Current Cost of Boating

[TaoJones]

From an article published yesterday by IBI, the International Boat Industry, the US Army Corps of Engineers released a report last month that puts the total figure for the economic impact of recreational boating in the Midwestern US, particularly the eight Great Lakes states, at $9.4 billion.

From the report:

"An average boat owner on the Great Lakes spends about US$3,600 per year on ownership, including US$1,400 on craft-related expenses and US$2,200 on boating trips. Owners of larger boats over 41ft (12m) spend as much as US$20,000 per year."

This offers some hard numbers for those curious about the current cost of recreational boating.

Here's a link to the IBI article:

US Army report: recreational boating has US$9bn economic impact on Great Lakes

TaoJones

[Captain_Raz]

haha. wow you must pick the most expensive air out there. i thought it was free.

[David M]

I question what the Army Corps is doing spending taxpayer money on such a report. Shouldn't they be out there dredging and shoring up levees?

[bastonjock]

dont know what i spent annually but every time i took the boat out it cost me around $200-300 and thats only a small trailer sailer

[David_Old_Jersey]

Originally Posted by David M

I question what the Army Corps is doing spending taxpayer money on such a report.

I was wondering that - maybe a General is thinking of buying a boat?

[svHyLyte]

The point of the story is enunciated in the closing paragraph:

Despite the economic impact, John Paul Woodley, assistant secretary of the army, said that boat harbours serving recreational boaters do not support "high volumes" of commercial traffic that merit higher government funds for maintenance and dredging. "Therefore, the President's budget continues to give priority to those harbours and waterway segments that support high volumes of commercial traffic and significant commercial fishing, subsistence and public transportation benefits," wrote Woodley.

The Corps original (and evidently continuing) mandate was/(is) to provide waterway engineering, maintenance and management services to support commercial operations and ventures that themselves were/(may be) vital to the local and regional economies and, in the case of the ICW, defence efforts (during WWII the ICW was the only bulk freight shipping route safe from German U-Boats). As transportation and shipping modes have changed to truck and rail, there is less dependence on waterways, hence less commercial traffic, but recreational marine uses have increased dramatically and have even greater economic impact than did/(does) commercial uses. Given its relative import, particularly in a struggeling economy, shifting some of the Corp's efforts to waterways and harbors serving the recreational marine industry--particularly in the Great Lakes and the ICW--has much to recommend it. (Just ask the citizens, store and shop owners of some of the little towns along the ICW that can no longer be reached because of siltation and shoaling absent dredging.) That's the underlying theme.

On the other hand, using federal money and Corps resources to support operations that favor only rich, old, fat-cats with yachts--even though their own expenditures support the employment of a vast infrastructure of everyday working people--isn't as appealing as, say, "refundable" tax credits to non-taxpayers, and sure won't garner as many votes eh?

FWIW...

s/v HyLyte

[Curtis]

The corp is doing those studies so they can defend their budgets for dredging.

[Greenman]

Originally Posted by Curtis

The corp is doing those studies so they can defend their budgets for dredging.

Yup I was going to mention that very same thing. In todays world every Government orginization has to fight like wild dogs to get funding. Hopefully it works.

On the other hand with the unemployment rate headed up, maybe the Governemnt should build some Hoover dams........except dredge and fix the ICW rather than actually build Dams

[perchance]

WITH THE AMOUNT OF MONEY BOATERS SPEND EVERY YEAR MAYBE THEY SHOULD TREAT US A LITTLE BETTER.