Jump to content

Boating now heavily restricted


Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, ScottiE said:

This Gummit has form in changing its mind on a whim so who knows what will and will not be allowed by Monday.  There is a complete disconnect in logic in not allowing most recreation level sporting activities to continue.

Agree the govt has form for changing its mind on a whim, but in this context I don't have a problem with it. They are having to make decisions with massive ramifications very quickly and on limited facts. The corollary of what you are saying, is you would want the govt to get every detail perfect before announcing a decision. This happens often in local govt, is called paralysis by analysis. It is where nothing ever gets decided, nothing ever gets done, and the can is kicked down the road while the problem persists. In this context (covid 19) any decision is better than none. Is the decision perfect? No, but even half right is 50% more than nothing.

As for the sport and recreation thing, that is not a priority at L3. The economy and our health are. There are things I want to buy (and a few things I need to buy) and while I can phone the shops, they aren't allowed to sell it to me. Hopefully that can happen at L3.

All going well, L3 will only last 2 weeks, and we can get back to it. But this constant bitching about what we can't do recreation wise at L3 is starting to get really boring. Recreation will come at L2, in the mean time there are a few of us that would like to secure our jobs and knock off this virus, so it doesn't keep coming back every couple of months for the next 5 years. As a note, the estimated time to achieve herd immunity is 5 years in many countries, so you'd have flare ups and lock downs with no notice ongoing for years, with all the associated damage and cost to the economy. There is an underlying reason why its is the least cost option long term to stay locked down now.

Just interested, can any of you guys calling for looser requirements explain the concept of exponential growth? I'd really like to know if you understand that?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 340
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Agree the govt has form for changing its mind on a whim, but in this context I don't have a problem with it. They are having to make decisions with massive ramifications very quickly and on limited fa

The higher the alert levels, the less rights you have. This is not some form of sinister Gvt control of the People however. It is about keeping the Public safe in a time of crises. You yourself might

Your comment is out of line and I've reported it. We don't need racism in NZ, or anywhere. #givenothingtoracism

Posted Images

6 hours ago, Tamure said:

Coastguard, the volunteer firefighters of the gulf.  No disrespect to the solid crew among them but TBH most of them seem to be there for the cosplay and beers given how effing useless they are at towing yachts.  

I was deliberately staying out of this topic, but I'm 100% with you here. A few of the local CG guys are extremely competent and experienced, and should probably be a professional outfit. On the other hand, one of my work colleagues is a CG first response guy. He can't swim, and I think he'd be a liability on a boat.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah good post Fish.  

Kicking it is for sure the priority. I guess I just want the reasons they use to be as transparent as they claim their government to be. Using trumped up numbers to justify things make the sport look bad and creates bad will. I’d imagine the true reason boating is on the no go list, is just the general amount of to-ing and fro-ing it would cause across towns and cities, which seems logical and would be ok. But don’t say you can’t go for a few nights on your moored boat, well prepared, because your a liability and the coastguard won’t be there, as for the absolute majority of trips, that’s simply not true. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, mattm said:

Yeah good post Fish.  

Kicking it is for sure the priority. I guess I just want the reasons they use to be as transparent as they claim their government to be. Using trumped up numbers to justify things make the sport look bad and creates bad will. I’d imagine the true reason boating is on the no go list, is just the general amount of to-ing and fro-ing it would cause across towns and cities, which seems logical and would be ok. But don’t say you can go for a few nights on your moored boat, well prepared, because your a liability and the coastguard won’t be there, as for the absolute majority of trips, that’s simply not true. 

The YNZ link on Deep purples post previous page is worth a read

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Tamure said:

Coastguard, the volunteer firefighters of the gulf.  No disrespect to the solid crew among them but TBH most of them seem to be there for the cosplay and beers given how effing useless they are at towing yachts.  

Had reason for them to tow us up the tamaki river to our mooring once,water pump failure and where was the spare impeller,at home by mistake,left the old one onboard.Out going tide with no wind.Any way they towed us up on a short tow to almost our mooring and the barged us to the mooring ,did it in a complete seamanship manner,no issues what so ever. For a VOLUNTEER coast guard and I have no problem paying them to do what they do .$115 is fair and reasonable. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Sabre said:

The YNZ link on Deep purples post previous page is worth a read

Yeah I did real it. Before I made that post too. What did I miss (genuine question Sabre, interested in the discussion and open to having my mind changed)?

My take away from the YNZ release was, that YNZ have only considered and advocated for the sport of yacht racing,  no mention of cruising was given. Which is sad. My local club is a boating club,  not just racing. YNZ insist on all members, non racing yachts and launches included, paying the YNZ levy. They say they do advocacy work on behalf of these members. Although until recently pointed out the them, their mission statement was much like this press release, no mention of launches or cruising at all, and bias toward high performance and dinghy racing, rather than keel boats or general sailing. They also didn’t have a whole lot of examples of work done for that particular group of fee paying members that I saw. This would have been a prime opportunity for them provide an example of what they say they do, even though it would again, not likely change the outcome of no boating, at least those members might feel they had a voice representing their interests. This has been an issue for my local club and several others for quite a while now. Those members see the YNZ fee on their membership bill, and say, ‘I’m not a yacht’, or ‘I do not race’, I get nothing, why should I pay. Somewhat hard to argue....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...