Craig’s Commentary

 Volume 1 Number 34

21 August  2011

Sauble Stooges Blame Residents For Tourist Litter

 Editor, OSST:

 The group “SaveSaubleBeach” measures success in terms of business profit from events (letter: Beach businesses benefit from events, August 13th).  Of course businesses profit.  More than $60,000 is stolen from taxpayers and given to the chamber of commerce to attract tourists, and the tourists come, and the tourism businesses make money.  The businesses benefit because they’re heavily and illegally subsidized by residential taxpayers.

 But for those taxpayers who pay the $60,000, and then pay for the cleanup, and then lose their recreational use of the beach, and then pay through loss of quiet enjoyment of their homes, the “events” are no success at all.

 The August 13 letter writers say “did you know that Sauble Beach won prizes?”  What they don’t say is that the prizes are given out by their own Festivals and Events Ontario organization.  The events organizers gave themselves a prize.  So what?

 In their portrayal of the beach covered with tourist litter, and of kids on the beach wearing gas masks (see the cartoon logo published with the August 13 letter), the letter writers seem to want us to believe that some people, including me, Ministry of Natural Resources officials, and many others, are somehow preventing town staff and volunteer residents from picking up the tourist litter, and are as a result putting children at risk of suffocation.

 This portrayal of the beach by the Save Sauble Beachg roup is misleading and preposterous.

 Garbage cans line the beach, and are emptied regularly. A gang of taxpayer-paid students walks the beach every day picking up tourist litter.  Many volunteers, including me, disgusted at the mess left by the worst of the tourists, walk the beach picking up tourist litter, including lots of broken glass.  Rather than making the beach risky for children, we are making the beach safer.

 The driftwood on the beach North of Sixth has been identified as Piping Plover habitat, and by provincial law it must remain.  And ever since a small band of volunteers removed all of the nails from the driftwood, it is hardly a hazard to anybody.

 Grooming the beach results in sand loss. This makes a wetter beach and significantly increases the amount of bacteria in the near shore sand.  Eliminating the grooming makes the beach more comfortable and also safer.

 The letter writers disrespectfully address me as “not a full time resident of Sauble Beach….”

 In October 2010, ward three candidate Jessica Huzak, apparently oblivious to the fact that two-thirds of ward three residents are seasonal, attacked the seasonal residents, called us “transients”, and suggested that we “transients” had no business participating in any community discussions or policy discussions.   On October 25, 2010 voters responded appropriately to Ms. Huzak’s vitriolic comments.

 The Sauble Stooges (letter writers “Larry” Cowles, Brian “Curly” Atkins, and Jacob “Moe” Arnold) seem to have learned nothing from Ms. Huzak’s lesson.  In suggesting that I should keep my mouth shut because I am “not a full time resident”, they are by implication saying that two-thirds of the ward should just keep their mouths shut.  In suggesting that anyone in the town who doesn’t agree with them should shut up and go back toToronto, they have offended not only the two-thirds of ward three voters who are “seasonal”, but also the whole ward, and the whole town.

 The August 13 letter writers also indicated that they view me as “giving [more] negative advice on what we should do to improveSaubleBeachthan anyone else in our wonderful community.”

 I have written letters: criticizing the illegal giveaway of taxpayers’ money to the chamber; supporting protection of the Plover habitat, and; criticizing the destructive grooming practice.  My comments are in support of the residents, in support of the town, in support of a healthy beach, and in support of the Piping Plovers.

 But my comments have never been supportive of any Sauble Chamber organization dedicated to stealing our money and our beach.

 So I must decline the Chamber’s award for the most “negative advice on what we should do to improve Sauble Beach”.  While I have not yet figured out what the award is for, I am quite sure the Sauble Stooges deserve it more than I.

 The three stooges of 1950’s TV and movies were ridiculous and funny.  The Sauble Stooges aren’t all that funny.

 Craig Gammie