Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 97

Thread: 2-Strokes banned?

  1. #1
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Default 2-Strokes banned?

    Did I hear that old 2-stroke motors are banned from the Kenai Personal Use fishery this year? If that's the case, are out-of-area residents aware of the change? What happens if someone drives down, thinking they can fish, and learn they can't if they're using a 2-stroke?

    Anybody heard anything?


  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    soldotna
    Posts
    841

    Default

    Tare banned above Warren Ames Bridge in July. In the area below Warren Ames Bridge they allowed but you cannot participate in the dipnet fishery or the sportfishery. Basically, in July you can sightsee or use a two stroke powered boat to participate in the commercial fishery things and that is all. August is another story as they are legal then.
    As far as getting the word out I did see a press release a couple of weeks or so ago and that is all that I have heard. Hope that helps.

  3. #3
    Member .338-06's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,045

    Default

    Can some one explain the logic of this? I can run my 2-stroke every day of July from the bridge to the sea, but I can't dipnet 'cause I'm running a 2-stroke. Sounds like BUL&^%$T to me!



    Marcus, this is listed on the Upper Cook Inlet EOs.

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,073

    Default

    I think the reason is there really is no reason to be in that section of river if you are not sportfishing (very few) or dipnetting, therefore not a significan amount of HC's would be put in by 'Site see'ers" or what other reason one may have to be out there. The amount of Hydrocarbons coming from this fishery is one reason why the Kenai River was deemed impaired. The above the bridge users are not using two strokes in July to reduce HC's and this was just extending this regulation to the mouth. I expect to see a significant reduction in hydrocarbons this year. Hopefully in the next year or two the Kenai will come off the impaired list.

    The proposal was put forth to the Board of Fish by:
    The City of Kenai
    The City of Soldotna
    The Kenai Peninsula Borough
    and
    The Department of Fish and Game had their own proposal as well.


    Marcus, thanks for opening this up so people will be aware of the regulation before they head down. Although (you know me, black helecopters) I think you knew the regulation before you posted this.

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,526

    Default answer

    Quote Originally Posted by .338-06 View Post
    Can some one explain the logic of this? I can run my 2-stroke every day of July from the bridge to the sea, but I can't dipnet 'cause I'm running a 2-stroke. Sounds like BUL&^%$T to me!



    Marcus, this is listed on the Upper Cook Inlet EOs.
    Well 338-06 the reason for the ban is more complicated so maybe this will help. The river can be regulated only by agecies that have certain authority. In the case of the Kenai River Special Management Area DNR can regulate the use of motors in their area - about a mile below the bridge upstream. So in this area DNR prohibited the use of two stroke engines (not DFI) for all users. Just to make it clear the KRSA boundary is downstream of the bridge and all users are prohibited in July because of the special management area classification.

    What does one do for the lower 4 miles of river - this area violated the hydrocarbon standards only when the PU fishery was in full swing. The Board of Fish can only regulate motors relative to fishing so they passed a regulation that took care of the hydrocarbons from the personal use fishery. They cannot, I repeat, cannot prohibit all users as they do not have that authority.

    So that leaves the few boats that come into the river from outside the river, people who use a small skiff to get to their anchored boats, and people who may fish chinook or coho salmon. The Board could have taken on the coho and chinook fisherman but they cannot control motor type for other uses.

    So at this point the DNR, DEC, ADF&G, and Board of Fish is hoping that the above actions will solve the problem of hydrocarbons. We will see -

    I would hope that the agencies take out full page ads to tell people of this regulation. There will be hundreds of people displaced this year and they need to know aobut it or they need to buy a different engine.

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,073

    Default

    I agree with Nerka that there should be more publicity over all the recent regulations passed, especially this one. I have already answered hundreds of questions from anglers on various new regulations.

  7. #7
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by iceblue View Post
    ......Basically, in July you can sightsee or use a two stroke powered boat to participate in the commercial fishery things and that is all........
    Did I read that correctly?

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,526

    Default be precise.

    Iceblue - the Kenai River Special Management Area goes below the Warren Ames Bridge - about 1 mile. So all two stroke, non DFI, are banned in July in this area.

    Also, coho and chinook fishing is allowed from a two stroke in July below the Warren Ames bridge.

    In addition, all activities not associated with personal use fishing are allowed - some of which are commercial fishing related - bringing fish in from set net areas, going to a anchored vessel. etc.

    Keep in mind that no violation of standards takes place as a result of these other activities. It is the PU fishery that is the problem and it was dealt with at the BOF meeting.

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    soldotna
    Posts
    841

    Default

    I thought that a regulation passed at this BOF to make all ADF&G and DNR regualtions the same either above or below the Warren Ames Bridge in regards to the PU fishery and the sport fishery. This would include the two stroke ban would it not?

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,526

    Default no

    I do not think they included the sport fishery - just the PU fishery. Also, the DNR ban applies to all uses - you can run up to the bridge from the public boat launch in a two stroke engine - you will be in the special management area and that regulation is for all motors.

    This is one of the confusing aspects of the regulation packet. DNR will be banning all uses but BOF only banned for use in PU fishery.

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    soldotna
    Posts
    841

    Default

    Man, that is to bad. The burdon of conservation should be shared by all.

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,526

    Default not really

    Iceblue, the cause of the hydrocarbon problem in the lower river is without a doubt the PU fishery. Why should other users be penalized for something they did not create? There is no doubt that the PU fishery is 99 percent of the hydrocarbon additions below the bridge. The number of boats used in the commercial fleet down there is probably less than 10 boats and they only run for a few mintues to take people out to their vessels. The set nets that come into the river mouth are probably 4-5. Hard to tell them they cannot run their boats because of hundreds of PU boats are polluting the river.

    The unfortunate part is that the upstream chinook fishery contributes 5-6 ppm after the ban based on the models so to stay within the standard the PU fishery reduction will have to be 50-80 percent of what they contribute or more. That may not happen and testing this summer will be interesting.

  13. #13
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    Iceblue, the cause of the hydrocarbon problem in the lower river is without a doubt the PU fishery.....
    Will there be testing after this to estblish "without a doubt" that the hydrocarbon problem was indeed the PU fishery?

    ....Why should other users be penalized for something they did not create?....
    Who limited the PU fishermen to that short section of the river?

    PU fishermen?

    ....The unfortunate part is that the upstream chinook fishery contributes 5-6 ppm after the ban based on the models so to stay within the standard the PU fishery reduction will have to be 50-80 percent of what they contribute or more. That may not happen and testing this summer will be interesting.
    Yes, indeed, they will...............

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    soldotna
    Posts
    841

    Default

    Somebody is a little testy on this issue. Nerka, I simply stated that all should share in the conservation of the resource.

    You feel strongly that the commercial folks do not add much hydrocarbons to the river. Based on the data of course so they are not part of the overall problem.

    Still, a Alaskan resident participating in the PU fishery probably feels the same way. This person might only go out the one time that season to put a few fish in the freezer to feed their family. Since they only went out the one time they probably are thinking "How many hydocarbons can I be really adding in the big picture of things? Since I am only out here the one time?

  15. #15
    Moderator AKmud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Wasilla, Alaska, United States
    Posts
    3,185

    Default

    I agree 100% Iceblue! I NEVER fish the Kenai except for one or two trips during the dipnet season. I guess they will take on the idea that those of us with the evil 2-strokes can now don the chest waders and fish the mouth on foot....
    AKmud
    http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j96/AKmud/213700RMK1-1.jpg


    The porcupine is a peacful animal yet God still thought it necessary to give him quills....

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,526

    Default not testy at all.

    Iceblue - not testy at all. I just look at the data and the lower river does not violate the standards until the PU fishery goes into full swing. They violate the 10 ppb on their own. So while it may be only one or two trips the fact that thousands of people make one or two trips created the problem. It is a simple fix and the Board of Fish did it.

    However, what has not happened is who pays the piper when the combined up river chinook fishery and remaining PU fishery still violates the standard. That could very well happen given the models are not precise in the tidal areas.

    Time will tell - however, the PU fishery is in need of serious alternation. The wetlands are being destroyed by PU users, conflict on the beach is very high ( Kenai Police Department reports), and the dunes are being destroyed, fish guts are in violation of the Clean Water act, and pollution from other sources is ongoing. So eventually something will have to be done to limit this fishery. All of Alaska cannot fish at the mouth of the river without serious environmental impacts. The hydrocarbons are just the tip of the iceberg.

  17. #17
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Default Help. . .

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    Iceblue, the cause of the hydrocarbon problem in the lower river is without a doubt the PU fishery. . .
    Nerka, please explain how the problem in the lower river is the PU fishery and not the result of net motorized use from upriver as well the lower river. Doesn't all the hydrocarbon pollution from wherever kind of come together in the lower river?

    Help. . .


  18. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,526

    Default try to answer

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcus View Post
    Nerka, please explain how the problem in the lower river is the PU fishery and not the result of net motorized use from upriver as well the lower river. Doesn't all the hydrocarbon pollution from wherever kind of come together in the lower river?

    Help. . .
    The measurements of hydrocarbons at the Warren Ames Bridge from the peak chinook fishery upstream exceeded the standard of 10 ppb on its own. Add the PU fishery belowthe bridge and at the river mouth the levels reached 21 or 22 ppb. So the PU fishery contribution in the absence of the chinook fishery would also violate the standard. They were about equal in contributions.

    DNR passes the two stroke ban and the models suggest the levels at the bridge should be 5-6 ppb if I remember correctly. The ban on two stroke in the PU fishery is thought to reduce the level even more. So the hope is that the combination of the two fisheries will be below 10 ppb at the river mouth (reduced from 22oob). So yes, the upriver chinook fishery is still part of the equation in the big picture. In point of fact allowing the up river chinook fishery to go to 50 hp means the PU fishery will have to reduce their hydrocarbons more to meet the standard.

    This was the problem with DEC, ADF&G, and DNR not following the intent of the clean water act. They should have held public meetings to allow the public to decide how those hydrocarbons should be allocated. Instead, DNR said we reduced our area and give some extra pollution for 50hp but we really do not care about the PU fishery - that is out of our area.

  19. #19
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    ......we really do not care about the PU fishery - that is out of our area.
    Who's "we"?

  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,526

    Default DNR

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark View Post
    Who's "we"?
    Not sure who the individual was - I believe it was the Dep Comm of DNR. Basically what was said is they took care of the violations in the Special Management Area and that was all they had to do. That is actually a false statement but the attitude DNR spoke people had at the higher levels of the Murcowski administration that held over into the Palin admin.

    The regional and local DNR staff were more intune with what the clean water act required but it was out of their control.

Page 1 of 5 123 ... 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
  •