Complaints - Please scroll to the bottom of the page
« Now For A Waikato-Wide Slush Fund! | Main | New Chum Hearing Committee »

Careening on Kuranui

Now here is a sight you do not see often - a 120 year old Waitemata scow careening on Kuranui Beach today - taking advantage of the extreme tides.

It is Sunday, and the elderly owner probably does not realise that such activity is strictly banned on Thames town beaches. But what the Hell - it a very charming sight, and I for one have no objection to him taking advantage of the tide to tidy up the underside of his even older vessel - a kauri planked hard chine two masted scow that would bring tears to the eyes  of any true aficionado of the genre. 

Too late if you have not already seen the vessel - it will be gone on high tide tonight.




PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (3)

I too share your enthusiasm for seeing the vessel on the beach for a spot of maintenance. If any one cares to look at early images of Thames, such sights were often seen as Thames was entirely supplied by sea. The scow is a beautiful old vessel and it is a real privilege to have seen it sitting proudly on the beach. As you say, this activity infringes all manner of right minded and proper local council rules and by-laws, and such a flagrant breach of said rules must not be tolerated.... ha ha ha ha. Is there anything that can be done that does not breach some rule or other? Probably not.

March 24, 2015 | Unregistered CommenterRussell

Actually Russell I'm trying to think of a TCDC bylaw that this breaches, and I dont think there is one. Hes below MHWS so TCDC bylaws will not apply. There may be a Waikato Regional Council bylaw around navigation hazard (which they administer), but you'd have to dig deep on that one. I agree though, it was great to see it there.

You are absolutely correct Grant re. the Council by-law, but I sure that there is a WRC by-law concerning fouling of beaches below MHWM. The rubbish scraped off is generally toxic, and the replacement chemical treatment certainly is in that category, and both are required to be contained. I recall several years ago such an action being taken in similar circumstances, and if I am not mistaken, the fine was quite substantial.

March 25, 2015 | Registered CommenterBill Barclay

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>