Peering into the world of non-motorized recreational boating

Estimated read time: 25 minutes

•  Introduction  
•  A historical perspective 
•  An economic perspective 
•  A geographic perspective  
•  River access today 
•  Final thoughts 
•  Further reading  
• Acknowledgements

• The non-motorized boating community has seen significant growth in the last few decades, and COVID-19 exacerbated this growth as many individuals sought new, fun outdoor recreation to cope with pandemic constraints.
• We have no federal system to manage non-motorized boating, so it is up to individual states to determine fees and regulation requirements to provide access and manage user conflicts, thus river access is unique to each state.
• Although a permit, fee, title or registration may not be necessary to achieve certain river management goals, these forms of regulation could generate revenue, regulate waterway use, and provide data for research and development.
• Demographic data on the non-motorized boating community is sparse but what we found suggests a need for diversification and inclusivity.
• Several states are aware of non-motorized boating growth and other trends in their vicinity, and are taking action to reform laws, enact fees, and offer new programs to meet the community's needs.

Before anyone can enjoy the beauty and power of a river by boat, they have to step off land. River access, therefore, is a precursor to a fulfilling river experience. While not the most exciting part of the adventure, a well-constructed and maintained river access site can set the stage for a great time out on the water. In the Fall of 2022, River Management Society completed a small case study that reviewed data on non-motorized boating trends, particularly regulatory and financial trends. We were also interested in demographic trends (who has taken up recreational boating) though, unfortunately, this information was sparse. The data we did find gave us a bit of insight into the state of river access as it pertains to recreational watercraft.

This story map is a rough sketch of river access trends and outlooks. The following sections provide more detail and discussion on the trends we found and some of the implications. First, we will look at previous years of data and how non-motorized recreational boating (sometimes referred to as 'paddlesports') has changed over the last several years. We will also focus on the challenge of funding these activities. Then, we will delve into our survey methods and results, including excerpts from the follow-up interviews we conducted. Lastly, we will highlight key trends in the data and interviews, and offer prompts for further thinking on the topic of river access. We hope this review will be informative and useful to you!

From what we have found, it is apparent that recreational boating, particularly non-motorized forms, have been gaining in popularity over the last several years, yet there seems to be a discrepancy between that ballooning interest and organized efforts to monitor, regulate, and support it. Secure funding remains a challenge for river access. No federal system really exists to ensure funding, or standardize management practices, so states are on their own to apply for grant money and then distribute what they get as they see fit. Some states do apply their grant earnings to river manager salaries or infrastructure improvements, so it can be argued that a federal system may not be necessary. On the other hand, since non-motorized activities are on the rise (look out, powerboats), it is going to put more pressure on states with or without a formal system in place, so more attention to this area of recreational boating (at least in an economic sense) will be needed. States can consider implementing a fee structure if one is not already there, or updating their fee structure to match current and future trends in non-motorized activities.

Before we really dig into the results of our own  Waterway Access Inquiry , let's approach previous years' data from a different angle. First, let's revisit the  U.S. Coast Guard report . The map below (page 72 in the report) shows recreational vessel registration percentages by state. According to this map, much of the nation's registrations come from Minnesota, Michigan, and Florida, and sure enough, these states have brought in the highest numbers of registrations for the country. There is  a table  in the report discloses exact registration numbers for each state, if you are curious. That table also lists exemptions, which there are many. All states require all watercraft (motorized and non-motorized) to be registered but plenty of states only require registration for motorized watercraft. Some that require non-motorized vessels to be registered focus on certain types or lengths of vessels.

Data from the Oregon State Marine Board surveys, and our own survey, reflect this geographic trend. States in the Great Lakes region, California, and Florida rank highest in registrations in the nation and tend to be more picky about which vessels need to be registered. And this is before fees, permits, or titles are factored into the equation. We might expect permitting and titling to happen if registration is required, but this is not always the case. States have their own reasons for requiring all or some of these regulations. In the next section we will explore some of those reasons.

River Management Society's own study on river access was inspired by the 2013 and 2016 surveys conducted by the Oregon State Marine Board, with input from Clemson University PhD student  Benjamin Fowler . This past summer, we sent the survey, a set of 53 questions concerning boating regulations, access issues, funding and programs, as a  Google Form  directly to RMS members via the RMS News Digest. It was also shared to the RMS Facebook group. Our survey was also sent to the  Society of Boating Access  (SOBA) and the  National Association of State Boating Law Administrators  (NASBLA) whose newsletters reached almost 17,000 people. We accepted input from all recipients through November 2022 and have received nearly 50 responses to date. Let's dive into those responses. We heard from 28 different states (some responses came from different individuals representing the same state), indicated on the map below. Some of our survey respondents sent us maps of their access area, which you can visit by clicking on a state.

The overwhelming majority of our survey respondents were representing a state jurisdiction. Others represented cities, counties, regions or watersheds. We even heard from a private outfitter and someone who previously worked at an NGO. Most of our respondents were involved in access (65%), education (54%), law enforcement (28%), and registration (24%). Based on the responses, it seems states' attitudes toward titling non-motorized vessels has not changed much in the last couple of years — still only 9 percent title, and there are still some that title only under certain circumstances (ex. "sailboats 12 ft. in length or larger"). Most of our respondents did not specify requirements and many said non-motorized vessels are exempt from titling altogether. Titling may be a one-time thing or part of a larger, park access 'bundle.' That said, agencies that do title can generate a significant amount of revenue which can be used to improve accessibility and general area programming. In terms of permitting, 14 percent of our survey respondents said permits are required on non-motorized vessels (the majority does not require one), but in the grand scheme of things, there has been an increase in permitting. The graph below shows which vessels need them. This graph represents present-day conditions, showing what could be a response to more people taking up paddlesports over the years and especially during early pandemic years. Though, as with titling, permits are often voluntary. 20 percent of our respondents (a majority) said all vessels are exempt from permitting.

As for registrations, about 12 percent of our respondents said it is required for non-motorized vessels, which is lower than previous years. The graph below shows which vessels are asked to register. Yet again, paddlecraft (and sailboats a bit more this time) are being placed under some form of regulation (though, again, many are exempt). It is interesting that permitting is more emphasized across the board, but, each state has its own history with recreational boating and waterway use, so the numbers alone don't tell the entire story. We will take a closer look at individual states soon.

It seems that overall, registration, permitting, and titling are less enforced than in previous years, but within the small area of non-motorized regulation, the focus has shifted to paddlecraft, which the pandemic accentuated. The chart below, from the US Coast report illustrates the overall growth in registrations. Though it doesn't show permitting and titling, it does suggest non-motorized recreation is becoming increasingly popular.

Fees are another piece of the puzzle, but about 57 percent of our survey respondents had no fee structure to mention. About 22 percent did, and the fees were for entry (20%), parking (12%), and launching (18%). These fees were the same from site to site for 28 percent of those who charge a fee, and varied for 24 percent. As with access in general, fee structures are uniquely designed. Some agencies charge daily or once for the year, a few dollars per person or several dollars per vehicle. It depends on the unique economics, politics, and geography of the area. Regulation and fees may become increasingly necessary as paddlesports culture grows. We anticipate steady growth in non-motorized boating recreation, which will probably demand new or improved infrastructure to contend with, and hopefully harmonize with, motorized boating activity. 43 percent of our survey respondents indicated there has been some discussion in their agency or organization about pursuing a fee that supports non-motorized recreational safety, water quality or access. Most of those interested in a new fee would make it a personal, excise, or sales fee, but the timeframe for implementing the new fee(s) are undefined.

From conversations held with interviewees, it is clear that some degree of organization and action is required for fair and sustainable use of our waterways. 10 of our survey respondents followed up with us for an interview to elaborate on their form response. These folks were from Oregon, Utah, Colorado,  Minnesota ,  Iowa ,  Illinois ,  Michigan , Kansas,  Pennsylvania , and West Virginia. One curious anecdote we exchanged was the apparent difference between East coast and West coast approaches to regulation. One of our survey respondents from Wyoming noted "we do not deal with titling or registration as land managers; just permitting. It’s unsettling to do titling and registration first as they are things we commonly don’t see." This can be true and there could be some missing layers of information, such as any titling or registration that is happening at a different level of jurisdiction or in another area of the state.

So why bother with permits or fees if some waterways do fine without them? From what we learned, they seem to help control the number of users on a given waterway. If the river is very popular or there is conflict with motorized boats or landowners, requiring a permit or issuing a fee can help reduce the traffic or tension, and the revenue generated can go back into paying for management, programming and other needs. On the other hand, a fee may upset or deter users. 18,000 paddlers enjoy West Virginia's open-access water trails each year, some of whom visit on special occasions such as the Yak Fest. But in Iowa, which sees plenty of paddlers, fees have not been an issue, and we speculate it may be due to their fee structure — anyone coming in with a canoe or kayak over 13 feet pays only $4.50 for the year. In Utah, on the Green River, permit prices have doubled in the last 5 years to accommodate the increase in user interest. So, while permits and fees can support an agency in their access responsibilities, they don't seem necessary for a system to adequately serve its user base.

Our interviews with survey participants (30 minutes each, on average) added another layer of insight to our study. Aside from asking about fee structures and registration data, we learned about the individuals making it all happen. Our interviewees were from state agencies and private businesses alike. Many of them are recreational boaters themselves. A few of them noticed a slight decrease in canoes in the last several years and an increasing interest in kayaks. One of them speculated it may be due to the independence offered by a kayak and the ease with which it can be carried and launched. However, with higher rates of paddlers comes the risk of accidents. When asked about existing or future safety programs, about a third of our interviewees had any to speak of. According to the data from the US Coast Guard's most recent report, fatalities due to accidents seem to be on the decline (overall), but we hope to see more attention paid toward non-motorized watercraft safety, given the growing popularity.

So, who makes up the current and growing population of paddlers? We know from  data from 2015  that males made up most of the members in the paddling community (53% in kayaking, 57% in canoeing, 60% in rafting), and the overwhelming majority of paddlers were Caucasian. Moreover, at least half of paddlers were over the age of 25 and had some college experience. In the category of canoeing, 48 percent of paddlers earned at least $75,000 a year; 55 percent of kayakers made at least that much, and 47 percent of rafters fell into that income bracket as well. We hope, as the non-motorized boating population grows, agencies and organizations will take demographic information into consideration. We wish we had more current data on demographics to share but this layer of information is often underprioritized by agencies and organizations. About 17 percent of our survey respondents said they collect this type of data; the majority do not. It could be due to a lack of staff or no direct contact with users, or it is simply an afterthought. One of our interviewees aptly noted that this data is "sorely needed."

Ultimately, river access should be about river users. There is a lot of opportunity for agencies, organizations, and businesses to improve accessibility. While it seems a handful of states are still gathering their resources, there are some hopeful changes on the horizon for the non-motorized community.

WDFW's management has historically focused on general boating access for fishing. Emphasis has been motorized. We're developing a new management planning framework that will better account for increasing non-motorized uses. The first planning process is expected to occur within the next 1-2 years. -Shane Belson, WA

We are right now (Summer 2022) spearheading a legislative effort to enact a new bill granting easement access to paddlers to [Illinois] rivers statewide. -Scott Hays, IL

Some areas are relatively free of conflict between motorized and non-motorized boaters, though 46 percent of our survey respondents indicated that such conflict is an issue at some or all of their access sites. Another common conflict is between paddlers and private landowners. In Illinois, "most of [their] statewide paddleable rivers remain legally the private property of riparian landowners." Also, in Kansas, landowners are generally unhappy with the state's decision to designate its rivers as water trails, making them open to the public. This could be another major incentive for issuing fees, or at least pushing for better allocation of funds — the non-motorized boating community needs equitable, safe access, and diversification as it continues to grow.

As a nation, our approach to river access for non-motorized watercraft has not changed significantly in the past several years in terms of fees, permitting, and titling, even though we are seeing growth in terms of registrations. While plenty of states do not require a vessel to be registered, permitted, or titled, it may become necessary to do so. A growing non-motorized recreational boating community will require states to add or improve access sites that accommodate the needs specific to these members. Our survey of individual states has led us to believe that each state is individually responsible for how it opens access to non-motorized boaters, as well as how it manages money and enforces rules to create a safe, satisfying, and equitable experience for everyone on and around the water. We got the sense that many states are aware of growing rates of paddlers and want to (re)structure their programming accordingly. We believe there is also room for discussion around the paddling community's demographics, particularly how to welcome and support underprivileged and minority river users. This will benefit the community as a whole. We encourage river managers to think about the socioeconomic dimension of river access. Demonstrating respect for all members of the community will garner their support, which is vital for river access planning going forward. We are hopeful states will be able to respond to the growing needs of the recreational boating community, particularly the paddlers! Many of our survey respondents demonstrated the commitment and enthusiasm necessary for the task. Thanks to them we can offer this rough sketch of river access in our country.

•  A Guide for Multiple Use Waterway Management, 3rd Edition 
•  River Access Planning Guide: A Decision-Making Framework for Enhancing River Access 
•  Prepare to Launch! Guidelines for Assessing, Designing, and Building Launch Sites for Carry-in Sites 
•  The good, the bad, and the unusual: What makes a boating access work (or not?) 
•  Inside the plucky (and unofficial) campaign to make St. Louis a mecca for big-river recreation