Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Your thoughts on 4 stroke Kenai req.

  1. #1

    Default Your thoughts on 4 stroke Kenai req.

    What do you think of the up and coming requirment for all boats to have 50 hp four stokes? I myself am very displeased.... Most kenai boats motors will now be worth more than the boats themselves, I am also displeased in the fact Im going to have to spend big bucks on my first boat for that 4 stroke enginge.... So much for a old jon boat with a sturdy old johnson 35 on the back..... Do you personally believe the kenai is really being majorly poluted or do you think weathering on the banks from waves is causing kenai its damage.... in that case a hp increase will only recede banks further

  2. #2
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    69

    Angry Release the Horses

    Quote Originally Posted by Fishwhacker View Post
    What do you think of the up and coming requirment for all boats to have 50 hp four stokes? I myself am very displeased.... Most kenai boats motors will now be worth more than the boats themselves, I am also displeased in the fact Im going to have to spend big bucks on my first boat for that 4 stroke enginge.... So much for a old jon boat with a sturdy old johnson 35 on the back..... Do you personally believe the kenai is really being majorly poluted or do you think weathering on the banks from waves is causing kenai its damage.... in that case a hp increase will only recede banks further
    I say go for it. I was here when the law was inacted to reduce the HP. That is when the bank erosion started to get worse. Now Picture this
    1 - 20' river boat
    1 - 35 hp engine
    1 - guide
    3 - fat over weight tourist
    VS
    1 - 20' river boat
    1 - 75 hp engine
    1 - guide
    3 - fat over weight tourist


    now which one do you think will do the most damage?
    Do you really think that the 75 hp will leave a LARGER wake?
    Or maybe with the extra HP the boat will get on step and leave less?
    I SAY REMOVE THE HP LIMIT TOTALLY!
    As far as costs; "If you can't afford the equipment; find a new game!"

  3. #3
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Cool Newspeak. . .

    Quote Originally Posted by Fishwhacker View Post
    What do you think of the up and coming requirment for all boats to have 50 hp four stokes? I myself am very displeased.... Most kenai boats motors will now be worth more than the boats themselves, I am also displeased in the fact Im going to have to spend big bucks on my first boat for that 4 stroke enginge.... So much for a old jon boat with a sturdy old johnson 35 on the back..... Do you personally believe the kenai is really being majorly poluted or do you think weathering on the banks from waves is causing kenai its damage.... in that case a hp increase will only recede banks further
    There's no doubt that the Kenai River is polluted with hydrocarbons (and maybe much more), at least during July, and common sense says that bank erosion is exacerbated by boat wakes.

    Here's my take on the proposed increase to 50-horsepower motors as a response to pollution, erosion, and more:

    Simply put, the proposal is "Newspeak." We're being told, concerning pollution, erosion, safety, and more that "more is less" . . We're expected to believe that an increase to 50-horsepower will decrease pollution, decrease erosion, make the river safer, and more. More is less? . .

    Seriously though, over 60% of the public that responded to an informal poll in the Peninsula Clarion and to DNR's Internet comment page oppose such an increase, which is largely driven by the commercial sportfishing industry.

    That's how I see it. . .


  4. #4

    Default set in stone

    I've heard runors that this isn't a done deal and it there still is a chance that the DNR recommendations will not be adopted. Any truth to this? Where could find more information?

  5. #5
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Default May or may not happen. . .

    Quote Originally Posted by amp View Post
    I've heard runors that this isn't a done deal and it there still is a chance that the DNR recommendations will not be adopted. Any truth to this? Where could find more information?
    Yes, that is true. . . the 50-horsepower increase is not a done deal. Don't know where you might find more information though.


  6. #6
    Member Dupont Spinner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Chugiak
    Posts
    1,425

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LipSnatcher View Post
    I say go for it. I was here when the law was inacted to reduce the HP. That is when the bank erosion started to get worse. Now Picture this
    1 - 20' river boat
    1 - 35 hp engine
    1 - guide
    3 - fat over weight tourist
    VS
    1 - 20' river boat
    1 - 75 hp engine
    1 - guide
    3 - fat over weight tourist


    now which one do you think will do the most damage?
    Do you really think that the 75 hp will leave a LARGER wake?
    Or maybe with the extra HP the boat will get on step and leave less?
    I SAY REMOVE THE HP LIMIT TOTALLY!
    As far as costs; "If you can't afford the equipment; find a new game!"

    But how many really are compling with the 35 hp rating anyway....I know when I have 3 people on board my 16' Grayling with a 35hp Honda and I am getting passed by those 20 footers with 6 to 7 on board there is something really fishy.

    Bank erosion is a product of boat wakes and this is one of those cases where faster would be better. But now we are going to have problems with collisions and people getting run over.

  7. #7

    Default

    It is somewhat apparent that quite a few kenai boats, although they sport the 35/50 decals, are not actually de-tuned to 35 hp. How does a 20' Predator or similar with 5 full grown people running "35" hp outrun me by myself in our 16' flat bottom jon boat with 25 hp 4 stroke by quite a margin? I personally favor the 50 hp increase, now everybody can do it "legally". Hopefully the outboard companies won't be coming up with a 75/50 detuned outboard, so that game should be over. Like already said, more hp will result in quicker hole shots and top end = less overall wake.
    Oh well, the kenai is not for the faint of heart or wallet; definitely not for those folks trying to find a peaceful day on the water, but I love being on the river none the less; thousands of boats and all. Of course, if somebody could ban the out of state guides, all the better (but that's another thread).
    Jim

  8. #8
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    11

    Default

    The big reason for the 4 stoke is not to reduce the boat wake but to reduce pollution the 4 stokes put a fraction of toxins and raw gas in the water that a 2 stoke does. and the detuned law is striclty enforced most of the boats are detuned, when the law first came out there were a lot of problems, but fish and game has it under control now. after taking the kenai river class, it really brought home how inefficient the 2 strokes are compared to the 4 strokes, when you have 700 boats on the water some days the lower river is very polluted. that is my take. yes it does cost a lot of money to buy a new motor.

  9. #9
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcus View Post
    There's no doubt that the Kenai River is polluted with hydrocarbons (and maybe much more), at least during July, and common sense says that bank erosion is exacerbated by boat wakes.......
    There is doubt that the Kenai River is polluted with "hydrocarbons", and a change from 35 hp overall to 50 hp 4-stroke will do nothing to change bank erosion.

    I thought the "bank erosion" BS was solved when the big boats were banned?

    Am I the only guy to be tired of the games?

  10. #10
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    If it were drift/float only, and guides were cut back to the 1990's recommended 300 or so (again, drift/float only), would the complainers be happy?

    And if so, how long would they be happy?

  11. #11
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Smile Doubting Thomas. . . ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark View Post
    There is doubt that the Kenai River is polluted with "hydrocarbons", and a change from 35 hp overall to 50 hp 4-stroke will do nothing to change bank erosion.

    I thought the "bank erosion" BS was solved when the big boats were banned?

    Am I the only guy to be tired of the games?
    For an informed position on the above issues and more, contact the Kenai Watershed Forum. Read their Web page, and send them an e-mail or give them a call. . .

    http://www.kenaiwatershed.org/

    From KWF Web page (see the Web page for complete details):
    Hydrocarbons in the Kenai River
    During the summer of 2004, KWF completed the most intensive hydrocarbon monitoring of the Kenai River to date. Our goal was to look at the estuary portion of the river and better document how much fuel is in this stretch of the river and what affect the tide has on the levels we have been reporting over the past five years. Over a very busy weekend, we collected one sample every three hours from the middle of the river near the Kenai City Dock, Warren Ames Bridge and Cunningham Park. The 48 samples we collected should give us a better understanding of how fuel from the in river fishing moves downstream and how much the lower river dipnet fishing contributes to the pollution load. Since we conducted this on a Saturday and Sunday, it will also give us the first insights into any differences we see on days with guided fishing boats compared to non-guided boats. This is a never ending controversial topic, and one that KWF can now put some real numbers on. There are no real surprises, by anyone’s measure, there is a great deal of gas that goes into the river and gets flushed out to Cook Inlet.


  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,883

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Big Jim
    now everybody can do it "legally". Hopefully the outboard companies won't be coming up with a 75/50 detuned outboard, so that game should be over.
    Wishful thinking. Currently the Yamaha, Mercury, and Evinrude 50 hp models are all detuned 60's...Same engine/block as their 60's, just different tuning. This presents an opportunity for even higher illegal hp.

    I want to know why the guides (who proposed the hp increase) didn't consider the 40 hp class? All the manufacturers make one. Detuning not necessary. It would be an increase in hp from 35hp, as well as a lighter, more fuel efficient proposal aimed at reducing both bank erosion and hydrocarbon levels. Hmmm.


    Quote Originally Posted by Dupont Spinner
    Bank erosion is a product of boat wakes and this is one of those cases where faster would be better.
    Bank erosion isn't one dimensional. It is a product of much more than boat speed and wave height.. Wave energy, wave frequency, and transom weight (bigger outboards)play major rolls, among many other things.

    Quote Originally Posted by LipSnatcher
    I was here when the law was inacted to reduce the HP. That is when the bank erosion started to get worse.
    I would have to disagree. I was here before the reduction in hp was inacted, when 300-400 hp inboards on 2-ton boats were common. Bank erosion was already bad. The original 35 hp law was never intended to push over-sized 20' boats full of people up river. It was never intended to accomodate 60-75 hp powerheads and lower units. The guides found that loop-hole and made that nitch for themselves...and here we are now.


    Quote Originally Posted by LipSnatcher
    1 - 20' river boat
    1 - 35 hp engine
    1 - guide
    3 - fat over weight tourist
    VS
    1 - 20' river boat
    1 - 75 hp engine
    1 - guide
    3 - fat over weight tourist


    now which one do you think will do the most damage?
    The 75 hp engine will be about 200 lbs heavier, adding more transom weight and overall load. It will create a wave with more energy. It will produce more hydrocarbons.


    Quote Originally Posted by LipSnatcher
    Do you really think that the 75 hp will leave a LARGER wake?
    Again, bank erosion isn't one dimensional based only on wave size.


    Quote Originally Posted by LipSnatcher
    Or maybe with the extra HP the boat will get on step and leave less?
    With so much boat traffic, getting on step isn't always possible or safe. In that case the heavier transom 75 hp boat would produce a larger wake.


    Quote Originally Posted by LipSnatcher
    As far as costs; "If you can't afford the equipment; find a new game!"
    The point is that most fisherman already have the equipment, and they see no reason to increase hp, especially given the pollution problems.

  13. #13
    Member jrogers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,539

    Default Using what we already have

    I bet most of those running 50HP next year will not be running new motors (unless they had a 2 stroke they had to replace). I think most of them are like me, with a 50hp detuned to 35hp. We will remove the restrictor, get on step quicker, and produce less of a wake, especially when we have 6 people on board.

    Not only will the wake be less, but I bet the hydorcarbon levels will be less when heavily loaded, since the boat will be all the way up on step, and moving about 10mph faster.

  14. #14
    Member MRFISH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,315

    Default no more detuning

    Quote Originally Posted by Big Jim View Post
    Hopefully the outboard companies won't be coming up with a 75/50 detuned outboard, so that game should be over.
    I would hope that if they're going allow 50's that they make it just that...no detuning of a larger motor. I don't know how widespread it was, but you'd always hear about the cheaters and a few seemed to get pinched every now and then.

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,883

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MRFISH
    I would hope that if they're going allow 50's that they make it just that...no detuning of a larger motor.
    Again, the 50's are already detuned 60's.

    Both the Yamaha and Mercury 50 hp are exactly the same outboard as their 60 hp model, minus the detuning. They both sit on the exact same 60.8 ci 4-cylinder with the same exact gearcase. Anyone half inclined could make their 50 a practically undetectable 60...and it will happen.


    Quote Originally Posted by jrogers
    We will remove the restrictor, get on step quicker, and produce less of a wake, especially when we have 6 people on board.
    You'll still be getting on step slower and producing more wake than other boats with less horsepower. So while it sounds like you're saving the river, you're actually just masking the fact your boat is oversized and your load is too heavy.

    Quote Originally Posted by jrogers
    I bet the hydorcarbon levels will be less when heavily loaded, since the boat will be all the way up on step, and moving about 10mph faster.
    An outboard running at 30% more power will not produce less hydrocarbons. And do we really need the already overcrowded chaos of boats moving 10 mph faster?

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
  •