PaddleWise by thread

From: kayak001 <kayak001_at_earthlink.net> subject: Re: [Paddlewise] GASP! Why hate all Jetskiers? (Re: Vote in poll on Jet skis) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 98 12:18:24 -0500 · This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thu Aug 21 2025 - 16:32:50 PDT

 On 7/14/98 11:19AM, Scott Ives wrote:

>Ok guys, get those flame throwers ready! I voted no, because in
>addition to being a faithful kayaker, I also am a part owner of a jet
>ski!  (Gasp!)  

No flames, just some thoughts to pass on...you may have seen some of this 
before.

> All jet skiers aren't obnoxious.  Yes, a ski makes an annoying whiny
>noise.  But all skiers aren't irresponsible eighteen year old speed
>freaks.  I am 35 and the guy I share the ski with is about 45.  We both
>ski responsibly.  If I am overtaking a canoe, kayak or fisherman, I get
>to the other side of the river and slow down to a crawl as to not make a
>wake or disturb the fish.

>From a paddler's perspective here in the south, you are definitely in a 
minority.  The average pwc operator/owner is NOT a 'faithful' kayaker, 
nor do they seem to be sensitive to the delicate nature of an 
environmentally sensitive wetland.

>If you want to ban all motors (even those on sailboats), I have no
>problem.  However, many motorboats and even obnoxious sailers fail to
>yield the right of way to paddle craft.  Additionally, many motorboats
>have louder motors than jetskis.  For example, get behind a boat with
>dual 200 hp motors, and tell me what you hear, or behind a REALLY lound
>jet boat!  Heck, even a "normal" motorboat with a 150 hp motor makes
>more noise than a jetski.  A jetski just has a higher, more
>mosquito-type noise.

Actually, I agree...ban 'em all!  Air boats are quite popular here in the 
South and some of those are terrible.  But one step at a time and 
specific to pwc, a National Parks and Conservation Association (NPCA) 
July/August 1997 publication states that PWC represent 10% of U.S. 
recreational boats, but 30 - 50% of boating accidents.  In addition, most 
states have no certification procedures or boater safety requirements for 
operators of jet ski's.  A jet ski is a very different machine from a 
motorboat or sailcraft.

AS an example of the different nature of a pwc, Studies (citations below) 
find that PWC flush birds from a greater distance than most boats.  Their 
spray also carries farther than other power boats, especially those of 
the "roostertail" variety. The maneuverability and shallow draft of 
jetskis allow them access to a wider range of highly sensitive habitat 
than other motorized boats. This access, coupled with the speed and noise 
of the personal watercraft, pose a substantial threat to nesting colonies 
of birds and to other wildlife.  

>   Again, there are many obnoxious non-jetskiing boaters, and many
>responsible jetskiers.  Let's try not to have any knee-jerk
>discrimination here.  Every boater should be judged on his own actions. 
>If a boater is particularly obnoxious, the response should be to call
>the marine police and have him (or her) ticketed.  

I agree that that not all pwc operators are irresponsible, but in my 
opinion the responsible owners are in a minority.  While you obviously 
have some  background in paddling and seem to be sensitive to ecological 
issues, the average tourist who rents a jet ski for a day at a concession 
on a lake or other body of water is not. 

And how does one call a marine police...with a cell phone?  One would 
also need to know which particular marine law enforcement agency has 
jurisdiction over a particular body of water ("lemme see, do I call the 
Coast Guard, the NPS, the local port authority or the county sheriff's 
office). 

The superintendant of Lake Meredith here in Texas has already made known 
that he will ignore the ban. Lake Meredith is a man-made reservoir on the 
Canadian River in Moore and Potter Counties of Texas (north of Amarillo). 
 The lake is the reservoir formed by Sanford Dam and is approximately 
16,500 acres with 100 miles of shoreline.  There are at least 10 
developed campgrounds and from my research so far, seems to cater to the 
RV/Bass fisherman/Water Ski set.  There are at least two off-road vehicle 
trails there, at least 7 boat ramps and 2 fully developed marinas.  My 
guess is that a lot of the local economy is dependant upon the RV's, 
motor boats and jet ski's that frequent the lake.  Furthermore,   I would 
also imagine that this ban on jet ski's will sit poorly with the locals 
which is surely why the Superintendant there feels comfortable in 
ignoring the ban.  

Note that this is a NATIONAL RECREATION AREA and not a National Park, but 
as such is still administered by the National Park Service.  Another 
question I have is whether a National Recreation Area is subject to the 
same regulations as a National Park.  While a National Park is there to 
protect an environmentally sensitive and unique natural resource, it 
seems to me that a National Recreation Area must, by nature of its 
designation, exist for a different reason.

While I would be ecstatic to wake up tomorrow morning and find that PWC 
are outlawed and anyone operating one would be shot on sight, this isn't 
going to happen.  According to Paddler Magazine (the new Aug 98 issue), 
sales of canoes and kayaks totaled $99.1 million in 1996.  I don't have 
the exact numbers like that on PWC (yet), but I can extrapolate that with 
a documented sales base of 150,000 to 200,000 per year with an average 
cost of 1500 dollars per PWC (conservative estimate), the PWC industry is 
at $225 million, or more than twice the economic impact of the paddle 
industry.  That's not including the other associated industries of 
petroleum (all that oil and gas they're dumping into the water) and other 
pwc-related accessories (trailers, wetsuits, etc).

I would be happy to give them Lake Meredith, Sam Rayburn, and other 
reservoirs (the rivers have been drowned there anyway), if we could keep 
them out of our rivers and environmentally-sensitive natural lakes and 
wetlands.  Isn't this what we've basically done with trail bikes?  

Other thoughts on PWC:

(1) Vermont and Maine have banned PWC from lakes of less than 300 acres.  
They are also banned in the Glacier National Park in Montana.  According 
to Fred Vanhorn, park law-enforcement specialist, all responses to the 
park's general management plan supported a permanent ban on the use of 
personal watercraft. This includes letters, petitions, e-mail, statements 
at public meetings and comments from the park staff.  

<2)In an April 1997 Minneaplis Star Tribune survey, two thirds of  
Minnesotans (who have more lakes than we Texans do) polled favored 
restricting hours of operations of PWC or limiting their access to a 
limited number of waters.

<3>PWC can be found in 36 National Park units, 27 of which are reporting 
problems of some kind including speeding and harassing wildlife.

<3>Running a typical PWC for one hour releases the same amount of 
smog-generating pollutants as driving a car 800 miles.

<4> American PWC with their two-stroke engines discharge up to 30% of 
their fuel unburned into the water. With sales running between 170,000 
and 200,000 annually, this amounts to FOUR TIMES the amount of raw fuel 
that the Exxon Valdez spilled.  Studies show that the toxicity of such 
discharges, made 50,000 times worse by ultraviolet light, damages 
ecologically essential plankton and other micro-organisms.  The EPA has 
already told the PWC industry to reduce emissions from PWC by 75 percent 
by 2006. 

<5>Europe has already started to move on this.  Regulations there require 
fuel injection machines that are 80% cleaner than the two-stroke engines 
sold in the U.S.  Even with more stringent controls there, PWC are 
totally banned in all of Switzerland.

<6>PWC emit about 80 decibels of noise. A 1995 NPCA/Colorado State 
University survey found that 70% of U.S. citizens consider "peace and 
quiet" to be important in National Parks.  The NPS noise limits are 82 
decibels at a distance of 82 feet.

<7>Studies find that PWC flush birds from a greater distance than most 
boats.  Their spray also carries farther than other power boats. The 
maneuverability and shallow draft of jetskis allow them access to a wider 
range of highly sensitive habitat than other motorized boats. This 
access, coupled with the speed and noise of the personal watercraft, pose 
a substantial threat to nesting colonies of birds and to other wildlife.  
VNP current regulations restrict boats to 100 yards from active eagle 
nests.  PWC were not in use when this limit was established.  Another 
study at Everglades National Park in Florida found that PWC use resulted 
in negative impacts to park resources, particularly nesting birds. In 
December 1994, NPS enacted a ban on PWCs in Everglades after concluding 
that "the purpose for which the park was established, to protect a unique 
natural system, made...use of personal watercraft incompatible with 
preserving wilderness qualities such as serenity."

<8>Many states have no minimum age requirement for operating a PWC.  Most 
states have no licensing or boater safety requirements for jetskis.  
Hence,  a National Parks and Conservation Association (NPCA) July/August 
1997 publication states that PWC represent 10% of U.S. recreational 
boats, but 30 - 50% of boating accidents.

<9>Although not in a national park, Lake Tahoe also experiences jet ski 
conflicts. Designated an Outstanding National Resource Water (one of only 
two in California), Lake Tahoe's mandate is to be protected and to "have 
zero tolerance for degradation." Recently the regional governing body, 
the Tahoe Regional Planning Authority (TRPA), held public hearings about 
jet skis on Lake Tahoe. Scientifically significant data were documented 
including impacts on aquatic and terrestrial wildlife, as well as noise 
and water pollution. The TRPA voted unanimously to ban jet skis from the 
lake, effective June 1, 1999. The phase-out period allows current jet ski 
concessionaires to amortize their investments.

Specific to National Parks,  originally our national parks were set aside 
with the express purpose of protecting the outstanding and peculiar 
values found within them. They were essentially in primitive state and 
the primitive was to be cherished and preserved. At the same time limited 
(key word LIMITED) development was to be undertaken, so that visitors 
might come in reasonable ease to see, learn and enjoy. But always the 
scientific significance, the primitive character, the ideal of sanctuary 
for native life, both plant and animal, and the aesthetic appeal were to 
fashion park policy and operation. Any departure from these standards is 
to be regarded as unhealthful intrusion in the parks.  This is mandated 
by law.

In my opinion, the greatest consideration should be given to that which 
is charged by law as proper use of the parks. My contention is that if we 
restrict attractions to the enjoyment and interpretation of the features 
for which the park has been set aside, the overwhelming tide of visitors 
seeking recreational opportunities will be stemmed and controlled, and 
the destruction of the primitive will be checkmated.

Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.

My sources are as follows:

1. Richard Osborne, Curator of Science Services & Resident Scientist, 
Whale Museum, Friday Harbor, WA. "Testimony and Exhibits Submitted to 
Board of County Commissioners Regarding Restrictions on Use of Jet Skis 
in San Juan County," Superior Court of Washington for Whatcom County, 
Jan. 31, 1996. Study conducted with Dr. Johnson of Woods Hole 
Oceanographic  Institute. 

2. James A. Rodgers, Jr. "Set-Back Distances to Protect Nest Bird 
Colonies from Human Disturbances in Florida," Conservation Biology, 
February, 1995. 

3. "Testimony and Exhibits Submitted to Board of County Commissioners 
Regarding Restrictions on Use of Jet Skis in San Juan County," Superior 
Court of Washington for Whatcom County, Exhibit 22, Jan. 31, 1996. 

4. Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of Boating and 
Recreation. Act 140, 1995. 

5. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1991; "Lake Tahoe 
Motorized Watercraft Impact Analysis," Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 
February, 1997, 3-6. 

6. Federal Register, Air Pollution Control; Gasoline Spark-Ignition 
Marine Engines; 40 CFR Parts 89,90,91, October 4, 1996.

7. U. Tjarnlund, G. Ericson, E. Lindesjoo, I. Petterson, L. Balk, 
Investigation of the Biological Effects of 2-Cycle Outboard Engines' 
Exhaust on Fish, Institute of Applied Research, University of Stockholm, 
1993. 

8. Christine M. Branche, PhD. "Personal Watercraft-Related Injuries: A 
Growing Public Health Concern," Journal of the American Medical 
Association, August 27, 1997, Vol. 278, No 8, p.664.

9. CNN, Impact, June 29, 1997. Minnesota: 69 percent of 1995 accidents in 
which experience levels were known involved at least one operator with 
fewer than 20 hours of experience; Terry Fiedler, "Personal watercaft 
boom is making waves; noise and safety among the concerns," Star Tribune, 
July 23, 1996. 

10. Figures 1-4, New Hampshire Marine Patrol, 1995, "1995 data comparing 
Jet Skis to all registered water craft in New Hampshire,"; "Jet skis are 
a small percentage of registered water craft, however, they represent a 
significant percentage of the activity of the New Hampshire Marine 
Patrol." 

11. Michelle Ling, "EAC of West Marin asks NOAA to ban jet skis in 
GFNMS," Point Reyes Light, July 18, 1997.

12. Declaration of Roger F. Hagie, Director of Public Affairs for 
Kawasaki Motors Corporation, U.S.A, Superior Court of Washington for 
Whatcom County, August 30, 1996. 

13. Jim Skoog, Untitled article, Personal Watercraft Article for Cruising 
World Magazine, September 8, 1996. 

14. The Extraneous and the Parks, from Nature Notes from Crater Lake 
National Park September; 1948. published by the National Park Service in 
conjunction with Crater Lake Natural History Association.
>***************************************************************************
>GASP - Gulf Area Sea Paddlers Mailing List
>Submissions:      gasp_at_lists.intelenet.net
>Subscriptions:    gasp-request_at_lists.intelenet.net
>Website:          http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/
>***************************************************************************
>

-------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Neil Harrison-Houston, Texas
          email: nil_at_nol.net   (_at_ _at_)  web: www.nol.net/~nil/   
----------------------------ooO~(_)~Ooo----------------------------
                      100% recycled electrons

***************************************************************************
PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List
Submissions:     paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net
Subscriptions:   paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net
Website:         http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/
***************************************************************************