Propeller Deaths and Injuries:
Another "Inconvenient Truth"
by Polson Enterprises

This page is part of the Propeller Guard Information Center.

Printed publications dedicated to covering the boating industry have provided minimal coverage of the danger of propellers. One of them is actually misleading those in the industry. This page discusses why this is happening.

Web published 16 March 2007

Boating Trade Magazines Coverage of Propeller Issues

Power Boating is a relatively small industry in comparison with the automobile industry. As a result, there are relatively few industry trade publications (those targeting people employed in the industry). Four major boating trade magazines address the U.S. market:

Most of these publications also maintain some sort of an online presence.

One related publication, "Professional Boatbuilder" tends to focus more on "how to" than on industry issues and concerns.

Boating trade magazines are supported by the industry (those working in the industry subscribe to them and those selling products and services to the industry advertise in them). The industry (those manufacturing boats, drives, propellers, etc) does not want to acknowledge the existence of the propeller problem, and certainly not let others know they acknowledge it, so the problem is typically only mentioned by the industry media in passing when covering proposed regulations or results of legal cases. If they do mention the issue, proposed solutions are often slammed. Recently, one trade magazine significantly understated U.S. Coast Guard data on the number of propeller deaths and injuries and refused to acknowledge the truth when it was called to their attention. That incident is addressed in the bottom half of this page.

A brief analysis of some of the major coverage of propeller dangers by boating trade publications over the last decade follows:

Soundings Trade Only has covered the propeller safety issue with feature stories a few times over the last decade, with two of those articles being published about 10 years ago. Among them:

Boat & Motor Dealer has mentioned the propeller issue three times in columns by Ralph Lambrecht.

Boating Industry magazine mentioned the issue in response to potential regulations in:
Prop Guard Regulation May Be Coming. Bob Duke. Boating Industry. June 2000. Pgs. 36-39.

Boating Consumer Magazines Coverage of Propeller Issues

There are dozens of Boating Consumer Magazines that run the gauntlet from:
  • General magazines
  • Magazines targeting certain types of boats or uses of boats

  • Regional Boating Magazines
  • Specialty Magazines

    Similarly, Consumer Boating Magazines make their money on subscriptions from boaters and potential boaters and from boating companies advertising in their magazines. Strong text calling attention to propeller safety issues could drive off subscribers, offend advertisers, and even reduce the pool of potential future boaters, effectively flushing their own publication down the toilet. Not a good thing from their perspective.

    Coverage of the issue in these publications is rarer than hen's teeth. I do recall a few mentions, most of them from Trailer Boat magazine.

    Local & Destination Boating Publications

    In addition to the well known regional boating magazines listed in the Consumer Boating Magazine Section, there are hundreds of smaller local publications.

    Many large outdoor recreational areas where boating is strong have their own local newspapers and outdoor publications. Even some major lakes here in Oklahoma have monthly newsletters talking about local events and activities.

    Strong talk about the dangers of boating would mean less business for their communities, which means less business for their advertisers (fewer advertising dollars for them) and fewer people picking up their publications which starts a death spiral for their business.

    As a result, local boating accidents are often ignored by these publications. In searching for information on propeller accidents in boating and regional tourist destinations, we typically find more (or the only) coverage from media outlets in the major cities of that state.

    General Comments

    Publications in these three groups (Industry Trade Magazines, Boating Consumer Magazines, and Local & Destination Boating Publications) have no incentive to cover propeller dangers. Actually they have very strong reasons to avoid covering them (don't want to scare away boaters, potential boaters, or tourism dollars).

    Its easy to see why boating publications generally avoid the propeller issue like the plague.

    We do appreciate the limited coverage they have given to the risks of propellers, and encourage them to cover the issue more frequently and more in depth in the future.

    How One Boating Trade Magazine Responded to the Truth

    We recently had a "run in" with a boating trade magazine and present the details below as an example of how one magazine responded to the "Inconvenient Truth" of propeller deaths and injuries by understating the data. You certainly should not assume their methods and attitude is representative of the methods and attitude of other publications, but previous experience has taught us the same attitude is certainly out there in pockets of the industry.

    The article that prompted our exchange was:

    Prop Guards Are a Subject That Seems to Live Forever
by Ralph Lambrecht
Boat & Motor Dealer. 
Sept/Oct 2006. Pgs. 6 & 8.

    We scanned the magazine masthead and the first paragraph of the actual article itself. A brief summary of the entire article is in the boating trade media section above.

    In this article, Mr. Lambrecht, a long time column editor for the Boat & Motor Dealer, greatly understates the annual number of boating propeller deaths and injuries, citing a U.S. Coast Guard reports as the source of his data. U.S. Coast Guard reported accidents include approximately 30 to 45 people were killed annually and approximately 185 to 265 were injured per year from 2001 to 2004. Mr. Lambrecht states the same report indicates only about 7 deaths and 100 injuries per year due to being struck by motor or propeller. The actual USCG reported deaths are about 5 TIMES larger than what he says they reported.

    Relatively fresh off having written our Propeller Accident Statistics page I suspected he had confused what the Coast Guard calls "Event 1" data with the total number of people being killed or injured. A much more detailed explanation of their data methods is available from our Propeller Accident Statistics page, but basically the Coast Guard logs accidents as a series of up to three events (such as Event 1 - boat hits another boat, Event 2 - person falls overboard, and Event 3 - person injured by motor or propeller. Their full database can be used to find how many people were injured by the motor as an Event 1, or Event 2, or as an Event 3. The total number of people killed or injured is the sum of those killed or injured by each of the three events (such as Total Deaths = Event 1 deaths + Event 2 deaths + Event 3 deaths). Propeller deaths and injuries are typically reported as the 2nd or 3rd event because often, something happens to get the person in the water or to get a boat near them.

    The Coast Guard tends to prominently report Event 1 deaths and injuries from each of many causes (including being struck by motor or propeller) in their annual summary of boating accidents. It usually takes a little study of the document to find the total number of people killed or injured by a specific type of accident.

    We do not think Mr. Lambrecht set out to deceive the public, but suspect from this and his earlier articles that he has been drinking the industry's Kool-Aid for so long he doesn't recognize the truth when he sees it. That became painfully obvious in one of our email exchanges.

    The actual text of the first paragraph of Mr. Lambrecht's article reads: 

    
Prop Guards Are a Subject That Seems to Live Forever 
by Ralph Lambrecht 
Boat & Motor Dealer
Sept/Oct 2006. Pgs. 6 & 8

"About twice a year, at the Miami Boat Show in February and the 
IBEX Marine Trade Show in October, the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG)
sponsors a meeting of interested parties to consider ideas and
advancements that have been made toward the reduction of propeller
and lower unit strike injuries to people, who for whatever reason
are in the water around the stern of the boat when the propeller
is turning. In the USCG's annual listing of boating accident
statistics, there are about seven fatalities and 100 injuries
attributed to being "struck by a motor or propeller."

    Okay, here we go - the emails of my exchange with Mr. Lambrecht are listed below, exactly as they were written with the exception of XXX'ing some email addresses, one injured person's name, and the phone numbers. Our current comments are in italics.

    Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 16:44:49 +0000 (GMT)
From: Gary Polson 
To: XXX@aol.com
Subject: Propeller Guard article


From: Gary Polson
      Propeller Guard Information Center

Hello!

I read your " Prop Guards Are A Subject That Seems to
Live Forever" article in the Sept/Oct 2006 Boat & Motor
Dealer this morning. Thank you for bringing a broad update
to many dealers on this topic. Great article, but we have
ONE problem with it.

You open the article stating the USCG annual stats indicate
about 7 fatalities and 100 injuries to being "struck by motor
or propeller"

We continue to see article after article doing this. The
Coast Guard data is presented as a sequence of three
events such as
Event 1 - Boat strikes and object or another boat
Event 2 - Someone falls overboard
Event 3 - That person is hit by the propeller

The Coast Guard annual reports often put the Event 1
data in a nice table for everyone to read and they think
that is the total number of fatalities or injuries for a
specific type of accident. It is not.

We have very extensive coverage surround all aspects
of propeller injuries at
Propeller Guard Information Center
http://rbbi.com/pgic

and one page specifically on statistics at

Propeller Accident Statistics
http://rbbi.com/pgic/padata/padata.htm

You will see from it, that the Coast Guard data is more on
the order of 30 to 45 people killed annually and approximately
185 to 265 injured in recent years.

The USCG report for 2005 is now online by them at
http://www.uscgboating.org/statistics/Boating_Statistics_2005.pdf

Adobe page count #25 has table at the top of it that
lists the various kinds of accidents. Struck by Motor/Propeller
is the next to last one on the list. It indicates 31 fatalities and
239 accidents total. (note sometimes more than one person
is injured in a propeller accident). The sentence immediately
below that table provides a discussion of Event 1,2,3
accidents using propeller injury data as an example.

PLUS - by the Coast Guard's own admission, boating
accidents are very under reported. They offer a guess
of only 10 percent of them actually being reported, but
follow that with a line they are not sure how that is distributed
across accident types. Meaning one type of accident may
be near fully reported and another type just barely reported.
They do think most of the fatal accidents are reported.

Bottom line, is while informing your readers of many
things going on in this area they may not have been aware
of, you inadvertently gave them the wrong concept of the
annual number of injuries and deaths as reported by the
USCG. We would appreciate it you could very briefly mention
the correct stats in a future column.

More info - We do maintain a list of propeller accidents
being reported in the media. Many are not listed there,
but you can rapidly see in our 2006 page over 15 U.S.
fatalities have already been reported by the media this year.
Just see the red "D"s to the left of the reports for U.S. fatalities.

Propeller Accidents Blog
http://rbbi.com/pgic/propacc/propacc.htm

We also discuss the under reporting issues and some estimates
of it by others on about the bottom third of our Accident Statistics
Page
http://rbbi.com/pgic/padata/padata.htm

In closing, thanks for the great article, thanks for reading my note,
and please publish a brief correction with the proper USCG statistics.

Have a Nice Day!

Gary Polson
Polson Enterprises
Propeller Guard Information Center
    I tried to really stay on topic and focus purely on reported acccidents per the report he cites. His response came a few days later.

    Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 16:24:19 EST
From: XXX@aol.com
To: polsong@virtualpet.com
Subject: Re: Propeller Guard article
Parts/Attachments:
   1   OK     11 lines  Text
   2 Shown   ~32 lines  Text
----------------------------------------

I wrote the article before I received the latest USCG boating accident report (2005) 
by E-mail about a month ago. I'll take a look at that in the light of what you say is 
actually happening out there. I have some personal experience on what some proposed 
prop guard designs do to planing boat performance and handling going back 40 years, 
having worked on a dozen ot more accident cases involving propeller strike injuries 
and fatalities including the one in which XXXXXXXX lost her arm and her husband 
and the fishing guide driving the boat were killed when ejected from the boat. Prop 
guards offer some protection for displacement boat speeds but they will never be successful 
on planing boats. You can't repeal the laws of hydrodynamics.
                                                      Ralph Lambrecht
    I appreciated his response and willingness to follow up on my comments at this time. But I hoped he wasn't quoting these inaccurate stats when he was an expert witness in those "dozens or more accident cases". Plus he totally ignored the 15 U.S. deaths already individually reported by the media this year (2006) listed on our site. Also note his attitude, "they will never be successful on planing boats." 
    Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 20:37:15 +0000 (GMT)
From: Gary Polson 
To: XXX@aol.com
Subject: Re: Propeller Guard article


> I wrote the article before I received the latest USCG boating
> accident report (2005) by E-mail about a month ago. I'll take
> a look at that in the light of what you say is actually happening
> out there.

Hello!

They sent me one too. The 2005 report is also online on the
USCG site per my earlier email at

http://www.uscgboating.org/statistics/Boating_Statistics_2005.pdf

Adobe page count #25 has table at the top of it that
lists the various kinds of accidents. Struck by Motor/Propeller
is the next to last one on the list. It indicates 31 fatalities and
239 accidents total. (note sometimes more than one person
is injured in a propeller accident). The sentence immediately
below that table provides a discussion of Event 1,2,3
accidents using propeller injury data as an example.

Adobe page count #5, the second paragraph (starts out labeled
as "1.") states "We believe that only a small fraction of all non-fatal
boating accidents occurring in the United States are reported to the
Coast Guard, State, or local law enforcement agencies."

**********
Thank you for your response and for you willingness to take
some time to review the data.

Again, would you please review the Coast Guard report and
include a brief correction in one of your future columns.
If you have any questions or need any assistance in finding
anything else to make sure you are confident of the values
of current reported statistics for U.S. recreational boating
propeller injury accidents, please drop me a note or give me
a call.

If you feel I  may be trying to lead you astray, you can contact 
Bruce Schmidt at the USCG office of Boating Safety and get the 
data straight from them.

Have a nice day and thanks again for trying to bring some
coverage to the issue of propeller safety.

gary polson
Propeller Guard Information Center
http://rbbi.com/pgic

(XXX) XXX-XXXX
    Once again, I really tried to stay on topic and focus purely on the Coast Guard data. Plus I referred him again to the exact lines in the Coast Guard report. His response came a few days later. 
    Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 14:17:07 EST
From: XXX@aol.com
To: polsong@virtualpet.com
Cc: XXX@boatmotordealer.com
Subject: Re: Propeller Guard article
Parts/Attachments:
   1   OK     38 lines  Text
   2 Shown   ~75 lines  Text
----------------------------------------

I have reviewed the report. For some reason the copy I printed out does not 
agree with yours as to page numbering.
 
I do note that on my page 27 it shows the number of fatalities for 2005 due 
to "Struck by motor or propeller" was 6; for 2004, 5; for 2003, 6; for 2002 
5; for 2001, 5. This adds up to a total of 27 for five years.  
 
On page 2 of the report under "USE OF STATISTICS", no.1, it states "We believe 
that only a small fraction of all non-fatal boating accidents occuring in the 
United States are reported to the Coast Guard, State or local law enforcement 
agencies. However we believe that NEARLY ALL FATAL RECREATIONAL BOATING ACCIDENTS 
OCCURING IN THE UNITED STATES ARE INCLIDED IN THIS REPORT" (capitals added for 
emphasis). So the number of fatalities from this cause is very likely correct 
at 5-7 per year. 

The article referred to seven as the number of fatalities, not the total of 
injuries and fatalities. 100 injuries were also listed. As such, no correction 
is required. I picked up the numbers of  7 and 100 from an article I wrote on the same
subject some years back, of which there have been 2 or 3 in the past 15 years or so.
 
I do find it confusing that the table in the report on my page 22 shows a total 
number of fatalities in which motor/propeller strikes were involved as 31, in 
which the strike was "Event No. 1, No. 2 or No. 3" in the accident sequence
of a total of 239 accidents. What were the other events? Falling overboard? 
Being unconscious form carbon monoxide? Collision with another boat? It could 
be any one or two of a dozen or more events on the list above motor/propeller
strike. 100 of the 239 apparently involved a motor/propeller strike as the first 
event in the sequence.
 
Does the plaintiffs bar Trial Lawyers Association fund the Propeller Guard 
Information Center? 
                                                                    Ralph Lambrecht
 
Of the 31 fatalities only 6 appear to be counted as fatalities due to the motor/propeller 
strike according to the page 27 table, with 97 injuries. This would infer that of the 
239 incidents involved (page 22) only 103 resulted in death or injury as a result of 
the motor/propeller strike. As I said, a little confusing.
    Interesting, I tried to anticipate possible page numbering confusion (Adobe Page Number vs. Page number written on the page) in my earlier email and called them out specifically as Adobe Page count numbers, but he did not understand that part either.

    Then he picks up on the underreporting comments by the Coast Guard where they say they think they do record almost all the fatalities and wields that in defense of his understated numbers (he is only using Event 1 data).

    Most interesting was his comment, "I do find it confusing that the table in the report on my page 22 shows a total number of fatalities in which motor/propeller strikes were involved as 31." (he is being confused by the truth - he's drank so much industry Kool-Aid over the years he can't see the truth when its right in front of him in a U.S. Coast Guard document.)

    The second best part is when he accuses me of being funded by the "plaintiffs bar Trial Lawyers Association fund".

    So I sent one last message to him (see below) which he never responded to. Once again I tried to stay on topic and focus on the Coast Guard data. 

    Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 00:41:53 +0000 (GMT)
From: Gary Polson 
To: XXX@aol.com
Subject: Re: Propeller Guard article


> I have reviewed the report. For some reason the copy I
> printed out does not agree with yours as to page numbering.

Hello!

That is why I said I was using the Adobe Acrobat page numbers.
I was viewing the document online and using the numbers at the
bottom of the screen that may not be the same as page numbers
(sometimes the writer does not count title pages, etc)

> I do note that on my page 27 it shows the number of fatalities for
> 2005 due to "Struck by motor or propeller" was 6; for 2004, 5;
> for 2003, 6; for 2002 5; for 2001, 5. This adds up to a total of
> 27 for five years.

Okay, your page 27 (Adobe Pg. 30) has the stats for EVENT 1, just
like I explained earlier. These are deaths in which the being "Struck
by a motor or propeller" was entered as being the first event.

If someone fell overboard and was then "struck by motor or propeller"
they would not be included in this number. It ONLY includes deaths
from EVENT 1. Being struck by  a propeller is typically an Event 2
or Event 3. (People fall overboard first, boats are in collisions first,
then they are later struck by the motor or propeller)

Bottom line is these numbers (numbers you are picking up off your
Page 27) do NOT include all the reported accidents in which
someone was "Struck by motor or propeller" and died.

> On page 2 of the report under "USE OF STATISTICS", no.1, it
> states "We believe that only a small fraction of all non-fatal
> boating accidents occurring in the United States are reported to
> the Coast Guard, State or local law enforcement agencies. However
> we believe that NEARLY ALL FATAL RECREATIONAL BOATING
> ACCIDENTS OCCURING IN THE UNITED STATES ARE INCLIDED
> IN THIS REPORT" (capitals added for emphasis).

Yes, that is what they believe.

> So the number of fatalities from this cause is very likely correct
> at 5-7 per year.

No, you are once again reverting to Event 1 data. Many more people
are killed during Event 2 and Event 3.

> The article referred to seven as the number of fatalities, not the
> total of injuries and fatalities. 100 injuries were also listed.

Yes, those numbers are in the range of the recent number of fatality
accidents and injury accidents resulting from being struck by motor
or propeller Event 1 accidents.

> As such, no correction is required.

Wrong, a correction is required. You only give the data for Event 1
accidents. You are not including deaths that occur as Event 2
(such as Event 1 somebody fell overboard and Event 2 they were
struck by the propeller, this would be an Event 2 fatality accident)
or those that occur as Event 3 (such as Event 1 another boat collides
with mine, Event 2 someone falls overboard,  Event 3 they are struck
and killed by the propeller.)

> I picked up the numbers of  7 and 100 from an article I wrote on
> the same subject some years back, of which there have been 2
> or 3 in the past 15 years or so.

I am trying to say this as politely as possible, but that article was
incorrect too. It only included injury and fatal Event 1 accidents.
It left out Event 2 and Event 3 accidents.

> I do find it confusing that the table in the report on my page 22
> shows a total number of fatalities in which motor/propeller strikes
> were involved as 31, in which the strike was "Event No. 1,
> No. 2 or No. 3" in the accident sequence of a total of 239
> accidents.

Amen, that is what I have been trying to get across.
In 2005, the USCG reports 31 fatalities from motor/propeller strikes.
These occurred either as Event 1, Event 2, or Event 3 during
the sequence of events of the accident.

> What were the other events? Falling overboard? Being
> unconscioius form carbon monoxide? Collision with another boat?
> It could be any one or two of a dozen or more events on the list
> above motor/propeller strike. 100 of the 239 apparently involved a
> motor/propeller strike as the first event in the sequence.

Yes, as I was saying above, per your table on your page 22, there
were 103 reported accidents in which being "struck by motor or
propeller" was the second event and there were 36 reported accidents
in which being "struck by motor or propeller" was the third event.
In both those situations (being struck by motor or prop as second
or third event, any number of things could have been the first event).

As you mentioned, six deaths were reported from accidents
reported in which being "struck by motor or propeller" was
Event 1.  You also quote the sentence on page 22 that shows
31 total deaths from propeller strikes in reported accidents.
That means 31 minus 6 = 25. Twenty five deaths occurred from
accidents in which being "struck by motor or propeller" was
listed as Event 2 or Event 3.

On one hand, I want to say the Event 1 data is worthless, but
on the other hand I understand why the USCG tries to collect
the sequence of events. For example if almost all the propeller
accidents were Event 2 accidents and in almost all those cases
collision with another vessel was listed as Event 1, that would
hint that if they could reduce the number of collisions with other
vessels, then the number of prop strikes would go to near zero.
The sequence is being recorded so they can try to stop the
chain of events before it occurs.

> Does the plaintiffs bar Trial Lawyers Association fund the Propeller
> Guard Information Center?

No, we are a mom and pop on our own trying to reduce the number
and severity of propeller injuries. One thrust of our approach is trying
to make sure the media properly reports accident statistics. That
is what we are doing in this exchange of emails.

> Of the 31 fatalities only 6 appear to be counted as fatalities
> due to the motor/propeller strike according to the page 27 table,
> with 97 injuries.

All 31 are motor/propeller strike fatalities. Six of them occurred as
the 1st Event, the remainder of the fatalities (all involving death
by being struck by motor or propeller) occurred as the second
or third event.

> This would infer that of the 239 incidents involved (page 22)
> only 103 resulted in death or injury as a result of the motor/propeller
> strike. As I said, a little confusing.

103 is the number of reported accidents in which being "struck by
motor or propeller" was the 2nd Event (such as they fell overboard,
and were then struck by the motor or propeller).

Yes, it certainly is a little confusing. That is why we created a separate
page to deal with Propeller Accident Statistics.
http://rbbi.com/pgic/padata/padata.htm

Thank you very much for your willingness to listen to us. I very much
understand how you might not trust us and could think we are trying
to lead you astray. Again, I suggest you contact Bruce Schmidt at
the U.S. Coast Guard Office of Boating Safety. He is the person that
puts these stats together. He can explain how they should be interpreted.

Bruce Schmidt is at: (XXX) XXX-XXXX

Again, thank you for visiting with us and for the time you have
spent in trying to follow up on our points. Please continue to
study this out and visit with Bruce Schmidt about it so you become
confident how the data is actually to be read. Then please run
a brief correction in a future column so more people do not
continue to be unintentionally led astray.

Have a great day!

Gary Polson
Polson Enterprises
Propeller Guard Information Center
http://rbbi.com/pgic
    Its now four months later with no response from Mr. Lambrecht and no indication of our conversations in his monthly Boat & Motor Dealer column, so we posted our email exchange conversation on this page as an example of our frustration with them to truthfully report the USCG data.

    I am not on a vendetta against Mr. Lambrecht. In this past, I have enjoyed dozens of his columns on the history of outboards, outboard technologies, his days at OMC, and related topics. I am sure tens of thousands of boaters should be indebted to him for his work with outboards at OMC. Because of him and other pioneers like him, the boating industry is enjoying the success it has today.

    I wish him the best. All I want is a correction printed in the magazine that corrects both his Sept/Oct 2006 article and his Jan/Feb 2003 article (full citations near top of this page). Even with a correction, this data will perpetuate itself as others use it as a source. But, with a printed correction, at least we will have some evidence to point those to who use his understated stats in the next round of discussions and publications.

    As for now, we sit around waiting for Mr. Lambrecht to write another article understating propeller injury and death counts just like his last two, while his publication continues to mislead their own audience (dealers), who in turn mislead the general public.

    I liked it better when boating publications stuck their head in the sand and avoided the propeller issue, or just slammed potential solutions. Now one of them has found a way around the "Inconvenient Truth" of propeller dangers by printing death and injury stats that are about a factor of 5 lower than the Coast Guard data they claim to represent. What will the Kool Aid kids try against the "Inconvenient Truth" next?

    In late August 2007 I was going back through some piled up magazines and found a brief "sort of" recognition of our demand to Mr. Lambrecht to print a correction. The April 2007 issue of Boat and Motor Dealer has a column by him titled, "Bumping into People in the Water". The lead paragraph acknowledges prop accidents do occur more than half a dozen times a year (but no numbers are provided), then talks about the confusion surrounding Coast Guard reporting based on Event sequence, and thats it!

    We scanned the first paragraph which is the only section of the article dealing with our request. Its about as weak an acknowledgment as you can get. We have not yet given up our quest to get them to print the actual Coast Guard statistics.

    In Closing

    If anybody still thinks its me "cooking the books" on prop strike data instead of Mr. Lambrecht, I suggest you:

    Thanks for listening and don't drink the Kool Aid.

    Gary Polson
    Propeller Guard Information Center

    Feedback

    If you have any comments about this article or situation, please email us. We will not post your comments here unless you ask us to. We would especially welcome comments from Boat & Motor Dealer magazine and from Mr. Lambrecht. We will be posting this document today (Friday 16 March 2007) and emailing a link to it to Mr. Lambrecht and to the editor of Boat & Motor Dealer magazine as soon as it is posted.

    Return to Propeller Guard Information Center