This page originates with one rather lengthy letter. It is a nice point by point discussion of the paper from an individual who felt the paper was biased against PWCs. Our response to the original letter is then followed by a back and forth exchange.

Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 
From: Eric 
Newsgroups: rec.sport.jetski
Subject: Re: Boaters vs. PWCs Conflict Research Paper

Gary Polson  wrote:

>The paper was not written to argue the conflict or to talk about
>how many accidents boats have. 
>
>I tried to show the facts, information, and prior research
>that:
>(1) point out why the conflict exits
>(2) offer some tools that might help reduce the conflict
>(3) provide a base to build future research upon
>

The comments below are after I read the article.  I'm quoting parts of it 
for review purposes. I won't comment on the referenced studies.  

>"Introduction:
>The three-fold purpose of this paper is: 
>(1) to increase awareness of earlier RC research, 
>(2) to expose the industry to conflict reduction methods suggested in 
>earlier studies that might have application to the current situation, and 
>(3) to create a springboard for future research in this area."

Noble purposes.  Objectivity would help in such a quest. With such an 
opening, I expected an interesting page.  I found it, but for all the wrong 
reasons.


>"Review of Boaters vs. PWCs Recreational Conflict"
>
>"They are built by companies in the ATV and snowmobile business, not by 
>companies traditionally in the boat building business."

This is irrelevant to your study of the conflict.  It is used to lead into 
the following comment:

>"The boating industry has reached maturity and growth has been very 
>difficult to achieve. Some boat manufacturers see PWC manufacturers as 
>stealing their customers."

Which may be true.  But whether it was a division of another boating 
company stealing their customers or a division of a ATV/snowmobile company 
should be irrelevant to the conflicts on the water.  You could have easily 
made this statement without mention of what other products companies making 
PWC produce. It shows bias, and is a bad lead-in for a paper that should be 
assuming a neutral stance.  

If the PWC industry major players were subsidiaries of the boat companies, 
would the boat companies' interests in this conflict be different?  I say 
they would.  Would the interests of the people on the water be different?  
No, since those with the problem don't care who makes PWC. Which makes this 
an economic division, not one of behavior or environmental concerns.  
Irrelevant to the conflict.

>"They often 'jump the wake' closely behind boats over the objection of 
>boaters and good safety practices. "

That's a big statement to make.  Define "often".  Next, provide some 
evidence of "over the objection of boaters".  Again, your bias is showing.

>PWC Accident Page:
>
>"RBBI Comment: The general public associaties boating, jet skiing, water 
>skiing, wake boarding all with boating. PWC injuries and the resulting 
>press (like this) will not be good for the boating industry."

Where *is* your objectivity?  In one statement you say PWC are singled out 
by the boating community and in the next breath you say the "general 
public" associates PWC problems with the boating industry.  The boating 
community is representative of the general public. Take a cross section of 
boaters and you'll get a good sample of the general population.  Either 
they single out PWC or they don't. You can't have it both ways.

This statement clearly shows that this is a study of economic impact, not a 
study concerned with fair problem resolution for both sides of the 
conflict.

>Discussion of the Boaters vs. PWCs Conflict Based on the Research 
>Literature
>
>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.

Asymmetrical does not mean one way. You may want to prefix this with "Some" 
boaters despise...  I'm often not happy to see "big" boaters, as many of 
them can be problematic.

>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.

Come on. Are you kidding?  "So incredibly noisy, fast and intrusive"?  
"almost considered non-mechanized"?  Are you even attempting objectivity 
here?

>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.

Imagine? If this is a study on the conflict, what are you doing "imagining" 
things?  
Get facts straight or don't comment.  This isn't the place to be drawing 
conclusions based on your imagination. Have you studied the registration 
statistics for boat and PWC owners in any state, much less all 50 of them?

>PWC operators seek adventure and physically demanding recreation with
>strong social experiences. Boaters seek quieter, relaxing, nature 
>oriented, non-physical leisure experiences.

I know boaters and PWCers who would disagree strongly with both these 
statements.

>Researchers in other Recreational Conflicts were sometimes able to utilize 
>vehicle registration data to find users (or the parents of the actual
>users). Boats registration is fairly universal. PWC registration is less 
>regulated.

Where are you making your studies? If this is based on USA, which all your 
references suggest, PWC are required to be registered in every state as 
they are Class-A craft. They're just as regulated as every other craft on 
the water, and more than many of the small craft which require no 
registration in many areas.

>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. 

There's a mix of educational levels in all of boating.  

>Strong differences in education level between the two conflicting groups 
>has been observed in several recreational conflicts.

This statement is left open as to what the differences were. Note this is 
an anecdotal statement which has no place here.

>Suggestions for Resolution from the Research Literature

>Increase communication and dialog between the two groups. 
Sounds good.

>Have the "offending group" promote the good they do. 
Also sounds good.

>Promote etiquette. Especially on the behalf of PWC users. 
Your bias is showing. I can note more than a few instances of, shall we 
say, breaches of etiquette by tradional boaters. Promote etiquette on all 
fronts. Those more aware of proper etiquette they have less of a change to 
make.

> 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.

Not even a suggestion of PWCs at some times, boaters at others.  Boaters 
get full use, PWCs are restricted.  How about PWCers get to use the waters 
all the time, and non-tolerant boaters can be separated into a small cove 
to enjoy their peace and quiet together?  Doesn't sound so good, does it?

>Additional Suggestions for Resolution from the Author

>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.

Surprised to see this mentioned.  A certain person here may have a comment 
on this.

>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.

Again, your bias is showing.  Why "No PWCs or high speed boat operation" 
why not: "No high speed operation" at certain times?   In other words, for 
"Tranquility Hours" put a speed limit on the lake.  10 mph. Or no wake. No 
reason PWCers should not be allowed on the water if they're under the 
limit. No reason for separation.

I was expecting something interesting from someone who has written a 
"paper". It's not a researched paper, it's not even an objective paper. 
It's an article. An article showing your biases all too strongly.

Not even a suggestion of PWCs at some times, boaters at others.  Boaters 
get full use, PWCs are restricted.  How about PWCers get to use the waters 
all the time, and non-tolerant boaters can be separated into a small cove 
to enjoy their peace and quiet together?  Doesn't sound so good, does it?
certain areas and how they show you're not an objective observer.

Note I'm not saying you intentionally went out to create a biased article, 
your intentions may have been good.  But you do have biases and they come 
through all too clearly.

All in all, interesting.  Unfortunately, the lack of objectivity in parts 
of the article taints the contents of the remainder. 

Eric



Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 
From: Gary Polson 
Newsgroups: rec.sport.jetski
Subject: Re: Boaters vs. PWCs Conflict Research Paper

Note: the comments below are in regards to the 
PWC Conflict research paper at:
http://www.virtualpet.com/rbbi/white/conflict/conflict.htm

Thank you Eric for your very specific comments. I have tried
to respond to each of them below.

On Tue, 3 Feb 1998, Eric wrote:

> The comments below are after I read the article.  I'm quoting parts of it 
> for review purposes. 
> 
> >"Introduction:
> >The three-fold purpose of this paper is: 
> >(1) to increase awareness of earlier RC research, 
> >(2) to expose the industry to conflict reduction methods suggested in 
> >earlier studies that might have application to the current situation, and 
> >(3) to create a springboard for future research in this area."
> 
> Noble purposes.  Objectivity would help in such a quest. With such an 
> opening, I expected an interesting page.  I found it, but for all the wrong 
> reasons.

> >"Review of Boaters vs. PWCs Recreational Conflict"
> >
> >"They are built by companies in the ATV and snowmobile business, not by 
> >companies traditionally in the boat building business."
 
> This is irrelevant to your study of the conflict.  It is used to lead into 
> the following comment:
> 
> >"The boating industry has reached maturity and growth has been very 
> >difficult to achieve. Some boat manufacturers see PWC manufacturers as 
> >stealing their customers."
> 
> Which may be true.  But whether it was a division of another boating 
> company stealing their customers or a division of a ATV/snowmobile company 
> should be irrelevant to the conflicts on the water.  You could have easily 
> made this statement without mention of what other products companies making 
> PWC produce. It shows bias, and is a bad lead-in for a paper that should be 
> assuming a neutral stance.  
> 
> If the PWC industry major players were subsidiaries of the boat companies, 
> would the boat companies' interests in this conflict be different?  I say 
> they would.  Would the interests of the people on the water be different?  
> No, since those with the problem don't care who makes PWC. Which makes this 
> an economic division, not one of behavior or environmental concerns.  
> Irrelevant to the conflict.

It is certainly not irrelevant to the conflict that the PWC industry
was born from outside the traditional boating companies. Its rapid 
growth has been seen by the boating companies as a threat which is
now headlined by the Irwin Jacobs/Genmar mess. There are actually two
interrelated conflicts, the conflict on the water and the conflict
at the factory. If you do not think they are related (or that some
traditional boating companies may not be trying to fuel the conflict)
you are nieve.

I agree that if the PWC companies were subsidiaries of the traditional
boating companies that the boating companies interests in the conflict
would be different. You say the interest of the people on the water
would not be different, I disagree. Just take the Jacobs/Genmar issue
for an example, it has heightened tensions on the water.

> >"They often 'jump the wake' closely behind boats over the objection of 
> >boaters and good safety practices. "
> 
> That's a big statement to make.  Define "often".  Next, provide some 
> evidence of "over the objection of boaters".  Again, your bias is showing.
> 

Define "often"- once is enough to hack off most boaters. 
Provide evidence: I personally have been in a boat (more than once)
when this occurred, and we repeatedly tried to wave them off.
The only way to put an end to it was to move to another area of
the lake. Obviously they were idiots and also obviously, there
are idiot boaters out there as well.

> >PWC Accident Page:
> >
> >"RBBI Comment: The general public associates boating, jet skiing, water 
> >skiing, wake boarding all with boating. PWC injuries and the resulting 
> >press (like this) will not be good for the boating industry."
> 
> Where *is* your objectivity?  In one statement you say PWC are singled out 
> by the boating community and in the next breath you say the "general 
> public" associates PWC problems with the boating industry.  The boating 
> community is representative of the general public. Take a cross section of 
> boaters and you'll get a good sample of the general population.  Either 
> they single out PWC or they don't. You can't have it both ways.
> 
> This statement clearly shows that this is a study of economic impact, not a 
> study concerned with fair problem resolution for both sides of the 
> conflict.

The PWC Accident page was constructed several months ago when the 
CDC study was released. The launching of that page was announced
in this newsgroup at that time.

RBBI is a boating industry page, that is not a crime. I was 
pointing out to those in the industry that the general public
is being bombarded by press saying that PWCs are dangerous
and that some of that "feeling of dangerous" will be rubbing
off on traditional boating as well. I was trying to encourage
the industry to respond and not just "sit by". I don't claim
to know what the best response is. I would have liked to 
seen the two groups unite and address the safety concerns of the 
public instead of the Jacobs/Genmar method.

If you think the boating community is representative of the 
general public, I'm sorry but you are very wrong. I have
spent a great deal of time doing marketing research for some 
of the "big boys" and and the "boating public" is NOT
representative of the general public. It you want to 
get technical, the boating public is actually segmented into
several groups (fishing, skiing, racing, high performance,
even sail if you want to include them, cruisers, salt water fishing,
runabout, etc). Each of these groups is a bit different.

If you want to see some very basic statistics of a "boater"
Go to the NMMA page (its frames so I will have to lead
you thru)

http://www.iwol.com/iww/customers/nmma/

select- Facts and Figures
select- Boats, Statistics
select- Challenges and Opportunities
select- Demographics

You will be presented with some demographics of various
types of boaters and PWC users.

The "typical boater" is 47 years old, has a median income
of $71,000 and about half of them are in management or 
professional occupations. If you think that is the 
"typical American" you are very mistaken. 

> >Discussion of the Boaters vs. PWCs Conflict Based on the Research 
> >Literature
> >
> >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.
 
> Asymmetrical does not mean one way. You may want to prefix this with "Some" 
> boaters despise...  I'm often not happy to see "big" boaters, as many of 
> them can be problematic.
 
Webster's Dictionary
Assymetric: lack of symmetry, uneven disposition on each side of a central
line or point.

It sounds like "one way" to me.

> >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.
 
> Come on. Are you kidding?  "So incredibly noisy, fast and intrusive"?  
> "almost considered non-mechanized"?  Are you even attempting objectivity 
> here?
 
I am not certain, but I "think" that many of the objecting boaters
are of the more tranquil type who "putt around" in small outboard
fishing boats. In comparison to them, PWCs could be considered
quite intrusive.

> >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.
> 
> Imagine? If this is a study on the conflict, what are you doing "imagining" 
> things?  
> Get facts straight or don't comment.  This isn't the place to be drawing 
> conclusions based on your imagination. Have you studied the registration 
> statistics for boat and PWC owners in any state, much less all 50 of them?
 
"Imagine"- you gotta start somewhere. This is a pilot paper. I could take
another 10 years and develop it and then print it. I think it is useful 
to get some of the ideas on the board now. I do think many studies could
be done in this area to better define the conflict.

Yes, I have studied the registration statistics in all 50 states, I did
it about 4 years ago (I'm sure things have changed). At that time
PWC statistics were "chunked" into various categories by different 
states and "PWC only" data was hard to find for all the states. I would
expect the registrations to be more "conforming" now. Most state data
is a few years old so when you go back 4 years you are actually dealing
with 6 year old data.

> >PWC operators seek adventure and physically demanding recreation with
> >strong social experiences. Boaters seek quieter, relaxing, nature 
> >oriented, non-physical leisure experiences.
> 
> I know boaters and PWCers who would disagree strongly with both these 
> statements. 

I have seen several statistical studies for boaters that agree
with my statement. There are obviously certain segments of boating
(racing, high perf) that do not fall into this category.
Additionally, specific individuals will be of different "persuasions",
all I am saying is that statistically this will hold.
If you look at the NMMA data I referenced in this note,
PWC operators are 10 or more years younger than the other 
boating groups.

> >Researchers in other Recreational Conflicts were sometimes able to utilize 
> >vehicle registration data to find users (or the parents of the actual
> >users). Boats registration is fairly universal. PWC registration is less 
> >regulated.
> 
> Where are you making your studies? If this is based on USA, which all your 
> references suggest, PWC are required to be registered in every state as 
> they are Class-A craft. They're just as regulated as every other craft on 
> the water, and more than many of the small craft which require no 
> registration in many areas.
 
See my response to the segment above this one.

> >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. 
> 
> There's a mix of educational levels in all of boating.  
> 
> >Strong differences in education level between the two conflicting groups 
> >has been observed in several recreational conflicts.
> 
> This statement is left open as to what the differences were. Note this is 
> an anecdotal statement which has no place here.

If you will read the studies referenced about the other recreational
conflicts (several of them are reviewed by my paper) you will see that
differences in education level of the two groups in conflict was
observed in several of the other conflicts. I was only "wondering"
if it might be true in this case as well. I do not think it is an
"anecdotal statement."

> >Suggestions for Resolution from the Research Literature
> 
> >Increase communication and dialog between the two groups. 
> Sounds good.
> 
> >Have the "offending group" promote the good they do. 
> Also sounds good.
> 
> >Promote etiquette. Especially on the behalf of PWC users. 
> Your bias is showing. I can note more than a few instances of, shall we 
> say, breaches of etiquette by traditional boaters. Promote etiquette on all 
> fronts. Those more aware of proper etiquette they have less of a change to 
> make.

The prior studies referenced in the paper, plus some minor research 
on my own have shown the conflict to be "one way". The efforts
suggested are efforts to "smooth over the ruffled feathers of the
boaters" who feel their "recreational experience" was not complete
because of the interference of others. This results in their conflict.
If their conflict was reduced or gone, yours would be
also. That is why I focused on PWC etiquette. It was not because I
am "biased", and its not because there are not a lot of stupid 
boaters out there that need to improve their etiquette as well, 
its because improving PWC etiquette would help reduce the conflict
and the others would not.

> > 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.
> 
> Not even a suggestion of PWCs at some times, boaters at others.  Boaters 
> get full use, PWCs are restricted.  How about PWCers get to use the waters 
> all the time, and non-tolerant boaters can be separated into a small cove 
> to enjoy their peace and quiet together?  Doesn't sound so good, does it?

The same section of the paper describes "spatial" and "time" separation
of the two groups. The intent of the section you quote, was to point
out that several boaters do not have conflicts with PWCs. Thus if you 
had to have some type of separation by time or space, you would not
have to have enough time or space for "all boaters" to be by themselves.
Only enough for the intolerant boaters - thus their would be more
open space or time for PWC on facilities using this technique than on 
those who just split the two groups into PWCs and boats.

To me, your idea of putting non-tolerant boaters into a small cove
to enjoy their peace and quiet together sounds like a possible solution
for some facilities. Several non-tolerant boaters are fishermen and
you would need to make sure their needs could be met there.

> >Additional Suggestions for Resolution from the Author
> 
> >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.
> 
> Surprised to see this mentioned.  A certain person here may have a comment 
> on this.
> 
> >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.
> 
> Again, your bias is showing.  Why "No PWCs or high speed boat operation" 
> why not: "No high speed operation" at certain times?   In other words, for 
> "Tranquility Hours" put a speed limit on the lake.  10 mph. Or no wake. No 
> reason PWCers should not be allowed on the water if they're under the 
> limit. No reason for separation.

Your 10mph type idea that also allows PWCs might be a good one for later.
At the moment, I think too much conflict exists in some areas. If the 
conflict was allowed to cool down, then slow moving PWCs might be 
successfully introduced later. I think it would be best left up
to facility managers.

> I was expecting something interesting from someone who has written a 
> "paper". It's not a researched paper, it's not even an objective paper. 
> It's an article. An article showing your biases all too strongly.

It is obviously not a full fledged, peer reviewed research paper. Most
of the content necessary is present. It would take a lot of "slicking up"
and another year of reviewing and waiting in cue to be printed. I think
it is better to get the info out now. It is certainly much meatier
than any "article" on the subject.

I think we have beaten the "bias" thing to death.
 
> Not even a suggestion of PWCs at some times, boaters at others.  Boaters 
> get full use, PWCs are restricted.  How about PWCers get to use the waters 
> all the time, and non-tolerant boaters can be separated into a small cove 
> to enjoy their peace and quiet together?  Doesn't sound so good, does it?
> certain areas and how they show you're not an objective observer.

This exact question was addressed a few questions ago.

> Note I'm not saying you intentionally went out to create a biased article, 
> your intentions may have been good.  But you do have biases and they come 
> through all too clearly.

Bias, bias, bias. I think it has been explained in the responses above.

> All in all, interesting.  Unfortunately, the lack of objectivity in parts 
> of the article taints the contents of the remainder. 

"Interesting" - thank you for one favorable comment.
"Unobjective" - image some wrath of God type comments here.

Thanks again for taking the time to point out your specific
objections to the paper. I hope this response helps put some
of these issues to bed.

gary




Date: Wed, 04 Feb 1998
From: Eric 
Newsgroups: rec.sport.jetski
Subject: Re: Boaters vs. PWCs Conflict Research Paper

More comments on your comments... If you don't want to read a lot, kill 
this article now...

Gary Polson wrote:
>On Tue, 3 Feb 1998, Eric wrote:

>> If the PWC industry major players were subsidiaries of the boat companies, 
>> would the boat companies' interests in this conflict be different?  I say 
>> they would.  Would the interests of the people on the water be different?  
>> No, since those with the problem don't care who makes PWC. Which makes this 
>> an economic division, not one of behavior or environmental concerns.  
>> Irrelevant to the conflict.
>
>It is certainly not irrelevant to the conflict that the PWC industry
>was born from outside the traditional boating companies. Its rapid 
>growth has been seen by the boating companies as a threat which is
>now headlined by the Irwin Jacobs/Genmar mess. There are actually two
>interrelated conflicts, the conflict on the water and the conflict
>at the factory. If you do not think they are related (or that some
>traditional boating companies may not be trying to fuel the conflict)
>you are nieve.
>
The word you're looking for is "naive".  

I do think they are related, but make no mistake, the boating companies 
aren't concerned about waterway safety or peace and quiet in the least. 
Those are ancillary concerns to their primary concern: the bottom line.

>I agree that if the PWC companies were subsidiaries of the traditional
>boating companies that the boating companies interests in the conflict
>would be different. You say the interest of the people on the water
>would not be different, I disagree. Just take the Jacobs/Genmar issue
>for an example, it has heightened tensions on the water.
>
It's done no such thing.  I've never had a boater say to me "The company 
that made your PWC is taking away sales from the company that made my boat! 
You're to blame! ".  

Jacobs may have brought the issue to boaters' attention and made it more of 
a topic of discussion, but rest assured, when on the water, boaters don't 
care about the economic impact of PWC on boat companies.

>> >"They often 'jump the wake' closely behind boats over the objection of 
>> >boaters and good safety practices. "
>> 
>> That's a big statement to make.  Define "often".  Next, provide some 
>> evidence of "over the objection of boaters".  Again, your bias is showing.
>> 
>Define "often"- once is enough to hack off most boaters. 

Fine. Then say "sometimes", not "often".

>Provide evidence: I personally have been in a boat (more than once)
>when this occurred, and we repeatedly tried to wave them off.

Again, anecdotal evidence.

>If you think the boating community is representative of the 
>general public, I'm sorry but you are very wrong. 
>
>If you want to see some very basic statistics of a "boater"
>Go to the NMMA page (its frames so I will have to lead
>you thru)
>
>http://www.iwol.com/iww/customers/nmma/
>
>select- Facts and Figures
>select- Boats, Statistics
>select- Challenges and Opportunities
>select- Demographics
>
>You will be presented with some demographics of various
>types of boaters and PWC users.
>
>The "typical boater" is 47 years old, has a median income
>of $71,000 and about half of them are in management or 
>professional occupations. If you think that is the 
>"typical American" you are very mistaken. 
>
Income is one thing.  Views held is another.  The boating community is 
representative of the general public. 

By the way, according to your stats, the "typical PWCer" has a median 
income of $68K and is 10 years younger than the typical boater.  In fact, 
the typical PWCer is younger than all other boaters, has a higher median 
income than all other boaters except those who own cruisers, and has more 
percentage in white-collar positions than all other boaters except those 
who own cruisers.

>> >Discussion of the Boaters vs. PWCs Conflict Based on the Research 
>> >Literature
>> >
>> >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.
> 
>> Asymmetrical does not mean one way. You may want to prefix this with "Some" 
>> boaters despise...  I'm often not happy to see "big" boaters, as many of 
>> them can be problematic.
> 
>Webster's Dictionary
>Assymetric: lack of symmetry, uneven disposition on each side of a central
>line or point.
>
>It sounds like "one way" to me.
>
Well, perhaps you should read the definition more carefully.

Asymmetric means uneven, as in: "When talking percentages of the group in 
question, more boaters despise PWCers than PWCers despise boaters".  

One-way implies that no PWCers dislike boaters which is clearly wrong to 
anyone with a decent amount of experience with the conflict on the water.

>> >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.
> 
>> Come on. Are you kidding?  "So incredibly noisy, fast and intrusive"?  
>> "almost considered non-mechanized"?  Are you even attempting objectivity 
>> here?
> 
>I am not certain, but I "think" that many of the objecting boaters
>are of the more tranquil type who "putt around" in small outboard
>fishing boats. In comparison to them, PWCs could be considered
>quite intrusive.
>
An objective stating of your paragraph would be:

"It could almost be characterized as a mechanized vs. non-mechanized 
conflict. Some boaters consider the speed and noise generated by PWC to be 
so different from their activities of trolling or idle fishing that the 
boaters feel the use of these high-performance craft anywhere nearby is 
intrusive."

The "incredibly noisy" remark, shows which side of the fence you're coming 
from.

>> >PWC operators seek adventure and physically demanding recreation with
>> >strong social experiences. Boaters seek quieter, relaxing, nature 
>> >oriented, non-physical leisure experiences.
>> 
>> I know boaters and PWCers who would disagree strongly with both these 
>> statements. 
>
>I have seen several statistical studies for boaters that agree
>with my statement. There are obviously certain segments of boating
>(racing, high perf) that do not fall into this category.
>Additionally, specific individuals will be of different "persuasions",
>all I am saying is that statistically this will hold.
>If you look at the NMMA data I referenced in this note,
>PWC operators are 10 or more years younger than the other 
>boating groups.
>
You're generalizing all PWCers and boaters.  With the increase of 3-seat 
PWC, your generalizations are even more wrong.  Your statements should say 
"Several statistical studies have shown that, in general...." then cite the 
studies.

>> >Promote etiquette. Especially on the behalf of PWC users. 
>> Your bias is showing. I can note more than a few instances of, shall we 
>> say, breaches of etiquette by traditional boaters. Promote etiquette on all 
>> fronts. Those more aware of proper etiquette they have less of a change to 
>> make.
>
>The prior studies referenced in the paper, plus some minor research 
>on my own have shown the conflict to be "one way". The efforts
>suggested are efforts to "smooth over the ruffled feathers of the
>boaters" who feel their "recreational experience" was not complete
>because of the interference of others. This results in their conflict.
>If their conflict was reduced or gone, yours would be
>also. That is why I focused on PWC etiquette. It was not because I
>am "biased", and its not because there are not a lot of stupid 
>boaters out there that need to improve their etiquette as well, 
>its because improving PWC etiquette would help reduce the conflict
>and the others would not.
>
It's a two way street. There may be more traffic in one direction.  As a 
PWCer who obeys the law, I've encountered boaters on ramps, in the water 
while some other PWCer does something stupid, and have gotten rude 
responses simply because I'm a PWCer.  This can create a vicious cycle of 
anger when both sides decide to be rude idiots.  

>> I was expecting something interesting from someone who has written a 
>> "paper". It's not a researched paper, it's not even an objective paper. 
>> It's an article. An article showing your biases all too strongly.
>
>It is obviously not a full fledged, peer reviewed research paper. Most
>of the content necessary is present. It would take a lot of "slicking up"
>and another year of reviewing and waiting in cue to be printed. 

The word you're looking for is "queue", not "cue".  

>I think it is better to get the info out now. 

Getting objective info out now would be nice.  Your info only fuels the 
fire for many people.

>It is certainly much meatier than any "article" on the subject.

Then you haven't seen quite a few articles published in the PWC magazines 
dealing with the issues. Including e-zines.
>
>This exact question was addressed a few questions ago.
>
Newsreader glitch.  Same paragraph popped up twice.

>> Note I'm not saying you intentionally went out to create a biased article, 
>> your intentions may have been good.  But you do have biases and they come 
>> through all too clearly.
>
>Bias, bias, bias. I think it has been explained in the responses above.
>
Are you saying you feel it is an objective article?

Eric



Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998
From: Gary Polson
Newsgroups: rec.sport.jetski
Subject: Re: Boaters vs. PWCs Conflict Research Paper

I think all of your comments have been solidy addressed before.

Yes, I think it was a nonbiased approach.

It was meant to bring the earlier research to light.
Not one single person has mentioned the Recreational 
Conflict research. Everybody just wants to bash. 
I don't have any more time for bashing.

gary



Date: Thu, 05 Feb 1998
From: Eric 
Newsgroups: rec.sport.jetski
Subject: Re: Boaters vs. PWCs Conflict Research Paper


Gary Polson wrote:
>
>I think all of your comments have been solidy addressed before.
>
If they had been solidly addressed, I wouldn't have commented further.

>Yes, I think it was a nonbiased approach.
>
I think you are overestimating your objectivity.

>It was meant to bring the earlier research to light.
>Not one single person has mentioned the Recreational 
>Conflict research. 

There's nothing to comment on in the old research.  It's interesting 
reading, with some food for thought.  Your ending comments in the article 
touched on what can be applied to the current conflict.

>Everybody just wants to bash. 
>I don't have any more time for bashing.
>
Ahem. You're the guy who stated "If you don't think...you're nieve" 
(naive).  

I stated I thought you were not objective and had biases.  I pointed out 
the areas of your article I disagree with and gave you my reasons.  I 
didn't say "You suck, you're an idiot, go away", I gave you feedback.

You start name calling.

You put a "paper" out on the web, announce it to at least two newsgroups, 
post the responses on your web page, and now you're complaining of 
"bashing"?  It's criticism. If you didn't want it, you shouldn't have asked 
for comments. If you can't handle it, you'd better learn or stop writing.

Eric

Continue to Feedback Page 3

Return to Boaters vs. PWCs Page

Return to Recreational Boat Building Industry Home Page

---