Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Kenai River - Thank you Kenai City Counsel

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,883

    Default Kenai River - Thank you Kenai City Counsel

    It is my understanding that the Kenai City Counsel has recognized legitimate concerns over the proposed KRSMA restrictions and formally requested that DNR withdraw the proposed regulations, at least until the Phase II wave study is released, evaluated, and commented on.

    I commend the Counsel members for doing what is right by trying to get all the facts prior to taking action, taking the time to evaluate the obvious problems with the proposal, and acting on the overwhelming comments from the general public who oppose the new regulations.

    It is unclear if this request will have an impact on what the DNR does, as many of us know this proposal was already shoed-in to accomodate special interests.

    But now is the time to back up and do it right. Now is the time to work together and present viable alternatives and solutions to the real problems based on facts, for the sake of the River.

    Today is the last day to send in comments to: Chris_Degernes@dnr.state.ak.us

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    607

    Default

    Once again we fail to take an action that would cut the pollution in the Kenai. Yes we need to study more about wake damage but we know that most of the hydrocarbons released into the river come from 2 stokes. I am saddened that the Kenai city council chose not to act.

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,883

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gusdog44 View Post
    Once again we fail to take an action that would cut the pollution in the Kenai. Yes we need to study more about wake damage but we know that most of the hydrocarbons released into the river come from 2 stokes. I am saddened that the Kenai city council chose not to act.
    The Kenai City Counsel couldn't possibly endorse a reduction in hydrocarbon levels and at the same time endorse an increase in horsepower. That is a very basic contradition.

    DEC indicated that higher horsepower will result in increased fuel use, and increased fuel use will result in higher levels of hydrocarbons. So the Counsel did the right thing.

    There is no doubt that a 4-stroke outboard produces less hydrocarbons than a 2-stroke outboard. But you can not end your thinking process there.

    You can not assume the variables of the two are equal apple-to-apple, which is what the controlled study suggests to some.

    85% of the outboards on the river are 4-strokes (2006 study). Because of the large number of commercial guides using them, those engines are operated many more hours. Much of that at inefficient backtrolling speeds. While controlled studies might show 2-stroke outboards to be the larger hydrocarbon contributor apple-to-apple, they are not on the river in apple-to-apple numbers. Only 15% are 2-strokes...and they are generally operated by private and local anglers who use the river less hours (many not even in July).

    Nothing DNR has shown evaluates the current daily fuel consumption used by boat operators on the Kenai River. Without knowing these details, we can not know the impacts. There are many extraneous variables (tide, run-off, etc.) that were not analyzed. Not to mention the hydrocarbon sampling was limited and no real in-river testing revealing what these outboards actually emit was done.

    Of course removing 2-strokes for the entire year, on the entire river, is not supported by the few days in July when hydrocarbon levels were exceeded. Particularly considering the expensive hardships 2-stroke owners would encounter that would probably eliminate them from the river.

    Supporting the proposition could result in continued high hydrocarbon levels, or worse. And then where do we go?

    It may very well be that the 4-strokes, in their large numbers, operating more time, and burning more fuel, are the cause of increased hydrocarbon levels. For some reason, no one wants to address numbers. It may very well be that if the existing 2-strokes are replaced with 4-strokes that the now increased population of 4-strokes will exceed hydrocarbon levels. Of course we already know that increasing hp will raise hydrocarbon levels, erasing the benefits of removing 2-strokes.

    Again, I commend the Kenai City Counsel.

  4. #4

    Default So we choose what?

    To do nothing and study it some more?
    We must realize that the State is attempting to do SOMETHING. By pulling this proposal and going back to the way things are currently, what will we have accomplished?
    So we have another study, wait another 5 years for another proposal that we can all banter back and forth on until that one gets pulled. Guess what happens then!
    The feds pick up the reins and take control.

    The State is trying to thwart the feds from stepping in by attempting to implement some minor steps forward in a reduction of hydrocarbons and erosion. Argue until your blue in the face as to whether it will reduce or not. They have to make an attempt to do something or the feds (EPA) will. Trust me, we don't want that. Federal control means we will all be told what is going to happen rather than having a part in the public decision process.

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,883

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sockeye Charlie View Post
    To do nothing and study it some more?
    No one is saying, "do nothing". We are saying, "do what's right"...Do something that can be justified with solid facts and science. Remember, haste makes waste.

    The studies are there. It's just that the proposal doesn't represent them. Phase II studies are completed, yet you want to push this through before we see them?

    We must realize that the State is attempting to do SOMETHING. By pulling this proposal and going back to the way things are currently, what will we have accomplished?
    You are suggesting we make a poor decision in the name of "doing something". Not on my watch. For the past 30 years I've seen what poor decisions have done to the river. Kicking this proposal back doesn't mean things will go back to the way they are, and nothing will be done. It just means we have another opportunity to do what is right. There are alternatives and suggestions being presented to DNR right now for a better proposal. Hopefully you have submitted yours.

    The feds pick up the reins and take control.
    Is that a scare tactic, or do you have information that is going to take place?

    The State is trying to thwart the feds from stepping in by attempting to implement some minor steps forward in a reduction of hydrocarbons and erosion.
    So that is the purpose of the proposal? To thwart the Feds? And the State plans on doing that by increasing horsepower and allowing large, heavy, v-bottom boats that require "WIDE-LOAD" signs when trailered? Come on. The Feds weren't even part of the discussion that originated this proposal.

    What are your proposed solutions and alternatives Sockeye Charlie?

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
  •