Noisy bikes have continued to plague some residents this summer and now another faction has made itself known: people (a handful so far) who see complaining about bikes in particular as harming Ahipara's reputation as a great place to live, and more pertinently perhaps to spend the summer.
They say, not without justification, that Ahipara has been given a negative image, that the people who are giving rise to complaints are simply doing what generations before them have done, namely having fun. They see the complaints as a manifestation of "old people's disease" and suggest that they should tolerate a little disruption over what they say is a relatively short period of time.
None of those this newspaper has spoken to over the years seems to have any problem with young people having fun. The issue is where they have that fun, not how. And given that there is a vast stretch of beach north of Ahipara, it would seem reasonable for them to suggest that they don't need to indulge their noisy passion immediately outside their homes, and/or in an area that has genuine ecological value.
It should be noted that they have kindred spirits on the Karikari Peninsula, where noise and speed are also issues, although the damage done by bikes on ecologically sensitive dunes is probably of greater concern there.
Those who fear that Ahipara is being portrayed negatively by victims of old people's disease are missing the point. There has been plenty of evidence over recent years of holiday-makers abandoning Ahipara because of what they saw and heard. It is not the complainers who are doing the PR damage but the people who give rise to those complaints.
It would seem reasonable to assume that disgruntled visitors do much more harm to Ahipara's image as a holiday destination by word of mouth than complaints published in this newspaper, which doesn't circulate in the places where most of these people come from. Those who see complaints as the issue make the mistake of blaming the publicity given to unacceptable (to some) behaviour as the problem, rather than the behaviour itself. They would rather turn a blind eye to that behaviour, and presumably allow visitors to discover it for themselves.
Meanwhile, the furore that erupted after teenager Daisy Fernandez was struck by a motorbike and died on Dargaville's Ripiro Beach a few years ago didn't last long. All sorts of people promised all sorts of action to ensure there would be no more Daisys, but only Northland Regional Council followed through. Certainly nothing's changed at Ahipara.
It must be noted that Northland MP Mike Sabin is striving to cajole Far North District Council into imposing a speed limit on the beach at Ahipara, and that that proposal has the support of the council and the 90 Mile Beach governance board that is to be established, possibly some time this year.
The wheels are grinding, perhaps a little less slowly than they often do, but Mr Sabin's sense of urgency is clearly not shared.
The good news for those who want to see controls on beach traffic and protection for wildlife on the beach is that, not surprisingly, their views are finding fertile ground in the minds of the next generation. The tactic, if it might be called that without cynicism, of engaging with the children at Ahipara School is a sound one, and should ensure that the children there today will grow up with a very different set of values in terms of protecting their environment than is currently displayed by some of their elders.
The Ahipara School children have demonstrated their power to change public attitudes with their spectacularly successful campaign to stop locals using the dunes north of Kaka St as a dump. So successful were they that the area was cleaned up even before the kids could make their case to the council, and the message that rubbish should be disposed of more responsibly seems to have stuck.
It is the kids who hold the key to resolving the problem of bikes on the wrong part of the beach. People who do not respond positively to rules might well pay more attention if they are shamed into changing their behaviour by children who clearly know better than they do.
The comment that the complainers are not Ahipara locals was unfortunate, but not unexpected. And as an exercise in psychology it will be counter-productive. To suggest that anyone not born at Ahipara does not have speaking rights won't drive them into silence.
Everyone who lives at Ahipara, and indeed anyone who visits there, is entitled to have their say. Those who do not accept that might at least acknowledge that the "newcomers" are in many cases putting their money and their energy where their mouths are.
The people behind the establishment of the beach reserve in particular deserve recognition for the contribution they are making, a contribution that will have much greater long-term benefits for Ahipara than those who amuse themselves by churning up sand to the distress of others, destroying nationally significant wildlife habitat and driving visitors away.
Ahipara enjoys a truly spectacular environment that has wide appeal, including for members of the motorcycle fraternity. That the latter indulge themselves by destroying the appeal of the beach for others could be easily fixed by taking their noise further afield. Motorbikes, dotterels, picnickers and beachfront residents could all get along together with a little consideration, but if that isn't forthcoming the complainers will continue to complain. And so they should.
