By Jim Armstrong
After reading Doug Draper’s excellent article in Niagara At Large regarding the Whirlpool Jet Boats, I thought the following information might also be of interest to those who are concerned about the Niagara River.
A Jet Boat gets ready to unload passengers on a dock in Queenston, Ontario along the lower Niagara River with the iconic monument of War of 1812 hero Sir Isaac Brock looming behind. Photo courtesy of Louise Howe.
The Ontario Court of Appeals recently overturned a decision by Justice Quinn that defined the operation of Whirlpool Jet Boats at the Melville Street dock in Niagara-on-the-Lake as an illegal use. This reversal of a well-written and unequivocal decision has been met with great disappointment and disbelief among the members of the Niagara River Coalition, and with good reason.
The process of challenging the Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake on the legality of the Jet Boat lease was long and expensive, and launched in the interest of protecting the integrity of the dock area and the Niagara River. The Coalition is now faced with the prospect of either abandoning their case or facing another lengthy and costly process.
Unfortunately, this scenario is all too typical of situations in which citizens groups seek to challenge what they believe to be unacceptable activities.
Inevitably, they are up against well-funded companies and their own local, regional provincial and even federal governments, all with deep pockets. In Queenston, we are awaiting a decision in our appeal against a Niagara Escarpment decision to allow the construction of a building on the Queenston Sand Dock, three times the size of the structure it would replace.
It will be paid for and used by the Whirlpool Jet Boat group as a reception/ticket sales facility. Again, this has been a long and expensive process funded by donations and pro bono legal services (without which we could not have proceeded at all ). There is no source of public funding to assist in such efforts and this is not acceptable.
We all understand that contentious issues generally end up in a legal forum for resolution, but the unfortunate side of this in the Jet Boat issue is that the complex legal proceedings overshadow the fundamental question to be answered : does this type of activity belong on the Niagara River at all, whether legal or not?
To many of us, the answer is an obvious “ No.” It is a social, ecological and philosophical question that it being answered, inappropriately I think, with legal and economic arguments. Is it really acceptable for one company to exploit this international treasure for its own economic benefit?
Is the noise, traffic, disruption of fish and bird populations, powerful wake smashing the shores all day long from May to November and general annoyance to many homeowners along both sides of the river, to be deemed acceptable because it is a tourist attraction presumed to bringing in mega dollars to the local economy?
If so, where does it end? What sort of activity would be finally be considered patently unacceptable?
There needs to be a fundamental shift in thinking on a societal and political level that finally says “ enough is enough “ with consequent policy initiatives that will finally recognize the importance of this river and institute protective measures that will say
“ No “ to amusement rides and other intrusive and destructive activities.
(Jim Armstrong is a resident of Queenston, Ontario and president of the Queenston Residents’ Association)
(Click on www.niagaraatlarge.com for Niagara At Large and more news and commentary of interest and concern to residents in our greater binational Niagara region.)
Niagara At Large 
Well said Jim. I can appreciate your arguments on several levels. A few years back, I was sued by Marineland for $250,000 because I spoke out (perhaps too effectively?) against the idea of whales being stuffed into bathtubs for human amusement.
It was a David vs Goliath case where the exploiter was well-funded and me not so well-funded. Several years and thousands of dollars in legal fees later (mostly paid for by generous donations), Marineland dropped the lawsuit, apparently for lack of evidence.
Just goes to show you that if you try to stand up for a belief, and that belief interferes with someone else making money, you’d better have a lot of money yourself.
LikeLike
A new tactic against this wretched activity could be the establishment of a Marine National Park for the Niagara River, whose regulations would prohibit the jet boat because of its harm to wildlife. As a prelude to getting this, the Science Committee of the Intarnational Joint Commission should launch an investigation into the jet boat.
LikeLike
With this new ruling we now face a monopoly of jet boats on the Niagara river. There also there seems to be an increase of cigarette boats using the river. But our local council refuses to put a speed limit in place, leaving these boats to travel at high speeds recklessly. Niagara on the Lake seems to be ignorant to the fact that these boats are leaving a tremendous carbon footprint!
LikeLike
As an outlander to this debate, it appears to me the resolution is as much metaphysical as it is epistemological. The philosophical resolution to toothless ersatz regulation is a a quid pro quo ersatz ecological venture. As an avid indoorsman and entropic entrepreneur, I have amassed and enlisted a number ( fractional at the moment…aproximately 1/6th) of capital venturists interested in funding glacial iceberg rides on the river. As you might have surmised, the ride takes a long time….approxiately one meter every year. The massive icebergs would be hand hewn from virgin styrofoam culled from errant packing peanuts capable of accomodating nearly 1,000 passengers whose lives are of no particular purpose. The ersatz berg ought to then fall under the rubric of ersatz international law thereby trumping the ersatz protecton schemes of local ersatz regulation. Heady stuff, eh? In any case, jet boats sseriusly do suck. Well, off to take my medication.
LikeLike