Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 39

Thread: Kenai River phase 2 boat wake study

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,534

    Default Kenai River phase 2 boat wake study

    The following link should allow anyone to download the phase 2 boat wake study. It is a draft at this point


    http://www.borough.kenai.ak.us/KenaiRiverCenter/Publications/BWS_Phase_II.pdf
    Last edited by Nerka; 01-30-2007 at 14:29. Reason: left out draft in the discussion

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,080

    Default

    Thanks Nerka, after a quick scan it looks like the first 4 pages sum up the study.

  3. #3

    Default

    Moderator???
    Is this a fishing issue? or a General Discussion issue?

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

    Default Fishing on the Kenai River. . .

    Quote Originally Posted by Akres View Post
    Moderator??? Is this a fishing issue?
    It's my understanding that the Wake Study, Phases I & II, addresses fishing boats on the Kenai River.


  5. #5
    Moderator Daveinthebush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Valdez, Alaska
    Posts
    4,403

    Cool In My Humble Opinion

    Changed this message.

    I went to the source and was able to read at least the first four pages. All said and done, it seems wakes are secondary and they really don't know what the total affects of any changes will be. Does that sound right?

    You guys tell me. Is it about "access to fishing", "how to fish" or "an errosion study". If it is that important to Fishing I will leave it, if you guys think it belongs in the General I can move it there.
    Last edited by Daveinthebush; 01-30-2007 at 21:40. Reason: Found a way to read it.

    Vietnam - June 70 - Feb. 72
    Cancer from Agent Orange - Aug. 25th 2012
    Cancer Survivor - Dec. 14th 2012

  6. #6
    Member AlaskaHippie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Beaver Fork
    Posts
    3,853

    Default

    It relates to sport fishing and boating on the most popular river in Alaska.


    General Discussion is for: "This forum is to provide community members the opportunity to post on subjects outside our normal Alaska outdoors discussions."

    The Kenai is certainly not outside our normal discussions....


    My vote is to leave it where it belongs...

    ...Now if I can get the dern thing to DL to this antique computer......
    “Life has become immeasurably better since I have been forced to stop taking it seriously.” ― H.S.T.
    "Character is how you treat those who can do nothing for you."

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,534

    Default do not really care

    I leave it to the site moderator to decide this one. I posted it in the forum where most of the comments and questions about Kenai River habitat and management took place. I did this so those individuals could find out where to get this new information.

    I really felt that the discussion on 50 hp covered the issues so not much more needed to be said.

  8. #8
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Have to agree that the leading four pages sum it pretty nicely.

    BIG PICTURE TALKING POINT:
    Overall, the magnitude of erosion caused by powerboats is eclipsed by the erosion resulting from natural high water events.

    That's not to say focal areas of accelerated erosion do not occur. The areas of significant localized boat-caused erosion are located in the high-traffic corridors in the lower river, particularly between Mud Island and the Pillars.

    Techniques to reduce boat waves from a single boat include the use of flat bottomed boats, use of 50 hp motors to increase boat speed, keep boats away from shorelines, and reduce boat weight.

    The problem with both flat bottomed hull shapes and increased power
    is that their benefits may not be able to be realized in areas where wave reduction is needed most, namely high traffic areas.

    In other words its the chaotic stop-and-go, upriver-downriver, slow-down-and-speed-up hydrodynamics in these congested areas that create the most damaging wakes... regardless of motor size or hull configuration. For all those who were bemoaning the backtrollers polluting the river all day, turns out they are the ones causing the least wake per hour of angling effort. The more frequent/repeated upriver-run-to-the-top-of-the-drift associated with dragging bait may well be the most damaging powerboat technique (as far as bank erosion is concerned).

    Decreased boat weight and keeping boats away from shorelines are two options that can result in benefits even when large traffic is present.

    Yes we can all take less useless crap on board, stop fishing fat people, and stop keeping hawgs to keep our vessels lighter (TIC), but there's more to it than that. Lighter boats and reduced loads can be a tricky issue. It's not just a matter of having a lighter boat or carrying fewer passengers. It's really got to be considered from the standpoint of total weight put upon the water per rod fishing. If you have to service 4 clients, the amount of water displaced by one larger heavier boat may still be less than that displaced by two lighter boats serving 2 clients apiece. You have to consider the weight of two motors, two boats, and two guides to serve the same 4 anglers. If angler demand does not change, you gain nothing by going to smaller boats/loads, in fact displacement actually goes up!

    Driving habits are one area that could easily be modified to help reduce erosion. Perhaps a ban on mid-channel fishing in certain key bottleneck zones... pick one side or the other to fish, that way people running up and down can stay away from the banks and have a clear uncongested thru-way in the bottleneck zones.... Mud Island, Beaver, Crossover, Eagle Rock. Oftentimes the mid-channel is so congested with boats, that thru traffic must run right on the bank for expeditious passage.... happens all the time and it creates the most damaging direct wakes on the bank.
    "Let every angler who loves to fish think what it would mean to him to find the fish were gone." Zane Grey
    http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/uploads/UP12710.jpg
    The KeenEye MD

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Daveinthebush View Post
    Changed this message.

    I went to the source and was able to read at least the first four pages. All said and done, it seems wakes are secondary and they really don't know what the total affects of any changes will be. Does that sound right?

    You guys tell me. Is it about "access to fishing", "how to fish" or "an errosion study". If it is that important to Fishing I will leave it, if you guys think it belongs in the General I can move it there.
    I'd call it a powerboating issue, and should be moved to that forum (I previously suggested moving the 35/50 debate to powerboating as well, see my previous post under "forum tips").

    True, fishermen could weigh in on powerboating issues, but it is still about the boat so it belongs there IMO. I would think general should cover those items not covered by the other forums, also my opinion, but its your forum, so you decide.

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,534

    Default rethought my position

    I am somewhat shocked that this discussion is taking place. Every fisherman in the State of Alaska or elsewhere should be concerned about habitat protection and management actions. If one limits one's knowledge to fishing techniques and where to go then the resources of Alaska will go the same route as other streams in urban areas - decline in salmon production.

    The issue of 35/50 hp was not directly about safety of other powerboat topics - it was about hydrocarbons and erosion in the world famous Kenai River -habitat, habitat, habitat .

    The discussion should have prompted individuals to think about other rivers with high use rates, it should have made people aware of issues and postions so they could comment on State regulatory proposals, and it should have been a wake up call for what can happen in the absence of oversight.

    In addition, any fisherman who fishes in Alaska should be aware of potential regulations and data that could limit their access to the rivers they use and how they use them.

    In the context of the above, the post on the fishing forum is fine. If no one had raised an issue of where this thread belongs, for what reason I do not know since they failed to give a rationale, the thread would have gone to the bottom of the page and off in a matter of days. People who wanted to read the report could do it.

    Lets get back on track to discuss the important issues - not how the forum is run or where something belongs - the moderators can do that and we as users should just accept it - which is what I plan to do whatever the decision.

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

    Unhappy Missing the boat. . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    I am somewhat shocked that this discussion is taking place.
    That's because, Nerka, you simply don't understand what's really being discussed. Go take a Valium and realize that the real discussion isn't about erosion, pollution, silt-in-their-gills, crowding, quality-of-experience or anything else even vaguely related.

    It's about money and opportunity. There ain't no erosion problem, no habitat problem, no threat to the fish, no pollution (that's a CIA plot), more-and-bigger-motors-are-less, etc., etc., ad infinitum.

    "Though the fate of salmon rests in human hands, it is not clear that we will be able to save them even if our society wants to. Part of the problem lies in the conflict between the inherent uncertainty of the natural sciences and the certainty demanded by policy makers when balancing natural resource protection against economic opportunities." (King of Fish: The Thousand-Year Run of Salmon, Montgomery, Westview Press, 2003)

    The real issue is "How can we keep on keepin' on?" Economics and opportunity rule!


  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,080

    Default

    Marcus, two simple questions:

    1) Who will make money if the river goes to 50hp?


    2) Who will gain or lose opportunity if the river goes to 50 hp?

  13. #13

    Default the moderator asked

    The discussion is taking place because Daveinthebush, the moderator asked for it; so we replied.

    Nothing shocking about that. In fact, you replied first.

    No disagreement about the importance of the issue, either. But its about boats and boating and effects of a boat. Boats are frequently used for fishing. Fishermen own and use boats. Fish use habitat which could be affected by boats. Whatever affects boats therefore could affect fishing. So per that argument, everything about anything having to do with boat effects on the environment belongs in the fishing forum and I don't think that's what was intended by the topical division into the various forums.

    Its either powerboating or general, but still up to the moderator(s). Still Powerboating, IMO

  14. #14

    Default Sorry

    Sorry that the Phase II study didn't quite live up to expectation's from various posters here on the forum, it was after all supposed to say that all V-hull boats should be eliminated from the river.

    I have to say one more thing. Thank you fishNphysician for your posts on this matter and many others in the fishing forum. You consistently post ideas and concerns that mimick my own, with more elegance than I am capable of. It's people like you that keep me coming back to this forum.

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,080

    Default

    Let's leave it up to the mods and quit posting about where it should be and stick to the topic. It is important to a lot of fishermen and will be seen here by them.

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

    Unhappy More buzz. . .

    Quote Originally Posted by Sockeye Charlie View Post
    Sorry that the Phase II study didn't quite live up to expectation's from various posters here on the forum, it was after all supposed to say that all V-hull boats should be eliminated from the river.
    That's a new one on me, Sockeye Charlie. Did someone, anyone, actually tell you they expected Phase II of the wake study to advocate the total elimination of V-bottomed boats? I've been tuned in to Phase I of the wake study for some years now, and that's the first time I've heard that buzz.

    Who can keep this stuff straight? Every time one turns around, something new crawls out of the woodwork.


  17. #17

    Default My apologies...

    I realize that sarcasm inserted into any written statement....never works.

    My statement is merely an observation made after reading many posts in various topics related to the study; such as the 50/35hp proposal, where many opponents of the proposal used the Phase II study for their arguements. "How could we move forward w/o the study data". By the time the opponents of the proposal were done posting I was left with the impression that the Phase II study would advocate just that, a complete elimination of all V-hull boats.

    It is obvious to me that some folks are disappointed that it didn't say that.

  18. #18
    Moderator Daveinthebush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Valdez, Alaska
    Posts
    4,403

    Default How about this?

    Do you guys think that we need an additional forum that would be for enviromental issues in Alaska. Pebble Gold mine, wake studies, hydrocarbons in the water, ATV abuse.....? As someone stated, the errosion issue is a wider issue than just on the river.

    Is there a need for it? Thoughts?

    Vietnam - June 70 - Feb. 72
    Cancer from Agent Orange - Aug. 25th 2012
    Cancer Survivor - Dec. 14th 2012

  19. #19

    Default

    errr - a bit of inconsistency here:

    Now we have two, tcman's which was moved to the boating forum - and this one - which is clearly related and came up later but isn't moved.

    how about the same thing - move this one to boating and leave a note of said move?

    or move to general - if you expand the definition to mean it is of "general" interest (i.e., more than one forum). I think that's Akre's point.

    I would think that by having different forums, the moderators wish to keep them on topic. (although this particular post isn't on topic, the topic isn't where its supposed to be so I'll excuse myself for that, sorry).

    On topic? (or not)

  20. #20
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Default Summary?

    Is it possible for someone to post a short summary of Phase II on this thread? My machine either won't open it or I'm too impatient to wait until it downloads. What, in essence, does Phase II say?

    Thanks. . .


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
  •