Vessel #1 was traveling approximately 10-20 mph in a south bound direction near the mouth of the cove at Putnam Beach. Vessel #2 was traveling east at approximately less than 10 mph exiting the cove at Putnam Beach. Vessel #1 struck vessel #2 with vessel#1's bow on vessel#2's port side just above the rub rail approximately midway of the hull and traveled across the port side bow area of vessel#2. Vessel #2 received a large crack to the hull and the port side mirror was completely broken off. Vessel #1 received damage to the fiberglass at the bow behind the rub rail.

On the afternoon of 08/07/2013 I contacted subject in reference to a boating incident that she had notified my Region IV office about. subject informed me that on June 9, 2013 her daughter, Operator2, and her daughter's then boyfriend, Operator1, had been recreational boating on her PWC's near Putnam Beach and were involved in a boating incident. Operator2’s mom stated that after her daughter, who was operating vessel#2, had been struck by Operator1, who was operating vessel#1, both parties went to the beach area at Putnam Beach where they made contact with Operator1's father. According to Operator2, operator1’s father was in the process of possibly purchasing the PWC's from Operator2’s mom and made the comment that the damage should knock a couple thousand off the price and advised her not to tell her parents that she was involved in a incident. I advised Operator2’s mom that since neither party was injured that the vessel damage must be greater than $2000.00 in order to have a boating incident report completed. Operator2’s mom informed me that she would get an estimate and get back with me.

On the afternoon of 08/16/2013 I contacted Operator2’s mom in reference to the damage estimate. She advised me that a person estimated the damage at approximately $2200.00. I informed Operator2’s mom that I would meet with her on 08/18/2013 to gather statements from Operator2. I then contacted the estimator who verified that he had the PWC's and that the damage to vessel#1 was approximately $400.00 and the damage to vessel#2 was approximately $1800.00 and informed me that I could come by his shop to gather the PWC's information.

On 08/17/2013 Rangers, I gathered the PWC's information and took pictures of the damage.

The statements that Operator1 made was not supported by the damage received to both vessel#1 and vessel#2. The statement received from Operator2 was supported based on the damage to vessel#1 and vessel#2.
EATONTON