American Kitefliers Association

Greetings -

Well, I hope they do a good job of proofreading before it becomes law.  Note how leaving out the word "not" changes the whole meaning of this particular regulation:

"(1) A person may excavate, injure, destroy or alter an archaeological site or object or
remove an archaeological object located on the ocean shore recreation area unless that
activity is authorized by a permit issued under ORS 390.235."

Methinks they mean "may NOT excavate".

736-021-0065.   These seem like realistic  rules if people can abide by them.
Non-Motorized Vehicles, Cycles, Unpowered Aircraft, Sails and Other Similar Devices


(1) A person may operate a bicycle, skateboard, scooter, roller or inline skate, or other wheeled, operator-propelled equipment that transports the operator on land according to OAR 736-021-0065 (3).
(2) A person may operate a wind-powered aircraft or vehicle, such as a land sail, kite- buggy or other similar items on the ocean shore according to OAR 736-021-0065 (3).
(3) A person operating a non-motorized vehicle or wind-powered aircraft on the ocean shore must do the following:
(b) restrict speed and manner of operation to a reasonable and prudent practice relative to terrain, prevailing conditions, equipment, personal capabilities, personal safety and the safety of all other ocean shore users, natural resources, and wildlife.
(4) A person operating a non-motorized vehicle or wind-powered aircraft on the ocean shore may not do the following:
(a) disturb or harass wildlife or other natural resources as provided in OAR 736-021- 0090; or
(b) block access, use, or the safe and uninterrupted passage of others on the ocean shore.






(a) observe all posted signs and operate such vehicles, aircrafts and devices unless signs prohibit or conditionally restrict doing so; and

MHO - Some rules and regulations are necessary in a society.   It is just important that the rules not be too ambiguous or subject too much discretion that can be abused.  There will always be some ambiguity because other than prohibiting use outright there must be variables.  These rules on kite buggies simply incorporate already existing law as the pre-condition - and then provide for instance specific direction from a park ranger - so they seem pretty reasonable.  Arguing against any rule whatsoever would I think damage the credibility of the objector. 

Certainly review for your selves and ask questions.  Like what's the penalty for a ranger finding a kite buggy is in unsafe operation and what's the appeal process?

I would agree that the “rules” regarding non-motorized vehicles seem reasonable.  In fact IMO they simply elucidate that which most folks would consider reasonable behavior.  Unfortunately in our society we often need rules to define reasonable behavior for those who can't seem to figure it out for themselves.

To appreciate how far we have moved these folks, you need to see the previous draft.

736-021-0065
(4) A written permit from a park manager, natural resource specialist or designated park employee may be required for the following to ensure public safety and access, mitigate recreational conflicts and minimize potential damage to ocean shore resources:
(b) Aerial activities, such as flying wind-powered displays, large kites, balloons and other similar devices that need anchoring to be safely flown.

I served on the advisory committee that got this changed.

See http://www.gombergkites.com/update/641.html and http://www.gombergkites.com/update/643.html

dg