FWCC Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission

 

Boating Advisory Council

Non-Motorized Vessel Sub-Committee

 

The Non-Motorized Vessel Sub-committee of the Boating Advisory Council met on 31 January in Gainesville . The meeting started at 9:00 am and was adjourned at 3:00 pm. 

Boating Advisory Council Members

 

Present:

Absent:

 

The meeting was chaired by Lisa Neal, who I believe is a Florida State Representative – and she referred to herself as a state representative - although I cannot find her name among the active members of the Florida house on the MyFlorida.com website.  She started the meeting by presenting an outline of goals and items that she wanted to discuss and she stuck to this outline fairly stringently during the meeting.  She wanted the meeting to address all issues surrounding non-motorized vessels, not just the immediate topic of registration fees and titling. 

Rep. Neal is a boater and also a kayak paddler so she is familiar with the feelings of the paddling community and several times during the meeting, in response to other comments, stated that she did not see how non-motorized vessels, specifically canoes and kayaks, needed to be registered. 

It was an interesting group with several folks obviously having vested interests and personal agendas that are not in line with the general feelings of the paddle community. 

The FWCC committee member, Paul Ouelette, stated that the FWCC was neutral on the subject, which is difficult to believe, since one of the driving reasons behind the subject of registration fees for canoes and kayaks is as a source of revenue for the FWCC.  A 2003 Stakeholders meeting – with very limited paddle representation – stated that paddle craft are not paying their “fair share” and recommended registering all paddlecraft as a source of revenue for FWCC.   However, to be fair, Mr. Ouelette never did state a position on the subject and primarily acted as a facilitator.  But it is absolutely correct that revenue generated by registering kayaks and canoes will largely flow directly to the FWCC. 

There were two primary supporters of canoe and kayak registration and it is obvious that their interests are not in line with ours. 

Mr. David Ray, represented the “marine industry”, which I interpreted to mean power boat interests (manufacturers and operators). He is in favor or registering all canoes and kayaks and his reasons that I could tell are twofold:

1.  Paddlers are using the resource and are not paying their “fair” share

2.  Leverage to gain more federal funding.  Federal funding to states for marine purposes is determined by a formula, largely based on the number of registered boats.  You will see references to Wallop-Breaux funding, which is the legal structure under which this funding is distributed.  He stated that if canoes and kayaks were registered, thereby

raising Florida ’s number, then additional funding would be provided to the state. 

 

His primary uses for the additional funding – additional law enforcement and more “access”, meaning boat ramps, neither of which directly support paddlers.  It must be kept in mind that boat ramps are not built for boats – they are built for vehicles and trailers.  As we all know, a concrete boat ramp is of limited use to a kayaker or canoeist. 

Mr. Castle-Field, first name undetermined, who is not a seated member of the sub-committee and was attending as a member of the audience.  However, his wife is a member of the sub-committee and also represents “marine industries”.  He repeatedly mentioned the need to control canoe and kayaks, but did not explain why the state needs to “control” paddlecraft and what benefits result from registration.  Neither of these gents has our interests in mind, in my opinion. 

The point was raised that bicycles are not registered and a significant amount of resources are expended to accommodate them on our roads without any financial support requested or expected from the cycling community.   In fact, kayaks and bikes are very similar in terms of value and impact to their respective operating environment.  I believe the analogy is valid. 

Kayak and canoe definition.  There was a long discussion of defining canoes and kayaks, talking about length or weight and other criteria without a definitive solution.  There also was a discussion about how to identify individual kayaks and canoes, speaking to the Manufacturers Statement of Origin (MSO) that comes with each boat and the serial numbers that are engraved on the right aft quarter.  This lead to a discussion of the difficulties of proving ownership.  

In short, if registration of kayaks and canoes is required, a certificate of title will need to be issued.  To prove ownership of the vessel, you will need to provide the MSO, and other personal ID information and pay a fee of $5.25. Once you have title, then you will be required to register the boat with the state.   One of the arguments for the titling / registration process is to prove ownership in the event of theft – with the counterpoint made that as a general rule, theft is not an issue with kayaks and canoes.  Paddlers generally don’t steal each others boats.   Boats change hands frequently and usually with no exchange of paperwork so proving ownership would be difficult and lead to a lot of confusion.  Another point is that many paddlers own multiple craft and the cost and burden of registering was not worth the effort, time and cost. 

Administrative expenses.  There was a short discussion on the actual cost of administering and processing the process of titling and registration, but the DMV and FWCC staff were unable to quantify the exact cost.  I made the point that it would patently inappropriate to charge kayaks and canoe operators using boats that cost in the hundreds the same fee as charged for power boats costing in the tens of thousands.  If we are going to use fairness as a guide, then certainly proportionality of use should also be considered.  I stated that if the cost of administering the process was unknown then it seemed highly unlikely that any revenue generated would ever cover the costs of administration and the benefits were marginal.   

Safety.  Another point raised was that of safety, talking about accidents, injuries and deaths of kayakers and canoeists.  The statistics stated were very low and the specific circumstance of each accident or death were not known.  According to FWCC statistics - in 2003, there were 10 reported  kayak/canoe accidents out of 1,005 accidents statewide involving 1,439 vessels.  Of these 10 accidents, 4 involved a fatality out of 58 deaths reported statewide.  What was not known was the circumstances involving those deaths – were they a result of an accident involving a powerboat?  Interestingly, 70% of the deaths were caused by drowning with lack of PFD use implicated in 75% of those drownings.  What is obvious is that kayakers and canoeists account for a very small proportion of the boating accidents and deaths from boating in the state and that perhaps we are generally self-policing when it comes to PFD use, adherence to safe boating practices and low incidence of boating while under the influence of alcohol.  If you are depending on your own muscle power to get where you want to go, drinking alcohol to excess is plain stupid.  Any sane paddler knows to look out for others on the water.  If fishing, you know to have your fishing license handy since you will not be outrunning the marine patrol boat and you probably are not exceeding the state game limits by virtue of a lack of storage space to keep.  Kayak and canoe operators account for a very low percentage of FWCC emergency response and law enforcement efforts.  I would like to see FWCC statistics on these subjects.

It was obvious that the FWCC does not know how much it would cost to administer a kayak and canoe registration program – my guess there is no additional revenue generated if they arrive at a “fair” fee, which should logically be based on proportionality.  They don’t know what impact kayak and canoe folks have on law enforcement, fisheries use, emergency service response, etc. 

The proposal to deal with the ownership and other issues of kayaks / canoes just as would your car or 22 foot center console or 40 foot sport-fisherman is absurd. 

Revenue.  There was a discussion of how much revenue was to be raised by registering canoe / kayaks.  Even with a reduced fee for kayaks and canoes, it was clear that there could be a significant amount of revenue generated.  However, the FWC and DMV were unable to provide a cost vs. benefit analysis with hard numbers.  It became apparent to me that the individuals in favor of registration want to use the increased boat numbers to leverage more federal funds for the State of Florida and to exact what they claim is our fair share of the expenses of running the FWCC.  The need for additional law enforcement was mentioned as a key issue.  While additional law enforcement resources may be needed, it is clear that those resources are not required to address a paddlecraft requirement, so it is unclear why there is an argument to be made for paddlers to pay for those additional resources.  To my knowledge, paddlers are not making a significant demand on current Law Enforcement assets.  Needless to say, these discussions took up a lot of time. 

In summary, there was no official decision or recommendation as a direct result of the meeting.  There was a feeling that there was not sufficient information provided to make a formal recommendation.  The FWCC was tasked with providing some additional information, such as:

 

It is important to note that there are several vocal and knowledgeable members of the committee that are providing the resistance to kayak/canoe registrations:

Mr. Richard Jones        Water-related Environmental Groups

Ms. Jessica Koelsch     Manatee Protection Interests

Ms. Rebecca Bragg      Canoe or Kayak Enthusiasts

All of these folks are paddlers and understand the issue.  Towards the very end of the meeting, Ms. Jessica Koelsch did propose a compromise measure which deserves discussion.  I thought the compromise was thoughtful and rational and something we should consider.  She understood that while paddlecraft impact is small and that we do not share the same concerns as powered craft – safety, theft, law enforcement, etc – we do use the resource and if we are to expect state support, then we should be prepared to contribute.  Her compromise:

 

David Ray then immediately proposed a counter-proposal which specifically refuted every point of Ms. Koelsch’s proposal.  His proposal:

 

Read this carefully - this is what the “marine industry” really wants to impose.  I personally felt that Mr. Ray did this in a spiteful manner – whether he is serious or not I could not determine, but the manner of the delivery was flippant and not at all helpful to the discussion. He plainly does not understand kayaks/canoes and is pursuing this matter – in my opinion, in order to leverage more money for his client’s interests at the expense of paddlers.  He offered no substantial reason or documented concern that needed resolution and that would be corrected through the registration of paddle craft – kayaks and canoes specifically.  It is my opinion that his arguments lacked merit and understanding of kayaks and canoe operation.  .   

The subcommittee will meet again April 6th in Tallahassee from 1:00 pm to 5:00 pm.   

I would like to emphasize that these notes are my impressions of what occurred at the meeting – the official minutes will be published at a later date. 

I recommend that we are represented at this meeting.  I would also propose that, in advance of this meeting, the GCKFA draft a letter outlining our concerns and ensure that it is sent to the chairwoman, Rep. Neal, and copies sent to all members of the sub-committee.   

 

 

Ferd Salomon,    President 

Gulf Coast Kayak Fishing Association

www.gulfcoastkayakfishing.com

February 8, 2006