Surfing Waves

Good day

Im planning a trip to the maldives in July - possibly hudhuranfushi or Kandooma but the rates for surfers vs the rates for other guests are astronomically higher. Surely i could just book with the resort and surf the break out front without having to pay these higher rates ?

Any feedback or advice on these matters would be greatly appreciated.

The yeah right option is here for you, both resorts have exclusive rights to the wave in front of their resorts,
As a for instance at Lohi's no other crew from a boat or other resort can surf there, they also limit the number of surfers staying at the resort ( hence the premium price) the same at Kandooma, Pasta Point or other surf resorts.
The surfers' price also often includes boats access to other breakswhere you will have to mix it with boats from other resorts or the boat charters.
The resort breaks are often off limits to charter boats.

So imagine your water reception if you paddle out amongst the premium payers!

Are you going to hide your intentions when you arrive with your board under your arm?

Hey is a great not so crowded surf and other spot access not worth the premium? It's not like you can walk to another break!

I don't very much like the idea of monopolised waves. It's all natural resources right? No legal basis to keep it private as far as I know.
Resort holders should just stick to making money with their quality of service, and share the waves, like we all do.

Tudeo wrote:I don't very much like the idea of monopolised waves. It's all natural resources right? No legal basis to keep it private as far as I know.
Resort holders should just stick to making money with their quality of service, and share the waves, like we all do.

Just a note legal in one jurisdiction does not imply the same elsewhere.
Often in atoll societies the reefs are seen as a farm belonging to a specific group.

Consider too, you need the resort owner's boat to get to the resort on the specific atoll.
It took a full Fijian coup to challenge the exclusive rights the resort holders of Tavarua, had on restaurants and cloudbreak, Tavarua is still in the prime position to access the breaks ,but now others can, and the benefits are being spread to more Fijians.
Since almost all Australian beaches are public domain, Aussies most subscribe to the surf is a natural resource and is free to all thought, and just stunned when they go elsewhere
and find it just isn't so

Thanks for the info Jaffa.

"Often in atoll societies the reefs are seen as a farm belonging to a specific group.", makes sense I guess. Still, it kills free enterprise for the locals, it looks to me.

But free enterprise isn't without it's downsides too, the Bali surf guides abundance shows.

Tudeo wrote:Thanks for the info Jaffa.

"Often in atoll societies the reefs are seen as a farm belonging to a specific group.", makes sense I guess. Still, it kills free enterprise for the locals, it looks to me.

But free enterprise isn't without it's downsides too, the Bali surf guides abundance shows.

Some of the best waves in California are the private domain of the super rich. It's disgusting. The arrogance of the wealthy elite never ceases to amaze me. They have the gall to think they're stewards of the environment.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-m ... story.html

There are areas where restrictions work well - albeit that most of those are community or government run rather than privately (PNG has (had?) several areas where you need to be allocated a licence to surf with restricted numbers eg http://www.surfingpng-newireland.org.pg ... gement.htm )

However, I imagine that many of the private resorts also pay a fee onto the government etc

What happens to that money, who knows!

let me introduce you to the way it works in Vanuatu .
In a tribal area a set of allotments belong to the members of the tribal governed by the elders and similarly various reefs belong to the tribal members, they cannot be sold on without a full tribal agreement over the conditions , enter or usage by non tribal members requires fiirstly Kustom, A courtesy payment for day or short term use and you wait a meeting at the entrance to tribal area before permission is granted. Throughout pacific and atoll tribal areas these rules have precedence . The have been bad deals where westerners have bought tribal land , and then supposedly the reef and plot rights belong to the westerners.
Like all these sorts of deals there have been some that have been greatly beneficial to the locals and others have been severely detrimental.

BTW some charters are little more than surf pirates cruising into a break when it is on , staying some short time and very little cash goes into the villages behind the break! The surfers are safely cocooned in the boat and only embark and disembark contacts.
The port and mooring fees have very little trickle down effect.
I would invite any surf traveler to see how they think the ethics of the resort or charter contributes fairly to the local welfare. then select their holiday .

RinkyDink wrote:Some of the best waves in California are the private domain of the super rich. It's disgusting. The arrogance of the wealthy elite never ceases to amaze me. They have the gall to think they're stewards of the environment.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-m ... story.html

Wow what a story! I've got the feeling they make it a lot more complicated than it is. There's the west for ya, the delusion of transparency, and a lot of lawyers..

jaffa1949 wrote:I would invite any surf traveler to see how they think the ethics of the resort or charter contributes fairly to the local welfare. then select their holiday .

By the way, my comments about public access are only applicable to the Hollister Ranch. I don't know enough about public access in other parts of the world to be able to comment about them. I suspect in many parts of the world restricted public access will translate to profit for a ruling family or a wealthy tycoon, but I would have to research each area if I wanted to surf there.

As far as the Hollister Ranch goes, I understand that it is an environmental treasure, but the public should be granted access. Limit the number of people who can have access if the area needs to be protected. I can live with that. What I don't approve of is only allowing James Cameron and his family access, with a helicopter pad to boot, while the rest of us are blocked. That's BS. If the public are going to be blocked, then perhaps it's time to start talking about eminent domain and the public interest. We'll just take it back, boot out the aristocrats, and then sort out access. If they want to play hard ball, then let's do that. One day or another, Hollister Ranch coastline needs to be open to its owners, the public.

I dont know how strong the environmental arguments are ie how delicate the environment is and how it will be affected by more people. But there are areas that are off limits for environmental reasons in lots of places, and many many more where access is intentionally made difficult (eg you have to hike in for several days as there is no road access for the public). As another example, in Australia we have quite a few 'no fishing zones' in areas that are regarded as juvenile breeding grounds. Yes you can physically access those areas, but you can use them for fishing

Just because this is a beach/surfing area I dont think should make a huge difference.

But whether or not there is actually that environmental justification for Hollister Ranch I dont know - just because an areas in not developed doesnt necessarily make it either environmentally special or likely to be significantly adversely affected by having people access it.

dtc wrote:I dont know how strong the environmental arguments are ie how delicate the environment is and how it will be affected by more people. But there are areas that are off limits for environmental reasons in lots of places, and many many more where access is intentionally made difficult (eg you have to hike in for several days as there is no road access for the public). As another example, in Australia we have quite a few 'no fishing zones' in areas that are regarded as juvenile breeding grounds. Yes you can physically access those areas, but you can use them for fishing

Just because this is a beach/surfing area I dont think should make a huge difference.

But whether or not there is actually that environmental justification for Hollister Ranch I dont know - just because an areas in not developed doesnt necessarily make it either environmentally special or likely to be significantly adversely affected by having people access it.

It's not hard to restrict access to the public if it's necessary. The national park service does it all the time; I actually think they should do it more often in some places. However, if the public is restricted access to a beach, then I don't see why Hollister Ranch residents should not be restricted as well. The notion that private land owners should have some special privilege unavailable to the public is absurd.