Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: More Kenai proposals (non-BOF)

  1. #1
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,516

    Default More Kenai proposals (non-BOF)

    No-wake zones pitched for Kenai River

    JOSEPH ROBERTIA
    Peninsula Clarion

    The Alaska Department of Natural Resources is taking public comment on several proposals, at least three of which would impact portions of the Kenai River.
    "There are only a few things that would affect people living on the Kenai Peninsula, but one of them would be the creation of two new no-wake zones on the Kenai River," said Chris Degernes, chief of field operations for the Alaska Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation.
    The state wants to create the new no-wake zones at river mile 14.7 and at river mile 15.2, around the Castaway Cove and the Riverquest areas, away from the main channel and behind islands.
    "People were roaring into the entrance and dragging a wall of water with them. It was a public safety issue and it caused resource impacts, such as erosion," Degernes said.
    The new no-wake zones will be designated with signs, similar to those used in other no-wake areas on the river, such is in the Beaver Creek area.
    "I don't think it will be a problem at all for users," Degernes said.
    In addition to the new no-wake zones, the state also announced proposed changes to park regulations increasing the maximum that may be charged for boat launching, to allow potential launch fee increases in areas where private launch owners cannot compete with the low rates charged at state launches.
    "The maximum that may be charged will go up from $10 to $20, but that doesn't mean it will go up to $20 everywhere. We're not intending to raise fees across the board, but we do know that in area such as the Pillars, there are private launches that were charging more and accusing the state of unfair competition," Degernes said.
    The general public can comment on the proposed changes until 4 p.m. on Jan. 2, 2008.
    "People are welcome to mail them, e-mail them, or attend the upcoming public meeting and give oral testimony," Degernes said, referring to a public hearing scheduled for Dec. 19 from 7 to 9 p.m. at the Loussac Library's Public Conference Room in Anchorage.
    Written comments may be sent to: Chris Degernes, Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation, 550 W. 7th., # 1380, Anchorage, AK 99501; or e-mailed to dnr.parkregs@alaska.gov.
    A full copy of the proposed regulations or the public notice can also be obtained by contacting the Department of Natural Resources' Public Information Center in Anchorage at (907) 269-8400, or by visiting their Web site at alaskastateparks.org and looking under "Special Notices."
    "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

  2. #2

    Default

    I don't spend a lot of time in this section of the river but how will it effect boat traffic during low water in May and June?

  3. #3

    Default

    [quote=fishNphysician;179545] No-wake zones pitched for Kenai River



    "I don't think it will be a problem at all for users," Degernes said.

    You might want to ask about 50 boat owners and operators who run out of Tukak Harbor. This new. proposed reg is directly targetting Tukak Harbor, but is disguised by the language used by Parks. For anyone who operates a boat on the Kenai, beware as the impacts of the new 50 Hp and 4 stoke regs. may affect your favorite areas as well. The new regs. would create a no-wake zone directly below Tukak, and Castaway Cove. The channel below Tukak is fairly fast and shallow. I am one of the earliest and latest user of the Harbor every year, and can only run on most years from late May or early June, until mid to late Sept. The bank at this time consists of gravel and rock and the bare shoreline is exposed for several yards in most places. I would estimate the current to run at about 5 mph. The channel is shallow enuff that it cannot be run at low water unless your boat is on step. Even at high water, I could not run up this channel without a wake due to the strenght of the current. If this reg. is adopted, 50 ( of which 95% are private) boaters will be out a spot to launch for most if not all of the season. I have no problem with no wake zones, if they are warranted. This is not one of them. This area is most susceptible at high water, not low water. The reason stated for the new regs. was and I qoute from KRSMA 10/11/07 minutes, "With the horsepower being raised to 50 horsepower these areas will need to be protected." I thought the new regs were supposed to make the river safer and create less wakes?? Thats the B.S that KRSMA, KRGA, KRSA have been feeding us. Looks like we may have been lied to and now Parks is trying to cover their backside for allowing this to go through. Private anglers didn't ask for 50 HP. 60 % of public comments were against going to 50HP. Throw out the votes by the guides and I bet a lot higher percent of the public was not in favor. No wake zones are appropriate in areas susceptible to high erosion and slow current, Tukak is not one of them.

  4. #4
    Member ak_powder_monkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Eagle River/ Juneau
    Posts
    5,154

    Default

    no wake zones on rivers are stupid
    I choose to fly fish, not because its easy, but because its hard.

  5. #5
    Forum Admin Brian M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Eagle River, AK
    Posts
    13,393

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ak_powder_monkey View Post
    no wake zones on rivers are stupid
    Care to expand on that? They're "stupid"?

    How would you rather deal with bank erosion that damages rearing habitat?

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,883

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian M
    How would you rather deal with bank erosion that damages rearing habitat?
    Smaller, lighter, flat-bottom boats. Less horsepower, speed, and transom weight. Less boat traffic. More drift-only days.

    No-wake zones on a river are "stupid"...for reasons of navigation, safety, changing currents, fluxuating water levels, boat congestion, etc. They will acutally cause more overall erosion problems as boats come off and on step on both ends of the no-wake zone. How the heck do you go up river (5-10 mph current) without a wake, especially in shallow water?

    akcarv, excellent post on Tukak's issues with a no-wake zone, and the hypocrisy of the 50 hp increase....

    ""With the horsepower being raised to 50 horsepower these areas will need to be protected." - KRSMA. So yes, the no-wake zone is a bandaid approach to problems caused by the 50 hp increase. But we (everyone except the guides who introduced the 50 hp increase) already knew that.

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Kenai
    Posts
    233

    Default ditto grampy

    I am a guide but I keep a boat in Tukak too, my private one. Like you I run early and late out of Tukak. Might as well find a new place to run out of if they do that. I did not vote to increase hp either. I was against it and thought hull design would be a much better reg because I know how little wave my Koffler Light flat bottom puts up. That dock right below the harbor must be the one pushing it because the older guy below him isn't like that. How will they compensate Bob for his loss of business? Maybe he can fill it with drift boats that guys our age can't really oar anymore. I hate to hear that. Those folks in the top slot leave unattended poles backtrolling out of the boat all the time unattended. Maybe we need to turn them in. A lot of days you can't fish it because they have line in the drift. Who do we contact to object?

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Kenai
    Posts
    233

    Default defeats their objective

    If I come in on step there I throw a very small wave,,,, a little shore lapper thats it. If I trim up and plow I can almost throw a wake to swamp that top boat. Duh!!!!!!!!!!!!1

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,883

    Default

    It could've come from the guy adjacent to (below) Tukak. Several years ago I recall someone telling me he took Tukak to court over ownership of the cleaning table. Of course Bob won, as the cleaning table had been Tukak's since the early 70's. I think he's the one leaving the rods sticking out, unattended. There's an easy way to fix that. Those boat owners also drive dead-man posts into the bank to tie up their boats, causing the bank to erode. Their boats also constantly eat at the bank as they bob up and down, not to mention the damage to the bank when they hit it with the boat when docking. There is certainly no room in that small navigatin channel for boat tie-ups.

    In fact I don't think any boat should be tied to the bank along the River. Only in still water (harbors, sloughs, etc.). Room on the water is squelched already. They are a hazard to boats fishing or drifting by. They are used by the land owner as an extension of the bank, to fish out of, especially in late July for reds. They are an eye-sore. They exacerbate bank erosion. The water they sit on is everyone's, not just the land owner's.

    Salmon Run above Tukak is another tough one to get into early and late. Lots of boats in there too. There's no way you could come out of a no-wake zone and make it in there.
    Last edited by Daveinthebush; 12-14-2007 at 09:58.

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Kenai
    Posts
    233

    Default I agree grampy

    It would be nice if the State or Regulatory agency with jurisdiction would realize that a small harbor easement in the riverbank leading to a lagoon like the one at Tukak are a great way to solve the issues you discussed. I guess it makes too much sense to give up a little riverbank to save a lot. I guess thats why we're not in government work..lol. Merry Christmas Grampy!!

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,522

    Default just a question

    At Tukak could the proposal be a way to force boats to use the main river for most of the travel? I know that when boats run in that channel the wave energy on the banks is very high. I do not disagree that no wake is impossible when moving upstream. So I am not sure about the reason for this proposal. I will call parks next week and talk to them.

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    607

    Default enforcement

    I fish in the Beaver Creek area often.....there is a no wake sign but I have never ever seen any enforcement.....why would one think no wake areas in other parts of the river would be obeserved by boaters?? Why is parks proposing something they are not able to enforce? How often do you see people fishing right next to the "closed to fishing" signs? The only thing that seems to be enforced with any regularity is the the 35 horse detuning requirement. When I was in the military and later in civilian life I was taught to never give an order that you did not think would be obeyed.....

  13. #13

    Default maybe worse than you think

    From what I gather, this is a neighbor dispute. The first dock outside the harbor is in violation of the local government 50' habitat protection zone - its too big and unpermitted. Why then is this not corrected? Why has there never, thats right NEVER, in ten years has there been a single enforcement case on that particular law. There have been cases of bluffing folks into compliance, but push comes to shove the local government won't enforce their own, very skimpy 50' riparian habitat protection law!

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
  •