Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 35

Thread: Kenai 50 hp proposal signed

  1. #1

    Default Kenai 50 hp proposal signed

    I have only looked at it briefly but it looks like it goes into effect in 08.

    You can see it here:

    http://www.dnr.state.ak.us/standard/...aner%20Engines

  2. #2
    Member ak_powder_monkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Eagle River/ Juneau
    Posts
    5,154

    Default

    I thought this didn't pass??? How is increasing HP (and thus emmissions) going to help decrease hydrocarbon levals? Does anyone have the numbers for number of 2 strokes on the river? (my guess is less than 5%) So by mandating 4 stroke engines (which just spill less gasoline) how much is that really gonna do? Are the 10 boats out of the 500 spilling ALL of the gasoline that is making the river impaired? From the looks of that paper it is just what the guides wanted...
    I choose to fly fish, not because its easy, but because its hard.

  3. #3

    Default

    More to it than that....dont forget wakes and safety. Riding around with the bow of your boat over your head isnt real safe and generates hug erosion. Of course the guides wanted it. Why is that a bad thing? Why would anyone not want it? What is there to fear? Its not like the guides get to run 50's and the rest of us run 35's.

    And i would personally guess that its a higher % than 5 that are using 2strokes.

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    607

    Default

    In the study done by Kenai Watershed Forum it was shown that the hydrocarbons released from 100 2 stroke moters was the same as the release from over 700 four stroke or DFI engines. KWF is independent of guides or other interests and their numbers do not reflect any particular point of view.
    Last edited by gusdog44; 06-05-2007 at 16:32. Reason: excess verbiage

  5. #5

    Default

    Sounds like yet another part of Alaska is being turned over to the lower 48... so to speak....?

  6. #6
    Forum Admin Brian M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Eagle River, AK
    Posts
    13,391

  7. #7
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,516

    Thumbs up Some closure at last...

    "I am confident that all those who love the Kenai will unite to support these regulations as a way to improve and maintain this wonderful river for the enjoyment of current and future fishermen."
    I believe the naysayers who opposed the 50 hp piece of the proposal can be reassured that even with that piece in there, we're still looking at a 65% reduction in HC's.

    Relative to what we have now, this is a win-win decision.

    Time for the divisiveness to end, rally behind the decision, and move on folks.
    "Let every angler who loves to fish think what it would mean to him to find the fish were gone." Zane Grey
    http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/uploads/UP12710.jpg
    The KeenEye MD

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,519

    Default no such study published

    Quote Originally Posted by gusdog44 View Post
    In the study done by Kenai Watershed Forum it was shown that the hydrocarbons released from 100 2 stroke moters was the same as the release from over 700 four stroke or DFI engines. KWF is independent of guides or other interests and their numbers do not reflect any particular point of view.
    Gusdog44 - the numbers you quote were done on the fly and are not published or reviewed and should not be used in the discussion without more work. For example, the data collected to date does not really allow very precise estimates and of course the lower river below the Kenai River bridge cannot be modeled. Some of the issues in the above quote is that hydrocarbon levels in the river are dependent on a number of variables and they all have assumptions.

    Finally, removing the two strokes is not the only issue. The issue is going to 50 hp which increases fuel into the river over the present situation.

    Also, the process for this regulation is questionable for a number of reasons.

    Sorry Doc, I will not get behind this regulation without a comprehensive approach discussed for the whole river. The positions in the news release are not defendable from a scientific position and in fact it is misleading and wrong in a number of cases.

    I am hoping property owners along the river and others will file suit to stop this regulation. It is not good for the resource when the process if flawed as the message is "those with the political might wins". History shows that resources lose in that game.

  9. #9
    Member ak_powder_monkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Eagle River/ Juneau
    Posts
    5,154

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kenairook View Post
    More to it than that....dont forget wakes and safety. Riding around with the bow of your boat over your head isnt real safe and generates hug erosion.


    THEN GET A SMALLER BOAT?!?!?!?!?!?!?
    I choose to fly fish, not because its easy, but because its hard.

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    607

    Default

    I see the usual suspects are coming out in force to oppose an attempt to improve conditions on the river. I have not seen any other plan that would improve water quality and reduce erosion. When are the opponents of this plan goind to have a better one?? They are quick to criticize but where is something constructive?? I wholeheartedly support this new regulation which reduces erosion and hydrocarbon pollution.

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,073

    Default

    Well, now that the above the bridge users are on their way to cleaning up, now lets deal with the dipnetters (a large part of the problem) and the commercial fishing boats (refueling) below the bridge.

    Nerka, I had some of the published data from the Watershed Forum but I loaned it out, I will try and get it back. I believe they stated that 400 of the 600 gallons on peak days would be removed from the river if 2-strokes were off the river.

    Also as quoted in the press release: " EPA emissions data say two-stroke engines, which burn mixed oil and gas, produce 10-20 times the pollution level of more modern four-stroke or DFI two-stroke engines of the same size."

    Nerka, I know I won't change your mind. This is a step in the right direction, is it a cure all, no, but it is a huge step forward! Now lets concentrate on getting the below the bridge users to clean up. I believe half of the problem is coming from there.

  12. #12

    Default

    THEN GET A SMALLER BOAT?!?!?!?!?!?!?
    Why would I want to do that..? I can run a 50hp soon and bring more of my lower 48 buddies to fish next to all the naysayers that complain about everything(as usual) with no solution of their own! Just complain and complain and blame it on the guides.

    Now i am sure that all the naysayers about this will be sure to leave their motors detuned to 35hp to support your position right?

  13. #13
    Member bushrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Now residing in Fairbanks from the bush
    Posts
    4,363

    Default always about the benjamins

    "I don't think we should kid ourselves that the reason we're going to 50 horsepower is the river," Ruffner said. "It's money."

    It sure is.

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    607

    Default

    In what way is going to 50 hp going to increase anyone's income? Boat lengths are limited, the number of clients a guide can take out are limited and no one will catch more fish just because they can run up and down the river 4-5 miles per hour faster so I don't think there will be any move to run 3 trips per day. I'm not a guide, just a homeowner on the river...how am I going to make more money out of this?? Who is going to make more money and how are they going to do it??

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    607

    Default

    Who is going to be making more money and how will they be doing it??

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Soldotna AK
    Posts
    506

    Default motor size ??

    This will be interesting to see the what the new 50/65 will look like.

  17. #17

    Default

    I would love to hear the reasoning behind a comment like "Money" being the reason.

    People really should think through their statements and put specific reasoning before making general statements like that which make no sense.

    The guides boats wont all of a sudden be able to take more clients which is the only way they would make more money. They are limited on amount of clients and size of boat....so that logic doesnt hold water.

    Again, its the naysayers that are automatically negative about everything with no real thought or logic. The world is full of it.

  18. #18

    Default

    Oh...and in response to the 50/65 comment....I know you meant that in humor but you are somewhat correct. The Yamaha 50 is actually a 60hp powerhead. Just a quick ECM and injector change and its 60hp...

  19. #19
    Member Sierra Hotel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Chugiak
    Posts
    637

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bushrat View Post
    "I don't think we should kid ourselves that the reason we're going to 50 horsepower is the river," Ruffner said. "It's money."

    It sure is.
    Bushrat, I think the 50 hp implementation was a compromise by the board to get two strokes off the water. I think most of us have missed the boat when it comes to analyzing the new reg. There were actually two issues addressed (three if you count boat size), and most of the talk has focused on one.

    Issue 1 - By removing the older two strokes from the river, we reduce the total hydrocarbon release into the watershed. I think there is plenty of data to support this, even if we ignore the anecdotal evidence we've all seen in the early mornings on the river (blue smoke sitting right on the water - it's a wonder no one has written a song - "Blue Smoke on the Kenai" )

    Issue 2 - Moving to the larger hp rating on the motors will reduce wake turbulence that damages the banks of the river. I don't dispute that getting up on step quicker helps the guide boats - and I would guess that there are more guide boats on the river daily than personal boats, but I don't have any data to support that. However, given the 12 hour restriction on the river given the guides, no one is going to try and fit three trips daily into the day - well maybe some one will try it, but I don't think it will work too well commercially. I don't see the point at which this will turn into a moneymaker for anyone but the engine dealers.

    My personal take on this whole discussion is that issue 1 is a good thing that benefits everyone via the river being cleaner, and issue 2 benefits the guides primarily, as I haven't seen any data indicating that the banks will see a lesser impact. It also seems that the private boatowner on the river is going to be negatively impacted the most, as the majority of guides are 4-strokes by now, they'll just go for bigger motors (might be an opportunity to buy a little used 35 hp 4-stroke form some of the guides as they move up to 50hp!), while the private boat owner is going to have to upgrade to a 4-stroke - leaving a whole bunch of 2-strokes on the market with no market to sell them into . . . maybe up North . . .

    My nickel's worth.

    SH

  20. #20
    Member bushrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Now residing in Fairbanks from the bush
    Posts
    4,363

    Default

    That Ruffner quote I used was from the article in today's ADN:
    http://www.adn.com/outdoors/fishing/...-8856430c.html

    I agree that removing two-strokes over time is a good step. However, one must consider who pushed for upping the horsepower, and why. That's where the big money comes in. The notion that upping the hp for riverbank erosion protection was explained by Dwight Kramer from the KAFC:

    But he's [Kramer] especially galled by the state's claims that using bigger motors to expedite a typical Kenai River guide's efforts at planing across the water will decrease wake and erosion by 12 percent. He acknowledged that studies indicate it's true -- but only when three people are in the boat. Most guides put five or six people in their boats, he said.

    There is a major conservation concern on the Kenai, not just from pollution in the river from hydrocarbons but from riverbank erosion and overcrowding. The resource can only handle so much. I don't believe that upping the horsepower benefits the overall conservation issues. I see the same likely outcome Ruffner mentions; guides and others going to the maximum boat length to squeeze in more clients and move around faster on the river. The monetary benefits extend all down the line, to guides, businesses, communities...all I was alluding was that money drove this decision and not overall concern for the Kenai and the longterm problems we face there. Gusdog, we'll see how it pans out...wish you a good summer on the river.
    Selah,

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •