Here's an item that might generate some on-topic opinions. (Rough draft of an
upcoming editorial)

Boating's Tawdry Public Image


As yet another editorial deadline approaches, a massive oil spill in East
Passage remains unsolved. Newspapers and the broadcast media have reported the
number of seabirds and marine mammals effected, and interviewed spokespersons
for the various regulatory agencies responsible for cleaning up the mess and
mitigating environmental damage. Sadly enough, this incident has the potential
to impact recreational boating in ways that certainly surpass the need to scrub
oily scum from the waterline.

Most boaters try to be careful stewards of the environment, but under informed
non-boaters have little or no appreciation for the many steps we routinely take
to minimize our imprint. Even some individuals who should certainly know
better, (some of them from Washington State), have made irresponsible and
uninformed public comments about common boating practices and exacerbated our
tawdry public image. Some of these individuals are spokespeople for publicly
funded enforcement agencies, and perhaps they are merely hoping to improve job
security by whipping up anti-boating sentiment among active environmentalists.

How badly are we viewed? Scott Fields, in an essay titled "The Environmental
Pain of Pleasure Boating" states that recreational watercraft inflict more
environmental damage than an "oil tanker breaking apart." He claims the
accumulated environmental damage from petroleum products, human and pet waste,
trash, and potentially toxic metals foul coastal waters, lakes, and rivers.
Fields asserts that noise from boats damages the hearing of boat operators and
passengers, and disrupts or damages sea life.

Some faulty logic must have influenced a 1996 EPA fact sheet titled "Boating
Pollution Prevention." The report notes that there are 12-million marine
engines in the United States, and that on the basis of number alone marine
engines must therefore be among the "leading causes" of hydrocarbon and nitrous
oxide pollution.
For such a claim to be true, the average pleasure boat would need to smoke like
a 19th Century locomotive. Twelve million marine engines, many of which have
advanced pollution controls that have evolved in a manner similar to
terrestrial vehicle engines, would certainly all be working overtime to wrest
the status of a "leading cause" from perhaps 150-million automobile and light
truck engines. The overwhelming majority of pleasure boat engines operate fewer
hours in a year than the engine in a typical family car will operate in a
month.

Scott Fields' essay cites a local source, Eric Olsson of the Washington Sea
Grant Program in Seattle, as an expert on the irresponsible refueling practices
of recreational boaters. The outrageous statement attributed to Olsson reads,
"Boats are designed to spill. That's their flow gauge. People who are refueling
boats literally look over the side and fill it until it shoots out the vent.
It's become part of the operation for filling a boat."

In addition to air and petroleum pollution, there are endless efforts to
over-dramatize the effects of bottom paint, human waste, and waterfront
businesses like boatyards and marinas. Each of the pollution issues raised by
our critics can be considered legitimate, but the boating related causes tend
to be hysterically exaggerated. While it can be true that water near marinas
can be polluted, little attention is paid to the fact that many of our marinas
are located near storm water runoff drains or at the terminal end of large
watersheds. Tons of pollutants from upland sources would be present in such
locations whether or not there were any pleasure craft in the area. But if
water is polluted, and there are boats about, and if it has to be somebody's
fault, (preferably somebody else), we boaters make excellent scapegoats.

We should take every reasonable step to minimize pollution. Responsible
boaters, as most of us tend to be, can enjoy the pastime without undue or
permanent damage to the environment.
Many of the most effective practices to control our environmental impacts are
very easily accomplished and can immediately pay off with a more enjoyable
boating experience. Perhaps being clean boaters isn't enough to overcome our
tawdry image; we must be certain that the public perceives us as good stewards
of the environment rather than a primary cause of air and water pollution.

The alternative, suggested in the Scott Fields essay, is extremely draconian.
Fields quotes environmentalists who would prefer to see each individual boat
declared a "point source" for air and water pollution. If such a measure were
ever enacted, each pleasure boat would be individually required to obtain a
series of permits from the EPA for specific, common activities underway. The
expense and hassles associated with individual permitting and compliance
reporting to the EPA could potentially put an end to pleasure boating as we
know it. That might well be the unspoken agenda of certain extremists, and our
best and most effective countermeasure is to consciously improve our tawdry
public image.