MAILBOX

Tracks - - Buzz - MAIL TO: TRACKS MAG PO BOX 5555 ST. LEONARDS 1590 OR LETTERS@TRACKSMAG.COM.AU

SPELLCHCK ///////////////////////////////// Hello my name is Sam Johnstone. I was just read­ing the lat­est is­sue of Tracks –June 2014, and have come across a spell­ing mis­take on a wet­suit re­view on pg 98. The mis­take is in the re­view of the Rip Curl Dawn pa­trol, in the ease of en­try and exit cat­e­gory. On the 3rd line with the sen­tence say­ing, “Slipped on over the shoul­ders eas­ily for a chest zip, but the an­kles were a lit­tle bit of work be­cause they ‘wre’ tight and the rub­ber wasn’t that flex­i­ble.” I hope this is of some help to you. Sam Johnstone Sam, thanks for the heads up, mate. But if that's the only spell­ing mis­take you found in Tracks, I'd have to say you're not look­ing hard enough! - Ed.

WHERE’S THE WOMEN’S RUB­BER? //////////////// I love Tracks. I've had a sub­scrip­tion for three years and my hus­band knows not to dare touch it un­til I've read it cover to cover [god for­bid he watches one of the vids with­out me]. I am a fe­male surfer. I buy Tracks and all the other surf merch in our house. In fact, if it wasn't for me, my hus­band would prob­a­bly still be surf­ing in the same thread­bare steamer and on the same dinged up board he was when I met him. He loves new gear; he’s just too tight to shell out him­self. I en­joyed Olive's rant, I too have felt left out read­ing Tracks and have of­ten thought, "That’s it, I'm writ­ing a let­ter!" Only to lose in­ter­est when I re­alise it’s gone off­shore and there's still and hour and a half of day­light left. This time, how­ever, I was com­pelled as I feel that Olive, and sub­se­quently you, have missed the point. I per­son­ally don't have a prob­lem with the way women are "rep­re­sented" in your mag. I feel the cov­er­age of fe­male surfers is rea­son­able and I don't mind "Girl of the Month", it gives me in­spi­ra­tion to go for a run now and then. I also feel there is plenty of eye candy for the girls in this mag. Shirt­less Parko last month was par­tic­u­larly en­joy­able [Kelly in a skivvy not so much]. What drove me to fi­nally write my let­ter was your Wet­suit Test. Af­ter read­ing Letters, I flipped straight to the back of the mag as i'm in des­per­ate need of a new steamer. Look­ing at page af­ter page of wet­tie re­views, I ea­gerly awaited the women’s sec­tion un­til ... noth­ing! Come on guys! I 15 guys suits and not one for the girls. Re­view­ing a cou­ple of fe­male wet­suits/boards/ biki­nis when you re­view the guys stuff would do way more to prove that you are in­clu­sive of fe­male surfers than tak­ing out girl of the month ever would. Lisa A to­tally valid point, Lisa. We've taken that on board. We're al­ways look­ing to im­prove out tests and re­views, thanks for call­ing us out! - Ed.

MORE SHARK DE­BATE ////////////////////////// I find it dif­fi­cult to find enough un­bi­ased in­for­ma­tion to make up my own ed­u­cated de­ci­sion on the shark is­sue. For ev­ery rea­son­able study or the­ory put for­ward there ap­pears to be an­other depart­ment or ac­tion group of equal stature to con­tra­dict it. Emo­tion, not fact, ap­pears to be the driv­ing force be­hind most ar­gu­ments. The an­i­mal lovers, in­clud­ing my­self, hate to see an­i­mals of any kind de­stroyed while do­ing their nat­u­ral thing, which they have been do­ing long be­fore our pre­sumed dom­i­nance of the planet. This for me is where the irony lay. Is it the de­struc­tion of the shark that this side op­poses, or are the sharks just a sym­bol of their ob­jec­tion to our con­trol/ de­struc­tion of Mother Na­ture? I don’t have the num­bers avail­able, but I’d like to know how many dogs our au­thor­i­ties have de­stroyed over the same pe­riod for be­ing deemed too dan­ger­ous, purely for do­ing what dogs are de­signed to do. No protest from such groups there. I read a re­cent let­ter in your mag­a­zine that stated sharks are “at least as in­tel­li­gent as a dog”. With this the­ory, shouldn’t the de­struc­tion of these dogs be de­spised on an equiv­a­lent level? They are af­ter all, in their nat­u­ral en­vi­ron­ment. Maybe culling in large num­bers is up for de­bate, but if a shark at­tacks a hu­man, ‘track­ing’ of the shark while au­thor­i­ties de­cide what to do with it is lu­di­crous. Just kill it. If it makes the pro­tes­tors happy, eat it. This will save the lives of 200kg of snap­per, whom, like the dozens of other ma­rine species we eat, have also been for­got­ten about by pro­tes­tors to date. No­body wants to hunt an­i­mals to extinction, but no­body wants their kids, broth­ers, sis­ters, par­ents or friends to be eaten by an an­i­mal that has been put on a pedestal and pro­tected to a level of dan­ger­ous num­bers, all in or­der to make a point on a boarder sub­ject. Mark

It's a tricky is­sue, Mark. One we're yet to make up our minds on our­selves. I think it's an ar­gu­ment with good legs, it may run for a long time yet. - Ed.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Australia

© PressReader. All rights reserved.