Serendipitous Shock

So, just as soon as I leave from NORCAL, the local free-rag of journalistic sensationalism offers an in-depth expose on the local surf scene. Of course, I would not have even known that such a lame-ass literary interpretation of the "surf scene" was available for all eyes had I not saved the web address of this publication for the purposes of staying "in touch" with my NORCAL home while in exile.

Cool pic...and that's about it. The article was written as an attempt to illicit reaction from those of us that view ANY over-indulgent exposure of our beloved spots as a major infraction of that numero uno law of surfing: You don't talk, or shit, about where you surf.

This idiot even had the audacity to admit that he tried to get actual local surfers, one of whom is a known free-lancing journalist for this paper, to contribute to the article...only to receive a hardy rebuke from everyone. Moreover, the journalist, Jenn Savage, had written a similar article for the same paper several years ago...upon which she was given an earful about the cardinal rule. Hence, her refusal to assist with the current report.

I'm not against people finding out on their own, as there are plenty of online sites devoted to assisting all of us with finding the right place with the right conditions. What I'm against is the "Cheese" factor in attempting to highlight an area that has already seen too much publicity. Besides, as this comment from the article so beautifully emphasizes:

Free speech is a wonderful thing. One is free to say or write what he or she likes. However, discretion is sometimes a better course than saying, "So an article about local spots is a bad idea? Well, just watch me and I will do whatever someone tells me not to do." This may be one of those times for discretion.

To wit, dragging Jen Savage into the article and into the radio interview was in poor taste. She said, "Leave me out," yet there she is.

Anyway, a few observations from a local. In the interview, I find irony that two people who do not surf are comparing surfing to restaurants and games. When a restaurant is popular, one makes reservations. Why? Because it cannot serve everyone. Same for many surf spots. The significant difference here is that one does not get injured in the restaurant, while surfing crowded places with too many people in heavy conditions is deadly. In fact, any surfer will tell you it can be dangerous even in not-so-heavy conditions. The more crowded a place becomes, the more chance for injury. This is not SoCal. The waves here are often heavy, the water always cold. The danger is real.

Bocce ball? What a comparison. One can build a million courts for such a game. You might pull a muscle. Not so with surfing spots. They are few and far between. The attitude expressed on the air is that crowds are no big deal. However, Camel Rock is a crowded zoo where etiquette is ignored. Etiquette is necessary for all to get waves and for safety. Why is this lack of respect the norm? Too many people. Lots of locals do not surf there because it is dangerous. That is one reason people are upset about the article.

The conclusion reached on the radio (apparently a survey of three people who call in constitutes a majority) was that the locals were "not that upset." Personally I am saddened that, when advised not to go public, that is what the station and Mr. Sims did. And for what? When the article begins, "News is something someone wants to suppress. Everything else is advertising," this is telling. There is no news here, as the author admits, so it follows that garnering attention is the point and selling ads.

To quote one of my younger local friends, "Dude, these guys just don't get it."

Anyways, when it comes down to it...you don't shit where you surf. Period.

P.S. I have ALWAYS tried to eliminate any "landmarks" for most of the waves I get to surf in NORCAL, with one exception. I figured that since it appeared prominently in a Suburu commercial that played on all major networks, it really didn't matter anymore.