Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 21

Thread: New 4-Stroke Law and Engine Size

  1. #1
    New member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    6

    Default New 4-Stroke Law and Engine Size

    I'm pissed about this new engine rule. A friend said its all about getting the public to buy from the commercials. I bet it really hit the guides hard to. Not sure tho.

    I've been using a 13.5' Achilles since 1987 with a 18 HP Tohatsu. Always stored inside and that motor has NEVER failed. Always starts up. In PWS, K-Bay, R-Bay, Cook Inlet and the Kenai not to mention rafting trips. Anyways, to use the boat I have to buy a $3k 4-stroke. Jesus Christ who makes these stupid rules.

    With that size engine I can launch it from any beach or even down a bank. I was thinking about upgrading to more HP.

    My question is:

    What weight engine will make it have too little freeboard at the transom? 18HP weighs about 90 lbs, New 20HP 4-stroke will weigh ard 110 lbs or so. The Achilles is rated for 35HP but I'm leary of that much weight.

    Anyone have experience in that area?

    Thanks

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Southwest Alaska
    Posts
    2,145

    Default

    What law are you referring too?
    Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocre minds. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence. Albert Einstein

    Better living through chemistry (I'm a chemist)

    You can piddle with the puppies, or run with the wolves...

  3. #3
    New member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nitroman View Post
    What law are you referring too?
    The one that says you can't use a 2-stroke on the Kenai River. Many states have already banned 2-strokes on all or some of their waters. Also, a dealer told me production of 2-strokes is over.

    Here's a post here in March.

    Also see this thread:

    http://forums.outdoorsdirectory.com/...ad.php?t=26413

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Southwest Alaska
    Posts
    2,145

    Default

    2-stroke non-DFI. So if you are powered by a carbed 2-stroker looks like yer out of luck.

    2-stroke motors are in full production by BRP and Merc looks like.
    Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocre minds. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence. Albert Einstein

    Better living through chemistry (I'm a chemist)

    You can piddle with the puppies, or run with the wolves...

  5. #5
    Member MARV1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Kotlik
    Posts
    640

    Default

    Guides make a bunch of money each and everyday on the Kenai, sportfishing is crazy.
    I'd buy a Mercury Optimax before a BRP E-Tec, they are that much better.
    The emphasis is on accuracy, not power!

  6. #6
    Member JOAT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Soldotna, ALASKA since '78
    Posts
    3,720

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sabluka View Post
    ... A friend said its all about getting the public to buy from the commercials...
    The public debate prior to the final rule went on for a couple years. It was all about hydrocarbon levels in the water. Not once did the board say they wanted to ban 2-strokes so that the motor-makers could sell more motors. This is just a really stupid idea that started circulating after the rule went into effect and has no basis in reality.

    ...I bet it really hit the guides hard to...
    Not at all. The majority of the guides had switched to 4-stroke motors a long time ago. Most of those 35hp 4-strokes they were running are detuned 50hp motors. About 5 minutes time and changing 2 parts and it is back to a 50hp. Further, those who want/need to switch motors are doing so against their business, so it's paid for out of the business and becomes a tax deduction over its service life.
    Winter is Coming...

    Go GeocacheAlaska!

  7. #7
    Member Bullelkklr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage Alaska
    Posts
    4,833

    Default not only that but...

    ..wouldn't a 50 horse power motor allow 2 possible scenario's??
    1) faster same sized boat which allows more fishing time - and maybe more clients on the water??

    2) bigger boat to hold more clients??

  8. #8
    Member JOAT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Soldotna, ALASKA since '78
    Posts
    3,720

    Default Not really...

    ... the new rule also reduces the maximum size boat allowed on the river. So, many of the giant "Predator" sleds are going to be illegal for size next year. Hence the reason why there are a half dozen of them lined up at the used car lot with for sale signs on them (but who will buy them?). In light of that part, yes, some of the guides are having to change out their whole boat, not just the motor. The maximum number of clients on board was set years ago and has not changed. So bigger boat hasn't meant more clients for a long time, just more space for those they already have.

    Speed is irrelevant. The difference between a 35hp and 50hp on the same boat going the average couple river miles is going to save you all of 35 seconds. It's not an issue even worth addressing, yet it has been the battle cry of the anti-50 crowd all along.
    Winter is Coming...

    Go GeocacheAlaska!

  9. #9

    Default legal DFI two-strokes

    only two companies currently manufacture 50 hp DFI two strokes, BRP (E-tec) and Tohatsu. The Tohatsu uses a low pressure direct injection system. Mercury's Optimax system is only available in 90 hp and larger models (I believe). I believe it is legal to use a larger horsepower Mercury Optimax or Yamaha HPDI outboard to dipnet below the marker bouy below the Warren Ames bridge and above the old cannery all the way to the "boat dipnetting" marker just above the Cherry Fisheries cannery.

  10. #10
    Moderator Alaskacanoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Sterling
    Posts
    1,450

    Default over a year ago

    I posted about how much fuel was spilled in the bottoms of boats while being fuel'd up.... http://forums.outdoorsdirectory.com/...9&postcount=50
    We book several River guides, and one specifically told me that he felt splashed fuel in the bottoms of boats was a very under rated means of river pollution...
    He told me that at one slip he kept his boat, the boat boys that clean and fuel the boats at the end of the day are every day losing some fuel into the boat floor as they attempt to refuel using plastic 5 gallon jugs with the not so perfect yellow dump tubes on them, These are almost impossible to dump without at least a few splashes outside the tank fill openings...
    I suggested over a year ago that splashed fuel in the bottom of a boat will oft times be pumped overboard when the bilge pump comes on to remove water or liquids that comes in from leaks, or from rain.
    I witnessed this several times at the slips in the river, and said that the rainbow sheen from bilge pumps is no laughing matter.
    Some of you balked at my post, and I was surprised that some of you would.... but the reality is that ,,, this is a fact and is of real concern, if we really want to keep our rivers and lakes cleaner. We can not let raw fuel find its way into our boat floors....
    Absorbs are a great idea, but not the real answer. this spilled fuel is a form of polution does not differentiate between filling a tank for a 2 stroke or a 4 stroke. It is just straight forward putting unburned hydrocarbons into the water... I would suggest that we come up with ways to prevent any fuel spills by removing the portable tanks from the boat prior to filling them, and then do it in a confined "duck pond" containment away from the river or its bank. If you have installed tanks, use containment funnels that will prevent any splash, or use fill hoses that go into the tank fill pipe instead of the semi rigid plastic jug fill nozzels.
    Alas...
    This is a start at this problem .
    Quote:
    <H2>Kenai boater <H2> offered fuel absorbent pads
    Quote:


    The Associated Press
    Published: July 23rd, 2008 04:16 PM
    Last Modified: July 23rd, 2008 04:22 PM
    Kenai River boaters are being offered fuel absorbent pads in a move to keep gas out of the water.
    Story tools
    The pads can be cut to be placed around the gas filler cap to catch any spills or overflows when refueling. They also can catch gas that expands with heat, and they can be put around bilge pumps to absorb oil and fuel from water.


    Bill Gifford of the Kenai River Professional Guide Association said the move is to keep raw fuel out of the river.
    "When fueling up at a gas station, if one teaspoon of gas gets in the boat, the bilge pump can put it in the river. One boat's worth may not sound like much, but what if 100 boats a day are doing it over 30 days. That's a lot of teaspoons of gas in the river," he said.

    The association, in conjunction with ConocoPhillips and the Kenai Watershed Forum, is giving away 1,500 pads. Gifford said the goal is to have every Kenai River guide have one of the pads, as well as any other boaters interested in having one.


    The absorbent pads are available at the Soldotna Chamber of Commerce, the Kenai Watershed Forum and at River and Sea Marine. Gifford said they hope to offer them at more locations in the future.

    </H2>
    </H2>
    __________________
    Alaska canoe & Campground. Rentals for Canoes, Kayaks, Rafts, boats serving the Kenai canoe trail system and the Kenai river for over 15 years. www.alaskacanoetrips.com
    When you come to a fork in the trail, take it!

    Rentals for Canoes, Kayaks, Rafts, boats serving the Kenai canoe trail system and the Kenai river for over 15 years. www.alaskacanoetrips.com

  11. #11
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    268

    Default

    Here's the real shame about the issue

    This is all being driven because Alaska has a standard for hydrocarbons that is TEN TIMES more stringent than the next most stringent state (which is Oregon).

    This standard was put in place to protect against oil and gas production impacts that would possibly occur on a large scale for protracted periods of time (i.e. 24 hours a day for MONTHS).

    Now that same standard is being used (actually misused) to create an "emergency" situation on the Kenai because for a few hours on a few days during the month of July this super strict standard (10X more strict than ANY other state) is exceeded.

    ADEC was down testing again on Tuesday, because they know that's the day that has the heaviest boat traffic and thus is most likely to show a "problem".

    The end result of this "environmental protection"? A lot of people wind up staying off the river. A lot of new outboards are sold. Personally I wouldn't invest in a new outboard just to be Kenai compliant because in a couple of years when switching to 4-strokes is not enough to meet the 10X stricter standard the solution will be to start removing motorized boats from the water.

    AKcanoe brought up another good point which is the amount of hydrocarbons going into the water because of bilge water and fueling spills. That makes an incredible amount of sense.

    but the bottom line is the standard in place is being misused to serve some people's agenda, the agenda of getting people OFF the river. Ironically MOST of the people being put off the river are locals who aren't willing to buy a new motor just to fish a couple of days a year for kings

    somehow people can see the absurdity of regulating discharges from every motorized canoe on up under a law put in place to regulate bilge water from ocean going vessels

    but displacing hundreds (probably thousands) of people from the Kenai river or requiring them to spend $3-5K for a new motor when the one they have is "fine" somehow makes sense

    and for the record, I don't own a Kenai capable boat nor do I have any plans to buy one

  12. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AKCheese View Post
    Here's the real shame about the issue

    This is all being driven because Alaska has a standard for hydrocarbons that is TEN TIMES more stringent than the next most stringent state (which is Oregon).

    This standard was put in place to protect against oil and gas production impacts that would possibly occur on a large scale for protracted periods of time (i.e. 24 hours a day for MONTHS).

    Now that same standard is being used (actually misused) to create an "emergency" situation on the Kenai because for a few hours on a few days during the month of July this super strict standard (10X more strict than ANY other state) is exceeded.

    ADEC was down testing again on Tuesday, because they know that's the day that has the heaviest boat traffic and thus is most likely to show a "problem".

    The end result of this "environmental protection"? A lot of people wind up staying off the river. A lot of new outboards are sold. Personally I wouldn't invest in a new outboard just to be Kenai compliant because in a couple of years when switching to 4-strokes is not enough to meet the 10X stricter standard the solution will be to start removing motorized boats from the water.

    AKcanoe brought up another good point which is the amount of hydrocarbons going into the water because of bilge water and fueling spills. That makes an incredible amount of sense.

    but the bottom line is the standard in place is being misused to serve some people's agenda, the agenda of getting people OFF the river. Ironically MOST of the people being put off the river are locals who aren't willing to buy a new motor just to fish a couple of days a year for kings

    somehow people can see the absurdity of regulating discharges from every motorized canoe on up under a law put in place to regulate bilge water from ocean going vessels

    but displacing hundreds (probably thousands) of people from the Kenai river or requiring them to spend $3-5K for a new motor when the one they have is "fine" somehow makes sense

    and for the record, I don't own a Kenai capable boat nor do I have any plans to buy one
    I would say that regulating the Kenai to make it cleaner is a good thing. The bad part is, like you pointed out, is how they did it. Clearly, it wasn't remotely fair to me (or others in my "boat") as I have a really good running 2003 Johnson Jet (the paint is almost still wet on it yet) that I now can't operate down there in July when the fish are in thick. I know that it is a polluter when compared to the newer ones. But, now the dipnetting area too. I too am disgruntled.

  13. #13
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    268

    Default

    some people say "well you can't be too careful with the Kenai".......

    or...... "we don't care how they do it down in Oregon" (although it's probably the "greenest" state in the union

    yeah you can go ridiculously overboard

    I mean life is precious...... you can't put a price on it....... no inconvenience would be too high a price to pay to save one human life right???

  14. #14
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    268

    Default

    so why is the speed limit not 5 mph on the Glenn/Parks/Seward and Sterling highways?

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

    Default Not again...

    AKCheese, we've been through this with you several times before. Each time you leave the discussion without answering questions, providing evidence, or supporting your statements in any legitimate way. 10 weeks ago you were posting this same misinformation, and again before that, and again before that, never acknowledging the truth...

    http://forums.outdoorsdirectory.com/...light=AKCheese


    Alaska's water quality standards are developed, reviewed, implemented, and enforced, based on substantiated and defendable science, specific to Alaskan species. You continue to spit in the face of those facts. Facts that lawfully define Alaska's water quality standards which help maintain some of the cleanest waters and best fisheries in the world.

    Alaska's water quality standards are reviewed every 3 years. Here is the latest report, backed by legitimate studies, data, and professional expertise, substantiating and explaining the limits, the effects on Alaska's aquatic life when those limits are exceeded, and why Alaska's standards are more strict. The report referenced below is a scientific review of those standards to see if existing water quality hydrocarbon standards (17AAC70) remain protective of the environment. Contrary to your belief, those laws are based on something substantial and defendable.

    http://www.dec.state.ak.us/water/wqs...h_revapr05.pdf


    You keep erroneously saying Alaska's standards are "TEN TIMES" more strict than other states, like Oregon. But you fail to recognize that's an apples to oranges comparison. Other states use common EPA standards for individual chemical components. Alaska uses a different total aqueous hydrocarbon method, along with the EPA standards.

    Alaska's water quality standards weren't developed for large scale, long duration oil and gas industry impacts,, like you imply. They were developed to apply to all Alaskan freshwaters, regardless of their differences and their impacts by industry. The standard applies 24x7x365. This doesn't mean they can't be exceeded, it just means (by section 303(d)) that if exceeding the standard is "persistent" or "immanent", then impairment classification will be given and a TMDL recovery plan put in place. Clearly the Kenai River has been tested by professionals using acceptible standards of science, and found to be impared. It's not the end of the world. It just means it's time to clean it up.

    The idea of yours that the standard is being misused to create an "emergency" situation, because of a "few hours on a few days", is pure bunk. Obviously you have either not read the testing results, or you are incapable of interpreting them. The "persistent" and "immanent" exceedances in fact exist, and have been verified scientifically by qualified professionals.

    The whole idea behind Alaska's water quality standards are to address and remediate concerns before they become a "immanent danger", an "emergency", or "in trouble". Thus the 303(d) impairment listing and TMDL recovery plan (Total Maximum Daily Load). No one is saying "the sky is falling", or "how dare we even put an outboard in the water". Alaska is saying lets not let the sky fall or get to the point of no outboards whatsoever. Proactive and safe, so to speak. Ruining the resource first, and then saying, "oh, our water qualtiy standards were too liberal", doesn't fly in the face of common sense. And I, as an Alaskan, don't intend to surrender the quality of my water to the likes of someone who would like to compare Alaska's clean water to Oregon's or the rest of the US.


    Here's some easy questions for you AKCheese....

    1. What levels of TAqH and TAH should Alaska water quality standards be?

    2. At what levels of TAqH and TAH can we remove ourselves from this "sky is falling" scare you speak of?

    3. How will those levels effect aquatic species?

    4. What science did you use to derive your conclusions?

    5. Finally, what case would you present to liberalize Alaska's water quality standards and change our laws?


    AKCheese, you've made your crusade here clear; You feel there is no reason to address hydrocarbon impacts on the Kenai River....

    "My motivation is to let people know that they are getting a big "scare" that the Kenai River is actually "in trouble".-AKCheese.

    Unfortunately none of studies, reports, data, science, professionals, or laws established by those things, agree with you.

  16. #16

    Thumbs up Hidden agenda fails miserably

    Quote Originally Posted by AKCheese View Post
    Here's the real shame about the issue

    ...
    but the bottom line is the standard in place is being misused to serve some people's agenda, the agenda of getting people OFF the river. ...
    I heard there were over 600 boats on the river on Saturday and Tuesday, so I guess you can take solace in the fact that the mysterious "they" failed?

    --

    ADEC was testing on Tuesday because they are trying to replicate as closely as possible the conditions when they measured more than 2x the state established standard last year. If you were on the water, you know that it was indeed a busy day.

    --

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,073

    Default

    Overall, I think the effort has been down this July, fish numbers are down, water conditions were bad (better now, at least for a while) and fishing has just been poor. I would guess with the lower effort the HC levels are down.

    Was the 600 boat count from bridge to bridge or did that include the dipnet fishery??? I hear the dipnet fishery has been crazy.

  18. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default All 2 stroked banned?

    The way I read the law - that was finally clarified on July 7th AFTER I bought a 4 stroke kicker - was that 2 strokes were only banned if you "taking" fish from the boat INCLUDING traveling in the area of the Kenai River open to dip netting IF you were engaged in dip netting anywhere.

    Before it was clarified I had hopped to run up the river on the 2 stroke- not fishing- and come back down on the 4 stroke when I was actually engaged in fishing i.e. netting fish.

    I believe the commercial guys were still able to use 2 strokes on theri tenders but I never got an answer on that use. In my opinion if they are going to ban them for dio netting they should have banned them all in July.
    Living the urban lifestyle so I can pay my way and for my family's needs, and support my country. And you?
    ".. ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" JFK

  19. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Kenai
    Posts
    1,888

    Default

    As I understand it, they are only banned for fishing. You can still run up & down the river with one.
    Vance in AK.

    Matthew 6:33
    "But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you."

  20. #20
    New member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    6

    Smile Grampy - How bad and how many times

    How bad and how many times were the water quality standards exceeded?

    I've had some good times on that river and I reckon I'll just have to bite the bullet and get a 4-stroke then.

    I know there was huge efforts made to stop bank erosion in the late 90's...

    I'm like you and would not like to see it despoiled to the detriment of the fish and other creatures that live there. Any hey, I'd rather err on the safe side myself.

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
  •