I received a typical “up you Jack” letter stating that they did not consider preservation of sea green was above public safety and that had written to the NPWS. An official met me on site and stated they were only responsible to the high tide mark and it was the council’s land. They were not too happy about protective measures of star pickets and open orange mesh being used, despite that authority adopting similar materials on the Dalmeny beach front.

The sea has apparently engulfed  all of the latter fence which was designed to protect  a breeding area of the pied oyster catcher from the activity of beach goers and  “shags“ in the area. It is assumed some sections of missing materials from both areas have disappeared into the lake and ocean. Thermoplastic materials can be catastrophic to marine and human life - whales, dolphin, seals, swimmers etc. My concern was also expressed about  1080 poison used by the NPWS on and around the partially fenced  Deep Hole swimming area.

One would assume all statutory authorities gave permissions to bait this recreation area heavily frequented by local and visiting mothers, babies, grand mothers, children, puppy dogs,  pussy  cats, bird life and an occasional bunny. Can the public be assured users are not “targeted animals” and they should be safe from this horrendous poison which causes excruciating death to natural species?

I have been advised by a constitutional lawyer that ownership of Crown lands will be duck shoved by all authorities until final transition to a republic. I have a number of photographs showing the progress or erosion over the holiday period and sections of similar materials used to cover excavated contaminants during early construction of the roundabout. These show some remain entrapped of on rocks at Narooma after similar plastic sections and heavy metals revealed in Freedom of Information reports were apparently washed through the entrance during flood periods.

Despite the glowing endorsement of some, including non-users,  of the Narooma Apex Park boat ramp, the significant expenditure has resulted in a substandard facility. 

The fact is the facility has failed in many ways to meet the requirements of the users and in just as many ways has resulted in much angst amongst fishers and boaters alike and damage to boats.

There was a “once in a lifetime” opportunity to provide a launching facility that was tailored to fit the site and one we could all be proud of and happy to use. It seems a bog standard, off-the-shelf floating pontoon has been dumped down the middle of an already two-lane ramp that was suffering some difficulties, none of which were resolved by this addition, whilst at the same time creating its own problems.

These problems, voiced prior to installation, have proven correct. We have been saddled with a mess that cannot be fixed without massive expenditure. Our money, not the engineers’ and council staff, who, as an aside are also paid by us.

“Don't confuse me with facts; my mind is already made up” has driven this project. Does it look good? Sure. Does it work well? Sure, it floats. Is it practical? Not for boating. Did it address previous issues? No. Has it improved launching and retrieving? No, made it worse overall.

The facility is too narrow and confined, the pontoon contributes to this and to boat damage; the gradient of the ramp is too shallow, reversing on to the ramp is difficult as the path is not straight, lighting is poor and the list goes on. Clearly there are people who think it is OK. My suggestion would be, get yourself a boat and use the facility before judging others.

​Barry Donnon

Dalmeny   

As a boatie more than 41 years experience using the Mill Bay and Apex ramp and ranking up over 12,000 km out off Narooma Bar, I think my skills of launching my boat are pretty good.

Strangely enough, this year, I damaged my boat on the ramp and also a few of my mates also damaged their boats and propellers.

The old ramp was also duel lane, but the new ramp is narrower as the floating pontoon has taken 2.320 meters away. This makes it more difficult manovering, launching or retrieving the boat when the current or wind is medium to strong. The gradient is less than original and some boats have damaged their propellers.

It now takes longer to launch the boat, as people are tying their boats to the pontoon while the driver of the boat trailer parks it. Until they move their boat, no one else can use that side of the ramp.

On Sunday, I noticed a charter boat trying to put his boat on the trailer, however, because of the current, there was so much debris on the length of the pontoon that it was impossible to use and he had to wait to use the other side.

It’s a shame the council didn’t take a page out of Bermagui’s boat ramp. The pontoon should have been placed on the bait cleaning table side, four to six meters into the water, then a 90 degree return towards the same table. (That) would have given boaties somewhere to tie their boats, not hindering the next user. After approximately $60,000 on feasibility studies and $400,000 on the new ramp and pontoon, it is a waste of taxpayers and fishing licence money.

Frank Res

Kianga