The Trails Less Travelled
Posted: Tue Sep 20, 2005 7:29 pm
So, this is a topic that seems to be hitting close to home this week, and I have yet to understand it fully. Being a photographer and a one time journalist, as well as a surfer who loves to travel, I'm trying to come to terms with this need to keep surf spots secret by either not taking pictures, or if pictures are taken, by changing the name or identity.
To me this reeks of censorship, and maybe I'm not making any friends this way but I really don't believe that a picture is going to threaten a spot. I think if someone wants to find someplace, they will, whether or not I've taken a photo of it. Chances are, they've already found it, it's already been photographed, id'ed, catalouged and published in one of the hundreds of surfing or online publications already out there. It's just that the more locals who call it home the more paranoid they get and the more they try to save it just for themselves. Trouble is, the population keeps growing, and the population of surfers grows as well. Even though most of us most of the time won't travel more than the few miles it takes us to get to our familiar stomping grounds. The rest of the time we only dream of those far away places which may have perfect, uncrowded surf. Maybe if we're rich, lucky, or well connected we'll actually get to visit those places. And the perfect uncrowded waves ... well, they're usually just another myth as well, but the fun is in the adventure. There may still be hundreds of unknown, undiscovered surf spots out there, but in the real world most of us don't have either the time, resources or inclination to hump around the world with a backpack and a board searching them out.
Yes, I understand that the people who surf a local spot may not want everyone to know where it is or how good it gets, for fear that it will be overrun by other surfers. Yet if I take a photo and call it "seaside", or "boat house", or "threes", or "fullers", and you don't have a clue as to where those places are, have I really identified it other than by name? Does that name make it any easier for you to find the place and run out there with 20 of your friends? I really doubt that it does. There is far more likely to be a heavy impact on a spot by word of mouth: my friend takes me there to have someone to surf with, then I take my friends there for the same reason, then they take their friends there ... etc.
As a little perspective on crowds, I surf regularly at one of the most crowded spots in San Diego. Without a doubt it is one of the most consistently good spots in the county, it is easily accessible (unlike the other premier spot), and has a reputation for aggressive localism. It's good on a south, southwest, west, and northwest swell, and tends to blow out less and later than most surrounding beach breaks. Yet I invite anyone on this site to visit and surf Windansea, as I'm proud to be able to surf there and share it with others who would appreciate it and respect it as I do. I've posted many pictures of the place, and if you don't know where it is I will tell you how to get there. I will still be able to get the waves I want when I want to, and chances are it won't be as good as it can be on any given day you choose to visit. I will get to surf it on the best days of the year, because I know the place and I live here. And I realize that in the real world, it will probably always be this crowded, will probably be more crowded in the future no matter if I take pictures or not, and it will likely never be less crowded. That is the reality of the world.
So if I post a picture of Backyards and call it Backyards, does that mean that you're going to find out where it is and fly out there and crowd it up? If I instead call it "the place in front of Buddy's house" does that mean I've protected it from being mucked up by unwanted visitors?
Localism is an ugly thing, and surfers are already an elitist, priviledged group with enough personal resources and time to participate in a self-absorbed recreation. There are more people in the world who don't have enough food on the table, much less the time to worry about whether their local spot is going to be exposed and become a limited resource for their exclusive use. As big issues in the world go, this one is pretty far down the list.
And one last point, about threatened resources. Consider the case of Killer Dana. Harry's in Baja. Surf spots that were threatened and eventually destroyed completely, not by crowds but by big money and lack of any kind of organized protest. Granted, Killer Dana was long before Surfrider Foundation, but Harry's was a big wave secret spot so secret that no one said "boo" to Exxon until the jetty was already built and it was too late to stop it. However, what if there had been pictures out there? You see a picture now of the place firing, and you would be outraged that the big money moguls took it out so easly. How many other unnamed, unknown, unphotographed places out there might also be threatened, given the current undermining of EPA and other coastal protection agencies in the current administration. Not that a picture can save a place, but it certainly can rally the troops if needed. More so than the handful of seasoned baja locals could have done on their own.
So that's my somewhat biased viewpoint, as a photographer, traveller, and writer. I do respect these places. I feel personally that taking a picture celebrates a place. I embrace it's beauty, majesty, and yes it's rarity. I think the pictures help others to embrace it as well. And I applaud the locals who are lucky enough to call a place their own. But I don't agree with localism or elitism of any kind on public property. And I do challenge anyone who tells me I don't have the right to take a picture.
but, I'm a bit of a hard head too ...
To me this reeks of censorship, and maybe I'm not making any friends this way but I really don't believe that a picture is going to threaten a spot. I think if someone wants to find someplace, they will, whether or not I've taken a photo of it. Chances are, they've already found it, it's already been photographed, id'ed, catalouged and published in one of the hundreds of surfing or online publications already out there. It's just that the more locals who call it home the more paranoid they get and the more they try to save it just for themselves. Trouble is, the population keeps growing, and the population of surfers grows as well. Even though most of us most of the time won't travel more than the few miles it takes us to get to our familiar stomping grounds. The rest of the time we only dream of those far away places which may have perfect, uncrowded surf. Maybe if we're rich, lucky, or well connected we'll actually get to visit those places. And the perfect uncrowded waves ... well, they're usually just another myth as well, but the fun is in the adventure. There may still be hundreds of unknown, undiscovered surf spots out there, but in the real world most of us don't have either the time, resources or inclination to hump around the world with a backpack and a board searching them out.
Yes, I understand that the people who surf a local spot may not want everyone to know where it is or how good it gets, for fear that it will be overrun by other surfers. Yet if I take a photo and call it "seaside", or "boat house", or "threes", or "fullers", and you don't have a clue as to where those places are, have I really identified it other than by name? Does that name make it any easier for you to find the place and run out there with 20 of your friends? I really doubt that it does. There is far more likely to be a heavy impact on a spot by word of mouth: my friend takes me there to have someone to surf with, then I take my friends there for the same reason, then they take their friends there ... etc.
As a little perspective on crowds, I surf regularly at one of the most crowded spots in San Diego. Without a doubt it is one of the most consistently good spots in the county, it is easily accessible (unlike the other premier spot), and has a reputation for aggressive localism. It's good on a south, southwest, west, and northwest swell, and tends to blow out less and later than most surrounding beach breaks. Yet I invite anyone on this site to visit and surf Windansea, as I'm proud to be able to surf there and share it with others who would appreciate it and respect it as I do. I've posted many pictures of the place, and if you don't know where it is I will tell you how to get there. I will still be able to get the waves I want when I want to, and chances are it won't be as good as it can be on any given day you choose to visit. I will get to surf it on the best days of the year, because I know the place and I live here. And I realize that in the real world, it will probably always be this crowded, will probably be more crowded in the future no matter if I take pictures or not, and it will likely never be less crowded. That is the reality of the world.
So if I post a picture of Backyards and call it Backyards, does that mean that you're going to find out where it is and fly out there and crowd it up? If I instead call it "the place in front of Buddy's house" does that mean I've protected it from being mucked up by unwanted visitors?
Localism is an ugly thing, and surfers are already an elitist, priviledged group with enough personal resources and time to participate in a self-absorbed recreation. There are more people in the world who don't have enough food on the table, much less the time to worry about whether their local spot is going to be exposed and become a limited resource for their exclusive use. As big issues in the world go, this one is pretty far down the list.
And one last point, about threatened resources. Consider the case of Killer Dana. Harry's in Baja. Surf spots that were threatened and eventually destroyed completely, not by crowds but by big money and lack of any kind of organized protest. Granted, Killer Dana was long before Surfrider Foundation, but Harry's was a big wave secret spot so secret that no one said "boo" to Exxon until the jetty was already built and it was too late to stop it. However, what if there had been pictures out there? You see a picture now of the place firing, and you would be outraged that the big money moguls took it out so easly. How many other unnamed, unknown, unphotographed places out there might also be threatened, given the current undermining of EPA and other coastal protection agencies in the current administration. Not that a picture can save a place, but it certainly can rally the troops if needed. More so than the handful of seasoned baja locals could have done on their own.
So that's my somewhat biased viewpoint, as a photographer, traveller, and writer. I do respect these places. I feel personally that taking a picture celebrates a place. I embrace it's beauty, majesty, and yes it's rarity. I think the pictures help others to embrace it as well. And I applaud the locals who are lucky enough to call a place their own. But I don't agree with localism or elitism of any kind on public property. And I do challenge anyone who tells me I don't have the right to take a picture.
but, I'm a bit of a hard head too ...
.i took me a total of 3 yrs of heading down there to get the place sussed/make contacts etc .
