Letter To The Editor...

Letters to the Editor
Published March 22-23, 2001
Times Beacon Newspapers, 345 East Bay Ave., Manahawkin, NJ 08050
FROM: http://www.southernocean.com/news/tbletters.html

Wake up

Despite what has been said regarding personal watercraft (PWC), modern science and common sense support the stance taken by their owners: that personal watercraft should not be discriminated against when government agencies like the Tidal Lands Resource Council develop regulations designed to protect the environment.

Study after study proves that when it comes to protecting the environment, the design of the hull around the engine does not make a difference.

PWC, also known by their brand names Jet Ski, Waverunner and Sea-Doo are actually among the most environmentally-friendly motorboats on the water today. The two-stroke engines that power the craft today are far cleaner than ones that power a majority of pleasure boats in New Jersey -- and in many cases are quieter too.

While sound is clearly a subjective topic, objective sound tests on motorboats have shown PWC to be much quieter than other, "conventional" boats.

In fact, a study conducted by the New Jersey State Police found that PWC sound levels were well below a majority of other type of boats. But sound is, as stated before, a subjective matter, and therefore scientific studies on the effects PWC have on the environment are needed to examine whether a ban only on these particular craft in shallow areas would accomplish what the Tidal Lands Resource Council seeks to do: protect Barnegat Bay's shallow wetland areas.

Once again, science is on the side of the PWC owners. The most recent test on motorboats' effects on wildlife show that birds react in an identical fashion regardless of the type of hull used to approach them. A Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission study on motorboat disturbance of waterfowl lasting three years and concluding in June of last year, found that "despite their reputation for noise and wildlife disturbance...PWC rarely elicited a greater flush distance." In fact, the study showed that "when there was a significant difference the conventional outboard-powered motorboat most often exhibited the larger flush distances."

In study after study, biologists have asked for buffer zones for all boats, not just PWC. In the oft-cited Joanna Burger study, "The Effects of Motorboats and Personal Watercraft on Flight Behavior Over a Colony of Common Terns," the biologist concluded that buffer zones should be set up to protect the birds from all motorboat disturbances.

Scientific study has also proven that the design of the PWC propulsion system, the water- jet, actually does less damage to sea grass beds and stirs-up less sediment than conventional propeller-driven boats. In addition, supporting a PWC-only ban because propeller-driven craft would run aground in shallow, sensitive habitats and PWC would not is ludicrous: When boats run aground and their propellers strike the bottom, it damages sensitive sea grass beds and increases sediments suspended in water. If boats should not operate in sensitive areas, then all boats should not operate there, regardless of their propulsion system or hull design.

Taking all of these things into consideration -- and the fact that PWC and conventional boats use the same types of engines that produce the same amount of emissions -- it just makes sense not to discriminate against the boats.

If the Tidal Lands Resource Council is truly interested in protecting the environment, it should develop regulations that will do exactly that; not create scapegoats and "red-herrings" because certain special interest groups want the waters of Barnegat Bay to themselves.

STEPHAN ANDRANIAN
American Watercraft Association
Foothill Ranch, CA

(BACK)