Jet-ski Fact Sheet
Jetskis or Personal Watercraft (PWC) are fundamentally different from conventional boats in design, operation and use. PWCs are multiple impact machines in terms of noise pollution, marine pollution, wildlife harassment, loss of amenity, loss of the possibility of spiritual and psychic renewal, degradation of the public perception of the value of a natural area and safety in the waters. It is critical to fulfilling the objectives of the marine park that those responsible for protecting the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and State Marine Park take proactive steps to control Thrill Crafts.
Recommendations:
1. Changes in licensing provisions for PWCs including:
1.1. Special PWC category of ‘thrill craft’, which incurs higher fees and more stringent regulation (other craft, such as hovercraft, may be included in this designation as well)
1.2. Specialised training requirements developed
1.3. Minimum age of 18 to drive a Thrill Craft
1.4. Registration number size increased to a minimum of 60cm, black only against a white background, with no letters used that can be confused with numbers and vice versa
1.5. Development of a hotline for Thrill Craft complaints
2. All permit applications for commercial operation to be publicly advertised and subject to assessment as an ERA under the EPA
3. EPA licensing required for Thrill Craft two-stroke engines, with a view towards replacement of two-stroke engines with four stroke engines by 2007.
4. Restrictions on use of Thrill Craft to specific restricted designated areas. In no circumstances should those designated areas include the following:
4.1. shallow (<2m) inshore areas except at no wake speed
4.2. over or adjacent to seagrass beds
4.3. over or adjacent to coral reefs
4.4. bays except at no wake speed
4.5. within 500 metres of islands important for nesting birds
4.6. within 1 km of sea turtle nesting areas
4.7. Dugong Protection Areas
4.8. areas designated 'sensitive sites' because of habitat or species presence.
4.9. Areas valued for their wilderness and aesthetic qualities, including values of seclusion and isolation
4.10. within 500 metres of areas designated 'swimming beaches' by local councils
5. Areas should be set aside in each urban region for unrestricted use of Thrill Craft
6. Noise tests conducted on Thrill Craft that are part of commercial operations to determine if protective ear wear is needed for employees and paid operators
Noise Pollution:
Thrill craft produce noise levels in the range of 85-105 decibels, loud enough to require protective ear wear for prolongued exposure. The high-pitched chain- saw like sound is made even more intrusive by the change in loudness and pitch that occurs every time the thrill craft goes over a wave. While not the loudest of water craft, the nature of their use as thrill craft makes PWC a common and frequent source of noise complaints. The Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute concluded, in a study conducted in Washington State in the United States, that because thrill craft lack a low frequency long distance sound, they do not signal surfacing birds, mammals (including humans or dugong) or sea turtles of approaching danger until they are almost on top of them The effect of the sudden sound is to startle or even panic birds and other wildlife. The tendency of thrill craft to circle in one area exacerbates the disturbance of wildlife by increasing the time displaced wildlife must remain away from feeding and nesting areas. The unpredictable nature of thrill craft movement is likewise a problem.
Wildlife Impacts: Disruption and Displacement
In California, marine mammal experts have raised alarms over the thrill craft effect on seals, sea lions and elephant seals. Thrill craft disturb normal rest, social interaction and cause stampedes into the water that can separate pups from their mothers. Disturbance of waterbirds by thrill craft has been found to be significantly greater than the disturbance caused by motorboats. In Washington State, officers of the Fish and Wildlife Department are becoming increasingly concerned with the effect of motorised personal watercraft…on both nesting birds and spawning salmon.” In Hawaii, thrill craft have been classified as ‘thrill craft” and strict area controls have been imposed on the machines in order to protect migrating humpback whales.
Water Pollution:
Jet skis use two-stroke engines that are more polluting than conventional two-stroke engines. Two-stroke engines run on a mixture of oil and gasoline and discharge as much as one third of this mixture unburned into the water. An average two-hour ‘thrill’ ride on a thrill craft dumps three gallons of petrol and oil into the water. Thrill craft emit eight times more pollution than equivalent motorboats. The California Air Resources Board reported that a two-hour ride on a 100 horsepower jet ski emits the same amount of pollution as driving 139,000 miles in a 1998 passenger car.
The pollution from thrill craft is particularly concerning because of where and how thrill craft operate. Thrill craft are capable of traveling in shallow and remote areas, where wildlife is most sensitive to environmental pollution. Hydrocarbons in gas and oil released from two-stroke motors float on the surface and settle within the shallow ecosystems of water bodies. These areas are home to many organisms at the base of the food chain such as fish eggs, algae, shellfish, seagrass and zooplankton. Scientists have determined that hydrocarbon pollution can bioaccumulate within the complex food web, posing a serious threat to the marine environment. An additional likely source of pollution is anecdotal and involves the manual refueling of thrill craft in the water using a funnel and a 5 gallon drum (pers. comm. Shirley Prout, July 26, 1997)
Safety:
In the United States, high injury rates, including deaths, have lead to increasing restrictions on jet ski use. Despite accounting for only 17% of all registered boats, jet skis were responsible for 52% of all boating injuries in 1997. In Victoria, the death of a 21 year old man in a thrill craft accident in 1998, led to calls for tougher national regulations and to a comment from then Premier Jeff Kennett that "he would either ban them entirely or restrict them to isolated areas". (Weekend Australian, September 19-20, 1998). In Sydney, a doctor called for review of jetski laws after 25 jetski accidents and 2 deaths over a 4 year period (Townsville Bulletin, 20/11/96). No changes in Queensland or Commonwealth regulation have occurred. In Queensland it is difficult to ascertain the number of injuries associated with thrill craft because until 1997 thrill craft were not identifiable through registration. Official registration figures for thrill craft stand at approximately 1440 thrill craft in Queensland. The real figure is over 5000. The injury figures for thrill craft in 1999 in Queensland indicate that 11 of 62 total boating injuries (and no deaths) were associated with thrill craft. That figure only pertains to the 1440 craft registered as PWC and not the almost 4000 thrill craft that are registered as 'open craft' under the earlier Department of Transport System (DOT 1999).
Strong public pressure has resulted in many parks banning or strictly regulating jet skis, including Yellowstone NP, Everglades NP, Grand Canyon NP and Glacier NP. The United States National Park Service has recently (March 21, 2000) decided to ban jet skis in most National Parks, a decision supported by 45,000 of the 50,000 people who commented on the proposed rule. The final rule prohibits the use of Thrill Craft in national park areas, except where the Park Service determines that this type of water based recreational activity is appropriate for a specific park. Such decisions would be based on the legislation creating that park or recreational area, the area’s resources and values, other visitor uses and overall management objectives.
Amenity:
Perhaps the most common complaint against thrill craft relates to the loss of amenity. People visit beaches and bays in order to get away from noise, to recover from the pressures of urban and suburban life. Nuisance regulations in the suburbs have finally been instituted in suburban areas, but similar recognition of rights of recreations and seclusion have not occurred. The disturbance is both auditory and visual and represents a thorough interference with the rights of all those who use the those natural areas for other purposes. Thrill craft 'hooning' in bays and along shorelines disturbs the use and enjoyment of others. Swimmers feel that thrill craft represent a danger to them and thus are unable to enjoy the sea as they should; beach goers are prevented from enjoying solitude or quiet; parents cannot leave their children unattended because of the perceived danger associated with 'hoons' on thrill craft. We would find the idea of motorcross bikes freely and noisly traversing protected terrestrial areas completely inappropriate and yet we continue to allow thrill craft to operate in virtually all parts of a World Heritage area. Thrill craft represent a severe and unacceptable intrusion on the rights of others to enjoy public marine areas.
Government Response:
Despite high levels of community concern - frequently and loudly expressed - little has been done in Queensland to address the problems associated with thrill craft use. 21 May 1997. The agenda for the Urban Local Government Association Conference included the following resolution: "That the Urban Local Government Association urge the State Government to amend Marine Safety Legislation to prohibit powered craft (including jet skis) from enclosed and recreational waters; other than in areas specifically designated for their use". The background to the resolution recognised that previous "amendment to Marine Safety Regulations have removed many of the previous restrictions on the operation of powered craft (especially jet skis and speed boats) in rivers, estuaries and coastal marine waters used for swimming and other recreational users…has lead to a proliferation of complaints regarding noise, beach and bank erosion and swimmer safety". No such amendment was ever made. In 1997, then Queensland Minister for Transport Vaughan Johnson, indicated in a letter dated 3 June 1997, that current registration and license requirements for PWC were not enough. He was "considering the introduction of additional regulations such as prohibiting personal water craft from specific areas and increasing the distance a personal water craft may approach a swimmer, vessel or shore at speed". No regulatory changes were made. In 1998 a Personal Watercraft Workshop was help in Townsville, chaired by now MLA Mike Reynolds. The workshop was held in response to a fairly standard litany of complaints against PWC and against the failure of any government agency to take responsibility for the problem. Complaints included 'hooligan' behaviour, lack of safety, loss of amenity and disturbance of the rights of others to use and enjoy marine areas, disturbance of wildlife, excessive noise, and a failure of management to take responsibility.
"Following an outcry last year about jetski racing along the Strand…a long history of complaints to government agencies about jetskis operating along the Strand, at Pallarenda and in certain Magnetic Island Bays; the granting of a Marine Parks Permit for a commercial jetski operation around Magnetic Island (without a public comment period, despite a request from the North Queensland Conservation Council to both State and Federal agencies that the permit process shoud include public input) ; and enquiries to agencies about establishing a commercial jetski operation on the Strand (now operating) ; the TRMRAC (Townsville Resource Marine Resource Advisory Committee? Established by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority) resolved to tackle the issue on a local level" (Background and invitation to workshop 23/2/98).
The TRMRAC issed a paper in April 1998 suggesting various management options. The favoured option was to develop a management plan for Cleveland Bay for all vessels and other users. That has not occurred. In the short term, the TRMRAC suggested speed limits in 'problematic bays', designation of sensitive areas, areas set aside for PWC use and reimposition of 6 knot speed limits along beach front areas. None of these proposals has been acted upon. In Queensland and in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and World Heritage Area, State and Commonwealth managers (Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service and Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority) have traditionally been intent on satisfying all users and uses. As the park management made the transition from the multiple abuse park to a standard of protection as required under the World Heritage Convention this sort of activity was more stringently controlled under the ‘reasonable use’ permitting requirements. The continued uncontrolled use of thrill crafts represents a throwback to outdated multiple use models. Even in the permitting of commercial operations there has been no recognition of the rights of the public to have a say in relation to how and where PWC operate. Private operators have watched government agencies wrestle with the problem without a single substantive measure ever being taken. Virtually all of the serious restrictions on jet ski use have occurred in the United States. Legislation and regulations to control or ban jet skis from certain areas are becoming increasingly common.
BLUEWATER PRESS RELEASE
National Jet Ski Legislation Introduced
Coalition Applauds Precedent Setting Bill
Monday, October 25, 1999 Washington, D.C. A coalition of environmental and conservation groups today praised new proposed legislation to address the environmental damage, safety concerns, and nuisance complaints associated with personal watercraft use on America's coastlines. The bill, the Personal Watercraft Responsible Use Act, was introduced by Representatives Jim Saxton (R-NJ), Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD) and Bruce Vento (D-MN). The legislation is supported by many groups, including American Canoe Association (ACA), Bluewater Network, Friends of the Earth, Izaak Walton League of America and the National Parks Conservation Association. "We applaud Representatives Saxton, Gilchrest and Vento for this effort to reel in the reckless and environmentally destructive use of personal watercraft (PWC)," said Erich Pica, spokesman for Friends of the Earth. "This legislation is an important first step to bring PWC use under control." The Personal Watercraft Responsible Use Act is the first federal legislation to recognize that Personal Watercraft are used differently from other vessels and have very unique impacts. This legislation requires States that manage coastal waters to implement enforceable personal watercraft operation policies and provisions. States that refuse or fail to implement personal watercraft policies can lose some of the federal funding provided for coastal management.
Many water-related recreation groups have been working desperately to get some relief from the threats personal watercraft pose to the safety and enjoyment of other waterway users. "In many places personal watercraft have made areas unfit for any other type of recreation experience" said David Jenkins, Director of Conservation and Public Policy for the ACA. "Our members have to avoid areas for fear of their life because of the reckless and irresponsible use of these high-speed machines. The status quo is simply unfair to the rest of the public." "This legislation recognizes that jet skis are thrill-craft that need to be regulated differently than traditional boats," Kevin Collins, spokesman for the National Parks and Conservation Association, said. There are over one million personal watercraft racing across America's waterways, with an additional 100,000 units sold annually. PWC are not used like traditional boats to travel from point to point. Rather, they are manufactured and marketed specifically for high-speed, aggressive use. PWC problems are further magnified by their ability to access shallow and remote waters and the fact that PWC two-stroke motors dump nearly 30% of their gas/oil mixture unburned in the water. This bill will offer some protection for local ecosystems and area wildlife endangered by personal watercraft use. "The environmental community is glad to see that Congress now recognizes the serious and growing problem jet skis represent for America's waterways," said Russell Long, Director of Bluewater Network. "This bill provides tools for communities to control the tremendous flood of jet ski related problems."
The legislation would require states to designate sensitive areas requiring personal watercraft to be operated at "no-wake" speed. The Personal Watercaft Responsible Use Act also provides needed grants to State and local entities for law enforcement. Grants will also be available for the development of local task forces to address user conflicts between personal watercrafts and other recreational and commercial users. "PWCs pose a serious threat to water quality, aquatic life, wildlife and their habitat, especially in fragile aquatic ecosystems managed under the Coastal Zone Management Act," said Laurie Martin, Izaak Walton League conservation associate. "We are pleased to see that Reps. Saxton, Gilchrest, and Vento understand this threat and have shown leadership by introducing a bill to address PWC use in coastal areas." Read the Personal Watercraft Responsible Use Act - available on the net.