From: c9111549@cc.newcastle.edu.au
Subject: Re: SEX & surf
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 02:44:59 GMT

In article <10692568.34.715924454@eng2.eng.monash.edu.au>, 10692568@eng2.eng.monash.edu.au (CARLOS LOPEZ) writes:
> 
> 
> OK so this article has nothing to do about sex  so what.. this is more 
> important though....
> 
> Currently i am involved in the design of artificial surf reefs for a couple 
> of spots 'round ozland.  The project is really only into its baby stage and 
> i just want to get some feedback into how the SURFER world feels about a 
> couple of aspects in the running of the reef:
> things such as : 
> 
> would the fact that there is this really kool wave at that spot influence 
> many of you guys to visit that particular spot?
> 
> by how much yould tourism increase?
> 
> is it worthwile going through the trouble of designing this thing when there 
> are plenty of other places where the wave is naturaly kool?
> 
> what touristic spots 'round Australia would you prefer this reef to be 
> at?....by that i mean places like Surfers Paradise 'cause i went last year 
> and encountered a kinda mutant amorphous shitty surf which cost me  three 
> cuts in the leg and a back-fin .....perhaps it was just the season but.... 
> HMMMMMM
> 

  There is thousands of kilometres of beach around Australia, but the only
place that people can really surf are around headlands.  The Australian
coast generally seems to consist of a headland then a long stretch of beach
and then another headland. These long stretches of beach are usually useless
for surfing because no sandbanks are formed.  This means that waves just close
out and break close to shore. In order to work some obstruction needs to be
placed in the flow of sand that is washed along the beach from north to
south. This would cause a buildup of sand thus giving sandbanks and waves.
  On a thirty km stretch of beach aproxiametly 45 breakwalls could be built
creating 45 breaks that never existed before.  This would certainly reduce
crowds in the water.
  Surfable waves are a limited resource and with more and more people beginning
to surf there will be less waves to go around and the level of aggression in
the water will increase.  The numbers of surfers in the water around cities and
large towns is already rediculous. I think anything that increase the number of
breaks and therefore waves, such as building breakwalls and artificial reefs, is
a good thing.  But who would pay for the building of reefs and breakwalls?
The government doesn't spend enough money on education, and therefore could not
be expected to support a scheme to increase the surfer-wave ratio. I mean, lets
face it, we are talking about a huge amount of money to build just one reef or
breakwall, let alone hundreds or thousands.  Then there would be the usuall
shit brought up by conservationist groups about ruining the landscape (although
the breakwalls could be built summerged below low tide level) and destroying
marine life (although the reefs would become a haven for marine-life).
  There is a solution to crowded surf but the money just isn't around to do it.
Also a bit of underwater blasting could remove some closeout sections in reef
breaks.
  Anyway, I think surfers would be in favour of the building of reefs etc. but
Buy-A-New-Surfboard-For-The-Poor-Uni-Student Fund.