The Boaters vs. PWCs conflict is very similar to prior outdoor recreational conflicts.

• It is asymmetrical (one way). Boaters despise PWC's while PWC users are happy to see boaters and feel no conflict at all.

• It is technology driven. Many Recreational Conflicts involve new more intrusive (noisy, faster, wider ranging, greater environmental impact) technologies.

• It could be characterized as a mechanized vs. non-mechanized conflict. PWCs are so incredibly noisy, fast and intrusive compared to some boats that boats could be almost considered non-mechanized in comparison.

• The activities are mutually exclusive? Most PWC users do not have boats. Most boaters do not have PWCs. Some boating articles indicate a large percentage of PWCs are owned by boaters. If boaters own them, it is hard to imagine they are the ones complaining.

• Much of the conflict occurs between city dwellers. Rural recreationists tend to have higher tolerance for alternative behaviors. Many people now on the water from both groups are from cities.

• The groups are of different ages (and lifestyles). Boaters tend to be older. PWC operators tend to be younger. Generally, younger people are more tolerant of different lifestyles than older people. PWC operators seek adventure and physically demanding recreation with strong social experiences. Boaters seek quieter, relaxing, nature oriented, non-physical leisure experiences.

• One group was well established before the other. Boaters have had the water to themselves for a long time. PWCs are a recent development. Boaters tend to feel the resource (water) is theirs.

• Some members of the "offended group" are not offended. Some boaters are tolerant of PWCs.

• The lack of "clubs." Recreational Conflicts often involve clubs. Snowmobile clubs where everybody dresses alike, snowmobiles together, and have meetings strongly unify the group, both in their own opinions and in the opinions of those viewing the group from outside. Both PWC operators and boaters lack strong club influence.

• Some members of one group may "move up" to the other. Several PWC operators are expected to "move up" to boats later. This is not a frequent occurrence in other Recreational Conflicts.

It might be interesting to compare the education level of the two groups. Many PWC operators are the young college crowd and recent graduates. Boaters tend to be older, but I am not sure how the education levels would compare. Strong differences in education level between the two conflicting groups has been observed in several recreational conflicts.

Suggestions for Resolution from the Research Literature

• Increase communication and dialog between the two groups. Get them to meet together on a local level and better understand each others recreational needs as well as to just meet each other. PWC operators could explain how they ride their craft, why they wear the clothes and accessories they wear, and how much they enjoy the water. The boaters could see the PWC craft up close and obtain a better understanding of how they operate. It seems like this undertaking could be best organized by a local group of PWC operators sponsoring a "Learn About Us" type day for the boaters. This might be a little difficult without the "club" orientation of the sport. It might start with the clubs that do exist or with special assistance from PWC manufacturers. If they are successful, maybe other clubs will form to help not only promote PWCs to other potential users, but to "sell themselves" to area boaters.

• Have the "offending group" promote the good they do. PWC operators could promote (publish, distribute) information about any work they have done in cleaning up and repairing launching areas, rescues performed by those on PWCs. They could do research into the local economic impact of PWCs and promote that by their presence, costs of fuel, marina services, and food are lower as well as the money they spend is being reinvested in the marine community. Launching, picnicking, and camping areas have been improved and expanded in many areas to accommodate the large influx of PWCs. Boaters now using these newly improved facilities that may not have existed without the advent of the PWC crowd.

• Promote etiquette. Especially on the behalf of PWC users. Manufacturers, dealers, and clubs could promote and encourage proper etiquette of the craft on the water, especially in its relation to other craft.

• Separate the two conflicting groups. First, we need to recognize there are areas where no conflict exists. If conflict does exist in your area it is probably most severe at peak use times (seasonal and time of day). A separation plan needs to first identify when the groups need to be separated. They probably do not need separated all the time. Determine the exact seasons, days of week,and times of day that separation might be useful.

  Spatial Separation can be accomplished by marking off certain areas of the reservoir for boats and others for PWCs. Many studies point out that if this is not fairly done, the conflict will actually escalate as one of both of groups feels they "got the short end of the stick." Separation can also be done by time, either certain days of the week or by time of day. By allowing only certain types of craft on the water at one time, one does not have to physically divide the resource. The time method of separation may fit this situation in some areas. Many of the PWC operators are near colleges and might be able to hit the water earlier and stay later than the boating crowd?

  Studies have found some boaters are tolerant of PWCs. Since PWCs appear to accept boaters, tolerant boaters could be allowed to operate within the PWC areas and times. The real thrust of separation is to allocate the non-tolerant boaters a chance to have the resource to themselves for a while. This is somewhat similar to a coed gym having a women only workout hour. Those women that do not like working out with men, have an opportunity to workout with other women. The tolerant women (tolerant boaters) can workout whenever they want. This concept of grouping the intolerant boaters means that if you chose to mark off areas of the reservoir for them, that a much smaller area (or shorter time period) can be used since the tolerant boaters could boat over the entire reservoir (or time). If only 50% of the boaters are intolerant, then only half the area (or time) that would be needed for all the boaters would need to be restricted for their use.

  "Out of site = Out of Mind." Studies indicate the number of actual encounters is very important. Reservoir managers should make extra efforts to plant trees and construct other line of sight and noise barriers to restrict view and noise of high use PWC areas from other areas of the reservoir. If physical separation is tried, line of sight and noise blocking materials or natural resources (hills, trees) should be an integral part of the plan to decrease the number of encounters. Separate launching facilities should also be considered.

  One study indicated the number of anticipated encounters with the "offenders" was an important variable. If boaters anticipated a high number of contacts with PWCs but moderate or few contacts actually occurred, then boaters would feel less conflict. On the other hand if they anticipated only a few contacts, but higher levels actually occurred, then boaters felt higher levels of conflict. The suggestion, was for reservoir and park management personnel to make extra efforts to paint the "worst case scenario" to boaters when they are registering for use of the facility. Then, most of time boaters would actually encounter fewer PWCs than they anticipated and less conflict would occur.

Additional Suggestions for Resolution from the Author

• PWCs tend to be a near shoreline activity, while boating is more of an open water activity. Separation should focus first on launching facilities and areas the two groups most frequently encounter each other. Open water separation on large reservoirs may not be necessary.

• In recent years, many have undergone training in Dr. Stephen Covey's 7-Habits program. Gathering representatives from both parties both locally and nationally and focusing upon the "Win Win" philosophy might be a useful approach as well.

• A "We Help You With Your Children Approach." Children of many boaters are attracted to PWCs. Without them, the children might not even want to come to the water. PWCs offer a way for boaters to keep their children with them on weekends and to continue to give them some sort of outdoor recreational experience. This "link to boating" could be emphasized in a PWC public image campaign.

• Studies could be conducted to determine what percentage of PWC operators eventually "move up" to boats. Publishing the results might make boaters more tolerant of PWCs. If they new that a large percentage of them were eventually going to join their ranks they might have a much different viewpoint of them.

• A "Common Cause" approach. PWC operators could unify with boaters for common causes. If managers of a recreational area were considering shutting down an area, restricting access hours, charging high access fees or other similar changes boaters would be against, PWC operators could join with them to fight the "common enemy." Much goodwill could occur. If PWC operators could just instill the concept they are available and willing to join boaters against these kinds of causes, boaters might be more tolerant of their "partners on the water."

• PWC operators and recreational area managers could emphasize PWCs are often used by fire fighting, rescue and law enforcement personal to assure safety on the water. The vehicles used by those performing these tasks would not be available to them if it were not for the high volume sales of normal PWCs.

• PWC companies need to continue to encourage safety. But additionally, they could point out that most comparison safety studies fail to point out PWCs are used many more hours than boats. Accident studies usually point out accidents per thousand craft, not per thousand hours of operation. If boats and PWCs are compared on this basis, the discrepancy between the two is much less.

• To make restricted areas more "pleasant sounding" perhaps recreation mangers could "reserve" and area of the lake for "Tranquility Hours." No PWCs or high speed boat operation would be allowed in that area in those hours.

• A survey could be conducted to determine specific characteristics of PWCs and PWC operators that offend boaters. The same survey could determine relative importance of each objectional characteristic. Recreational managers, PWC operators, PWC manufacturers, boaters and others could then try to address these specific problems.

Return to Boaters vs. PWCs Page

Return to Recreational Boat Building Industry Home Page

---