Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Kenai River Horse Power Restrictions

  1. #1
    Member SEEBLAZE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska, United States
    Posts
    171

    Question Kenai River Horse Power Restrictions

    Does any body know if the horse power resctiction has been lifted? From 35h to 50h? And I also herd something about a max boat length?? Any info would help out.. Thanks

  2. #2

    Cool Kenai HP lifted to 50 HP....

    I just heard that the restriction has been lifted, Well from 35 to 50 HP overall boat length 21 ft and no more than a 106" beam...



    Dustin

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Kenai, AK
    Posts
    196

    Default Not yet

    The restrictions have not been lifted yet. The proposal to do so however has been put out for public comment... check this out for more info... DNR KRSMA Reg Proposal
    Proposal would also outlaw two stroke motors starting in '08. So unless you've got some bucks and a boat that can handle the extra weight of a four stroke, after next season you're screwed like me.

  4. #4

    Default Oppps My Bad!!!

    I was told yesterday by a boat rep, Who's name will not be revield that it had passed and was in effect....

  5. #5
    Member SEEBLAZE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska, United States
    Posts
    171

    Default

    I heard that they were going to vote on it this month but had not heard any more. Thanks akfishinguy for the link.. Dustin sounds like you need to make phone call to a boat dealer..

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

    Default

    I hope people understand that this proposal was initiated by the Commercial Guides (via an unfair public process), not only to justify pushing their large, wave-making boats up river faster, but to push more non-guides and locals off the Kenai river.

    It is important that we comment opposing this proposal by December 19th to: Chris_Degernes@dnr.state.ak.us

    People supporting this proposal either don't understand the boat wake study that the Guides are using to justify it, or they've succumbed to the special interest propaganda rather than sound data and facts.

    To begin with, the DNR is proposing this hp increase without any data that studied the effects of increased noise, increased fuel consumption, increased speeds, reduced safety, social effects, the overall river "experience", enforcement, and how it will exacerbate the use of more boats, bigger boats, etc.

    In fact, unbelievably DNR hasn't even established what acceptable bank erosion limits or acceptable wave heights are! Horse before the cart.

    If you read the study you'd clearly see that hull design and boat loads were more important than increased horsepower when reducing or predicting wave energy. Other important factors were speed, boat weight, and water depths where the boats navigate. The proposal suggests ignoring those important factors. Only one variable...hp...is being focused on. And that (mark my word) is to the detriment of the river.

    But if you want to discuss only one portion of the study (hp), then know that the waves produced by a 21' Willie Predator (the "typical" Guide boat) with a 50 hp still had more energy than other boat-motor combinations. This is true even for some same-sized boats with less horsepower. In fact the study concluded that, when actually tested on the river, some boats showed no difference in wave energy with the increased horsepower. Obviously the proposal is being used to accommodate the "typical" 21’ Willie Guide boat.

    Besides, what indicates that these boats will be able to use that hp any more than they can now? They still have to operate off plane, zig-zagging though hundreds of boats, running around blind corners, navigating in the darkness, avoiding people playing fish, avoiding drift boats, rafters, and fisherman along the bank, etc. Or is the plan just to go "balls to the walls- look out, I'm on plane" ??

    With a 50 hp, my transom is 70 lbs heavier, my stern is displacing more water, making a bigger wake, and yep…I'll be able to run almost 40 mph scaring the living daylights out of all of you. I see no benefit to the river there.

    Now, according to the proposal, until 2010 there is no size limit on boats. With an increase in horsepower that means we will see much larger boats on the river...plowing through the water making bigger wakes than ever...At least for the next three years. I know a bunch of 26-footers with 50’s that will come out of the wood work. So much for addressing bank erosion and wave height.

    Speaking of waves, bank erosion depends on wave energy, not just wave height. The number of waves hitting the bank, the speed of those waves, and the soil type, have equal or more effect. No data suggests that moving the same sized boats faster will reduce bank erosion. In fact it may increase it. Again the proposal ignores that to the detriment of the river.

    BTW, the DNR has a second boat wake study. They just don't want the public to see it or make comments on it until they push this proposal through (because there’s nothing in it that indicates increased horsepower will reduce our river’s bank erosion). What does that tell you about how the special interest group has pressured them?

    Let’s talk hydrocarbons...

    First, DNR's proposal has a huge conflict with itself. They want to increase hp, yet at the same time reduce hydrocarbon levels. Are these people clueless? That thinking has an obvious flaw (as does the entire proposal). More hp means burning more fuel. More fuel usage means more hydrocarbons.

    The proposal doesn't mention the small number of 2-strokes on the river vs. the large number of 4-strokes. That is extremely important when determining where the river's hydrocarbons are coming from (which hasn't been determined). The fuel ratios being spread around are based on motor-to-motor comparison calculations, not actual cumulative river data from the motors actually on the river. They in no way represent where the majority of hydrocarbons in the river are coming from. That has not been established.

    The large majority of boats on the river run 4-strokes. This is due to the large number of guide boats and the large amount of time they run on the river. While older 2-strokes undoubtedly produce more hydrocarbons motor vs. motor, overall 2-strokes are used in much smaller numbers (10%?) for much less running time. Although contributors, it's unlikely 2-strokes are the cause of increased hydrocarbons.

    It seems crazy that the the average guy who might only fish the river a few times a year with his 2-stroke $take the hit$ for a 4-stroke Guide that fishes constantly. What about the locals with 2-strokes who don't even fish the river in July, but wait until Silver season when hydrocarbon levels are normal?

    If we are to take the approach of eliminating the largest hydrocarbon contributor, then data may just show 4-strokes to be that largest contributor, since they are the largest majority operated the most amount of time. If we remove the small number of 2-strokes and stuff larger numbers of 4-strokes on the river, we may still well exceed hydrocarbon levels.

    There is also room to suggest that hydrocarbon levels are exacerbated in July by cumulative effects, like busy parking lot run-off, campground activity, nearby contaminated soils, automobiles launching boats, guides fueling their boats, commercial fishing fleets operating, bilge pumping, and most importantly tidal activity (hydrocarbons not flushing out of river being moved back upstream, platforms purging, etc.). These all need to be studied first.

    Finally, I'll add that DNR's proposal will allow any size boat on the river until 2010. That in itself negates (and conflicts with) any benefits in attempting to reduce waves and hydrocarbons for the next three years.

    The proposal ?somehow? establishes 21' and 106" as the boat length and width limit without any consideration for more important factors like boat weight, hull type, loading, etc. The DNR can’t justify how they got their limits, but the numbers seem to be specifically proposed to accommodate the typical 21' Willie Guide boat. Hmm.

    Wake up people. I encourage you to research where this proposal originated from (Guides and unfair public process). I encourage you to realize that it is yet one more attempt to remove the average local Jim-Bob fisherman from the river, turning it into more of an impersonal Guide-dominated fishery than it already is. Ask yourself where 50 hp and 21' came from (why not 40 hp or 60 hp or 20' or 22'?). Was that a guess? Or is there actually data to back it up? Not. Clearly it is merely a way for hundreds of Guides to justify the continued use of their huge, heavy boats that are destroying our river banks…the typical 21' 50 hp V-bottom Guide boat. Obviously the proposal is tailor-fit just for them. What about the river?

    The answer is reducing the number of Guides, with their huge over-loaded and under-powered boats (they knew the regulation was 35 hp when they purchased their boats). The answer lies in flat-bottom boats, with less horsepower and smaller, lighter loads. The answer lies with how our decisions and consideration for the river now effect our kids' future. We don't need 50 hp and 21' boats to do what's right.

    People should be outraged that this proposal has come forward without all the facts and data to support a sound decision. At a time when the river's resource and environment is suffering so badly, and at a time when no one has had the balls to put a limit on the number of guides on the river, we have to increase horsepower and allow their huge boats on the river?

    I need look no further than what guys like Bob Penny and the Kenai River Sport Fishing Association have done to our river since they began pushing for stuff like this. We've seen an increased numbers of Guides, a decreased numbers of local fisherman, serious bank erosion, huge boats, huge wakes, huge loads, smaller fish, bad attitudes, and a much, much less enjoyable river experience. Shame on DNR. Shame on us.

    Finally, red flag. Ask yourself where the alternatives to this proposal are? Maybe we only need to limit 2-strokes in July, the only time hydrocarbons are an issue? And since people think more hp is the key to reducing bank erosion, why are we limiting ourselves to 50 hp? Their method of thinking would indicate 60 or more hp would be even better, right? Where's the incentive to use less horsepower and lighter, flatter-bottom boats? Where's the simple suggestion that maybe there's just too much pressure on the river, and the number of boats need to be reduced?

    Be sure to put in your comment opposing the new regulations:

    Chris_Degernes@dnr.state.ak.us

  7. #7
    Member SEEBLAZE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska, United States
    Posts
    171

    Default

    WOW GRUMYFISHES,

    Sounds like you need to put your pole down and go work for Green Peace.

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

    Talking Better yet. . . .

    HEY SAWBLADE,

    He'd be much better as Commissioner of Alaska Department of Natural Resources!


  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    2,982

    Default

    Let's solve all the problems in one swift action, get rid of all guides and have drift boats only.

  10. #10

    Default Increase

    Quote" With a 50 hp, my transom is 70 lbs heavier, my stern is displacing more water, making a bigger wake, and yep…I'll be able to run almost 40 mph scaring the living daylights out of all of you. I see no benefit to the river there."

    Can you clarify the above statement. Are you going from a 25hp to a 50hp. They dont make a 35hp and a 50hp is the only engine they can detune. Almost every boat has a 50Hp so the weight of most boats is not going to change.

    I also have a Willie predator and NO i am not a guide. I can still get on step with 4 guys and the reason is the design of the boat. There has been a study for the increase in power to get on plane faster producing less wake etc.

    I also agree that there should be more drift boat days.

  11. #11
    Member AKBighorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    1,244

    Default

    I beleive my brothers motor is a Yamaha 40hp alaskan which is detunable to 35hp. Granted its a 2 stoke but it is a lot lighter than any 4 stroke.

  12. #12

    Default Admit I was wrong

    You are right I am sorry you can detune 40HP 2 stroke my old Mecury was that. I dont think you can detune the new 40hp four stroke is what I was thinking of. Maybe I am wrong on that as well.

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,883

    Default Please inform yourself

    Quote Originally Posted by AK_Baker View Post
    Quote" With a 50 hp, my transom is 70 lbs heavier, my stern is displacing more water, making a bigger wake, and yep…I'll be able to run almost 40 mph scaring the living daylights out of all of you. I see no benefit to the river there."

    Can you clarify the above statement. Are you going from a 25hp to a 50hp. They dont make a 35hp and a 50hp is the only engine they can detune. Almost every boat has a 50Hp so the weight of most boats is not going to change.
    A Yamaha F40 hp 4-stroke weighs 183 lbs. It is a 3-cylinder. It is detunable factory legal to 35 hp. It does not require a battery.

    A Yamaha F50 hp 4-stroke weighs 237 lbs. It is a 4-cylinder. It is detunable factory legal to 35 hp. The more common T50 (same engine, different gearcase) is 248 lbs. It is detunable factory legal to 35. These 50's both require a battery at an additional 30-50 lbs.

    Doing the math, you'll see that the 70 lb increase stated was very conservative.

    The excuse that 35 hp outboards are not available is nonsense. All the major outboard manufacturers sell 4-stroke outboards that can be detuned to a factory legal 35 hp. In fact they spent resources making sure they were available to you.

    BTW, the typical 50 hp Yamaha sits on their 60 hp engine. With the exception of very minor differences, they are the same. In fact, the Yamaha 50 is in fact a detuned 60. So really, when fisherman elect to purchase and detune a Yamaha 50 hp to 35 hp, they are in fact detuning a 60 hp to 35 hp. When all along they could be detuning the lighter, 40 hp to 35. They chose not to do that. Hmm, you might want to consider why.

    As a side note, Mercury uses Yamaha engines in their 4-stroke models. They are identical, specification for specification. Johnson uses Suzuki engines in their 4-stroke models. They are identical, specification for specification.

    I also have a Willie predator and NO i am not a guide. I can still get on step with 4 guys and the reason is the design of the boat. There has been a study for the increase in power to get on plane faster producing less wake etc.
    You better read that study. It clearly shows that even with increased power, the Willie is still the worst wake offender of all the boats tested. And in actual testing on the river, the increased horsepower showed little or no wave difference on other boats. Not to mention the study makes no correlation between increased horsepower and reduced bank erosion (one of the reasons for the proposal).

  14. #14

    Default Thanks

    You are right thank you for the clarification. I jumped the gun...

  15. #15
    Member Jimw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    423

    Talking

    Let us big boys come down with our MP 350's and 454's ...... no wake here, and they are 4 stoke's

  16. #16
    New member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5

    Default Grampyfishes you are most correct......

    Thank you "Grampyfishes" for your insight and shared knowledge of the subject matter. I communicated via email with the Commissioner this morning oppossing the new regs.

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
  •