend forecast was for pumping waves....your's probably a Monday after the said pumping weekend surf . Have you ever tried putting that string thing back on your board when you're in the water and its pumping like it was last weekend (*&^&^??? anyway , sorry for going off topic Swellnet Gods but if you want to send me a new one Ben , you've got my details , haha
Weekend forecast for pumping waves in P.R.C.
String-tying is an interesting topic - got shown a new knot not that long ago after using a different knot for years - this one is better. Is there a 'best-practice' knot? :)
How you then attach said string (once tied) to the board can also vary - I like to have the loops at both ends rather than only one loop (ie pulled thru) cause once they get too tight they can be a bugger to changeover - which you generally seem to need to do when you're away somewhere...
We need surf exclusivity! Believe me I did not always have this opinion. 10 years ago I was involved in campaigning for Tavarua exclusivity to be scrapped. Now I'm saddened I did. Having been to Indo & Fiji regularly since the early 90's - I never would have believed how crowded the surf has become. I was in the Mentawai's in June 2014 & the crowds have completely destroyed the place. I was wanting to take my wife to the Maldives next year to enjoy some uncrowded waves but this will be no different from the Mentawai's if exclusivity is abolished. I know there negatives to the debate - but if you could look 10 years into the future you would see the positives.
what are the positives? uncrowded waves for those who can afford them?
Mentawais are full of kooks, it's easy to get waves if you can surf.
If Mike is who I suspect he is then he is a more than capable surfer and because of his entrepreneurial efforts also relatively affluent which can obviously cloud ones judgement. However unfortunately most surfers are also reasonably well off these days thus increasing crowd pressure. Sometimes you might be better to stay at home taking waves off two peaks at once over at the island hey Mike ;-)
Its sad that people expect they can buy everything with money these days, you don't buy uncrowded waves with money, you get uncrowded waves by putting in time and effort and that how it should be.
To many believe the spin of resorts..hello wake up..if you book into a resort that takes a dozen guest or more, your not going to get uncrowded waves, its like travelling with a dozen mates except most times there not mates, personally in Indo i travel alone or with one or two friends max, and a lot of the time we surf quality waves alone, although often a charter boat or resort boat will turn up :(
Regarding the Mentawai's, it is what it is, arguably the world richest most consistent high quality wave zone on the planet was always going to end up crowded and there was never going to be a way around that and it makes no sense for governments to even want or care on restricting guest numbers its not in there best interest and its sure isn't in the best interest of the local people many who are now are providing accommodation at more realistic indonesian prices, and there the people that have more right to there resources than any of us.
absolutely, rich white men trying to obtain exclusivity over another countries surf breaks just smacks of the worst kind of morally bankrupt imperialism.
Agree wholeheartedly Steve, but why not limit "tourist/surfer" numbers but allow all locals to surf their breaks in places like the Maldives. I see this as a rather reasonably fair compromise....oh and the exclusive resort needs to be owned and operated by locals.
Freeride…If you read the story of Tony Hines at the Maldives, you will see that having exclusive rights to a break was essential to start the surf ventures there. It introduced surfing to the locals, gave them jobs and now there is an industry expanding across the region. Measure the true cost of going to spot with exclusive rights and then going by boat to surf anywhere - you maybe surprised of the difference. Certainly not reserved for 'rich white men' or 'imperialism' (not sure why that word).
Ethical price gouging. Make a few breaks exclusive, charge a fuckload. Hope that the profits are distributed fairly amongst the locals; or not, they can do whatever they want I spose.
They made super bank and charged nobody (government paid). Everybody has benefited. The profits are spread right the south Gold Coast plus major contests. Win win I see.
Maybe the answer is to push for making surf reefs or adding rocks to current points which nearly produce surf able waves. The fact is surfing is popular. Just as we make footy fields, skate ramps and stadiums - why not surf reefs.
Not sure where the precursor and context for those comments came from TonyB, but I agree wholeheartdly- I think the only long term solution to overcrowding in urban areas is to create artificial reefs.
Thing is artificial reefs cost lots of money and don't generate money.
People who lock up waves do it because its a sure fire way to charge ridiculously high price possible and maximise profits.
Thats probably the only way in my mind you could actually justify exclusive rights though, turning an unreadable reef/beach into a high quality wave.
Exclusivity is required because of the demand. We are travelling the world to find unsurfed quality waves.
Making artificial or I am suggesting adding / filling holes in current points is cost effective and easy.
The sand dredging at super bank proves the commercial viability. The Goldie lives because of the points.