Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 23

Thread: Kenai Bans 2-strokes from Dipnetting??????

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    2,986

    Default Kenai Bans 2-strokes from Dipnetting??????

    From a post on another thread (I reposted it so it didn't hijack the thread):

    I am surprised not to have seen any reactions to the Peninsula Clarion article on the front page today about the City Of Kenai's proposed ordinance to not allow 2-stroke non direct injection motors to be launched from the city facilities.

    I heard this may be introduced, any details out there???????

  2. #2
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Default Not yet. . .

    Last I heard, they're just talking about it, kicking it around at this point. . .


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

    Default More info. . .

    The December 6th meeting agenda of the Kenai City Council contained this agenda item under New Business. I have an e-mail out to Mayor Porter asking the current status of the ordinance and will post what I hear back.


    NEW BUSINESS

    3. Ordinance No. 2202-2006 -- Limiting the Use of the City of Kenai Boat Launch, Located at the Municipal Harbor, to Vessels and Boats Powered by Four-Cycle or Direct Injection Two-Cycle Engines.


  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    4,850

    Default City of Kenai - an environmental group

    The City of Kenai wants to bring the pollution levels from the boat dip net personal use fishery down. The data indicated that the fishery was adding 10 ppb to the problem on the peak days (total measured 20ppb). The boat fishery is mostly 2 stroke engines.

    The City has a vested interest because they do not want the commercial fishing industry or tourist industry impacted ( how do you sell a Kenai Wild fish if the river is polluted) and they feel that ADF&G, DNR, and DEC are not and have not done their jobs.

    The City had these fisheries created without their input and then a problem comes up and they are expected to deal with it. The personal use fishery is a prime example. Until they started charging people they were spending thousands of dollars to clean up the mess after the season.
    Today, they still are dealing with trashed lands on the south side of the river, human waste left on the river banks, and picking up garbage from the thousands who fish in the fishery.

    As one person in the city told me - the dip net fisherman come in jeans and a 20 dollar bill in their pocket and change neither one while in the city.

    So they want to deal with this issue quickly and feel they have control over the dock and launching site.

    I am sure there will be lots of public testimony but the truth is they are taking a lead on this issue which is better than the agencies right now. Even DEC is saying they have to 2011 to deal with it - the commercial fishing industry processors are saying hell no to that statement and want action today. They have millions of pounds of product to sell and want top price.

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

    Cool More bits for the brew. . .

    Added to what Nerka said, the gill-netters have little fondness for the personal use fishery. What started out taking, say, 100,000 fish, is now taking about 300,000 fish — fish the gill-netters reckon they could be catching?

    Another option would be to make the PU fishery that launches from the Kenai City dock an "anchor-up" fishery. . . no running motors. Anchor up and hold your net over the side from there. That way, pollution is cut radically, and the folks using 2-strokes still get to fish.

    Quite a stew we have cooking. . .


  6. #6
    Member sayak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Central peninsula, between the K-rivers
    Posts
    5,713

    Talking Preferences

    Marcus, I prefer an "anchor-down" scenario. I tend to drift when my anchor is up.

  7. #7
    Member AKBighorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    1,244

    Talking

    Now that's funny stuff, lol. Sorry Marcus.

  8. #8
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Talking Drifting definitions. . .

    Quote Originally Posted by sayak View Post
    Marcus, I prefer an "anchor-down" scenario. I tend to drift when my anchor is up.
    I can appreciate your confusion, guys. . . maybe these definitions, gleaned from an Online dictionary will help (see below). You see, "anchor-up" is merely the nautical equivalent of "tie-up," which means essentially to restrain. The correct term for an anchor not in use or for raising an anchor is "up-anchor." Hope this helps.

    tie
    v. tied, ty·ing (tng), ties
    v.tr.
    1. To fasten or secure with or as if with a cord, rope, or strap: tied the kite to a post; tie up a bundle.
    2. To fasten by drawing together the parts or sides and knotting with strings or laces: tied her shoes.

    1. To be fastened or attached: The apron ties at the back.

    tie up
    1. Nautical To secure or be secured to a shore or pier; dock.
    2. To impede the progress of; block: The accident tied up traffic.
    3. To keep occupied; engage: She was tied up in a meeting all morning. The phone was tied up for an hour.
    4. To place (funds) so as to make inaccessible for other uses: tied up her cash in long-term investments.


    Always anchored in good English,
    John

  9. #9
    Member sayak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Central peninsula, between the K-rivers
    Posts
    5,713

    Default Darn!

    :-) :-) :-)

  10. #10
    Member sayak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Central peninsula, between the K-rivers
    Posts
    5,713

    Default And yet...

    if I ask my son to keep something from blowing away in the back of my truck, I ask him to tie it DOWN.
    Argh! Enough of my stuff and fluff! You're right Marcus (as you always are).

    With my hope as an anchor,
    Sayak

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    2,986

    Default

    If they go to 4-strokes only are we not disinfanchising many locals who use the fishery?

  12. #12
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Talking No hay to cut here. . .

    Quote Originally Posted by yukon View Post
    If they go to 4-strokes only are we not disinfanchising many locals who use the fishery?
    I e-mailed Kenai's Mayor Porter, asking the current status of the City's proposed ordinance (2202-2006 -- Limiting the Use of the City of Kenai Boat Launch, Located at the Municipal Harbor, to Vessels and Boats Powered by Four-Cycle or Direct Injection Two-Cycle Engines). Mayor Porter replied by e-mail this morning:

    "Thank you for your email and your concern. The city of Kenai is very concerned about the pollution in the Kenai River. It is our job, along with other agencies, to help find solutions which will keep the river from being listed as an impaired river.

    Our ordinance will help bring attention to the problem and open discussion. We are scheduled to have another public hearing on December 20. I would encourage you to bring your concerns to this hearing. We allow 3 minutes of public testimony."


    In answer to your question, yukon, if the ordinance is passed, no one is disenfranchised as anyone may still access the Personal Use fishery from the beaches as our family does. Second, boaters may presumably launch somewhere other than the City Dock and still use the fishery.

    Finally, as Mayor Porter points out, no one should get too excited about or try to make hay out of this at this early point in the game. The ordinance has not been passed, may not be passed, may be altered in some way, or a whole new ordinance may be written. Lots of public testimony to be given and heard and much deliberation by the Kenai City Council lies ahead.



  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    2,986

    Default

    So many thoughts are running through my head right now I need to cool down before (or if) I post a response.

  14. #14
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    106

    Default Cannery launch

    There is private launch across and half mile up river from the public dock. More will open if there is money to be made. Lots of people sit in one spot, motor off, and dip, now. The price of fuel should encourage more of this style of dipping. With this type of action, the city is simply saying we care about money, not the environment or the people. The dip fishery is a very short, intense period in the tide water portion of the river. You cannot help but wonder about the de minimis impact a measure like this might have. Looks more like a political statement than an attempt to help the river. Most of the long term engine run times occur above the bridge.

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

    Smile More fuel . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by yukon View Post
    So many thoughts are running through my head right now I need to cool down before (or if) I post a response.
    Here's another "thought" to run through your head: I was talking to someone earlier this morning, and their question was, "Under what enabling legislation does the City of Kenai have the authority to regulate who may and who may not launch at the city's public dock?"

    I have an e-mail off, asking that question of Mayor Porter, and will post any reply.

    Hang in there. . .


  16. #16
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Default Reply. . .

    "Under what enabling legislation does the City of Kenai have the authority to regulate who may and who may not launch at the city's public dock?"

    From Mayor Porter:
    "We are the owners of the dock and we also own the riverbed under the Kenai River up to the area of the bridge. As the owners of the dock we can regulate the types of vessels we allow over it, especially when some of the vessels can cause undue harm to the river. As an example, the state regulating truck size and weight on the road system. The state places limits to protect damage to the highway. There is evidence that 2-stroke motors pollute the river more than 4-stroke motors so there is a rational basis for treating them differently."


  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    4,850

    Default City should be thanked

    The City of Kenai heard the DEC representative say they have to 2011 to prepare a recovery plan for the river. When pressed about when DEC would start preparing a recovery plan the representative did not have an answer. The City wants action now and wants to be part of the solution.

    They heard the testimony from all the agencies and public that 1 older 2 stroke engine is equal to 10 4 stroke engines. They picked up on the boat count data which indicated 203 2 stroke engines on the river on July 18th of 2006--- of which approximately 140-170 were in the dip net fishery. This is the equivalent of 1400-1700 4 stroke engines. These 2 stroke engines were the direct cause of a doubling of the hydrocarbon levels in the river below the Warren A. bridge.

    They want to do what they can for the environment and the fishery. They controll the dock and if they pass this regulation they are done with this issue relative to their authority. If people go upstream to Kenai Landing and launch then so be it - the Board of Fish will have to deal with it. If people switch to launching upstream and running down to the fishing area DNR will have to deal with it. The City has done their part and done it quickly.

    Relative to the fishery the City is on the right track. Take care of the issue and the fishery can operate and grow as hydrocarbon levels should be significantly decreased. However, do nothing and the fishery may be alterned signficantly or eliminated.

    I think the City should be thanked for trying to do something. ADF&G has had no response to this issue-- like it does not exist, DEC is trying to delay any action and downplay it, and DNR is off running with poorly thought out regulations. Meanwhile the City with interest in all the fisheries knows that an impaired river status is not good for their citizens or the river if it continues.

  18. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    2,986

    Default

    Banning two-strokes below the bridge (esentially) is okay but above the bridge it is not okay???

    I know there will be justifications and answers as to why this is okay and the KRSMA proposal to ban two strokes is the worst thing for the river.

    The mixed message is overwhelming to me. Maybe I am reading too much into it but on the surface I am getting mixed messages as to why the ban of 2-strokes at the city dock right for the environment and fishery but above the dock it won't do any thing at all.

    By the way Nerka, from a good source, it is more like 17 to 1 the output of two-strokes to four-strokes.

  19. #19
    Moderator Paul H's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    5,466

    Default

    The city of Kenai doesn't have the authority to ban 2 strokes on the entire river, hence they are taking steps where they can have an effect.

    If there is any mixed message, it is that some agencies would rather stick their heads in the sand until the river is so poluted that all power boats would need to be banned.

  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    2,986

    Default

    Paul, I am not against what the city is doing. I also agree with the banning of 2-strokes river wide. Some do not. The mixed message I am getting is that some are infavor of the city proposal but not infavor of the KRSMA proposal to ban two stokes.

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
  •