Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 99

Thread: 50-horsepower: Yes or No—speak up here:

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

    Thumbs up 50-horsepower: Yes or No—speak up here:

    Well, I and others have beat this forum about to death hashing back and forth whether the horsepower limits on the Kenai River should be raised to 50-horsepower. Surely forum readers have enough information on both sides of the issue to make an informed decision.

    Regardless of which side you're on, we can talk to each other on the forum until we're blue in the face, accomplishing little. Here's where to express your views and have them count with Alaska's resource managers.

    Send your comments by Email, fax, or mail to Chris Degernes. Keep in mind that all that is necessary for a bad idea to succeed is that no one support a good one. Comments will be received until December 19th. . . after that it's too late.

    Chris Degernes
    Chief of Field Operations
    Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation
    550 W. Seventh Avenue, Suite 1380
    Anchorage, AK 99501-3561
    Fax 907-269-8907
    E-mail Chris_Degernes@dnr.state.ak.us

  2. #2
    Member tyrex13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Anchorage/Soldotna
    Posts
    1,154

    Default

    Might as well make it legal since everybody's already doing it anyway.

  3. #3
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    106

    Default Comments forwarded

    Marcus

    I Emailed my comments on the subject to the gentleman in your post. Thank you for providing this timely information.

  4. #4
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Thumbs down Rewarding lawlessness?

    Might as well make it legal since everybody's already doing it anyway.
    Is this then how we establish social policy — by capitulating to lawlessness?

    By that logic we should also legalize drugs, pornography, gambling, prostitution, and more?

    No, "everybody's" not doing it, only a lawless "some" are doing it. We don't capitulate to and reward lawless self-interest.


  5. #5
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    106

    Default Response by Degernes

    All, DNR needs, and appreciates, public input on this issue. If you want your voice to be included, send your comments to Mr Degernes, his response to me was positive, and immediate.

  6. #6
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Smile She's a lady. . .

    Thanks, GEC1000. . . It's Ms. Degernes. . . Chris is a lady. . .

  7. #7
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    106

    Default More good information...

    Marcus, thanks.

  8. #8
    Member Rod in Wasilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    um... Wasilla...
    Posts
    825

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcus View Post
    Is this then how we establish social policy — by capitulating to lawlessness?

    By that logic we should also legalize drugs, pornography, gambling, prostitution, and more?

    No, "everybody's" not doing it, only a lawless "some" are doing it. We don't capitulate to and reward lawless self-interest.
    Although your examples of lawless behaviors are woefully inadequate (all of these examples are legal somewhere in the U.S., most of them in Alaska), I do understand your position. However, there is precedent for establishing social policy in this manner. Probably the most famous example is the prohibition of alcohol, but there are others. Prohibition failed because "lawless" citizens failed to capitulate to heavy handed government regulation. I know that this is probably an extreme example, but current laws should be a reflection of the current ethical and moral standards posessed by the citizens they regulate. In most cases lawbreakers are simply criminals. Sometimes they are pioneers. And although I applaud your passion for the subject matter, it is history's place to decide which is which.
    Quote Originally Posted by northwestalska
    ... you can’t tell stories about the adventures you wished you had done!

  9. #9
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Thumbs down Sorry, no pioneers here. . .

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod in Wasilla View Post
    In most cases lawbreakers are simply criminals. Sometimes they are pioneers.
    The best example of lawbreakers as pioneers would be men like Gandhi, Maritin Luther King, Jr. and Rosa Parks. No argument there.

    That said, consider the case in point: When a regulation has been in place, what, 10 years or more, what person in their right mind would continue to keep, maintain, and purchase more of a product that performed inadequately for its intended use under the regulation, and then, years later, irresponsibly demand others subsidize their poor choices by changing the regulation in a way that degrades, violates, and puts at risk that which the original regulation was intended to protect?

    Such people knowingly broke the law, continued to break the law, made decisions in terms of lawlessness, and now want the law changed for no other reason than to pander to their self-interests? Such people could have as easily, way back when the regulation was implemented, adjusted their attitudes and purchases to support the regulation.

    I understand your position, but Gandhi and men like him broke the law for the advancement of all. There's a big difference between that and breaking the law for narrow self-interest and economic gain.


  10. #10
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    268

    Default A better example

    Would be the ole 55 MPH speed limit....

    One of the reasons that was canned was that nobody was following it

    Heck almost nobody follows 65 MPH now *lol*

    So I guess I can live with moral indignation and rage from anybody posting here who never "broke that law"..........but I think it would be a pretty quiet forum here

    I can live with 50HP

    Looks to me like there's contradicting data as to wether or not it actually reduces shorline erosion but I THINK the orginal reason for the HP limit was boater safety and nobody is going to blow anybody's doors off witih a 50...

    also I think it's probably more sensible to have motors out there that are operating as designed and the "powerhead" restriction can be monitored and enforced a lot more easily than the current situation with "detuned >35's" out there

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

    Default Help on the way?

    From KRSMA board meeting minutes, April, 2006:

    Tom Vania:
    "the state is looking at limited entry; the commissioner [of ADF&G] has made it a high priority to start developing a system for limited entry for the sport fishing industry. This included both fresh and saltwater. Similar to the limited entry that is in place now for the commercial operators. There needs to be the same system set up for the fresh water sportfish industry. The Commissioner has made this a high priority to start putting that system in to place developing the criteria. If an area wants to participate in limited entry, there would be a process available to apply for it."

    Mr Vania is Regional Management Biologist for Cook Inlet and Prince William Sound and can be reached at:tom_vania@fishgame.state.ak.us


  12. #12
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    106

    Default H.P. limits don't seem to help fix with the real issues

    A lot has been written regarding how much H.P. boats should have on the river. Some are thinking these seemingly random limits will make it safer and easier on the environment. I run a 1994 30 HP Yamaha on my 13'2" Whaler in the river, it tops out at over 45 MPH. At 45 on the Kenai, the extremely buoyant hull is in the air more than the water (spooky ride). So, if we are concerned about speed as a safety factor, my boat should not be allowed to play. However, at 45 MPH my engine runs it’s cleanest, burns the least amount oil, and, gets the boat to its destination fastest, reducing overall exposure and pollution. On full plane at 45 MPH, the Whaler creates a tiny wake, so, not much erosion to the river bank, another big plus. My point is, things get confusing in a hurry when we start fixing elements that do not contribute get to the real problem.

    When I consider all the rhetoric voiced on this issue, I begin to feel like some of it is just a smoke screen for some other agenda. If the real issues are pollution, erosion and safety, then let’s address those issues, not H.P. on boats.

  13. #13
    Member Dirtofak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Beaver Creek
    Posts
    2,268

    Default

    I say run what you brung. Limit to 30 MPH GPS speed. Most boats should be on step by 30 MPH.

  14. #14
    Member Erik in AK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,991

    Default

    Bob Penney (I know some hate him, I have no opinion of the man)
    makes a compelling, common sense argument for upping the limit to 50HP in his ADN Compass piece (Tues or Weds paper).

  15. #15
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Thumbs down Not compelling at all. . .

    Quote Originally Posted by Erik in AK View Post
    Bob Penney (I know some hate him, I have no opinion of the man) makes a compelling, common sense argument for upping the limit to 50HP in his ADN Compass piece (Tues or Weds paper).
    The Peninsula Clarion carried a point-by-point refutation of Mr. Penny's not-so-common-sense arguments:

    Web posted Wednesday, December 6, 2006

    When it comes to the river, time will tell
    Letter to the Editor


    Increasing the horsepower of outboards on the Kenai has ominous implications for the future — we simply can’t continue to encourage a growth industry on and to the detriment of a finite resource.

    To believe that increased boat speeds will produce a safer fishery is, I think, wishful thinking that may come back to bite us. Surely a superficial examination of highway safety records will show that any increase in highway speed results in a proportionate increase in accidents. Can we honestly expect anything different from faster boats?

    Habitat is being degraded by motorized angling activity and more. Using bigger motors may or may not slow down erosion, but how commendable is it to merely slow down abusive activity when to the degree than nonmotorized use is increased, to that exact degree the habitat degradation caused by motors is entirely eliminated?

    Pandering to motorized use of the river is a pitiful substitute for doing the right thing, which is to reduce such activity.

    Furthermore, if it’s true that there are no more boats on the river than there were 20 years ago — and that’s something of an “if” — it remains that during that time period commercial user numbers have about doubled, leaving the data sadly documenting just how many private anglers have stopped fishing the Kenai River altogether.

    Finally, many people are appalled at what they witness on the Kenai, viewing wholesale catch-and-release, combat fishing and trophy hunting as an angling and social disgrace. Rather than attempting to continue to commercialize and develop an increasingly fragile Kenai River fishery, we should instead take a longer-term view, endeavoring instead to capitalize on the quality of the experience rather than sheer quantity.

    The months ahead will determine whether the juggernaut of motorized exploitation of the Kenai continues unabated and even encouraged or whether farther-sighted options prevail, slowing things down. Time will tell.

    If you oppose increasing horsepower limits on the Kenai, it is imperative you contact Chris Degernes at the Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation and voice your opinion. All that’s needed for the success of a bad idea is for no one to support a good idea.

    http://www.peninsulaclarion.com/stor...61206002.shtml

  16. #16
    Moderator Daveinthebush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Valdez, Alaska
    Posts
    3,890

    Default 50 hp

    Question:

    I have only been over to the Kenia a couple of times and it looked like a small river. How does one get up to 30 m.p.h. with so many boats, as claimed?

    The captain is always responsible for his boat's wake and any damage that it causes. Not only is he responsible for his wake in a "No Wake Zone," but everywhere else and at all times.

    So if any damage is caused by the boats wake, the captain of the vessel is responsible for all damage. That includes any damage on shore, other boats or people on shore.

    Just curious!
    "Never again shall one generation of Veterans abandon another".
    Vietnam - June 70 - Feb. 72
    Cancer from Agent Orange - Aug. 25th 2012
    Cancer Survivor - Dec. 14th 2012

  17. #17
    Member arcticfox77's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    anchorage
    Posts
    191

    Default i am for the 50hp motor

    i would think if they raised the horsepower it would be a good idea. alot of those guides have full boats of clients gear etc. so i could see how getting on step would be a problem, and i think it would be alot safer all around. most people think just cause you have a bigger motor you are gonna go like a bat out of hell, but most people have common sense and with the amount of traffic on the river would choose otherwise.

  18. #18
    Member Skligmund's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Kenai / Anchorage
    Posts
    29

    Default

    How about this:

    Start fining morons. Anybody running over my line while I have a fish-on (net up!) needs a fine (I don't carry a gun on the Kenai River for a reason, I might use it).

    Anybody using a boat that cannot get on step, needs to lighten up the boat, or get the heck off the river.

    Most will not like me for this statement, there are things I don't like about it, but it does make sense (prove me wrong). Registered guides with boats that have a max capacity of X (X = weight) may have 50 hp motors to allow a smaller wake.

    I also remeber for years, my father's Klamath with a late 80's 35 Yamaha was the fastest loaded (4 people and a cooler) boat on the river. #2 was the Coca-Cola boat if I recall (early-mid 90's). Prop pitch was the reason. It was dialed perfect for hole shot and speed. He once popped the cowl off on a lake and bypassed the throttle stop (to make the full 40 horse) and it only made more noise and drank more fule. no faster. Prop pitch was perfect.

    As you said, MOST people have common sense (I disagree, I quit fishing the Kenai for a reason) but what about those who do not?

  19. #19
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    106

    Default H.P. and a brick wall

    Speed and wake are more products of hull design and the amount of weight the hull is carrying. H.P. is usually an adjustment made to counter gross weight and drag (hull design etc.), or, for racing, more power for speed. Therefore changing HP can’t possible be a long term solution to the real objectionable elements facing the Kenai; pollutants in the water; erosion of the bank; plus, public safety. Raising HP, in fact, could make matters worse, ie. larger boats with bigger wakes, or smaller boats with higher speeds, plus more pollution.

    One way to control pollution is to limit engine run time, ie reduce the number of boats. If fewer engines are being run, fewer wakes will be generated so less erosion, and reduced risk exposure which should drive down safety occurrences. The problem with this type of solution, it is not supported by businesses operating on or near the river. Worse than no support, some businesses are actively opposing anything that makes any sense from a scientific perspective because it may impact the bottom line. Without widespread support the river is headed toward a brick wall with no arresting gear. I am fairly certain this complex matter will take lawmaker intervention. Perhaps a letter to our representatives in Juneau is in order.
    .

  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Soldotna AK
    Posts
    506

    Default 50 hp

    Thanks Marcus.. I e-mailed Chis and got mail back from him the next day. Good Post.

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
  •